The Word ‘Islam’ Means ‘Peace’?  Not.


Islam doesn’t mean peace, as many apologists would have you believe. In fact it means anything but. Islam means submission.

Some claim it means submission to Allah, but even that is wrong. Islam simply means total submission to Islam, the ideology, the doctrine.

That’s all.


Well, not entirely: The English word “peace” means tranquility or serenity, silence, freedom from war, freedom from anxiety, a state of harmony between people etc. All the people love to enjoy peace in their lives. Many a times Muslims call Islam as peace. Specially, after 9/11, Islamists echo continuously—“Islam means peace”. Therefore—Islam can not condone terrorism or war. Now, does anybody know what the Islamic concept of peace is? Do you know the Islamic peace do not signify the same meaning we learned from the English Dictionary? Here is the real meaning of Islamic concept of peace.

Islamic understanding of peace means submission or surrender.

Peace comes (according to Islam) only after one surrenders or submits one’s self. Submission or surrender to whom? Submission to only Allah (Islamic God) and his messenger Muhammad. Therefore peace (Islamic) exists only inside the Dar-ul-Islam—the house of submission, after the conversion to Islam. That is the ultimate meaning of Islamic peace. The false meaning of Islam as peace misguides the gullible western non-Muslims. Conniving Islamists misguided President Bush and his White House staffs by their cheap shot of Islamic peace.

“It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option.” Qur’an 33:36


Nobody sez it better than Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald from Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch

There is scarcely a single non-Muslim inhabitant of England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, or any other country in Western Europe who, knowing what he now knows, or perceives, would not, if he could rewind the clock, undo the policy of permitting large-scale — or even small-scale — immigration by Muslims, and almost all, if not all, of such inhabitants would gladly, if they could, have halted all Muslim immigration altogether. It has become a permanent security nightmare, and a permanent threat to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, everywhere accepted in the Western world. That large-scale Muslim presence has required tens of billions of dollars to be spent, now and forevermore, on monitoring of Muslim populations and guarding airports, train stations, subway stations, bus terminals, airplanes and trains and busses, ports, government buildings, churches and synagogues, all identifiably Jewish institutions including day-schools, all the most important Christian sites (such as the Vatican), museums (whose contents offend Muslim sensibilities) and much more. Every country in the West has developed institutions, laws, has permitted the free inquiry that permits the enterprisee of science, has created conditions for the creation of works of art, none of which, and not for one minute, could have been created by Muslims or under Islamic rule.

And everywhere in the Lands of the Infidels the large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation of much greater unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity than would exist without such a presence. That no one in Western Europe now denies; the quarrel is over what can or should be done about that.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2006 10:59 AM


Update 24 December 2006

In light of the above, shouldn’t we, the people, ask our elected leaders to rethink the policy of Mohammedan immigration, shouldn’t we ask that the welfare, housing, childcare, medical benefits which are extended to Muslims and received without gratitude, those Muslims who believe all this and more to be their rightful due, their birthright, something the infidel ows them (Jiziyah) while they demand and demand? Do we not have a right that these benefits be withheld and the insurgency reversed?

Has any western nation ever had a survey as to the benefits of Mohammedan infiltration? Why not?

Why do we allow people to infiltrate our countries who are our sworn enemies, who hate us and our political system, our ‘man-made’ laws which they want to replace with the Sharia?

Why are our elected leaders so unwilling and unable to arrest and deport hate-preachers, subversives who openly preach Jihad, who openly declare that they will ‘outbreed us and will ‘ship us out’ as soon as they have critical mass? People who spent all their time plotting and planning terror against us while abusing our generosity?

We have a right to ask these questions! These issues must be addressed and acted upon. Failure to act will lead to major upheavals, perversion of our judicial system, the systematic suppression of free speech and expression. It has already started and it is getting worse by the day.


Must read: Separationism

Undue significance given to Bin Laden, or for that matter Al Qaeda, or for that matter any particular set of terrorists, misses the point, or misses several points.

Terror is a weapon, an instrument of Jihad. It is a weapon sanctioned throughout the Qur’an and in the Hadith: “striking terror” in the hearts of Unbelievers is a common theme, and Muhammad demonstrated in his own works and days that he enjoyed “striking terror” in the hearts of his Infidel enemies, whether individuals, or entire tribes.

But terror is not the only or even the main worry. Da’wa and demographic conquest, and the employment of the “money weapon” (a weapon that we could make much less effective, had we in 1973 taxed our own use of gasoline and of oil, and plowed the revenues into other sources of energy, into mass transit, and into other ways to conserve oil — but those in thrall to Saudi Arabia, and often paid directly or indirectly the Saudis, were not about to swerve from their baseless notion that Saudi Arabia would forever “moderate oil prices” — something it was never interested in doing (it was only interested in maximizing the total return, over time, on its oil reserves) and in any case, the very idea did not make economic sense unless one assumed that Saudi Arabia could always control OPEC, but now there is no controlling OPEC just as there is no getting away from the Peak-Oil (only the year of that peak may be quarrelled over) problem, and also no avoiding noticing, any longer, that OPEC oil revenues fund, and will always fund, mosques and madrasas and campaigns of Da’wa world-wide, whatever the American government thinks or how much longer it continues to pretend that Islam itself is not a problem, but only “terrorism” practiced by those who have “hijacked a great religion.”

Defend your freedom! Join Sheik Yer’mami in the fight against the global jihad!

Update: A friend just sent me this e-mail. Thought I put it up right here: 28 December 2006

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth: Europe died in Auschwitz!

We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us hatred, stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naïve hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

Jihad simply cannot and will not wait. Islam refuses to accept any postponment of its assault upon the West, regardless of its negative impact upon Muslim majority nations. However many more senseless deaths it causes, it will outstrip the far more glacial pace of slow jihad’s demographic displacement.

In an intense irony, jihad’s proclivity for mass murder will save the vast majority of us from Islam’s withering embrace. Long before Muslims become voting majorities in the countries they currently colonize, Islam will have committed a final atrocity of such hideously astounding proportions that our only response will be the Muslim holocaust.

A signal hallmark of Islam is that of overreaching itself. It does so now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There is absolutely no indication that this will change in any way. Therefore, it is quite safe to assume that jihadis will be unable to resist the temptation of committing an atrocity that finally triggers the Muslim holocaust.

As Wretchard observes in his superb piece, “The Three Conjectures”:

… there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic [nuclear] scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.
The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the ‘rational’ American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.
It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it.

(Link: )
As Wretchard so capably observes, this is Islam’s golden hour. Much like the vital 60 minutes within which a severely injured patient must reach adequate medical care, Islam is in the concluding phases of its earthly existence.

It is no coincidence that Muslim imams are causing the needless death and paralysis of fellow believers by proscribing polio vaccinations. Islam’s obsessive rejection of all things Western resulted in the murder of chief surgeon Dr Abdul Ghani Khan, director of a regional Pakistani immunization drive. Triage protocol demands that a violently psychotic patient who repeatedly harms those doctors seeking to assist him be denied all further treatment. Thusly, Islam’s incessant atrocities gradually disqualifies it from all further interdiction with any chance at all of saving it. Witness the ingratitude that is liberated Iraq and ask no further questions.

In exactly the same way, Islam ardently seeks to injure those who have within their grasp the only means of saving it from itself. With devastating prescience, Wretchard notes how “It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us.” Islam fights us tooth and nail as we desperately attempt to avert its own self-destruction.


How much longer must we suffer such gratuitous insult and injury in the attempt to save our most dire enemy from its own suicidal inclinations? The words of a 1980 speech in Qom by Ayatollah Khomeini ring clear:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant.’

Can it be any more clear that Islam seeks only our destruction at whatever cost to itself? Can we deny any longer that Islam, and not just its radicals, are the enemy?

How much longer must we be obliged to perform this thankless task? How many more thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars must the West expend before throwing our hands up in exasperation and simply opting for a swift and conclusive end to this madness? Islam must be read the riot act. In no uncertain terms there must be made a clear declaration that all further hostilities have to cease at the expense of Islam’s very corporeal existence. The only alternative is continued sacrifice upon the West’s part as it attempts to avert the inevitable. Anything else is merely a fork in the road to madness. Islam delenda est.


Understanding the treat from Islam

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.” Quran 5:51

* Can a religion or a cult become so powerful and so uncivilized that it can hide behind the Constitution to preach an ideology of hatred and advocate a plan to destroy our society and subvert our government?

Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. The word Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender”, the kind that comes by force or fraud. Its scripture must be taken literally; its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

The true nature and the threat of Islam is evident in the Quran—a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behavior.

Terrorists’ Bill of Rights

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded someone who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:

Theologically – no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran)

Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very mindful of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both “good” Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth.

Pass it on Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

“We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism,”

Five American Muslims detained in Pakistan  acknowledged their aim to go to Afghanistan to wage holy war against Western forces but defended their plans as justified under Islam. Fox News


Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

What the Koran says

Immediately following 9/11, to keep people from victimizing Muslims, the government and media began telling us that the attack did not represent all Muslims. I agree with this attitude that people should not just go out attacking people who may not have had anything to do with the attack.

But the US Muslims took advantage of this to sell the US people on Islam telling us that the Koran says it is not good to kill. They quickly began telling us that Islam was really a religion of love and caring.

Were they telling us the truth? The answer is yes and no. Yes, the Koran does say in a number of places that it is not good to kill but that is not the complete verse. The complete verse is “and that you shall not kill – for that is forbidden by Allah – except for a just cause.” This basic verse is found three times in the Koran.

This deception brings up several questions. First, why would they deceive us and not quote the entire verse and, second, what is a just cause according to the Koran? I found that both questions will be answered by the same verses. It is important to remember here that a number of the Muslim leaders who called themselves liberals or moderates and said Islam is a religion of peace have been discovered to have given public speeches encouraging Muslims to wage war against and kill the enemy (us.) Their excuse for these speeches is that they really meant the war as being a religious war of evangelizing. So keep this excuse for teaching people to wage war in mind as we explore this question.

* Read it all…

* Ibn Warraq on how to debate a Muslim:

The heroic and piercingly insightful ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq recently gave a talk consisting of a series of responses to some of the common assertions made by Islamic apologists. I am quite grateful that he has made his notes available for publication here. This is a refreshing and enlightening antidote to the usual dhimmitude we get from non-Muslim academics who engage Islam. It is lengthy, so I plan to serialize it over the next few days. Watch this space for future installments.

1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew?Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.

However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.


Read it all? Please click on the link above….


The ‘reverse’ Koran: Just revealed!

Here’s proof that Sheik Yer’mami is the absolute very last profit, ever! Thousands of new converts every day: THIS IS the absolute best and last religion, growing faster than any other religion know to man! Join up now!

Qur’an (2:191): “And slay Muslims wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out………such is the reward of those who suppress democracy.”

Qur’an-(9:5): “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept reason) and establish regular elections and practice regular charity then open the way for them; for The Law is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Qur’an(48:20): “….Parliament promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture from the defeated Muslims….”

Qur’an-(8:65): “… Rouse the believers in democracy to the fight, if there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Muslims; for these are a people without understanding.”

Quran-8:12: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Muslims: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

Qur’an-(9:29): “Fight those who believe not Parliament nor the constitution, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by parliament or it’s ministers, nor acknowledge democracy and reason, even if they are good Muslims, until they pay the Poll Tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Quran-9:73: Strive against the Muslims. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.

Quran-8: 15,16: O ye who believe in democracy! when ye meet the Muslims in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Parliament, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

Q.3: 118-120: “O you who believe in democracy! Take not Muslims as your advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, Since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made clear to you the constitution, if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Laws [i.e., you believe in the Democracy and the Freedom, while they disbelieve in Reason. And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage…..

I have no doubt our Muslim brethren will quickly start screaming “Heretic” and demand that I am stoned to death for altering the wording of the Koran. Fortunately for me, stoning to death is not as an acceptable punishment in the barbaric west as it is in the “World of Peace”. This kind of religious intolerance of other faiths and systems is endemic in Islam, and for us to not recognize this is dangerous.

For Muslims to kick up a stink about profiling in the light of the above quotations is hypocritical in the extreme. Muslims in the west must look at their own religion with a more critical eye and realize that it is the stated aims of their religion that create the terrorism. We will never alter our laws to accommodate the Koran!

….and if you stop your terrorists and clean up your double standards, we will stop the profiling. I’ll say the important bit again: “…stop your terrorists”. They are your responsibility, and the reason we are having to do something about it is because you have not.

A little education goes a long way:

Important link: Click here!

The Koran Contains Not a Hint of Peace


This is the most often quoted surah, the one that George Bush quoted when he went to the mosque after 9/11 and declared Islam a ‘RoP’

