The U.S. Government’s Failed History of Muslim Outreach Since 9/11
When President Obama hosted his annual iftar dinner in August to commemorate Ramadan, the list of invitees published by the White House was curiously missing the names of several attendees — all of whom are top leaders of organizations known to be purveyors of jihadist ideology. But it was not like they had crashed the party. One of the unlisted, Mohamed Magid, head of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of North America, was photographed by Reuters sitting at the front table only a few feet from the president as he spoke.
This was just the most recent episode in the federal government’s disastrous attempts at outreach to the Muslim community since the 9/11 attacks. With the release of President Obama’s new strategic plan to combat “violent extremism” by expanding outreach to these same terror-tied groups, the present administration seems intent on compounding the problems wrought by its predecessors.
Misguided outreach activities began long before 9/11, with the best example being the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi.
Alamoudi was the conduit through which much of the U.S. government’s outreach was pursued following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Not only was he asked by the Clinton administration to help train and certify all Muslim military chaplains, his organization being the first to do so, but he also was appointed by the State Department in 1997 as a goodwill ambassador to the Middle East, making six taxpayer-funded trips. It is fair to say that during this period, Alamoudi was the most prominent and politically connected Muslim leader in America.
As we now know, Alamoudi was indicted in October 2003 for moving money on behalf of Libyan intelligence in an assassination plot targeting Saudi Prince (now King) Abdullah. The U.S. government has admitted that at the time he was being courted by Democrats and Republicans alike, he was a major fundraiser for al-Qaeda.
However, it is not as if the U.S. government was unaware of Alamoudi’s attachments. As far back as 1993, an informant told the FBI that Alamoudi was funneling regular payments from Osama bin Laden to Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheikh” who was convicted of authorizing terror attacks against New York landmarks. In March 1996, Alamoudi’s association with Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook was exposed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Two years later, the State Department came under fire by the New York Post for inviting Alamoudi to official events despite his known remarks in support of terrorism and terrorist leaders.
When President Bush took office, Alamoudi was quickly courted by the new administration. In June 2001, the Jerusalem Post reported that Alamoudi was going to be part of a White House meeting with Vice President Cheney despite the fact that Alamoudi was known to have attended a terror confab in Beirut earlier that year featuring representatives from virtually every major Islamic terrorist organization in the world, including al-Qaeda.
Yet just days after the 9/11 attacks, Alamoudi was one of the Muslim leaders asked to appear with President Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. That same week, one of Alamoudi’s close associates, Muzammil Siddiqi, was asked to deliver an Islamic prayer and to represent the entire Muslim-American community at the national prayer service mourning the fallen.
The inclusion of Alamoudi and Siddiqi at the post-9/11 events was highly criticized, especially because Alamoudi had been videotaped in October 2000, as noted by the Los Angeles Times, expressing his support for Hamas and Hezbollah at a rally held just steps from the White House. At that same demonstration, Siddiqi accused the U.S. of responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians and warned that “the wrath of God will come.” One former Secret Service agent told Fox News that “the intelligence community has known for some time the association of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi and Mr. Alamoudi and their association with terrorist organizations.”
The decision to continue doing business with Alamoudi and others like him was just one of many blunders made by the U.S. government in its eagerness to conduct Muslim outreach in the wake of 9/11.
Most embarrassing of all, one of the first Muslim leaders to whom the government turned after the attacks was none other than Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric who was in direct contact with at least three of the 9/11 hijackers and is currently on the CIA’s kill-or-capture list.
As the cleanup from the terrorist attack on the Pentagon continued, Awlaki was invited by the Pentagon’s Office of Government Counsel to speak at a lunch in the building’s executive offices as part of the government’s new Muslim outreach efforts. But a joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 found that law enforcement had been investigating Awlaki’s contacts with terrorism suspects as far back as 1999. Also, before his appearance at the Pentagon, the New York Times had noted Awlaki’s anti-American rhetoric prior to the attacks.