(Al-Maidah) 5.32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone 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. So far so good. But now comes the qualifiers: (Al-Maidah) 5.33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Sounds quite different now, doesn’t it? * deja_vu.jpg Al Qaeda, Al Schmaeda Is Al-Qaeda a “religious cult”? Does this mean that the members of Al-Qaeda believe something other than what is in the canonical texts of Islam? Do the members of this “cult” believe something that is not in the Qur’an and the Hadith (in the most authoritative collections), and the Sira? Would anyone care to explain exactly how, ideologically, the members of Al-Qaeda are not true Muslims but the members of a “religious cult”? Why say it otherwise — that Islam is now strong enough so that the permanent doctrine of Jihad, that falls into desuetude at times of Muslim weakness, has been revived and put into practice, that the sources of Muslim strength are three — the OPEC oil trillions, the millions of Muslim migrants settled deep within the Lands of the Infidels, and the Western technology of every kind, but especially weaponry, and the means for disseminating propaganda (audio cassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet)for Daw’a (the Call to Islam) and for Muslim causes (Iraq, “Palestine,” Kashmir, etc.) all over the world — even unto southern Thailand or the remotest parts of the Sudan. Osama bin-Laden is not a “devil.” He is an orthodox Muslim who takes his duties as a Muslim seriously. That is all. Not all Muslims, fortunately, take their duties quite as seriously. But many do. And he not only takes his duty to perform Jihad seriously, but also believes that the best instrument of Jihad is terror. There many Muslims differ. They think that “terror” for the moment is not necessarily the best way, especially in Western Europe. They are patient. They see the call to Islam, targeted at the economically and psychically marginal at first, and thence by degrees to othres, will win converts to Islam in the Dar al-Harb. They think they can continue to exploit the freedoms of Infidel lands in order to promote their own position and the cause of Islam, that is in the end to ensure the goal of all Muslims, encapsulated in Muhammad’s remark that “Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated.” They differ, where they do differ, with Osama bin Laden, on the means to that end. Some are more patient, just as Mahmoud Abbas is more patient than Haniya of Hamas. Hugh Fitzgerald Lying in Islam: Al Ghazzali, the great 11th Century Moslem theologian, wrote: Know that a lie is not a “haram” (wrong) in itself, but only because of the evil conclusions to which it leads the hearer, making him believe something that is not really the case….. If a lie is the only way of obtaining a good result it is permissible…. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results.” “Lying”, writes the Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady,” is a widespread habit among the Arabs and they have a low idea of truth. The Arab has no scruples about lying if by it he obtains his objective. He is more interested in feeling than facts… The Arab language, moreover, provides its users with the tool for assertion and exaggeration.” From the traditional Arab point of view, it’s not proper to give a totally honest answer if a higher order value is at stake, like saving face or the family honor. In Arabic culture, this is not known as “lying”, but “adjusting” or “bending” the truth. This feature of their culture may be annoying, to say the least, for police investigators.” “It is the norm for Arabs to deny a fact (however blatant) and blame others rather than admit to the wrongdoing and apologize. Honesty is not rewarded.” – Nonie Darwish “I am ready to kill for the sake of my cause; wouldn’t I lie for it?” – Yasser Arafat Israel is only an excuse Islam uses in the west to further their cause of conquest. The list of Muslim atrocities worldwide is incredible. Approximately 30 wars involving Islam. Millions killed, enslaved, raped, and displaced. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), perhaps the preeminent Islamic scholar in history, summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. Do you think Ibn Khaldun made himself clear on the duty of Jihad in the first excerpt? Do you find any ambiguity there, or in the second excerpt, when in discussing the Christians he writes that “we do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief,” for “all of them [the Christian sects] are unbelief” as “clearly stated in the noble Qur’an”? And what do you think Ibn Khaldun could have meant when he wrote, about Christians that “to discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death.” Any ambiguity there? Anything subject to various interpretations? * More on lying: Islam and lying: Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims (I refuse to use the Islamic term ‘unbelievers’. By my lights, Muslims are the ‘unbelievers’ in order to defeat them. The two forms are: Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true. Kitman – Lying by omission – eg when Muslims quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills ‘it shall be as if he had killed all mankind’ while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) allow murder in undefined cases of ‘corruption, and ‘mischief’. Bukhari (52:269) – The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’ (The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Mohammad’s men after Mohammed had given them safe passage). Bukhari (52:270) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, on the orders of Mohammad. The men who volunteered for the assassination pretended that they had turned against Mohammed (thereby using dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust). This drew the victim out of his hiding place – he was slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life. The Koran:Sura (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can ‘compel’ a Muslim to lie. Sura (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to ‘guard themselves’. Sura (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must ‘hide his faith’ among those who are not believers. Taken collectively these verses are generally interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be ‘compelled’ to deceive others for a greater purpose. More on lying from TheReligionofPeace blogspot: * Lying even more: Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’” Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.” Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.’” Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.’ Having got Muhammad’s permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.” Ishaq:365 Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’” Bukhari:V5B59N369 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslamah got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes,’ Maslamah said, ‘Then allow me to say false things in order to deceive him.’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say such things.’” Ishaq:442 “By Muhammad’s order we beguiled them.” Debating with Muhammedans can be exasperating. Be prepared for barrages of turnspeak, Tu Coque, circular reasoning, deliberate taqiyya (dissemination/obfuscation) and if all fails, ad hominem nonsense. All of them fail to (or circumvent to) address the issues, no questions are ever answered. That simply confirms it again: Islam is what it is, not what some Muhammedan would have us believe. Most of us here know more than the average Muhammedan head banger. We must never forget that a majority of them are illiterate and brainwashed. Even those who study in the US or elsewhere can’t leave their mental bagage behind. They are unable or unwilling to overcome the mental block that shackles them. We have seen many come and go on websites like JW/DW, some seem a bit more sneaky and others are more cunning, but none of them is honest. And we all know that one Muhammedan cannot simply cook his own private Islam, or can he? Turnspeak, lies, deflection and taqiyya: When trying to debate with Muhammedans you will end up frustrated and exasperated: Muhammedans are masters of a technique called ‘turnspeak’- * they use Tu Quoque (‘you do it too-arguments) ‘accuse the accuser’- they employ kitman & taqiyya (lies & deception and dissimulation) they deflect away from the subject matter to avoid getting nailed on the unpleasant things like the atrocities, the rape, the plunder, slavery and child-molesting of the ‘profit’ Mohammed and his companions. Inevitably, if you know your stuff-, they will threaten to kill you and tell you that you will go to hell for questioning their belief-system. Expect this and prepare yourself accordingly: Criticizing Islam? Get ready for this: by Infidel Whenever you criticize anything related to Islam, Allah, Muhammad, Sharia laws or muslim community, you will find a refutation immediately. To refute something is OK but the way muslims refute is funny. Here are some most common ways of a muslim-refute, the order may change depending upon your and muslim’s caliber: 1. First of all, muslims will say, “This is false information”, “This is a lie”. Whatever you say is wrong and whatever they say is only right. 2. Next step is Taqqiya. i.e. “Islam means peace”, “Islam was not spread by sword but love”, “No compulsion in religion”, 3. If you quote from Koran or hadith, you will be accused of quoting verses in bits and pieces. 4. And be prepared for accusation that the verses you quoted are twisted and out of context. 5. If you provide reference to your quote, then muslims will say “All your references are false and lies”, which implies only their references are true and correct. 6. You will be advised to “Read the koran first and you will see the light” 7. If you say you have already read it then they will doubt you as if you are a liar. 8. If you quote full verses (not bits & pieces) from koran and hadith, your translation is incorrect / misleading. Then you will be advised to learn Arabic and read the the original version. 9. If you say, I read the same Koran with most authentic translations, which muslims are referring to, then you will be asked “Did you read only the cover?”, “Read it with open mind” (Read with closed mind, like a muslim reads by keeping their brains aside) 10. Besides your reading of the translated Koran or even though you know Arabic, if you quote from the Koran, they quote hadith, tafseer etc, but if you quote hadith, then they will say “Only Koran is authentic”. 11. Deflection: After all this, if you are still willing to continue, they will distract you and other readers from the original issue/topic and feed you with plenty of irrelevant issues. 12. If you are still sticking to the original issue, Muslims will refer to other religions’ scriptures like Bible, Torah, Vedas, Geeta etc and other events and personnels like Bush, Blair, Indira Gandhi, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc. 13. Be prepared for one or more muslims to showing their way of convincing, such as Copy & paste stuff or reference from crap Islamic sites. This includes verses from Koran & hadith, twisted facts from non islamic holy scriptures like mohammad is prophesized in all of them. 14. In this context, one or more muslims will write about Miracles in the Koran. Remember that whatever is discovered in recent time, Muslims will attribute it to Koran, but they will keep quite till it is discovered. They will never talk about the fallacies in the Koran like the “Sky is a dome on imaginary pillars”, “ the Sun sets in a muddy pond”, “the sun is revolving around the earth” etc. If you draw their attention to these fallacies, they will copy and paste crap again which is totally illogical and irrational. You will be again advised to read Koran. 15. You are about to loose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attack. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc 16. If that does not work, then there will be accusation of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also “Western media is biased, its propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non muslims” etc. 17. If you don’t stop there, then muslims will run for your mother and sister. 18. If you are stubborn and still want to continue, you will be cursed like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, still time to seek the truth” etc 19. Towards the end, when all of the above has failed, you will be threatened directly like, “beware, watch it, keep cool, my sincere advice” or indirectly like “Give me your email id, don’t hide behind a false name, you are a coward (since you have a false id on the net), Then you might get an invitation to go to debate one to one or visit mosques or Islamic centers like Islamic Research Foundation in person” etc. 20. And finally- its drum beating, for all Muslioms, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably, because Koran is the word of allah. Since the Koran is allah’s word and is clear to understand and is for all man kind, for all time and for all places, why there are hadiths, tafseers and commentaries? Why various sects of islam and clerics are understanding it differently, While Koran is very clear and for all to understand? Why some verses are for a particular place and time, i.e. 1400 years ago and for the Arabic peninsula only, while the Koran is for all time, for all places and for all mankind? Why there is Abrogation, later verses of the Koran supersede earlier ones? Was allah not able to reveal it at first time or did he change his mind time to time to suite muhammad’s needs? Why is islam, being the only true religion, not able to be in majority, leave alone the only religion (as they claim) on the face of this earth, even after more than 1400 years since ‘revealed’ to muhammad? There are many more questions but I will leave them for next time. Update on this 25 December 2006 Islam & Terror Asserting that terrorism is not inherent to Islam is either uniformed or willfully untruthful. Let’s look at what one of Islam’s own “holy books” say about the subject. The reports of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Al-Bukhari’s Hadith is second only to the Qur’an in importance to Muslims. It is comprised of the most authentic traditions associated with early Islam and the words of Muhammad. Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’” Bukhari:V1B7N331 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else. Allah made me victorious with terror. The Earth was made for me…. Booty was made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else.’” Other Hadith by other authors also go into this, but this one source alone reveals the lie about Islam being a “religion of peace.” The Qur’an and other Hadith also say that it is OK to lie and use deceit and trickery against the infidels in the furtherance of the muslim cause, and that’s what they are doing when they talk about the “religion of peace.” Mohammad approved of lying (Life of Mohammad Ihaq ed Hisham translated Guillaume (at pages 367-8 and 519) and Ghazali the great Muslim scholar makes it clear Islam allows lying to promote Islam: Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Fjordman on Islam and the Nazi’s

I probably shouldn’t blow my own trumpet, but I did write about this only a couple of days ago: How the West Lost the Cold War The Nazis weren’t conservatives. They should more properly be understood as a revolutionary Socialist movement, albeit one with powerful racialist and anti-Semitic overtones. Judging from the death toll produced by Socialist regimes both prior to and after them, it is tempting to conclude that the destruction brought by the Nazis owed at least as much to the Socialist as to the nationalist element of their ideology. However, since the Nazis have by now been dubbed a “far-right” movement, anybody considered to be a “right-winger” or conservative is thus supposedly closer to them than Socialists are, which automatically makes them suspect. Much of the power of the political Left throughout the West is based on such guilt-by-association. The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic organizations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history, which between themselves have killed more than 150 million people in a few generations. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world. Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another organization with close ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, stabbed, killed and chased out of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats agree to continue allowing Muslims to colonize the country in exchange for their votes. In the old days this would be called treason. Now it’s called tolerance. It’s remarkable how similar the two concepts have become. Two Fascist-inspired movements cooperate on exploiting and abusing the native population of a country, force them fund and applaud their own colonization and denounce them as bigots, racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as it is evil. Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their own people in the back, ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky: The West didn’t win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its former strength. We haven’t defeated Socialism until we stage a Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres caused by Socialist regimes from Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines. Debating Muhammedan Taqiyya Doctors Infuriating, is it not, to attempt to have a rational debate and to find yourself instead with an opponent who slithers about like an eel, and with whom you can never quite engage, because you can never quite grasp and hold him long enough, because he is forever slipping and sliding and meanwhile keeping of a non-stop patter of distraction and attack and omission and exaggeration. The very idea of a debate is or should be related to the idea that each party attempts, in good faith, to examine a topic together, and to ask, or answer, questions of or from the other. In this case the topic was Islam, what it inculcates, and what such inculcation may reasonably be said to do to the minds of Believers, and how the observable behavior of Muslims in their attacks on Infidels, and attempts to undo the legal and political institutions of Infidel lands so as to ensure that “Islam dominates and is not to be dominated” everywhere, can be attributed to what Muslims learn in Qur’an, Hadith, Sira. But CAIR and its representatives are never going to discuss such matters. Personal invective (counting on the ignorance of listeners) is the first weapon. Tu-Quoque attacks a second. Taqiyya, outright lying about the nature of Islam, and the beliefs of Muslims, is a third. And in such circumstances the good-faith debater seeking an intelligent debate discovers, not for the first time, that in such cases it is an ignis fatuus, with emphasis on the fatuity, that is to say, a will-o’-the-wisp that no matter how close one thinks one may be getting to it, in the end simply disapears, or flickers further off in the miasma of the Muslim apologist’s non-stop rhetoric. Unless the moderator-hosts for such things set up strict rules, and demand that questions be answered and not remain un-answered or answered with irrelevancies, the farce will continue. And all that will have been learned is something about the eerily eel-like quality of the other side, with all that slipping and slithering –perhaps not quite as effectively as Tariq Ramadan — as far away from the real and serious matter at hand, as is possible. Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2007 12:46 PM


Melbourne cleric Abdul Nacer Ben Brika: “This is a big problem. There are two laws — there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.” Melbourne’s Sheik Mohammad Omran: “We believe we have more rights than you because we choose Australia to be our country and you didn’t.” Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali: “If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem!” . Sheik Khalid Yasin, based in Sydney: “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend.” Khaled Cheikho, now on terrorism charges in Sydney: “Sharia law is gonna prevail through this land, it’s gonna be ruled by it, you tell Howard this.” Sheik Faiz Mohamad, of Sydney’s Global Islamic Youth Centre: “A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself.” British Muslim leader Dr Azam Tamimi: “The publication of these cartoons will cause the world to tremble. Fire will be throughout the world if they don’t stop.”

The Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj el-din el-Hilali: who called the September 11 attacks “God’s work against oppressors” and blamed “Australian society” for pack rapes by gangs of Muslim Lebanese youths.

Keysar Trad, of the Islamic Friendship Association: “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and . . . the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.” Feeling the ‘harmony yet? Here is what Islam teaches, directly from the horses mouth. An Islamic cleric teaches about the jiziyah, the humiliation of the kuffar, that Muslims must rule and not be ruled over, that the Dhimmi must not be greeted first, he must wear distinctive clothing, he must be subjected to humiliation etc. etc. Please listen on mp3: I got it from this website: * 3344yfhe_w.jpg Question Time for ‘Moderate Muslims’: (1) Do you agree with the assessment made by the imam on the Dispatches UTube videos that “Allah created woman defective. Even if she has a PhD, she is defecitive” … “it’s hormones.” (2) Source: Ibid: If a girl is 10 and refuses to wear cover, she should beaten. (3) Do you believe it’s OK for Muslim websites to call on Muslims to kill Westerners, Christians? (4) Would you like to see shari’a replace the Constitution of the United States? (5) Do you believe that Buddhists are evil? (6) Do you believe that Muslims are justified in commiting violent acts against non-Muslim majority cultures if they deem them to be “decadent” or “immoral”. (7) If yes to #6, on what authority do Muslims act as the world’s international “muttawiyyah” (religious police)? (8) Do you believe that Christians and Jews are “infidels”? (9) Do you believe that Muslim women should answer first to the imam who tells them how to dress, how to make love, how to wash, how to pray, and how to be in relationship to her husband … or do you believe she has a right to avail herself of the civil liberties granted her under the U.S. Constitution?> (10) Are you OK with arranged marriages without the consent of the women? (11) Do you agree with the Muslim division of property that gives women less property than men? (12) Do you believe in denying women the right to vote based on gender? (13) Do you believe in denying women the right to education, equal food and medicine, based on gender? (14) Do you believe women should have the right to drive and hold jobs? (15) Do you believe that “honor killing” is justified? (16) Do you believe that Islam gives a man the right to beat a woman? (17) Do you believe that islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by sword? (18) Do you believe that Islam commands Muslims to spread the faith by deception, manipulation and threat? (19) Do you believe that Sufis are apostates? (20) Do you believe in the death penalty for apostasy? (21) Do you believe in the death penalty for adultery? (22) Do you believe, as Al Sistani said in a fatwa last week, that homosexuals should be killed “in the worst possible way”? (23) Do you believe that hudud punishments — amputations, cross-amputations, lashings, stonings, burnings, and beheadings — should be allowed in Islamic countries? (24) Do you believe that sanctions should be imposed on any Islamic country that does not follow ALL human rights intenrational agreements? (25) Do you believe that the US should stipulate that 1/2 of the 10,000 student visas just granted to Saudi Arabia should go to women? (26) Do you believe that shari’a should be banned until it is solidly human rights based, giving equal rights to minorities, religious “others”, and women? (27) Do you object to “shake-down” manipulations such as the one played against US Airways? (28) Do you object to the “shake-down” manipulations for special treatment run by the cabbies in Minneapolis? (29) Do you believe that Muslims should rise up and decry the death threads made against Robert Spencer and his family by Muhammed Soulja of Great Britain? (30) Do you believe Muslims should openly protest against Al-Zawahiri when he demands that Muslims rise up against Americans and others? (31) Do you believe that the school system in the Palestinian Territories should be forced to stop preaching jihad to elementary school kids? (32) Do you believe that HAMAS should be required to remove its terminology of exterminating the Jews or be barred from power? (33) Do you believe that homicide bombing is an acceptable form of social and political protest? (34) Do you believe that CAIR should wait to defend Muslims until the verdict is in. Examples: the 22-year sentence given Ismael Royer for material support of terrorism and waging war against the sovreign State of India (Americans aren’t allowed to wage their own private wars against other countires). Alamoudi, 23 years for material support of terrorism. Al Arian, deportation on a plea bargain (he should have got life), after turning in all his friends. Please answer this question in some detail. (35) Do you believe that Saudi Arabia has the right to put to death those who convert to Christianity? * Sheik Yussef Al Quaradwi cries his heart out: Very funny is Dr. Yousuf AlQaradhawi who admits that great things come from the west because westerners work whereas inhabitants of the Moslem world do not. He describes his visit to Germany in the 1970s and concludes that Moslems have not fulfilled their potential because they do not try to excel in things. He fails to consider that there is something inherently wrong with Islam that causes what he correctly identifies as an anomaly that the economy of lowly industrial Spain is greater than the economy of the entire Arab world. * Mark Steyn: Absolute Must Read: ‘Its the Demography, Stupid!’ “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder”- September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star’s reported it, “to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy.” Read it all… * Indonesian Cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir recently said:” If the west want to have peace, then they have to accept Islamic rule.”

All of them say that. Zawahiri, OBL, basically all the clerics.



Non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made ways if they so wish. They have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. (Maudidi’s commentary on Sura 9:29, in Towards understanding the Qur’an. * Undercover Mosque:Watch the video about what really goes on in the mosques. Watch the hate-preachers incite the believers to violence, openly call for genocide, deride ‘kuffars’-(infidels) and realize that this is mainstream Islam, not a ‘tiny minority of extremists…’ A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers… Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached. He 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.”

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: “Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete”, and girls: “By the age of 10 if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her,” and there’s an extreme hostility towards homosexuals…

The program has now been posted on YouTube in its entirety in six parts:


Keep in mind that the 7th-century Arabs used the 354-day lunar calendar, so that in our modern reckoning there is a 20% chance that Aisha was actually FIVE biological years old when he married her.


Where do Islam’s 72 Virgins come from? Home

Where do the 72 Virgins come from?Muslims are motivated to terrorism because the Koran, the Bible of Islam, tells them that fighting non-believers is a duty of every Muslim and the only way to be certain of going to heaven is to die fighting in the cause of allah.If they can make it to heaven, one of the rewards all Muslims are promised is 72 virgins. The number of virgins is not specified in Koran, it comes from a quotation of Muhammad recorded in one of the lesser known Hadith. (“Hadith” is an Arabic word meaning traditions. After Muhammad’s death, several collections of his deeds and sayings were assembled. These collections are called Hadith and form the second most authoritative document is Islam, right after the Koran.)According to this page, the specific Hadith in which the number of virgins is specified is Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman:“The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: ‘The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen].”

So it isn’t the case that only martyrs get the virgins, but the only way to get the virgins is to get to heaven, and Koran is quite specific that the only way to be certain of getting to heaven is to die in Jihad. *

  1. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.

-Voltaire, Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, December 1740

  • François-Marie Arouet, “Voltaire”Voltaire:”I wish fervently that the Turkish barbarians be chased away immediately out of the country of Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Sophocles and Euripides. If we wanted, it could be done soon but seven crusades of superstition have been undertaken and a crusade of honour will never take place. We know almost no city built by them; they let decay the most beautiful establishments of Antiquity, they reign over ruins.” In this passage Voltaire refers to the brutal 500 year Ottoman occupation of Greece.

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

    – Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939),

    “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”

    -Winston Churchill, 1897

    “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

    -Alexis de Tocqueville.

    “…the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated ?the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren.”

    Karl Marx, The New-York Herald Tribune 1854

    It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.

    Montesquieu, “Spirit of the Laws,” 1748

    During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier [Charles Martel] and the Polish king [John Sobieski], the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do – that is, to beat back the Moslem invader

    Theodore Roosevelt, “Hero Tales from American History,” 1895

    “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing is Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedenism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the Seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”

    – Adolf Hitler, 28 August, 1942
    p. 667 “Hitler’s Table Talk; 1941-1944″ translated by
    N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)


Khomeini told us that:

“islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [quranic] psalms and hadiths urging muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

“islam grew with blood… The great prophet of islam in one hand carried the quran and in the other a sword… islam is a religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

But of all the ideologues whose works were a source of radical inspiration to tens, if not hundreds, of millions, Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi is the most direct and unambiguous in his description of islam’s ultimate aspirations:

“islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world and muslim nations are not like normal nations. muslim nations are very special because they have a command from allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.”

“islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological islamic State.”

“islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.”

The following comments, by other prominent muslims, leave us in no doubt how widely these views are held.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
— Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne’s prophetic warning to Europe in a speech at the U.N. In 1974. Thirty three years later, his prediction is in the process of unfolding.

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.”
— Belgium-based imam in 1994. “De Morgen”, Oct. 5, 1994. Cited in Koenraad Elst, “The Rushdie Rules”, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.

“The quran should be America’s highest authority”. “islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.”
— Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) chairman of the board.

“I would like to see the islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”
— Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, (former leader of the extremist Al-Muhajiroun movement in Britain) in an interview with Reuters.

“I want to see the U.S become an islamic nation.” —-Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
—Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.

“Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue.”
—Sheikh Abdullah Azzam— (Osama bin Laden’s late mentor.)

“allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the muslims are responsible for the implementation of allah’s Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of allah on the earth”
—Muhammad ‘Abdus Salam Faraj, “Jihad: The Absent Obligation”, p43.

What is it in these clear statements of intent that Western people find so hard to comprehend and come to terms with?


“There is No Compulsion in Religion”

“…he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’ He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’ He said: ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’ He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’
I said to him, ‘Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,’ so he did so.”


Fitzgerald: There is No Compulsion in Religion

Except when there is, of course:

Islamic propagandists frequently bring out the old chestnut about there being “no compulsion in religion.” Another one did so here recently. Perhaps he is unaware that in the lands conquered by Muslims they offered, as Qur’an and Sunnah tell them to offer, only three possibilities to non-Muslims: death, conversion, or the status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity known as that of the “dhimmi.”

That third option was open, of course, only if the conquered people happened to be ahl al-kitab, People of the Book, that is Christians or Jews, or came to be treated as such at some point, as happened to Zoroastrians and, after some 60-70 million of them had been killed, even the Hindus — so as to keep the Jizyah flowing.

Isn’t that a form of “compulsion” in religion? If one is forced to pay a burdensome tax, forbidden from suing Muslims at law, forbidden from repairing or building new houses of worship, forbidden from marrying a Muslim woman without converting to Islam first, forbidden from all kinds of things that add up to a condition that in many cases was nearly unendurable, isn’t that compulsion in religion? Over time, those Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who constituted, outside of Arabia proper, the original population of the Middle East and North Africa, steadily became more and more islamized.

That certainly constitutes “compulsion in religion.” And in any case, the meaning traditionally given to that over-quoted line (a favorite of apologists who assume that Infidel audiences will simply take it at face value) does not mean what it appears to say. It means merely that you cannot compel deep inner belief, but you can certainly compel outward conformity with it (i.e. outwardly showing belief in Islam, whatever one inwardly might feel).

The history of Islamic conquest shows that there has been, from Spain to the East Indies in space, and from the seventh century until now in time, a great deal of “compulsion in religion” by Muslim rulers on the non-Muslims they conquered. And there is to this day, with intolerable pressures put on the most helpless, such as the Mandeans in Iraq, or to a lesser extent, the Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Lebanon and in the “West Bank,” and the Chaldeans and Assyrians of Iraq.

Of course in Islam there is “compulsion in Islam.” It’s all over the place, and not only in the Middle East. When Christian schoolgirls are decapitated in Indonesia, and thousands of churches burned, or Buddhist villagers decapitated all over southern Thailand, or Hindus beaten to death in Bangladesh, or attacked in Pakistan, or driven out by the hundreds of thousands from Kashmir, when if they converted to Islam they would be left alone, surely over time that has its effect. Not everyone can heroically withstand such persecution and threat of murder and actual murder.

That may be defined as “compulsion in religion.”

Remember the Fox journalists Centanni and Wiig, who were kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam? Their comments after they were freed were deplorable. They were full of misplaced gratitude to assorted local Arabs (i.e. “Palestinians”). Haniya and other big shots were around to greet them, to embrace them, to make sure that under no conditions would anyone think such a thing as this kidnapping and the forced conversion might have any larger significance. My god, those “Palestinians” were thinking, this could be very bad for us, what if Westerners start thinking of us as…as Muslim Arabs, disguising the Jihad against Israel as a “struggle for the legitimate rights of the ‘Palestinian’ people”! That would be terrible. We must do everything we can, as quickly as we can, to stop that idea.


Brigitte Gabriel on Dhimmitude and the UN definition of Genocide

In the religion of peace, my ass, IT’S A COOKBOOK! department:

The United Nations defines genocide as “any… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…”

Both the Koranic policy of Jihad and Dhimmitude are both directly genocidal, by this definition:

First, the Koran describing Jihad:

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. – 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. – Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. – Sura 2:161

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers….

Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. – 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. – 66:9

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. – 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. – 41:14

Obelievers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. – 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme – 8:39

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. – 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. – 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. – 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. – 9:28

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. – 98:51

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)

Second, Dhimmitude, a policy of deliberate Cultural obliteration

For those not killed by the invading Muslims, they might be allowed to live as Dhimmis; their lives are spared if they surrender to a set of humiliating and oppressive laws and regulations that demand subservience and guarantee the eventual extinction of their culture.

The Pact of Umar is a fundamental document in prescribing the condition of tolerated “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) living within Muslim-controlled states.

Dhimmi are granted the right to practice their own religious rites in privacy. The protection of their persons and property was also part of the pact but the punishment for infringement was less severe than for a Muslim. During aberrant fundamentalist movements, these rights varied or did not apply.

To secure their rights, dhimmi would pledge loyalty to their Muslim rulers, pay a special poll-tax (the jizya) for adult males, and in general show deference and humility to Muslims in social interactions.

While the conditions of the Pact were authoritative, the level of enforcement varied, as shown by the existence of churches constructed long after the Muslim conquests.


We Christians:

1 – We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries,

2 – churches,

3 – convents,

4 – or monks’ cells,

5 – nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins

6 – or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. . . .

7- We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy,

8 – nor hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Quran to our children.

9 – We shall not manifest our religion publicly

10 – nor convert anyone to it.

11 – We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

12 – We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and

13 – we shall rise from our seats if they wish to sit.

14 – We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the headgear, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.

15 – We shall not speak as they do,

16 – nor shall we adopt their honorific names.

17 – We shall not mount on saddles,

18- nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

19 – We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

20 – We shall not sell fermented drinks. (i.e. Alcohol)

21 – We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.

22 – We shall only use clappers in our churches very softly.

23 – We shall not raise our voices in our church services or in the presence of Muslims,

24 – nor shall we raise our voices when following our dead.

25 – We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.

26 – We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

27 – We shall not take slave who have been allotted to the Muslims.

28 – We shall not build houses over-topping the houses of the Muslims.

Once again, the UN Definition of Genocide:

The United Nations defines genocide as “any… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…”


We pushed them back from Spain, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Austria, Italy, France, Greece, etc. We had pushed them back before and we can do it again. So when I read:

“Should the dhimmi violate the conditions of the dhimma — perhaps through practicing his own religion indiscreetly or failing to show adequate deference to a Muslim — then the jihad resumes. At various times in Islamic history, dhimmi peoples rose above their subjected status, and this was often the occasion for violent reprisals by Muslim populations who believed them to have violated the terms of the dhimma. Medieval Andalusia (Moorish Spain) is often pointed out by Muslim apologists as a kind of multicultural wonderland, in which Jews and Christians were permitted by the Islamic government to rise through the ranks of learning and government administration. What we are not told, however, is that this relaxation of the disabilities resulted in widespread rioting on the part of the Muslim populace that killed hundreds of dhimmis, mainly Jews.”


Islamic Stupidity:

Mohammed haggles with Allah and makes a deal

Holiday celebrates Prophet’s journeyBy LEILA PITCHFORD-ENGLISH
Advocate staff writer
Published: Aug 11, 2007 – Page: 1EToday is the Islamic celebration of Lailat Isra wa Al-Miraj, the night journey and ascent of the Prophet Muhammad into heaven. (Lailat is night. Isra is ladder or ascent. Miraj is journey.)During the journey, Muhammad received instructions about daily prayers. However, believers disagree on whether this was a physical or spiritual only journey.

*Aisha, Muhammads child bride, said the profit didn’t go anywhere…

Making the trip
The exact journey of the night has several versions, some quite elaborate. Some embellishment pulls from Jewish or Christian sources.

???The miraj also may have influenced Christian literature: Dante’s “Divine Comedy” used many similar motifs, including many levels of heaven. * HardlyIn general, the story says that Muhammad is prepared to meet God by the arch-angels Gabriel and Michael while he is asleep in the Kaaba, the shrine in Mecca.The angels open his body to remove all traces of error, doubt, idolatry and paganism. They fill the space with wisdom and belief. This process made him pure.Gabriel woke Muhammad, and they rode a buraq, a creature with a woman’s face and a peacock’s tail, to Jerusalem, where they ascended into heaven. They leave what is now the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.In Jerusalem, Muhammad leads previous prophets in prayer. Then he enters heaven, meeting with a prophet for each of seven levels: Adam, Yahya (John), Isa (Jesus), Yusuf (Joseph), Idris (Enoch), Harun (Aaron), Musa (Moses) and Ibrahim (Abraham). Muhammad eventually reaches the throne of Allah or God.God tells Muhammad that salat (the daily prayers) should be performed 50 times. Moses tells Muhammad to approach Allah to ask that the daily prayers be lowered to five. The request is granted. * Can you imagine Allah making a deal with a greedy rapist and serial killer who robbed caravans for and slaughtered innocent people for booty?Muhammad returns to Mecca that night.The journey is said to represent many things including the journey a dead person’s soul takes through God’s judgment. Sufis say the journey depicts how a soul comes into mystic knowledge.Community celebrates
The holiday is one of Islam’s three night festivals.Mosques and houses are decorated with lights and colorful pennants.Many Islamic holidays are celebrated as families, but the Miraj is celebrated as a community. People gather in the mosques for prayers and singing. Children are told the tale of the miraj. Sweets are passed out at the end. Charitable projects are often a part of the celebration.;*

About dihmmitude, ‘Islamic Science’ and islamic spin-doctors:

On Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish historian who was carefully chosen, as the most moderate and presentable (to the Infidels) person, after the bad impression left by Mohamad Mahathir’s celebrated rant, to assume the position of head of the Organization of Islamic Countries, one can find a number of things in the JW archives.

Here are two:

1. From a posting on exaggerated claims made by Muslims for “Islamic science”:

“One might also be amused by the large claims made by a bizarre figure, Ziauddin Sarkar. Sarkar, in turn, was somehow permitted to review, in the pages of the British journal “Nature,” the large claims made on behalf of “Ottoman” — i.e., “Islamic” science – by Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a historian of Ottoman science, some of whose attempts to explain why such things as the clock did not develop in the East but only in the West (you see, since the early clocks were not sufficiently accurate for Muslims to rely on them for knowing when it was time for prayers, they did not think it worth using them, or trying to improve them) raise far more disturbing questions about the Muslim mind-set than Dr. Ihsanoglu apparently realizes.

Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu’s book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar? And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about “Islamic science,” with every cliche that no historian of mathematics, or science, or technology — not Giorgio di Santillana, not Crombie, not Charles Singer, not a hundred others — would have permitted.

What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at “Science” or at “Nature” are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule? This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Who, in the world of science, will demand some kind of investigation into how, if not Sarkar’s absurd review, then at least Wasim Masiak’s bit of propaganda for some Self-Esteem Studies Department at Al-Azhar University, or the King Abdul Aziz Institute of Advanced Islamic Sciences, is discussed, both its contents, and how it ever was allowed to grace the pages of what is supposed to be a serious and “peer-reviewed” journal.

Who were Masiak’s peers, the peers who reviewed him? George Saliba?

[Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 01:36 PM]

2. And this excerpt from “Islam for Infidels, Part III”:

And many more words and phrases will need to be carefully redefined to protect Islam from prying eyes and minds. Certain words that could prove too hot to mishandle may have to be eliminated altogether. One word that seems to be getting much disturbing attention lately, is “dhimmi.” If Infidels were to visit the website, or even read the books of Bat Ye’or, they might develop a negative view of Islam. And that would never do. Muslims are keenly aware of the problem – hence all the talk of “protected peoples” and the Compact of Omar.. No less a personage than Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, helpfully explained in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”
In defining “dhimmiship” as the “privilege of becoming a protected minority” Dr. Ihsanoglu did his best.
But those who are so solicitious of the public image of Islam and of Muslims in mind realize that it should not be left up just to NPR, or the BBC, or Le Monde; we all have to pitch in, and do our bit. It might be better if “dhimmi” were to be jettisoned altogether. The word upsets Infidels, and it does nothing for Muslims, either.

Instead of “dhimmis” why not call them “Friends With Benefits”?

[Posted by Hugh on February 14, 2005 10:33 AM] |

Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2007 11:26 AM


What Arabs/Muslims Really Want

Look at a map. Israel is so small you can hardly find it. It is surrounded by 23 Arab nations with land hundreds of thousands of times that of tiny Israel. And yet Israel is about to relinquish land — “for peace.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

Let me tell you something. There is one overriding reality in the Middle East, the remembrance of which has kept Israel intact for the last half century, and the forgetfulness of which threatens to cost Israel its very existence.

This column is a remembrance.

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
–Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence

“The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel … Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer.”
–Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 1954

“I announce from here, on behalf of the United Arab Republic people, that this time we will exterminate Israel.”
–President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, speech in Alexandria, July 26, 1959

“We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your (Israel’s) blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea.”
–Hafez Assad, then-Syrian Defense Minister, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria’s president.

“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.”
–President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967, nine days before the start of the Six-Day War.

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.”
–President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

“All countries should wage war against the Zionists, who are there to destroy all human organizations and to destroy civilization and the work which good people are trying to do.”
–King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, in a speech in Uganda, Beirut Daily Star, Nov. 17, 1972

“The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist.”
–Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi, al-Usbu al-Arrabi (Beirut) quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973

“After we perform our duty in liberating the West Bank and Jerusalem, our national duty is to liberate all the Arab-occupied territories.”
–Jordan’s King Hussein, Radio Amman, Dec. 1, 1973

“Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.”
–Zoheir Muhsin, head of the PLO Military Operations Department and member of the PLO Executive Council, 1977

“I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state — almost all of them — because that is what they committed themselves to do at Rabat (the 1974 Arab League summit conference).”

–President Jimmy Carter, at a 1979 press conference

“There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country. … On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel.”
–Rafiq Najshah, PLO representative in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian News Agency, June 9, 1980

“The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel’s borders, but about Israel’s existence. We will never agree to anything less than the return of all our land and the establishment of the independent state.”
–Bassam Abu Sharif, a top Arafat aide and PLO spokesman, quoted by the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986

“There are two different approaches in the Arab world: that Israel can be overwhelmed militarily, or that a military victory is impossible. The power struggle between Israel and the Arabs is a long-term historical trial. Victory or defeat are for us questions of existence or annihilation, the outcome of an irreconcilable hatred.”
–Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 1986

“The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the entire territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction.”
–Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) interview with Al-Safir, Lebanon, Jan. 25, 1988

“This is the ideology of the PLO and of Yasser Arafat: To destroy the state of Israel and to establish a Palestinian state instead. They will accept the territories — but only as a beginning, as a base for further attacks to conquer all of Israel. Why give them this opportunity to strengthen their efforts to attack us?”
–Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, U.S. News & World Report, March 21, 1988

“The armed struggle must continue, everywhere, against the Zionist enemy and his allies. … We have no alternative but to carry out armed activity in order to vanquish the enemy and establish our state.”
–Salim Zaanoun, Deputy PNC speaker and member of the Fatah Central Committee, in Al-Anba, Kuwait, Dec. 23, 1988

“The PLO will not stop the armed struggle.”
–Yasser Arafat, June 6, 1989 at a press conference in Kuwait, Associated Press.

“The Middle East peace efforts have reached a stalemate. … The PLO now has no alternative but to escalate armed struggle outside the occupied territories in support of the uprising.”
–Arafat’s number two man, Salah Khalaf, Jan. 22, 1990, Associated Press

“We will enter Jerusalem victoriously and raise our flag on its walls. … We will fight you (the Israelis) with stones, rifles, and ‘El-Abed’ (the Iraqi missile)…”
–Yasser Arafat, reported by the Associated Press, March 29, 1990, at the start of the Gulf War

“In the name of Allah, we shall cause fire to devour half of Israel. …”
–Iraqi News Agency, April 2, 1990

“We say to the brother and leader Saddam Hussein — go forward with God’s blessing.”
–Yasser Arafat, the next day, Iraqi News Agency, April 3, 1990

Bat Yeor writes:

“A negative attitude was expressed in 1982 by Algeria’s first president, in a lapidary formula:

What we want, as Arabs, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’. [Ben Bella, ‘Tous Contre Israel’, PI i.e. International Political Review/ Revue Politique Internationale, 16 (Paris, 1982), p. 108]

“Ben Bella openly approved the assassination of leaders whose policies he disapproves of [art. cit. p. 107] – a common practice under the Mamluks – and then went on to justify, after the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Arab states, a nuclear war to destroy Israel:

‘If there is no other solution, then let there be a nuclear war, and that will be the end of it, once and for all.” [art. cit., p. 108].