This dubious approach to outreach continued through the end of Bush’s second term, as seen in the egregious invitation by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to Yasir Qadhi to speak on de-radicalization at a conference in August 2008. At that time too, Qadhi’s extremist views, such as his statements denouncing “the hoax of the Holocaust,” were well known. Furthermore, at a 2006 Muslim outreach event in Houston, Homeland Security official Daniel Sutherland was present, as reported by the Houston Chronicle, when Qadhi openly admitted that he was on the terror watch list.
No one at the NCTC bothered to question Qadhi’s “de-radicalization” credentials. By the time he was invited to speak at the NCTC conference, at least one of Qadhi’s Houston students, Daniel Maldonado, had been captured by Kenyan forces fighting with the Somali al-Shabaab terrorist group. A number of other students from Qadhi’s AlMaghrib Institute program have gone on to careers in terrorism, including Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who attended a two-week AlMaghrib training session in Houston and two other events in the UK.
If Yasir Qadhi is an expert in de-radicalization, one shudders to think what an expert in radicalization might produce.
Outreach under President Obama has not fared any better, beginning with his inclusion of Ingrid Mattson, then head of the terror-tied Islamic Society of North America, in his inaugural prayer service.
The NCTC under this administration continues the bipartisan policy of Muslim outreach disasters, best exemplified when it gave Sheikh Kifah Mustapha a tour of its top-secret facility as part of the FBI’s Citizens’ Academy civilian training program in September 2010. Why was this so catastrophic? In 2007 Mustapha was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. During that trial, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that Mustapha was in a singing troupe that glorified Hamas and encouraged the killing of Jews as part of fundraising efforts for Hamas.
Last year Mustapha was removed as an Illinois State Police chaplain in the wake of media reports noting his longtime terrorist support activities. After Mustapha sued for discrimination, a protective order was filed stating that the Chicago FBI’s special agent in charge had warned police officials that Mustapha would never be able to pass an FBI background check. One former FBI official told the Washington Times that Mustapha was “a known senior Hamas guy.” When questioned about his inclusion in the program, FBI Director Robert Mueller refused to address the mountain of evidence that federal prosecutors and the FBI had compiled, saying “I am not going to talk about any particular individual.”
No matter how embarrassing the Mustapha incident was for the NCTC and FBI, the Department of Homeland Security has no grounds to fault other agencies, especially after Secretary Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council last October. Elibiary had previously served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, despite his speaking at a December 2004 conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, an event that the Dallas Morning News called a “disgrace.”
Recently Elibiary has billed himself as a “de-radicalization expert,” notwithstanding clear evidence of his previous defense of terrorist support organizations, praise for jihadist authors, and threats made against a Dallas journalist who exposed his extremist views. His open support for jihadist ideological godfather Sayyid Qutb prompted the Washington Times to comment that “he has no business being anywhere in government, let alone as an adviser at the uppermost reaches of an agency that purports to protect the homeland.”
Considering Elibiary’s track record, it seems that he has done more to promote violent extremism than to prevent it.
The State Department has not been immune to such outreach disasters either. Last December the American ambassador to the UK, Louis B. Susman, stirred international outrage by visiting the notorious East London Mosque, well known as a longtime hotbed of radicalism and a prolific terrorist incubator. In January 2009, the mosque hosted a conference featuring Anwar al-Awlaki via telephone. Just a few weeks before Susman’s visit, the mosque chairman defended Awlaki’s participation in the conference, calling it an act of “fairness and justice.”
The visit by the ambassador was slammed in the Wall Street Journal by Shiraz Maher of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation. Maher concluded that “Mr. Susman’s visit illustrates the blunders Western politicians often make by reaching out to the wrong Muslim ‘dialogue partners,’” and that the appearance of such a high-ranking diplomat at the mosque had “emboldened robed reactionaries at the expense of their more moderate counterparts.”