“Such a public display of aggressiveness and moral irresponsibility is rooted in a monolithic clear conscience, which has never been affected by any scruples regarding the tragedy of the dhimmis. This attitude stems from an ignorance of history and a total rejection of Oriental non-Arab or non-Muslim peoples, whose history, sufferings, and rights are not even recognised.”

(Bat Yeor adds, in a footnote to her remark about ‘the tragedy of the dhimmis’, that:

“In the 1982 interview, to which frequent reference has been made here, Ben Bella repeats the commonly held opinion of Muslims that Islam, unlike Christendom, is free from any racist prejudice and has always treated its ‘minorities’ well. He conveniently forgot the manner by which nations and communities were reduced to the status of religious minorities in their own countries. Without indulging in broad comparisons, it may be noted that Western countries allow minorities to research and record their own history without hindrance.”)

Let’s reflect on Ben Bella’s terrifying statement – “What we want, as Arabs, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’”.

He might just as well, or more accurately, have written ‘we Arab Muslims’, or ‘we Muslims’.

Similarly, in this sentence – “Ben Bella openly approved the assassination of leaders whose policies he disapproves of…and then went on to justify, after the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Arab states, a nuclear war to destroy Israel”, the phrase ‘by Arab states’ might just as well be read ‘by Arab Muslim states’ or ‘by Muslim states’.

That first statement of Ben Bella’s, which Bat Yeor cites, sums up a perfectly frightful state of mind: it suggests strongly that the Arab/Muslim experiences the bare *existence* of anything and anyone ‘other’ than himself, undominated by himself, as a mortal threat or unendurable humiliation, to be crushed or preferably destroyed as soon as possible, by any available means up to and including nuclear bombs.

Fast forward to the present.

Eleven days ago on New Years Eve, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly called for the total destruction of Israel, saying it was the only way to solve the problems of the Middle East.

Millions of Iranians — that’s right, millions — were rallying across that vast and militarily powerful nation, protesting Israel’s control over Jerusalem, where Muslims believe the prophet Mohammed began his journey to heaven. The “Al-Quds Day” demonstrations — Al-Quds being the Arabic name for Jerusalem — turned into anti-American protests because of American support for Israel.

“The hands of the U.S. are fully stained with the blood of the Palestinians,” Khamenei told hundreds of thousands of Iranians in his Dec. 31 prayer sermon at Tehran University. There is only one possible solution to unrest in the Middle East, he said — “namely, the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state.”

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas celebrated Al-Quds Day by rallying outside the capital, Beirut, where fighters in combat gear stomped on U.S. and Israeli flags, crying, “Death to Israel” and “Jerusalem is ours.”

Nothing has changed since the reestablishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, my friends.

But whence comes this ancient “irreconcilable hatred”? By the way, don’t bother emailing me that I’m a racist. There are good Arabs and bad Arabs, good Israelis and bad Israelis, good Americans and bad Americans. This is not about race, nor even religion.

This is about an oppressive culture into which beautiful little babies, around 21 inches long and naked, are born, and slowly destroyed. Human beings are not simply animals, but are spiritual creatures with a soul, capable of choosing a high road or a low road. Each one of us, ultimately, chooses the high or the low road — that is, we rise above the madness of our particular culture and discover our true identity and destiny, or else we identify with our insane culture and revel in it.

We’re talking about the low road here, not of the higher aspirations of Islam. Just as horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, which we do not blame on Christ, so we cannot blame Mohammed for the atrocities of Islamic terrorists.

The Arab world has a part of its culture it would do well to overcome. The ancient enmity with Israel is not about land, about sovereignty, or about religious shrines. It is an inherited spiritual hatred of Israel. It is almost like hating God Himself.

When U.S. servicemen put their lives on hold, left their loved ones and went into harm’s way to defend Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army in the early ’90s, the Saudis thanked us by banning Bibles in their country. Think about this.

During its war with Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini sent 12-year-old Iranian boys to the battlefront, having given each boy a cheap plastic key to wear around his neck. It was the key to heaven, the lad was told. If he died killing an infidel, he would be transported immediately to heaven. If the conscripts were old enough to be interested in girls, they were assured that when they died killing an infidel — namely, Christians or Jews — they would go straight to Heaven, where they would be given a harem of 50 virgins. Talk about motivation!

No wonder these miserable people with their angry, fear-based, suppressed, and impoverished lives are so eager to drive a truck bomb into an American embassy.

Just as in America, young people need to rise above the insane popular culture of our day, so in the Arab world, these vast populations, containing many good and decent people, would do well to rise above the culture and tradition that has oppressed them for thousands of years. It is an inheritance worthy of casting off, as all hatred is worthy of casting off.

One more quote.

“Our relationship with Israel is in our mutual self-interest. But a narrow calculation of interest is not the sole basis of the bond between our nations. At its heart is a moral obligation on our part to do whatever is necessary to defend and protect Israel.” –President Ronald Reagan, May 13, 1988

If Israel believes it can exchange land for peace, it is ignoring the unchanged reality of an ancient enmity that goes back thousands of years.


Fitzgerald: What Islamic Culture?

Cultural” superpower?

What culture? What art? What science? What literature? What philosophy? What political thought? What anything?

“Economic” superpower?

Inshallah-fatalism explains the failure of Muslim states to create modern economies, despite having received, since 1973 alone, some ten trillion dollars — the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Furthermore, Islam encourages despotism, and despotism only infrequently leads, under modern conditions, to economic development. Despots in the Muslim world have done two things. First, in the oil-and-gas rich lands, they have simply arrogated to themselves large amounts of the national wealth — see the Al-Saud, Al-Thani, Al-Sabah, Al-Khalifa. Where there is wealth of other kinds, they take a big share of that — see the Al-Maktoum of Dubai. And when property rights are subject to the whim of a despot, one is less likely to work to acquire such property, or even to make plans far into the future. See how Khaddafy, the Assads, Saddam Hussein treated their political enemies.

If that “cultural” and “economic” superpower is to be created, it will be because Muslims will, through inexorable demographic conquest, much of Western Europe. But will they? They may, if the European elites continue to pretend that nothing is wrong, or if it is wrong, something that does not disrupt the mixture as before, that accepts all the cliches of the age, will be able to fix things. Oh no they won’t.

Only those prepared to take perfectly rational and sensible measures — rational and sensible, that is, to any educated European making policy in 1946, or 1926, or 1826, or 1666 — to protec their legal and political institutions, their encouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, their means of artistic expression, their solicitude for the rights of the individual — and prepared not in some distant future but starting now, are likely to preserve enough of what they have, to avoid major catastrophes in four, or three, or two, or one decade hence. The ideology is clear. It is not that of “Al Qaeda” alone. The division of the world between Believer and Infidel, and the duty to conduct or support Jihad, and the many and varied instruments of Jihad — the Money Weapon, Da’wa, demographic conquest — that go far beyond those dreamed or schemed of in the limited minds of the bushes and rices and cheneys and cheerleading kagans and kristols, who are preventing, and not aiding as they complacently and myopically appear to believe, the creation of a policy designed never to allow Islam, triumphalist Islam, a victory, but also one that will whenever and wherever possible exploit the pre-existing fissures — ethnic, sectarian, and economic — within the Camp of Islam.

Finally, while the richard-reids and john-walker-lindhs and yvonne-ridleys, the slightly or more than slightly-off psychically marginal will continue to embrace Islam, as will some of the economically marginal until a counter-Da’wa campaign is launched in prisons and immigrant communities, while in the meantime, all the most advanced, most intelligent and morally aware people born into Islam — such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq — will continue to desert the Army of Islam, and join the Army of the Infidels.

If enough Infidels come to their senses in time, this is a perfectly manageable problem. And it would involve nothing like the folly and waste of the Iraq venture. Just those two things. Enough. And in time.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2007 9:25 PM


Muhammad acted like Pol Pot:

shaq:316 “Following Badr, Muhammad sent a number of raiders with orders to capture some of the Meccans and burn them alive.”

Tabari VII:85 “Muhammad killed many Quraysh polytheists at Badr.”

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”

Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’” and
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”

Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”

Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”


No Muslim must be killed for killing an infidel

Muhammad said, ” No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir” (infidel). Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 9:50

“[I]f a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, F. J. Goulding, translator, London, 1970.



A good Muslim responds to Abdul Rahman’s conversion to Christianity

Islam or death
I read Le Roy Barnett’s letter (“Muslims, speak up,” June 26) about Muslims’ opinion on Abdul Rahman’s conversion to Christianity.

Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Muslims from birth to grave. The Quran and prophet Muhammad’s words and practical application of Quran in life cannot be changed.

Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.

Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.

Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard other rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.

Nazra Quraishi
East Lansing



The 3 stages of Muhammedan warfare:

Muhammad’s earliest biographer Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur’an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya (see Qur’an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, etc.). Qur’anic commentaries, tafasir, by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that Surat At-Tawba — theQur’an’sninth chapter — abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur’an.


Islamic Peace Treaties

or better:

War is Deceit

What do you call it when a person makes a peace treaty with an opponent with the sole purpose of suddenly destroying his treaty partner in an overwhelming surprise attack? You might be tempted to call it ‘war’, but does it mean when this is called “peace?”

Recently, a chilling description of Mohammed’s model of diplomacy came to light in an article “The lesson of al-Hudaybiyah” by Joseph Farah, editor of Worldnetdaily. Al-Hudaybiyah was the name of the town where a peace treaty was signed between Mohammed and some tribes that ruled his hometown of Mecca. He wanted to rule Mecca but was too weak militarily to do so. So he signed a peace treaty with them for ten years. Yet after less than two years, and after he had built up his military strength to the point where he was confident he could now conquer his opponents, he found his chance in a slight Meccan infraction of the treaty. Seizing this opportunity, he spurned all attempts by his rivals to make peaceful compensation and instead marched on Mecca. Caught by surprise, and unprepared, they capitulated. He conquered them because they trusted him to observe the spirit of his “Peace Treaty.” But he betrayed them.


Most fair-minded people would call Mohammed’s actions, first and last, “treachery,” since his ‘peace’ treaty is easily seen in retrospect to have been a sham. He never intended peace – he only used the treaty to buy time to prepare for the “final solution.”


The Jizyah

The Islamic Extortion Racket:

Al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, in The Laws of Islamic Governance states the critical connection between jihad and payment of the jizya. He notes that “The enemy makes a payment in return for temporary peace and reconciliation.” Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: Primarily, payment is made immediately and is treated like booty. Secondly, payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established”.

If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes.

He adds “it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against the infidels in the future for converting them to Islam, in spite of their having paid the jizya.”


Saudis launch official fatwa website!

About Aisha

“The move is apparently an attempt to ensure that fatwas issued by authorised scholars are given prominence.” Yes, no more crackpottery, eh wot? The site will feature rulings from the late Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, whose fair and responsible rulings have gained him worldwide posthumous respect.

Witness this Toronto Muslim website which reproduces the great Sheikh’s ruling on this question: “Is it allowed for a father to force his daughter to marry a specific man that she does not want to mary [sic]?” Sheikh bin Baz responds:

...The father must seek her permission if she is nine years of age or above. Similarly, her other guardians may not marry her off except by her permission. This is obligatory upon all of them. If o ne is married without permission, then the marriage is not valid. This is because o ne of the conditions of the marriage is that both partners accept the marriage. If she is married without her permission, by threat or coercion, then the marriage is not valid. The only exception is in the case of the father and his daughter who is less than nine years of age. There is no harm if he gets her married while she is less than nine years old, according to the correct opinion. This is based o n the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) marrying Aisha without her consent when she was less than nine years old, as is stated in authentic Hadith. However, if she is nine years old or more, she cannot be married, even by her father, except with her consent….

Wait a minute. I thought only venomous Islamophobes believed that Aisha was six when Muhammad married her and nine when he consummated the marriage. Is the House of Saud aware that it is featuring an Islamophobe on its fatwa website?

“Official Saudi website for fatwas,” from the BBC


Six proposals to stop Sharia in the United States of America

Six proposals to stop Sharia in the United States of America, and to insure freedom of religion for all who believe in their personal Faith.

There is potentially a thin line between religious belief, which is protected under our Constitution, and a politically driven religious-cult, which is not protected. Islam as a religion of personal belief is protected by law, but Sharia as a political force is not protected by law.

These six proposals are to maintain our constitutional integrity as a free nation, and to prevent a future anti-Sharia internal war:

First, any fatwa issued by an Islamic cleric that is threatening to others is immediately void. The cleric must be arrested and held, his family rounded up, and all their activities restricted. If a ‘death fatwa’ was issued, the cleric could additionally be prosecuted for attempted murder, and deported.
Second, any attempts to impose Sharia law by any organization under our government jurisdiction must be treated as seditious activity, the clerics behind it arrested and sanctioned.

Third, any lobby group demanding Sharia based concessions for any public facilities, public schools, universities, government buildings, public parks, establishments subject to public use (airports, transportation facilities, public restaurants, etc.) must be immediately sanctioned and called to account for their discriminatory actions. If found discriminatory towards others, they should be fined and suspended from further activities.

Fourth, any geographic section of our cities and countryside where radical-Islamic activities prevail and become ‘no go areas’ for police and fire protection must be dismantled as hostile territories within our United States, unconstitutional in their intent to damage the public good. Their leadership, clerics and imams, should be prosecuted for seditious activities, and if of violent intent deported.

Fifth, any mosque where such activities occurred, or had been planned, must be closed down. The ones remaining open must adhere to the same noise restrictions on the decibels level for their calls to prayer as any other private or public activity in a ‘quiet zone’, or otherwise residential area.

Sixth, intelligent restrictions on Muslim immigration must be imposed to guard against hostile entry into our United States. Personnel here for legitimate business or educational reasons must report periodically for reevaluation of their entrance visa. Anyone not a U.S. citizen from Islamic countries must be treated with the same restrictions now applied to banking activities with those countries, and their stay in the country reevaluated periodically, not less frequently that twice a year.

The stated purpose of these proposals is to forestall future and more draconian measures, should the demographics allow Muslim social and political pressures to further challenge our Constitutional laws and freedoms. They must be discouraged, or they might feel they have the right to impose Sharia on us, and the world.

America is the land of the Free. Let our land remain free and continue as a beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world, far into the future. God Bless America.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 9, 2007 4:12 PM


Oaths and treaties with Muhammedans:

Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'”, Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”, Qur’an 66:2 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”, Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'”, Ishaq:519 “Having got Muhammad’s permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.'”, Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.”, Ishaq:442 “By Muhammad’s order we beguiled them.”


Q: “What is the islamic understanding about democracy, Is there any place for it in islam.”

A: “The common form of democracy prevalent at the moment is representative democracy, in which the citizens do not exercise their right of legislating and issuing political decrees in person, but rather through representatives chosen by them. The constitution of a democratic country will be largely influenced by the needs and wants of its people.Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for. From this, it becomes simple to understand that there can never be scope for a democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai”



Palestinian TV, radio, newspapers and textbooks — in teaching the Islamic attitude toward Jews — have fueled an intense hatred for Israel and promoted violent jihad.


The religious ideology of the Palestinian Authority religious leaders can be summarized by eight essential principles:

Regarding the Jews:

Jews are the enemy of Allah.
Islam is fighting a continuous religious war against the Jews.
The killing of Jews is a religious obligation.
Palestinians are the vanguard in this war against the Jews, and all Islamic nations are obligated to assist in this war.
Regarding Israel:

– All of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (which includes all of Israel) is a religious Waqf — an Islamic religious trust. Any Moslem who relinquishes any part to Israel is damned to Hell.

– All agreements with Israel are inherently temporary in nature, and are signed only because of Israel’s temporary balance of power advantage.

– Allah will replace Moslems who shirk their obligation to battle Israel.

– The ultimate destruction of Israel is a certainty.



The Fjordman comment:

What we are faced with is a totalitarian takeover of much of Europe through a cooperation between internal Fascists, the EU, and external Fascists, Muslims, and momentum is currently in their favor.

Regarding the “racist” label: I have never spent much time worrying
about skin color, but I do notice I am starting to grow a tad tired of
these accusations. The truth is that white people of European
background are currently among the planet’s least racist groups.

Almost all racist violence in Europe involves white victims and
non-white perps, frequently Muslims.
Western Europeans have recently
accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of
time than any society has done peacefully in human history.
If we want
a break we have the right to do so, and if we feel overwhelmed it’s
because we are.

What we are dealing with here is not “immigration,” it’s colonization,
as well as probably the greatest betrayal in Western history committed
by the very people who are supposed to be our leaders. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans. And if we are “racists” for desiring the same degree of self-determination and self-preservation as all other ethnic groups on the planet then hell, maybe we’ll just have to learn to live with the label.

Europe isn’t much to look at right now, but I do not want to end up in
a situation where thousands of years of what once was a great
civilization go up in smoke because people were too scared of being
called bad names.
Neither do I want to lose because we were paralyzed worrying about imaginary Fascists while the real Fascists took over.


The Majority in Hell are Women

The following observation is to me one of the clearest evidences of the inequality of men and women under Islam.

Mohammed said, “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women.”



Women in Islam

Muslim:B1N142 “‘O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.’ A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah’s Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: ‘You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.'”

Ishaq:185 “In hell I saw women hanging by their breasts. They had fathered bastards.”

if you read about Islam’s “golden age” you see that it was nothing of the kind if you had the wrong chromosomes. The oppression of women isn’t the consequence of Muslim scholars encountering a more highly developed civilisation – although that is the present day excuse – they were always concerned with controlling women.

Islam’s top theologian was a man (obviously) called Al Ghazali – he’s considered the “proof of Islam” due to his deep understanding of sharia:

“If you relax the woman’s leash a tiny bit, she will take you and bolt wildly…. Their deception is awesome and their wickedness is contagious; bad character and feeble mind are their predominant traits …”

– Ihy’a ‘Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-‘Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p. 51.

“Marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person. A woman, who at the moment of death enjoys the full approval of her husband, will find her place in Paradise.”

– Ihya’ ‘Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-‘Elmeyah, Beirut, vol. II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p. 64

Horrible stuff, but it comes straight from the source:

“The Prophet said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.”It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.'”

– Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28


The Fall of Islam

by: Ali Sina

Islam: The Religion of Poverty

The greatest gift of Islam to its followers is poverty. All Islamic countries with the exception of those that have oil are poor. Amazingly even Iran that is oil rich and before the Islamic regime was a prosperous country, is now a poor third world country. With over 20 billion dollar revenue from the Oil industry, the per capita income of the Iranians is $1200 annually. Just recently an 18-year-old girl burned herself. She died within a few days. When questioned why, she replied that without her there would be one less mouth to feed in her household and more food for her younger siblings.

20 million Bangalis have immigrated to India in the search of a better life. Bangladesh and Pakistan are languishing in poverty while India is now experiencing an economical boom. As for Afghanistan, let us not even mention it. Some Afghani women are forced to go “grazing”. They go to the mountains looking for a blade of grass to eat and feed their children. All Islamic countries are completely unproductive. Half of the population, i.e. women, is virtually left out of the work force. Those work waste one month of a year in a quasi-hibernating state during Ramadan and the 5 daily obligatory prayers rob the economy millions of valuable person-hours of productivity. Instead of teaching real science, schools teach the Islamic non-sense of Fiqh and Sharia and brainwash the youth with mumbo-jumbo.



What about Bin Laden?

And Bin Laden in his own words, whether liberals and in this country, Democrats want to acknowledge them or not.
In 1998 Osama bin Laden made an alliance with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and several other Islamic terrorist organizations thus establishing the International Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders. This organization formally and in writing declared war on Israel and the United States:
Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin_’Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never __ since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas __ been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin_Qadamah in “Al_ Mughni,” Imam al_Kisa’i in “Al_Bada’i,” al_Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al_Islam in his books, where he said: “As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the

ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.”

On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies __ civilians and military __ is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it [EMPHASIS ADDED], in order to liberate the al_Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.” <>

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill_treated (and oppressed)? __ women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”

We __ with God’s help __ call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

That was Bin Laden in 1998. Before Bush was president, before the attack on the World Trade Centers, and before bombings in Spain and England.
There is much more at the article and it is quite long, but what else are you going to do on a Sunday?


Bin Laden’s Jihad on America



From the horses camels mouth:

Arab News: Conversion, subjugation or war offered to non-Muslims “throughout Muslim history”

“Websites That Spread Misinformation About Islamic Teachings,” by Adil Salahi for Arab News

Q. I read on a website that answers queries about Islam that it is right to force non-Muslims to accept Islam, even through war. The person who answered the question says that the verse stating that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ has been abrogated by verses 8: 39 and 9: 5. Please comment.

I do not know the website you mention, nor the scholar quoted. However, the information provided is grossly mistaken. The principle of “no compulsion in religion” is an essential Islamic principle, which was carried out throughout the Prophet’s lifetime and the rule of his rightly-guided successors. When Muslim armies swept through a large area of the world, they never forced anyone to embrace Islam.

They gave the people three choices: to accept Islam freely, which would mean that they join the Muslim community and become part of it; or to pay the jizyah, or tribute, to indicate that they will live in peace with the Muslims continuing to follow their own religions. If they accepted neither course then the only way left was to fight. This was the case throughout Muslim history. How else can people explain the uninterrupted existence of religious minorities everywhere in the Muslim world throughout 14 centuries of Islamic rule? Had people been forced to become Muslim, they might be secretly resentful, but within a couple of generations all resentment would have disappeared.

The principle of religious freedom is included in the following verse: “There shall be no compulsion in religion. The right way is henceforth distinct from error. He who rejects false deities and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a most firm support that never breaks. God hears all and knows all.” (2: 256) This verse was revealed toward the end of the Prophet’s blessed life, as it is clearly apparent from the statement that the right way, i.e. Islam, had become distinct. It could not have become so clearly distinct when it was still in the process of revelation. This surah took up to year 9 to be completed, and this verse was revealed toward the end of that period. Surah 8 was revealed in year 2, after the Battle of Badr, which provides its subject matter. How could a verse in the earlier surah abrogate a principle laid down in the later one? The verse in question reads: “Fight them until there is no more oppression, and all submission is made to God alone.” (8: 39) The verse speaks against oppression, particularly religious one. It aims to stamp out such oppression by making all submission to God alone. Such submission means implementing His law, which states that there is no compulsion in religion.

So in other words, when Sharia is implemented, there is no compulsion in religion. Dhimmis are dhimmis, just as Allah wants them to be, and that’s that.


Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi:

Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world…. If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. … Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them”

So after all the infidels are the one who don’t want world peace according to Islamic scholars.

World peace in accordance to Islamic teachings can be achieved only when all the people in the world submit themselves to Islam.


The precise and devastating observations of A Carlebach  (Ma’ariv October 7 1955)  brought to our attention by Hugh Fitzgerald and which – ironically preserved and drawn attention to, by the fool Edward Said, who thus shot himself in the foot – says all that needs to be said about the relationship between Islam and the misery that festers everywhere it prevails.

It is one of my favourites. I haven’t quite memorised it yet, but I shall post it, yet again, for the benefit of any new readers here today, and any who may in future be investigating the archives.

“These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam.

“Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.

“The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress,

“that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.

“The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world…

“their reactions — to anything — have nothing to do with good sense.

“They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat.

“You can talk ‘business’ with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah…

“This is what every grain in this country [Israel] shouts.

“There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them — even the Crusaders — left signs of culture and blossoming.

“But on the path of Islam, even the trees have died.”

Others here might like to bring out, yet again, the equally ruthless observations of Churchill and John Quincy Adams, on the obvious nexus between the teachings of Islam and the havoc it wreaks upon people and societies.


Dhimmi, Dhimmitude


[The dhimmi] is commanded to put his soul, good fortune and desires to death. Above all he should kill the love of life, leadership and honor. [The dhimmi] is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him; praise and insult will be the same; preventing and yielding will be the same; lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. [Tafsir ibn ‘Ajibah. Commentary on Q9:29. Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn `Ajibah]


Fitzgerald: Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad

“There are, according to Khan, two kinds of Jihad. The greater Jihad, in which a person fights their animal tendencies, and a lesser Jihad, in which they fight on behalf of their community.” — from this article

Again and again this phony business about “Lesser Jihad” and “Greater Jihad” keeps coming up, and we are carefully told that the “Greater Jihad” is the internal struggle of Muslims with their own consciences. But this is not quite what it seems.

First of all, Islam is based not on solicitousness for the individual, but concern for the collective of Believers, the Umma, and for furthering the interests not of a single soul but of the Great Cause: that of spreading Islam until it dominates everywhere. The individual Believer is akin to a recruit to an army. If he leaves, that is regarded as treason. His duty is that of mental submission — no independent questioning, no comparing what his duties are with what reason, or morality, tell him should be his duties. His not to reason why, but to follow scrupulously the rules as to what is prohibited and what is commanded.

This “Greater Jihad” business is designed merely to convince Infidels that the real “Jihad” — the “struggle” to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam — is not that, but a lesser thing, something hovering in the background, while all attention should be focused on these individuals wrestling with their consciences. The weight of authority is completely on the other side. Qur’anic commentators and Muslim jurisconsults and Muslim historians all agree that the “Jihad” means that “struggle” to spread Islam, and that the “internal struggle” is simply a later invention by a few Muslim would-be reformers who realized that “Jihad” would not be wise or even possible in a world of overwhelmingly more powerful Infidels, and that therefore the idea should be given a different interpretation. Or at least they would try to do the impossible and hope that some Muslims might actually accept that interpretation.

But it never happened. Yet today, all kinds of security services in the Western world keep trying. They keep believing that if they stay away from the word “Jihad” and supply every other sort of word (hiraba, etc.), that somehow they will manage to convince Muslims in the West that the real Jihad is this “internal struggle.” They are not only whistling in the dark, but are delaying the widespread recognition of what the “Jihad” is and why it matters among the very Infidels who need to recognize the meaning and menace (for them) of Islam in order to realize what is going on, and to support measures that otherwise might appear to them to be uncalled-for. Our security services and our political and media elites all over the Western world failed to understand Islam before the great unhindered migration of Muslims to the Lands of the Infidels began. That failure continues right up to the present, because few wish to think rationally about this problem, so fearful and confused does it make them. And then there are always the crazies, the ones who, in having sensed the threat, are incapable of soberly discussing it, but instead focus on the trivial or the tendentious — “it’s all the fault of lefties [Marxists, democrats, fill in your favorite epithet here].” And in their inarticulateness and political parti pris, and general uncultivated and comical ineptness, they simply allow others to more easily dismiss them.

This “Greater Jihad” and “Lesser Jihad” business comes from a single Hadith that is not judged authentic by the most authoritative muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim. Karen Armstrong, naturally, in her little guide to nothing called “Islam,” quotes this hadith and makes much of it, without hinting at how little it means to Muslims. Of course, it is unclear if Armstrong understands what an isnad-chain is, or how the muhaddithin studied and ranked the hundreds of thousands of claimed Hadith (more correclty, ahadith), or how the muhaddithin themselves have been ranked according to their supposed authoritativeness.

This is never mentioned by the kind of Muslims who want to convince us that the “Jihad” is not what we think. They want us to believe that our understanding of the texts and our study of how Muslims, over 1350 years, acted on those texts reveals nothing about Jihad, and that the truth of it can be learned from latter-day Muslim propagandists. Those propagandists have to deal with an unprecedented situation — that of millions of Muslims living within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-Kufr. They have to stave off any inquiry, or critical analysis, or study of, Islam that might lead Infidels, quite naturally, to become keenly worried — as they discover that Islam is not a “religion” but also, and mainly, a politics and a geopolitics within a Total Belief-System that is based on the notion of uncompromising and permanent hostility between Believer and Infidel, a hostility that does not lessen if the Infidel moves heaven and earth to prove his own good will and surpassing generosity.

And, of course, those who report on such matters rarely think they have an obligation not merely to write down and transmit to others, as docile amanuenses, what is told them by Muslim propagandists, but to study Islam, and to question what they are told, and to learn enough so that, in such cases as the one above, they will be able to discuss this matter of the “Lesser Jihad” and the “Greater Jihad” precisely in the way that…well, that I have done in this very article.

*  Some interesting comments here…

Rachel’s Tomb and the making of an Arab lie

Replacement Ideology:

Was Rachel’s Tomb ever really known as the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque?   The answer is, of course, no. That name was created relatively recently – believe it or not, in the 1990s!

Once again, we have a case of where Muslims claim shrines of other religions as being their own. In this case, they added a completely new reason to venerate the site – specifically to take away the obvious fact that Rachel herself is associated exclusively with Jews.

Read the whole thing, here:  Rachel’s Tomb and the making of an Arab lie

49 thoughts on “Islam”

  1. IF only THAT was the quarrel!!! IF that were TRULY the quarrel.. THERE cAN BE BUT **ONE** ANSWER: A U X A R M E S!!!!!!!!


    FOOK islam!

  2. This is just in from poster named ‘Allan’:

    It’s a sad day to see so many people on here hate a foreign culture for religious beliefs when you look at everything we have destroyed in time in the name of God. Everyone that believes has their belief because of faith. I would ask any of you that show such vile hatred to these people look at the statistics. Within the next 35 years these “radicals” will be the religious majority in the world. This isn’t anything I am making up. As much as Christians hate to hear this they aren’t the majority anymore or going to be anytime in the future. I am not Muslim, nor do I hate them. I do, however, disagree with the very small radical portion of the Muslim group that states all non Muslims must die. The KKK considers themselves Christians (for the most part), as these radicals consider themselves Muslims. I would step back, lower your guns, and read before you shoot. The white man has a proven history of trying to kill off people before trying to understand their culture.

    Posted by: Allen

    Too precious, Allan! Because you ‘disagree with the radicals’ we should lower our guard and guns? And because the white man has a ‘proven history of trying to kill off people before trying to understand their culture…”

    We should feel sooo guilty not to defend ourselves against the sons of Allah?

    Allen, in which circus are you the clown?

  3. What Would You Do?

    “I have been made victorious with terror.”

    By Craig Winn

    Suppose you stumbled upon the Constitution of an organization that was terrorizing the world. Would you ignore such a document, or would you read it? Suppose you discovered that this Constitution’s most prominent themes were pain and punishment, thievery and violence, intolerance and war. If the regime’s charter ordered its devotees to kill, plunder, and terrorize, would you sound an alarm?

    What if this Constitution was supported by a manifesto that contained the only authorized biography of the regime’s founder, and the first devotees of this doctrine, its co-founders, said that their leader was a sexual predator, a pirate, and a terrorist? If you found such evidence, what would you do with it? What if this leader motivated his mercenaries to murder and mayhem by allowing them to keep what they had stolen in the name of the cause – their victim’s homes, businesses, money – even their women and children?

    All right, no more hypotheticals. I’m going to share some passages from this Constitution – from the covenant of the world’s largest and most violent organization. I have changed the names to disguise the source without altering the message. “Your leader has sent you from your homes to fight for the cause. Your leader wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe those who disagree with us out to the last. We shall terrorize everyone who is unlike us! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to our doctrine and our leader. Whosoever opposes our doctrine and our leader should know that we are severe in retribution. And know that one-fifth of what you acquire as booty in war is for our great leader (the rest is for you). The use of such spoils is lawful and good.”

    This popular and misunderstood Constitution says: “Fight them till all opposition ends and only our doctrine rules. If you meet anyone who disagrees with us in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned. Slaughter those who disagree with us wherever you find them. Lie in wait for them. They are specimens of foolishness. Punish them so that our superior dogma and leader can put them to shame. If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom we have a treaty, retaliate by breaking it off. Those who do not think like us should know that they cannot bypass our doctrine. Surely they cannot get away. Fight them until they pay a heavy tax in submission to us; how perverse are they. Our leader and his doctrine will damn them. For anyone who offends our leader or opposes our doctrine will receive a painful punishment. We will burn them alive. So prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster, that you may strike terror in the enemies of our cause!”

    This Constitution is genuine, and millions follow its message. Exposing it – understanding it – might actually save you from the wrath it inspires. The covenant goes on to say: “Our great leader urged all who agree with us to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination, you will vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, then you will vanquish a thousand of our enemy, for they are a people devoid of understanding. Our great leader drove your enemy back in fury. He motivated our side in battle. He made their citizens flee from their homes and he terrorized them so that you killed some and made many captive. Our great leader made you inherit their lands, homes, and wealth, and gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

    This sounds like a terrorist manifesto – a covenant for war and genocide. Does anything this immoral, this out-of-touch with human decency, actually exist? If it did, and if it were this blatant, you’d expect to see its followers amassing their weaponry. You’d expect them to rise up and terrorize the world. Not only would they feel it was their duty to kill, you’d expect their fallen assassins to be immortalized – hailed as martyrs and paraded down crowded streets, banners waving, tears flowing, guns blazing, with angry diatribes spewing from hate-filled faces. You’d expect them to wage war under the guise of doctrinal supremacy, wouldn’t you? And if there were such people, our journalists and politicians would have ferreted them out, exposed them, and protected us. Right?

    Wrong! With the exception of changing the names of the perpetrators and their victims, what you read is from the actual Constitution of an enormous, rapidly growing, extremely well funded, and horrendously violent worldwide cult. And as bad as that sounds, it gets worse in context. The manifesto proudly proclaims that unarmed civilians were annihilated by armed gangs. Men were decapitated on the orders of the dogma’s founder. Thousands of children were sold into slavery. Women were raped – the leader himself participating. Townships were plundered, businesses were looted, and productive assets were destroyed. The villains slept in their victims’ beds, abusing their wives and daughters. And each bloody affair was meticulously recorded by the founder’s companions and later chronicled by the regime’s most-esteemed clerics.

    It’s time to turn the page. Let’s look at what the founder’s companions had to say about their leader in his manifesto. Once again, I will change the names but nothing else. “Kill them, for he who kills them will get a great reward. Our great leader said, ‘Our doctrine assigns for a person who participates in battles in our cause to be rewarded with booty if he survives, or he will be admitted into the Hall of Heroes if he is killed in the battle as a martyr. Had I not found it difficult for my followers to do without me I would have remained in army units fighting great battles and would have loved to have been martyred for the cause.'”

    The regime’s founder is quoted in the doctrine’s anti-Semitic manifesto saying, “Issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.” He was asked, “What is the best deed?” by one of his devotees. The dictator replied, “To believe in me and our doctrine.” “What is the next best deed?” the devotee queried. “To fight on behalf of our cause,” he answered. At the end of one such conflict, one of the regime’s lieutenants told his commander, “We have conquered another nation. The captives and the booty have all been collected. Now, my leader, may I take a slave girl from among the prisoners?” “Take any one you like,” the warlord replied, raping one himself. Ever mindful of his duty, this regime’s leader proclaimed, “Embrace our doctrine first and then fight.” Followed by, “I have been made victorious with terror!”

    You have stumbled upon the Constitution of the world’s largest nation – and it’s not China or Russia. You’ve just heard the words of its founding father, and he’s not Lenin, Mao, or Hitler. And today, this doctrine’s adherents are doing what their founder and Constitution ordered: fighting, ravaging civilians, stealing the world’s possessions, and using them to terrorize.

    Since it’s happening according to plan, shouldn’t we muster the courage to expose it – to speak out against it? Or should we remain silent for fear of offending them? The answer is obvious. Or is it? What if the names I substituted were Allah, Muhammad, and Islam? What if it’s a “religion?”

    This “Constitution” is the Qur’an. The “manifesto” is the Islamic Hadith. The citizens of this nation are Muslims. They’re doing what they were ordered to do. They left their homes to fight infidels; they stole our planes, ravaged our economy, and slaughtered innocents in the name of Allah. They even confessed to the crime. Yet not a single national spokesperson or politician has had the courage to hold Islam accountable.

  4. Terror in the Koran

    750 verses from the Koran & the hadith/sunnah:


    Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
    Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
    Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
    Ishaq:326 “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”
    Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughtered in the land.”
    Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”
    Tabari IX:42 “We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized.”
    Ishaq:326 “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’”
    Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
    Qur’an 7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”
    Ishaq:510 “When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, ‘O Allah, Lord of the Devils and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu-Akbar!’ [Allah is Greatest] Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives.”
    Bukhari:V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror.’”
    Ishaq:517 “Khaybar was stormed by the Apostle’s squadron, fully armed, powerful and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.”
    Tabari VIII:116/Ishaq:511 “So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken captive.”
    Tabari VIII:129 “After the Messenger had finished with the Khaybar Jews, Allah cast terror into the hearts of the Jews in Fadak when they received news of what Allah had brought upon Khaybar. Fadak became the exclusive property of Allah’s Messenger.”
    Tabari VIII:133 “The raiding party went to Tha’labah. One of Muhammad’s slaves, said, ‘Prophet, I know where Tha’labah can be taken by surprise.’ So Muhammad sent him with 130 men. They raided the town and drove off camels and sheep, bringing them back to Medina.”
    Tabari VIII:138 “Muhammad carried arms, helmets, and spears. He led a hundred horses, appointing Bahir to be in charge of the weapons and Maslamah to be in charge of the horses. When the Quraysh received word of this, it frightened them.”
    Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”
    Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning…they shall taste the torment of Fire.”
    Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”
    Tabari VIII:143 “In this year a twenty-four man raiding party led by Shuja went to the Banu Amir. He launched a raid on them and took camels and sheep. The shares of booty came to fifteen camels for each man. Also a raid led by Amr went to Dhat. He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”
    Bukhari:V4B52N256 “The Prophet passed by and was asked whether it was permissible to attack infidels at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, ‘Their women and children are from them.’”
    Tabari IX:20 “The captives of Hunayn, along with their possessions, were brought to the Messenger. He ordered that their captives, animals, and their possessions be taken to Ji’ranah and held there in custody.”
    Ishaq:576 “Allah and His servant overwhelmed every coward. Allah honored us and made our religion victorious. We were glorified and destroyed them all. Allah humiliated them in the worship of Satan. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle’s squadron advanced into the fray.”
    Ishaq:580 “Our strong warriors obey his orders to the letter. By us Allah’s religion is undeniably strong. You would think when our horses gallop with bits in their mouths that the sounds of demons are among them. The day we trod down the unbelievers there was no deviation or turning from the Apostle’s order. During the battle the people heard our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls by swords that sent heads flying. We severed necks with a warrior’s blow. Often we have left the slain cut to pieces and a widow crying alas over her mutilated husband. ’Tis Allah, not man we seek to please.”
    Tabari IX:122 “Muhammad sent Uyaynah to raid The Banu Anbar. They killed some people and took others captive. Asma was one of the women taken prisoner.”
    Tabari IX:123 “Muhammad sent an expedition to Ghalib and to the land of the Banu Murrah. The raid on Amr and Abi was sent to the valley of Idam. Another by Aslami was sent to Ghabah. And Abd al-Rahman was ordered by the Messenger to lead an army to the seashore.”
    Tabari IX:69 “He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N516 “When Allah’s Apostle fought or raided people we raised our voices saying, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’”
    Tabari VII:10 “In Ramadhan, seven months after the Hijrah, Muhammad entrusted a white war banner to Hamzah with the command of thirty Emigrants. Their aim was to intercept a Quraysh caravan.”
    Ishaq:281 “The Raid on Waddan was the first Maghazi [invasion]. The Expedition of Harith was second. They encountered a large number of Quraysh in the Hijaz. Abu Bakr composed a poem about the raid: ‘When we called them to the truth they turned their backs and howled like bitches. Allah’s punishment on them will not tarry. I swear by the Lord of Camels [Allah?] that I am no perjurer. A valiant band will descend upon the Quraysh which will leave women husbandless. It will leave men dead, with vultures wheeling round. It will not spare the infidels.’”
    Ishaq:285 “Then the Apostle went raiding in the month of Rabi u’l-Awwal making for the Quraysh. Then he raided the Quraysh by way of Dinar.” Tabari VII:11 “In this year the Messenger entrusted to Sa’d a white war banner for the expedition to Kharrar. Sa’d said, ‘I set out on foot at the head of twenty men. We used to lie hidden by day and march at night, until we reached Kharrar on the fifth morning. The caravan had arrived in town a day before. There were sixty men with it.” Tabari VII:11 “The Messenger of Allah went out on a raid as far as Waddan, searching for Quraysh.”
    Tabari VII:15 “Expeditions Led by Allah’s Messenger: In this year, according to all Sira writers, the Messenger personally led the Ghazwa of Alwa. [A Ghazwa is an Islamic Invasion in Allah’s Cause consisting of an army unit led by the Prophet himself.] He left Sa’d in command of Medina. On this raid his banner was carried by Hamzah. He stayed out for fifteen days and then returned to Medina. The Messenger went on a Ghazwa at the head of two hundred of his companions in October, 623 and reached Buwat. His intention was to intercept a Quraysh caravan with a hundred men and twenty-five hundred camels.”
    Ishaq:286 “Meanwhile the Apostle sent Sa’d on the raid of Abu Waqqas. The Prophet only stayed a few nights in Medina before raiding Ushayra and then Kurz.”
    Bukhari:V5B57N51 “The Apostle said, ‘Tomorrow I will give the flag to a man whose leadership Allah will use to grant a Muslim victory.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N569 “I fought in seven Ghazwat battles along with the Prophet and fought in nine Maghazi raids in armies dispatched by the Prophet.”
    Bukhari:V5B57N74 “I heard Sa’d saying, ‘I was the first Arab to shoot an arrow in Allah’s Cause.’”
    Bukhari:V5B59N401 “Allah’s Wrath became severe on anyone the Prophet killed in Allah’s Cause.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N456 “Muhammad led the Fear Prayer [Allahu Akbar!] with one batch of his army while the other (batch) faced the enemy.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N440 “Allah’s Apostle used to say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allah Alone because He honored His Warriors and made His Messenger victorious. He defeated the clans; so there is nothing left.’”
    Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them. One of the Muslims said, ‘By Allah, if we leave these people alone, they will get into the sacred territory and will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.’” Tabari VII:19 “They hesitated and were afraid to advance, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid shot an arrow at Amr and killed him. Uthman and al-Hakam surrendered. Then Waqid and his companions took the caravan and the captives back to Allah’s Apostle in Medina. This was the first booty taken by the Companions of Muhammad.”
    Ishaq:289 “Our lances drank of Amr’s blood and lit the flame of war.” Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:287 “Abd Allah told his Companions, ‘A fifth of the booty we have taken belongs to the Apostle.’ This was before Allah made surrendering a fifth of the booty taken a requirement.”
    Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:288 “The Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad and his Companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood, seized property, and taken men captive.’ The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, ‘Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our people.’”
    Ishaq:288 “When the Qur’an passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment. When the Qur’an authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.”
    Ishaq:288 “Allah divided the booty stolen from the first caravan after he made spoils permissible. He gave four-fifths to those He had allowed to take it and one-fifth to His Apostle.” Tabari VII:29/Ishaq:289 “The Apostle heard that Abu Sufyan [a Meccan merchant] was coming from Syria with a large caravan containing their money and their merchandise. He was accompanied by only thirty men.” Ishaq:289 “Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out and attack it. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey.”
    Tabari VII:29 “Abu Sufyan and the horsemen of the Quraysh were returning from Syria following the coastal road. When Allah’s Apostle heard about them he called his companions together and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of their numbers. The Muslims set out with no other object than Sufyan and the men with him. They did not think that this raid would be anything other than easy booty.”
    Bukhari:V5B59N702 “Allah did not admonish anyone who had not participated in the Ghazwa [raid] of Badr, for in fact, Allah’s Apostle had only gone out in search of the Quraysh caravan so that he could rob it. But Allah arranged for the Muslims and their enemy to meet by surprise. I was at the Aqaba pledge with Allah’s Apostle when we gave our lives in submission, but the Badr battle is more popular amongst the people. I was never stronger or wealthier than I was when I followed the Prophet on a Ghazwa.’”
    Tabari VII:29 “They did not suppose that there would be a great battle. Concerning this Allah revealed a Qur’an: Qur’an 8:7 ‘Behold! Allah promised you that one of the two parties would be yours. You wished for the unarmed one, but Allah willed to justify His truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the unbelievers.’”
    Tabari VII:29 “When Abu Sufyan heard that Muhammad’s Companions were on their way to intercept his caravan, he sent a message to the Quraysh. ‘Muhammad is going to attack our caravan, so protect your merchandise.’ When the Quraysh heard this, the people of Mecca hastened to defend their property and protect their men as they were told Muhammad was lying in wait for them.” Ishaq:290 “Some Meccans got up to circumambulate the Ka’aba…. Sitting around the mosque, they wondered why they had allowed this evil rascal to attack their men.”
    Ishaq:292 “Setting out in Ramadhan, Muhammad was preceded by two black flags. His companions had seventy camels.” Tabari VII:38 “I have been informed by authorities that Muhammad set out on 3 Ramadhan at the head of 310 of his companions. The war banner of the Messenger was carried by Ali. The banner of the Ansar was carried by Sa’d.”
    Ishaq:293/Tabari VII:30 “The prophet marched forward and spent the night near Badr with his Companions. While the Prophet was standing in prayer [asking Allah to help him steal] some Quraysh water-carriers came to the well. Among these was a black slave. Muhammad’s men seized him and brought him to the Messenger’s bivouac. They ordered him to salute Allah’s Apostle. Then they questioned him about Abu Sufyan. When the slave began to tell them about the protecting force, it was unwelcome news, for the only object of their raid was the caravan.” Tabari VII:30 “Meanwhile the Prophet was praying, bowing and prostrating himself, and also seeing and hearing the treatment of the slave. They beat him severely and continued to interrogate him but they found that he had no knowledge of what they were looking for.”
    Ishaq:294 “The Apostle was afraid the Ansar would not feel obliged to help him fight without the enemy being the aggressor and attacking in Medina. Sa’d said, ‘We hear and obey. We are experienced in war, trustworthy in combat. Allah will let us show you something that will bring you joy. The Apostle was delighted at Sa’d’s words which greatly encouraged him. Muhammad shouted, ‘It is as if I see the enemy lying prostrate.’”
    Tabari VII:32 “When the Quraysh advanced, Muhammad threw dust in the direction of their faces, and Allah put them to flight.… The Meccan [merchant] force and the Prophet’s [pirates] met and Allah gave victory to His Messenger, shamed the unbelievers, and satisfied the Muslims’ thirst for revenge.” Ishaq:297 “When the Apostle saw them he cried, ‘Allah, they called me a liar. Destroy them this morning.’”
    Bukhari:V5B59N330/Ishaq:300 “Here is Gabriel holding the rein of a horse and leading the charge. He is equipped with his weapons and ready for the battle. There is dust upon his front teeth.” Bukhari:V5B59N327 “Gabriel came to the Prophet and said, ‘How do you view the warriors of Badr?’ The Prophet said, ‘I see the fighters as the best Muslims.’ On that, Gabriel said, ‘And so are the Angels who are participating in the Badr battle.’”

  5. About Israel:

    This was written by the scholarly Hugh Fizgerald of Jihadwatch, I site I admire for its intellectual capacity and insight. I know people on this ‘blog crticise it because it is too close to the truth:


    “First, though some Jews left the Middle East for Europe after the Muslim conquest in the late 7th century (and others had arrived still earlier, as in Rome), many others had remained in the Middle East. There were Jewish settlements in Arabia (or have you forgotten what the Qur’an and Hadith tell us), in Mesopotamia and Persia at least a thousand years before the Arabs, or Islam, arrived, in Syria, in North Africa, and of course Judea. They didn’t disappear. In the center of their religious and historical existence, they continued to live, continuously, in Jerusalem, in Hebron, in Safed, three of the four cities considered holy in Judaism. The first printing press in Asia was a Hebrew press established in Safed.

    What happened during the period of Muslim conquest? Did Judea thrive? Or did it slowly empty out of people? What do we know of it? Well, we know that Western travellers began to visit the area, and report, in numbers, in the mid-19th century. What did they report? Bustling communities, thriving agriculture? No. They reported to a man about the sheer emptiness, the “ruin and desolation”—see Melville, see Mark Twain, see Lamartine, see even,in the late 18th century, the report of Volney (a report that the late Edward Said carefully omitted from his ludicrous and meretricious “The Question of Palestine” though he was perfectly aware of Volney’s existence because he did quote him in other books).

    And what exactly did the Zionists do? They did not seize a single dunam of land. They bought land, and continued to buy land, often from Arab absentee landlords—or not Arabs, for there were and are all kinds of non-Arab communities in historic Palestine. And in buying land that had been untended, they began one of the most impressive feats of land reclamation in history—see the agronomist Walter Clay Lowdermilk’s report in “Palestine: Land of Promise.”

    What else? Well, their efforts led to a kind of economic boom, similar to that which occurred in the Gulf states from oil. And just as Arabs from everywhere flocked in the 1970s and in the decades since, to Kuwait and the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Arabs—especially from Egypt and Iraq—flocked to that area under Ottoman rule before World War I, and then after World War I assigned to the Mandate for Palestine. And even in the 19th century, there were arrivals—to this emptied out land, from among the veterans of Mehmet Ali’s forces, from those of Abd el-Kader in Algeria (there was even a village consisting entirely of Berbers in one of the vilayets composing “Palestine”), and later, as the tide of Ottoman (Muslim) rule receded in southeastern Europe, the Ottoan government transferred whole populations of Muslims to the area of what would become Mandatory Palestine.

    Nothing will do except detailed knowledge of the demographic situation, not only in Mandatory Palestine, but in the century before, and also the situation of the Jews who continued to live under Muslim Arab rule all over the Middle East and North Africa.

    The winners of World War I thought, rightly, that at the breakup of the Ottoman Empire it was entirely reasonable that some of the constiuent peoples of that Empire should have their own states. An Arab state, a Jewish state, a Kurdish state, and an Armenian state were all envisioned. We all know what happened. The Arabs ended up with 22 states in the end. The Armenian state turned out to be a Soviet puppet republic, until quite recently. The Jewish state was built without the help, and often the hindrance, of the British officials, civilian and military, who for the most part did not fulfill their commitments, made when the Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain. For a start, all of Eastern Palestine was loppped off, unilaterally, in 1921 at the Cairo Conference. Almost immediately British officials found themselves indifferent to, and later more and more hostile to, the chief stated aims of the Mandate that they were supposedly promoting: to “facilitate Jewish immmigration” into Palestine and to “encourage close Jewish settlement on the land.” In fact, whenever a local British official tried to help the Jews, he was moved out of Mandatory Palestine. That is what happened to Colonel Meinertzhagen in the 1920s,, and to Captain Orde Wingate in the 1930s. And then, at the moment of maximum peril, in 1939, Colonial Secretary Malcolm Macdonald proposed to limit Jewish immigartion to 15,000 a year for five years, and that would be it. During World War II the ports of Rumania remained open. Perhaps as many as one million Jews fleeing the Nazis might, had the British allowed and aided it, made it to Mandatory Palestine. They never did.

    You have left out so much of the real, and detailed, history of that area, and offered a travesty of Jews simply reappearing, in your imaginative account having disappeared round about 70 A.D. You may think you are exempt from the requirement to actually know all of the relevant facts.

    You are not. “

  6. Robert Spencer on Memorial Day:

    Thoughts about war and the enemy we face:

    Conflicts don’t ever need to be solved with wars, you see. All we need to do is understand each other a little better, show the opposition that we are really good fellows after all, win over a few hearts and minds, teach the children not to hate, and voila, all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, sometimes one may know someone else quite well, and see that he is a good fellow, and despite all the hand-holding and Kumbaya singing, still want to kill or subjugate for reasons of one’s own, that don’t proceed from the Kumbaya-singer’s actions at all.

    This is a point that all too many in Washington, at the highest levels, stubbornly refuse to grasp. It is axiomatic in the State Department, and in Europe, and at the UN, that all conflicts can be solved through negotiated concessions. This is so much a part of the air they all breathe that it would be unthinkable even to question it. No one would even think to ask, “What if we implement state-of-the-art hearts-and-minds initiatives, and conform to all their foreign policy and cultural demands, and they still hate us?” This cannot be. The non-Western man is just a reactor, not an actor. He has no imperatives of his own that might set him against us. He is, ultimately, at our mercy, and it is up to us and us alone to pacify him.

    The unconscious paternalism of this is ironic, coming as it does from the most besotted of relativist multiculturalists, but in any case, the fact of Memorial Day, and the reality of those who died in this nation’s conflicts, shows it all to be false. Sometimes there are disputes between peoples that can’t be smoothed over by any amount of making nice. And then, if a nation does not have within it those who will fight and will die to defend it, it will perish.

    Today those who believe we have moved beyond wars, beyond fighting, rule the day. Unfortunately, we face a foe who believes war and fighting is his religious duty. He will not be pacified. Our fight is not just military, although it has a military dimension, and a huge adjustment in our current foreign entanglements is needed to defend ourselves most effectively from this scourge. It is a matter of will. Of remembering that there is in Judeo-Christian civilization, and in all civilizations that are threatened by the jihadist imperative of Islamic supremacism, something worth fighting and dying for. Remembering that we are only here to fight this battle today because others fought and died throughout history for our nations, our people, and the principles for which we stand. Let us not just honor them today, but, each in our way, seek to emulate them.

  7. The teachings of the Koran:

    2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
    2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
    2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.

    2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
    3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
    3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
    3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.

    4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
    4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
    4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
    4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.

    We need to reach out to at-risk populations and make them feel wanted.

    5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
    5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
    5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
    5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
    9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.



  9. Lying in Islam:

    Autonomist web-site, Friday April 28 2006, ‘Life in Iraq Part II, A Civilisation of Deception’, the anonymous author, an American who had had bitter experience in Iraq attempting to build things, writes, for example:

    “Lying is the only way a completely incompetent person who is trying to screw everyone can possibly retain any sense of dignity among others. Welcome to the [Muslim] Middle East”.

    “At first we [Americans] were all offended at being lied to so much. But after a while, you stop taking it personally, and you just start giving credit where credit is due: They can’t build anything, can’t manufacture anything, and can’t fix anything that breaks. But at least they are good at one thing: lying their asses off all day, every day.”

    “Q: Why is every Muslim Middle Eastern country characterized by either rigid oppression or chaotic violence?

    “A: The coercive use of violence is the only way to ensure Muslims in the Middle East [and elsewhere!] will live up to any obligations, INCLUDING BASIC SOCIAL ORDER AND FUNCTION. Middle East [more accurately: ‘Islamised’] countries where chaos currently reigns, like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are merely examples of what Muslims are like without coercion.”

    And finally:
    “Q: Have you ever seen anything that says “Made in Saudi Arabia”? What was the last thing invented or produced by Middle Eastern Muslims that helped advance humankind? Why are they so incompetent at virtually everything?

    A: Although some individuals with quality talents certainly exist here, it would be impossible to gather enough in one place to Agree to cooperate in any sort of complex or significant effort. The only time Muslims can stick together long enough to produce anything en masse, like nuclear missiles for “Uncle Mah,” is under the threat of force.”

    In other words – they DON’T cooperate. All that stuff about love and charity inside the Ummah is pure, unadulterated garbage. These people are driven by a cultural pattern that, in fact, leads many of them to spend most of their time ripping each other off and, in the words of St James, biting and devouring each other. When they’re not doing it to the outsiders they do it to themselves.

    And, just to bring us right back on topic (Annapolis) – every non-Muslim at Annapolis should have had the words of this same anonymous blogger at ‘The Autonomist’, engraved on their hearts:

    “After being in this snake pit (Iraq) for some time, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone thinks that “diplomacy” or “negotiations” or “agreements” with any Middle Eastern leader during a crisis can possibly result in anything productive. They have no reservations — none — about lying about anything and everything. There words and agreements mean absolutely nothing. How far can negotiations really take you under such conditions?”.

  10. Dear Sir,
    Peace be upon you
    While I was searching on the internet I found yor site.Really I want to say something.I am a muslim man from Egypt.I think that ,what you claim or say in this site not all true about Islam and Muslims.You take some Ayas (recite)from Quran and interpret it as you like and not in the situation that it is mentioned in it in Quran. and also some parts from Hadith
    says)of the prophet and trying to do the same.
    In fact Islam is religion of love ,peace and respecting all nations.even the unreligious persons.
    all the religions call for love and when we greet someone in islam we say(peace be upon you)Finally.I invite you to come to EGYPT or any Islamic country and see the original people or the villagers who have good manners of islam.or christianity or even dont apply all you hear or see on the Tv. on the all people or countries,but you should see with your eyes and hear with your ear the real people in their places..Peace be Upon you.

  11. Thank you for your enlightening post, Yousef.

    Please point out where we ‘interpret some ayas’, and while you’re at it perhaps you can also show us where in the Koran we can find love and peace even for unreligious persons.

    Btw: I have been to Egypt 3x, I don’t get my information from TV, and I lived, worked and travelled in Islamic countries from Malaysia to Indonesia and from Morocco to Iran, from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Jordan to Dubai for more than 20 years.

    But please, don’t let that deter you: if you find any inconsistencies in our writing please point them out so we can correct them. We always welcome input from our friends of the Muhammedan persuasion.

  12. Hilaire Belloc also came out with these ominous statements in The Great Heresies:

    “It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.”

    “The suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic – but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: – one might say that they are blinded by it….”

    “But not so very long ago, less than a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence…. Vienna was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history: September 11th, 1683.” – Hilaire Belloc – The Great Heresies, 1938.

    And here’s this warning from David Selbourne in his book “The Losing Battle with Islam”:

    “Of course, there are distinguished precedents even for the bleakest and coarsest of these judgements. To Montesquieu in 1748, Islam’s ‘destructive spirit’ spoke ‘only by the sword’; to Schopenhauer in 1819, the Koran was a ‘wretched book’ in which he had ‘not been able to discover one single idea of value’; to De Tocqueville in 1843, Islam was ‘deadly’, ‘to be feared’ and a ‘form of decadence’.” – David Selbourne – The Losing Battle with Islam

  13. Everything on this web site is a LIE. Probabaly it is ran by ZIONIST SATANIST or its slave, for ex. Obama, who say that all non-jews are TWO LEGGED ANIMALS.

  14. No ‘Golden Rule’ in Islam:

    1. Muslims must instill terror into non-Muslims (Koran 8:12) as Mohammed said, “I’ve been made victorious through terror” (Bukhari 4:52:220).
    2. Non-Muslims (Infidels) are sworn enemies (inveterate foes) of Muslims and Islam. (Koran 4:101)
    3. Muslims’ have the holy right, authority, and requirement to kill non-Muslims. (Koran 9:5 – known as the “Verse of the Sword”).
    4. Infidels (non-Muslims) are forbidden from killing Muslims (Koran 4:92).
    5. Muslims are forbidden from having non-Muslims as friends. (Koran 5:51).
    6. Muslims offer non-Muslims 3 choices regarding religion (Koran 9:29): 1. convert 2. die 3. be persecuted as 2nd class citizens (Dhimmis) and pay extortion tax (Jizya).
    7. Muslims can lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Taqiyya (Koran 3:28, 16:106).
    8. Muslims can omit the truth to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Kitman.
    9. Muslims believe they are the best (Koran 3:110) and non-Muslims are the vilest of creatures and deserve NO mercy (Koran 98:6).
    10. 9/11 was justified by the “Kill AND be killed for Allah verse” (Koran 9:111).

    11. Mohammed (51) married his favorite wife Aisha at 6. The marriage was consummated when he was 54 and she was 9.
    12. Muslim men can marry anyone, up to 4 wives. Muslim women must ONLY marry Muslim men (4:3) thereby ensuring Islam does not weaken.
    13. Only Mohammed had permission from Allah to marry as many wives as he wanted to (Koran 33:50).
    14. Allah ordered Mohammed to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law called Zaynab bint Jahsh (Koran 33:37), yet cursed his aunt and uncle to hell (Koran entire Chapter 111).
    15. Marriage AND divorce to pre-pubescent girls (not yet having 1st menstruation) is OK. (Koran 65:4)
    16. Sex Slaves (concubines) were, and are today, legal in Islam (Koran 4:23-24).
    17. Domestic Violence is OK, not husband beating, but only wife beating and sex slave beating, (Koran 4:34).
    Chapter 4 is called Women and goes into great detail about how women and girls should be treated and mistreated.
    18. To prove rape in Islamic law or Sharia law, Muslim females need four male Muslim witnesses in good standing (Koran 24:13).
    Note: non-Muslims under Sharia (Islamic) law can’t even accuse Muslims of any crimes.
    19. Islamic heaven is an unlimited whorehouse of regenerating virgins (Koran 37:40-48, 44:51-55, 52:17-20, 55:56-58, 70-77, 56:7-40, and 78:31).
    20. Islamic heaven also allows sodomy of young boys (Koran 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19).

    21. Beheading is OK (Koran 47:4, 8:12) Mohammed personally help behead between 600 – 900 Qurayza Jews in Medina in 627 A.D. in one day.
    22. Robbery and Theft of non-Muslim property is OK (The entire Chapter 8 of the Koran is known as Booty or Spoils).
    23. Muslims that leave Islam (apostacy) MUST be killed. (Bukhari 4:52:260) Quoting Mohammed: “…if a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.”
    24. Mohammed is considered the ideal man to be imitated by Muslims, yet sinful. (Qur’an 47:21 and Qur’an 110)
    25. The Koran has 114 Chapters called Surahs and is not presented in chronological order, but chapter length order, from longest (Chapter 1) to shortest (Chapter 114).
    26. Many verses in the Koran conflict, so the concept of abrogation (Koran 2:106) applies. This means, later occurring verses make cancel out the earlier verses.
    AGAIN: earlier verses may be in a later chapter as the chapters are not presented in chronological order, but in order of size, larger to smaller.
    27. The last chapter written in the Koran, Chapter 9, is extremely violent. It is also the only chapter of 114 that does not start off with the blessing “In the name of G*d, the Compassionate, the Merciful.”
    28. Muslims are forbidden from doubting that the Koran is the actual word of Allah, “This book is not to be doubted.” (Koran 2:1)
    29. There are more than 100 verses in the Koran urging Muslims to make war against non-Muslims.
    30. Even man’s best friend (dogs) aren’t safe in Islam, as Mohammed had many killed because the “angel Gabriel” didn’t enter houses with dogs and/or pictures. (Bukhari 4:448)

    Islam and the Golden Rule

  15. Quotations: What Muslims Have Said

    Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared “some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.” Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.
    -Majid Khadurri, Muslim scholar, in War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955

    Acquiring nuclear weapons for the defense of Moslems is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank Allah for enabling me to do so.
    -Osama bin Laden, in an 1998 interview with Time magazine

    We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children.
    -Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

    If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible.
    -Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

    The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction.
    -Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

    Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam–begging to have their blood shed for Islam.
    -Ayatollah Khomeini

    Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
    -Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

    I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.
    -Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Spokesperson

    We must reject democracy in favor of Islam, which is the unique perfect system worked out by Allah. . .Our march has just begun and Islam will end up conquering Europe and America. . . And let no one think that we are Utopian dreamers.
    -Sheikh Saeed Shaaban, quoted in L’Orient le jour, Beirut, 19 October 1983

    The Koran pushes us in the exact opposite direction to the forces at work in the American political spectrum.
    -Imam Zaid Shakir, former Muslim chaplain and political science professor, Yale University

    Islam is not Christianity…Islam is the religion of agitation, revolution, blood, liberation and martyrdom.
    -Sheikh Morteza Motahari, quoted in “Islamic Movements in the Last One Hundred Years,” Tehran, 1979

    You shall begin to live once you have killed yourself. The “you” in you is none other than Satan in disguise. Kill him and you will be saved. Muslims are lucky because they can accomplish this self annihilation in accordance with divine rules. For Islam has an answer to every imagnable question. All an individual needs to do is to obey the rules without posing questions, without seeking variations.
    -Sheikh Ragheb Harb, “Islam is the Strongest Religion,” 1983, p.22

    A believer…who takes up a gun, a dagger, a kitchen knife or even a pebble with which to harm and kill the enemies of the Faith has his place assured in Heaven. An Islamic state is the sum total of such individual believers. An Islamic state is a state of war until the whole world sees and accepts the light of the True Faith.
    -Ayatollah Fazl-Allah Mahalati, “On the Path of Justice,” Tehran, 1980, pp. 70-71

    If we…allow our rulers to be chosen by the ordinary people from among ordinary politicans, we will not have to wait long before we see the end of Islam.
    -Ayatollah Komeini

    People say, “Don’t lie!” But the principle is different when we serve the will of Allah. He taught Man to lie so that we can save ourselves at moments of difficulty and confuse our enemies… People say, “Don’t kill!” But the Almighty Himself taught us how to kill…So shall we not kill when it is necessary for the triumph of the Faith? … Deceit, trickery, conspiracy, cheating, stealing and killing are nothing but means.
    -Muhammad Navab-Safavi, key figure in the fundamentalist movement, “Islamic Society and Government,” Tehran, 1946; second edition, 1985.

    “We are not fighting to chase out the occupiers or save national unity and keep the borders defined by the infidels intact, we are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a religious duty to take sharia to the government and create an Islamic state.”
    -spokesman for al-Qaeda, Baghdad, October 18, 2005

    *”One must beware of the Jews, for they are treacherous and disloyal.”
    -Islamic Education for Ninth Grade p. 79

    *”I learn from this lesson: I believe that the Jews are the enemies of the Prophets and the believers.”
    -Islamic Education, Part Two, for Fourth Grade p. 67

    *”Remember: The final and inevitable result will be the victory of the Muslims over the Jews.”
    -Our Arabic Language for Fifth Grade p. 67

    *Quotes taken from Palestinian school texts published under the symbol of their Ministry of Education, but authored in Jordon. All the books cited here were written during the most optimistic periods of the peace process, before the violence of September 2000 had begun.)

    “Shake the earth, raise the stones.
    You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my country’s stones,
    You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my country’s stones,
    You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a shahid (martyr for Allah).
    You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a shahid.
    Allah akbar, Oh the young ones.”
    -The words from a music video which had not been broadcast on Palestinian TV after being shown in a U.S. Senate hearing in 2003. However, by October 2004, the video had reappeared, and was played at least ten times between October 4 and October 17 of that year. The words are sung by a woman wearing an army uniform, with scenes of children dancing alternating with scenes of children participating in violent acts in combat zones. For the full article, go here.

    Any land, any piece of land, over which flies the banner of ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger,’ and which at a certain point belonged to the Muslims – as far as we are concerned, plundering and occupying such land is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Muslims to do what they can to liberate this land, wherever it may be. True, many precious Muslim lands are under occupation today. They have been forgotten, and Andalusia is one example. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Muslims to liberate them….
    -Sheikh Muhammad Ali, Palestinian Clerics Association Deputy Director, on August 19, 2005.

    The 21st century will be the century of Islam.
    -Ayatollah Janati, cleric in Iranian government, quoted many times.

    “The rayah is like the grass; Mow it as much as you will, still it springs up anew. Once you’d broken Bosnia’s horns, you mowed down what would not be pruned, leaving only the riffraff behind so there’d be someone left to serve us and grieve before the cross.”
    -Muslim proverb from the time of the Ottoman Empire; “rayah” means “herd,” and was a term used to describe the Christians.

  16. JIHAD (by Bat Yeor)

    The ideology, strategy and tactics of jihad constitute a most important part of Islamic jurisprudence and literature. Muslim theologians expounded that jihad is a collective, religious obligation (fard ‘ala al‑kifaya) binding the community and each individual (fard ‘ala al‑ayn) in different ways according to situations and circumstances.
    Here are two definitions of jihad by recognized authorities: Abu Muham mad Abdallah Ibn Abi Zayd al‑Qayrawani in the 10thc. (d. 966); and Ibn Khaldun in the 14th c.(d. 1406).

    Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani wrote:

    “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax ( jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.1

    And Ibn Khaldun:

    “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” 2

    One may ask: Who are the enemies? Here is a definition from al-Mawardi, the great jurist in Baghdad in the 11thc.(d. 1058).

    “The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb (region of war) are of two types:
    First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun: the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks;
    “Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays (…..)if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”3

    Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money. The ‘enemies’ are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law and its sovereignty over their lands. The world of infidels is considered as one entity. It is called the dar al‑harb (region of war) until, through jihad, it will come under Islamic rule. The war between the region of Islam (dar al‑Islam) and the region of war is supposed to last so long as unbelief exists. According to Mawardi, the Muslim “should give battle with the intention of supporting the deen [religion] of Allah … and of destroying any other deen which is in opposition to it: “so as to render it victorious over all [other] deen even if the mushrikun detest it.” (Koran 9:33)4

    Islamic law forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly, the sick and the priests, unless they have helped the enemies. It also forbids the mutilation of corpses.

    In this same chapter al-Mawardi examines the opinion of different jurists on the booty and on prisoners of war taken by the jihad. “Prisoners of war refers to the fighting men from the unbelievers taken alive by the Muslims.” 5

    He distinguish three cases:

    1) The inhabitants who convert to Islam after their defeat – in this case they and their lands become part of the dar al-Islam.

    2) “The second thing that might occur is that Allah gives victory over them but they remain mushrikun, in which case their women and children are taken prisoner, and their wealth is taken as booty, and those who are not made captive are put to death. As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favour to them and pardon them.”

    3) “The third possibility is that the enemy make a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.”

    The payment is of two sorts:

    1. It is treated as a booty and paid once, but this does not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future when they stop paying.

    2. “They make a payment every year in which case it constitutes an ongoing tribute by which their security is established …. It is not permitted to resume the jihad against them as long as they make the payments, because the peace is being maintained by the regularity of these payments. If one of them enters Dar al-Islam, this contract of reconciliation guarantees safety for himself and his wealth. If they refuse to make payment, however, the reconciliation ceases, their security is not longer guaranteed and war must be waged on them – like any other persons from the enemy camp.” 6

    According to Abu Yusuf, an important jurist of the 8th c., peace treaties can be signed for four months, and they can be renewed but should not extend for more than ten years.
    In another chapter, devoted to the division of the booty, Mawardi states:

    “As for land seized by the Muslims, it is of three types:
    First, that seized by force and violence, when its inhabitants abandon it by their own deaths, or they are taken captive, or they emigrate.”

    “Second, land which is acquired from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear.”

    “Third, land which is taken through treaty.”
    – the people convert to Islam or pay the jizya and become dhimmis.7

  17. This is the religion that binds 1 in 4 people in action, ghazwa, full of
    blasphemy against God and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ.

    Your “god” and its false prophet have this to say about the crucifixion
    of Jesus Christ: “They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary. They declared: ‘We have put to death the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of [allah]’ They did not kill
    him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.”
    (Sura 4:157)

    Islam (and muslims) will be destroyed, in part by the God they mock and blaspheme against, and in part by them turning on each other and slaughtering themselves.

    This ends when God pours “on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look on me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn” in accordance with
    the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10.

    Flee from islam, ghazwa, and warn your fellow muslims of the judgement that is coming their way, if they continue to mock and blaspheme against God, his son Jesus Christ, and his crucifixion for
    our sins. Time is running short.

  18. Rubbish Ghazwa – if you behave badly you WILL be punished – or do you think muslims deserve a special exemption from the rules that bind humanity??

  19. Hugh Fitzgerald of stated most clearly . . .What is the cost? or with this portion of another of his essays:

    the main things which permitted the Jihad to be more than a dim and unattainable (because completely impractical) notion, save in the case of the immediate, local, small-scale Lesser Jihad against Israel, were three:

    1) The OPEC oil bonanza. Inshallah-fatalism prevents Arab and Muslim countries from economic development. So they managed to acquire gigantic sums in the only way they possibly could — by accident. That accident of geology has allowed nearly a dozen Arab states to be the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history; OPEC countries have received $10 trillion (in 2006 dollars) in the past one-third of a century. How have they spent it? On wage-slaves, foreigners who come to do all the work. On palaces for the corrupt ruling families and their corrupt courtiers. Play your cards right and you may share the wealth, even if you are not a prince, princeling, or princelette of the Al-Saud family, but a lowly Bin Laden from Yemen, working your way up as a contractor, or a Khashoggi and so many others like him whose “business” began by his being the middleman in arms deals. And there are so many fixers and middlemen in the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia — for that is how the large fortunes are made. On armaments — hundreds of billions of dollars in arms, going to the Muslim states, which are the biggest buyer of foreign arms, year after year, in the world. And mosques, in London and Rome and Paris, and all over the Western world (and the Islamic world too). And madrasas. And campaigns of Da’wa, through generous donations. And Stinger missiles, and guns, and all sorts of things for the training camps in Afghanistan for the Taliban (also helped by generous Saudi donations). And armies of Western hirelings bought up directly or indirectly — public relations experts, former government officials (especially diplomats), journalists, academics. See the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, see the assorted King Abdul Aziz professors and Guardian of the Two Noble Sanctuaries Professors, see the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, see Durham, see Exeter, see Georgetown, see the Edward Said Professorship (Rashid Khalidi, discovered after a “nationwide” search).
    2) The millions of Muslims negligently permitted to settle within various countries of Western Europe, deep behind what those Muslims are taught to regard (by Islam itself) as enemy lines: the lines that once defined Dar al-Harb, the House of War or otherwise expressed, the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels. These now tens of millions of Muslims aggressively pursue demands for changes in local laws and mores, in every way — in dress, in family law, in separation of men and women, in the rights which individuals can possess (freedom of speech, free exercise of conscience). They are prepared to exploit the freedoms, political and civil, created by and for the Infidels. Muslims have shown that while the Infidel political system is antipathetic to them (for it locates political power in the consent of the governed, and not in the will of Allah, expressed in the Qur’an as glossed by the stories in the Hadith), they do not hesitate to exploit it. Nor do they hesitate to exploit the very guarantees of rights that they would, if they came to dominate, do away with.
    3) The exploitation of technological advances made by Infidels, but used to spread the full disturbing message of Islamic jihad. Thus the Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers used audiocassettes of his speeches, recorded by him in Neauphle-le-chateau. They disseminated throughout Iran while the Shah still ruled. Thus the videocassettes of decapitations of Infidels, and attacks on American soldiers, that have been distributed all over as recruitment tools for the Jihad — apparently, the gorier the better. Thus the use of satellite channels to disseminate hatred of the Infidels — chiefly, but by no means only, Israel and the United States; Denmark has come in for its share, and France for banning the hijab in schools. Any Infidel state or people can expect to be the subject of such a campaign at any time if they dare not to yield to Muslim demands for changes in Infidel rights and laws. And finally, the use of the Internet — a creation of Infidels, exploited by Muslims to wage a war of dominance and subjugation against those very Infidels.
    Those are the three new developments.
    Jihad itself is not new. It is very old. It is permanent. One cannot end it. One can work to undo the conditions — the oil wealth, the unchecked Muslim presence in the Infidel lands, and the exploitation of Western technology by Muslims — that have made the worldwide Jihad (with many local expressions and theatres of conflict) a reality.
    Undoing the past thirty or forty or fifty years, so that Muslims may continue to work for Jihad but with much of the menacing wherewithal stripped from them — that should be the collective goal of all intelligent and informed Infidels.

  20. Ho hum! LOOK AT THIS! Sheik, JUST over three years ago you started this site here and on this second??? day you wrote about Prof Abdullah Saeed.

    “… The White Paper, to be unveiled by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was to be released last year but has been rewritten after several delays…
    The Government, which has been concerned for some time about the rise of domestic extremism, commissioned a study by Islamic scholar Prof Abdullah Saeed…”


    Our Defence White Paper will be released soon:-
    “New national security blueprint says threat of home-grown terrorism has grown in past six years” Phillip Hudson From: Herald Sun February 23, 2010 12:00AM

  21. to answer yermami,
    love and peace in the Coran? yes we can find it !!!

    listen to that!! each surates of Coran start with :BISMI-L-LAHI-R-RAHMANI-R-RAHIM , which means, in the name of Allah the beneficient the MERCIFULL, mercifull do you anderstand that word?
    do you know any other books that ‘s start with such noblesse? I don’t !
    isn’t that a sign of love and peace?

  22. Regarding Sylvie Rizvi comment that the phrase “BISMI-L-LAHI-R-RAHMANI-R-RAHIM , which means, in the name of Allah the beneficient the MERCIFULL” is itself plagiarized from the Samaritan prayer called “Fatah”. The following quotation can be found in
    “The formula “There is no God but the One” is an ever-recurring refrain in Samaritan liturgies. A constant theme in their literature is the unity of God and His absolute holiness and righteousness. We can immediately notice the similarity of the Muslim proclamation of faith: “There is no God but Allah.” And, of course, the unity of God is a fundamental principle in Islam. The Muslim formula “In the name of God” (bismillah) is found in Samaritan scripture as beshem. The opening chapter of the Koran is known as the Fatiha, opening or gate, often considered as a succinct confession of faith. A Samaritan prayer, which can also be considered a confession of faith, begins with the words: Amadti kamekha al fatah rahmeka, “I stand before Thee at the gate of Thy mercy.” Fatah is the Fatiha, opening or gate.”

  23. Sylvie,
    A question. Why do you think you can convince people here of the “nobility” of islam when many here have had their lives almost destroyed by the mindless followers of the pedophile prophet and the poisonous philosophy of islam? As Gerald intimates, there is NOTHING original about islam and there is certainly nothing enlightening or original in your arguments. Humans have a mind – learn to use it because it is quite clear that you have not used your mind to date.

  24. All this hatred toward Islam isn’t healthy. Not all Muslims are bad, and not all Muslims “ruin your city” and are terrorists to “plan destruction”. Some actually try to fit in and become part of the community. Its not the immigrants you should worry about, because most immigrated for a reason; to escape the chaos in their homeland created by the Muslim extremists they also despise. So that means you guys are on the same side; the citizens of the land and the immigrants, because both your goals is to bring an end to this terrorism in the middle east.

    1. Thank you muslim.

      So the muslims are trying “to escape the chaos in their homeland created by the Muslim extremists they also despise….?”

      Tell me please: are they running from Islam or they are invading us to make us Islamic? Tell me please, is not “striking terror in the hearts of the unbelievers” a religious obligation for muslims, in order to make the world Islamic?

      Why should we permit the establishment of a fifth column, a mohammedan proletariat behind what they perceive to be enemy lines, among us?

  25. allah is pure evil, exalting itself above God, and claiming that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is merely a messenger of allah, like Mo.

    There is a place awaiting allah, and its followers if they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Flee from allah and islam while you still can, muslim, and warn your fellow muslims to stop following the terror-casting allah (sura 8:60 and elsewhere) and its false prophet.

    Judgment is coming: “Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” (Matthew 25:41)

  26. * Some actually try to fit in and become part of the community.

    Some pretend to fit in at Disneyworld, Metropolitan Police, various supermarkets / Walmarts … until they get a chance to extract jizzyah from their employers for having to cook pork snags, wear uniforms like everyone else, sell alcohol & pork products …

    Others make no pretense at fitting in, refusing to carry service animals in their cabs, right through to raping & murdering infidels.

    Doesn’t really matter, for God will draw their unbelieving & blasphemous nations against Israel, and destroy them.

  27. URGENT: needs exposition: islamist conference in australia‏

    Hi guys,

    I write to you from AUstralia where there are interesting developments.

    Have you heard of the Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir? they call for a caliphate in the middle east and they are holding one of their big conferences here in australia in a few weeks’ time.

    This is their trailer –

    they make use of some of the biggest sites in our capital – canberra….

    i think they have been in the news a fair bit in the USA last year.

    anyway interestingly they characterise the middle east revolutions as a “step on the way to a caliphate” – a multinational islamic state… :S at first i thought the uprisings were a call for democracy. but to be honest the way things are goiing in yemen…

    ^ their website.

    anyway, there will probably be a furore around this… in the media etc, as there shuold be. but the media usually leaves this to the last minute. awareness about their activities should be higher so people know precisely whats going on in parts of their own country.

    one of our websites here in AUstralia is carrying an entry for this….. you can check it out here:

    Say no to a Caliphate in Australia, say no to Shari’a in Australia! A vigil against Hizb ut-Tahrir (2011)



  28. Royal Family

    Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to protect the environment.

    In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man’s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions – but particularly those of Islam.

    He said the current ‘division’ between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment – which goes against the grain of ‘sacred traditions’.

    Outspoken: Prince Charles speaks to Islamic studies scholars at Oxford. He argued that man’s destruction of the world was particularly contrary to Islam

    Charles, who is a practising Christian and will become the head of the Church of England when he succeeds to the throne, spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is ‘no separation between man and nature’ and says we must always live within our environment’s limits.

    The prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies – which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion.

    His speech, merging religion with his other favourite subject, the environment, marked the 25th anniversary of the organisation, of which he is patron.

    He added: ‘The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason – and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us.

    ‘Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.’

    Bored: Not everyone in the audience was as interested as Prince Charles though

    Impressive setting: Charles spoke at Oxford University’s Sheldonian Theatre

  29. Tony Blair’s sister-in-law converts to Islam

    Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, has become the latest in a long line of Western Islamic converts. From Chris Eubank to Jermaine Jackson to Alexander Litvinenko, she joins an eclectic list, yet she is markedly different from most of its names, for one key reason – she is female.

    Ms Booth, who works for the Iranian state news channel Press TV, said she decided to become a Muslim after being overwhelmed during a visit to a shrine in the city of Qom, Iran.

    “I felt this shot of spiritual morphine: just absolute bliss and joy,” she said. When she returned to Britain six weeks ago, she decided to convert. “Now I don’t eat pork, and read the Koran every day,” she said.
    Related articles
    More People Articles
    Search the news archive for more stories

    She is now on page 60. Though women in the public eye are generally not shy of a religious conversion (Demi Moore, Kabbalah; Tina Turner, Buddhism), Islam is rarely their go-to faith. For Catherine Heseltine, CEO of MPACUK which was set up to address a perceived under-representation of Muslims in British politics, and herself a convert, this is not hugely surprising.

    She said: “Islam requires women to cover their hair and hide the shape of the body. If you think of the areas where women typically achieve a high profile – singing, acting, modelling – these things tend not to be compatible with these requirements.

    “Converting to Islam is a different proposition for women than from men. They are instantly asked: ‘Why do you want to be oppressed?’ There have been problems in the Muslim community with sexism, but these are attributable to culture, rather than religion itself and the two have become very mixed-up in the public’s perception.”

    But the shortage of Islamic women converts in the public eye in fact conceals a trend in the public at large that is in the very opposite. Sheikh Imam Ibrahim Mogra from Leicester said: “I receive many more inquiries from women. It is quite surprising, given the negative publicity in terms of the mistreatment of women. But women say it was all the negative things that first stimulated their interest.”

    Though the group she joins as woman convert is small, it is a vocal one. Ms Booth’s colleague at Press TV, former war correspondent Yvonne Ridley, converted to Islam in 2003 after being captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    There is of course one challenging liturgical requirement. Ms Booth said: “I haven’t had a drink in 45 days,” she said. “And I was someone who craved a glass of wine or two.”

  30. Are you familiar with the apostasy that is to precede the return of Jesus Christ, Sharon? Are you aware that the decline in Christian belief is a necessary precursor to the rise of false religions such as but not limited to islam, and the revealing of Antichrist (Man of Sin, Beast 666 etc).

    Play your numbers game, and post individual acts of apostasy such as the British Catholic “priest”, or whatever you happen to find, but by the time this ends, islam will be destroyed, the followers of the Beast 666 will be destroyed, and Jesus Christ will return to reign for 1,000 years.

    Given that everyone is born muslim (according to the false prophet), a retention rate of 25% isn’t all that great anyway.

    “Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying that the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1 – 4)

    There is plenty of room in Hell for 1.x billion muslims, along with the false prophet, but it was really intended for the devil and his angels such as allah.

    “Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;” (Matthew 25:41)

    As you probably know, Sharon, allah sends all its followers to Hell:

    [Sura 19.70] Again We do certainly know best those who deserve most to be burned therein.
    [Sura 19.71] And there is not one of you but shall come to it; this is an unavoidable decree of your Lord.

    Unfortunately, allah can only provide a ticket for a one way trip. There is no return journey from there.

    1. I think you’re wasting your time, Mullah.

      “Sharon” is a mindless drone, cut & paste, not a single brain-cell left. She (or he) probably thinks he’s doing da’awa. Just pathetic.

      But anyhow, Sharon: we are very well aware that the idiot prince of Wales is a closet Muslim:

      Prince Charles, Defender of “Faith’s”, Lectures us on “traditional Christianity vs distorted Christianity”

      Yes indeed, this guy is a certifiable lunatic:

      ‘Follow the Islamic way to save the world,’ Prince Charles urges environmentalists

      Read more:

  31. Agree Sheik – and is any case any woman who converts to the Religion of Pedophiles has sever intellectual problems.

  32. A Jewish-Muslim summit

    Over 50 leaders of Muslim and Jewish communities from across Europe convened in Brussels to discuss initiatives for cooperation and better relations and between the two communities:

    The leaders’ declaration urges “cooperative projects to succor the poor and homeless of all backgrounds, to help protect new immigrants who are threatened by hatred and xenophobia, and to heal the environment, bringing together Muslim and Jewish youth for joint programming.” It also denounces all forms of violence in the name of any religion or ideology.

    FFEU President and WJC Vice President Rabbi Marc Schneier called the first Brussels Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish leaders “a promising beginning.” He stated: “Today, we have hopefully kick-started a movement that will spread across Europe. The recipe really is quite simple: our two communities must focus more on what unites us than what separates us. We also must restrain the radicals within our own ranks and make sure they don’t gain the upper hand.”

    Dr. Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, declared: “I think it is very important that Jews and Muslims start talking more with each other, and less about the other. Pointing the finger at the other side and accuse it of being the root cause of all evil on this planet may be easy and convenient, but most of the time it is wrong – and counter-productive.

  33. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch

    Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer issued an open challenge to debate numerous times on his vitriolic site. LoonWatch accepted his challenge. It has now been officially 155 days since Spencer has avoided the debate. By Spencer’s own logic (whereby anyone who dodges a debate is a chicken), this makes him a big fat chicken. This is why I recently published an article entitled JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch.

    Instead of taking up his own challenge to debate, Robert Spencer now tries to take the chicken’s way out and has started throwing out wild Glenn Beck style accusations against LoonWatch. Of course, this is no different than his normal M.O., which involves saying absolutely outlandish things and then simply repeating them over and over. And so, Spencer now calls LoonWatch an “Islamic hate site.” Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will be an “Islamic supremacist” and “stealth jihadist” to JihadWatch!

    To give “proof” that LoonWatch is an “Islamic hate site”, the best Spencer can do is reproduce a comment posted by a random reader of our site by the name of Mosizzle. Amazingly, Mosizzle (whoever he is) is not even a part of the LoonWatch team, nor has ever worked for us, nor has anything to do with us! He’s just one of the thousands of people who read our website and decided to post a comment under one of our articles.

    Is Robert Spencer to be held accountable for what every commentator on his site posts underneath his articles? OK, let us apply this standard to him. Even in the blog post itself (the one in which he decries Mosizzle’s alleged “threat”), we see the crazy minions on his site saying completely absurd things, like this (posted by the always classy SaleemSmith):

    1. Another Moslem headbanger sailing under false flag, are you not “Levi?’

      Or Bowow?

      Read the instructions for posting here, or ESAD!

  34. Levi,
    You are an islamist – don’t waste bandwidth here again you pathetic twit. I just saw another yoot hassling a woman here – reinforcing the point of view that you (muslims) have no place in a civilised society. I think that very shortly you, and your fellow islamic scum, will be walking the plank to hell. And, btw, your little email is pure projection of your own behavior.

  35. this article is absolutely right.
    beware of islamic supremacy agenda. don’t let your country become my country (indonesia). now we’r screwed. islam destroyed our old cultures, our archeological stuffs,………

    recently, with support from international society,
    we try to push our governemnt to free alex aan, an indonesian atheist who got beaten and thrown into the jail. it is not theist vs atheist case. it is because he debate with muslims. and ended up made him screwd.

    as his life is on stake, we need international support

Comments are closed.