Maher added that Susman’s visit was such an egregious mistake that British Prime Minister David Cameron instructed officials to conduct an “exhaustive review” of the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism program to ensure that all community partners had been thoroughly vetted. However, the U.S. government failed even to acknowledge the blunder, let alone reconsider its policy of engaging extremists.
Thus is the state of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach ten years after the 9/11 attacks. Rather than learning from gross errors committed by the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Obama administration’s ongoing record and the release of its strategic plan to combat “violent extremism” make it appear that it seeks to enshrine this epic catalog of failure as a matter of permanent policy.
Time and again, the U.S. government has engaged the wrong Muslim partners, legitimizing and empowering the very extremists whose influence should be limited. This has been done despite repeated warnings from counterterrorism and law enforcement officials at virtually every step of the way. As these episodes indicate, damaging information about the government’s outreach partners has been known and intentionally ignored, resulting in a lengthy list of bipartisan fiascos.
If the death of nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11 was insufficient to reconsider how our government conducts Muslim outreach, it is too terrible to contemplate how many more lives may eventually be sacrificed before our elected officials decide to reverse course.
This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
Pasted below, surely “on topic ” here with this disgusting “Outreach” subject is a comment I submitted to The Washington Post today, which so far has not been deleted as “inappropriate” from that most “politically correct” publication. The article’s headline in the Post reads, “America marks 10th anniversary of Sept. 11 terror attacks….”
…so,my own two cents’ comment..:
……”We Americans must never, ever, forget that the source of this horror we memorialize today is Islam, in whatever malignant, metastasizing form it may take, by whoever, despite which ever organization may claim to the contrary….within the context of a history of one thousand four hundred years prior to this day we memorialize.
We must never, ever permit the current fashion of “political correctness” to continue this apparent tacit agreement to avoid all public mention of Islam in connection with 11 September, 2001.
We Americans must remember, and remind all Muslims/Islamists everywhere, that the onus is on them to provide evidence to us Americans of their strenuous and direct efforts to fight this most dangerous element so obviously extant among their co-religionists, and openly exercised by their co-religionists in the name of Islam.
Signed:
Charles M. Griffith,
Middletown, Maryland, U.S.A.
There simply cannot be any denial of these facts.”
Charlie, you are right on.
It is up to Muslims to reach out to us and beg our forgiveness.
Anything short of this is demonstrating support for the Saudi supported 9/11 atrocity.
Sorry dude but that’s not in their program. Not only have responsible agencies failed to watch what the other hands of misdirection were doing but have grabbed them and yanked them into the white house for advisory applications. Where are the whistle blowers? Are there any patriots on the hill?
I humbly submit (well, not so humbly) that Barack Obama’s outreach posturings are an extension of his “elect me and the oceans will cease to rise” and his “greek columns” view of himself.
And that he clings to his oft repeated appreciation of Islam as a weak personality extension, in the spirit of…”Having lived in Indonesia and traveled to Pakistan & as a worldly man, I am so enlightened as to the beauty of Islam.” (well, at least more enlightened than all the boorish peasants over whom I rule)
It is part of the pose of a man who, at base, has feet of clay and knows, deep down somewhere, that he is an Imposter.
(As Krauthammer noted a couple of days ago on Inside Washington, more and more people are aware that Obama is a mere mortal who is in way (way!) over his head.)
Welcoming agenda driven Islamists to Washington DC is an abomination.
Said Islamists, however are delighted. They couldn’t ask for nicer infidels & sycophants than their Washington hosts.
Saudis helped fund his education. Why?
I’m not aware of Saudi funding of Obama’s education.
I do think, however, that Obama was groomed and aided along the way. And that both Michelle and Barack benefited from Affirmative Action, without which (as a function of academic achievement alone) neither might have had the higher education opportunities they had.
I am aware of the irony that our petrodollars help the Saudis finance chairs of Islamic studies at American universities as well as other propaganda efforts.
Which is one of the reasons America needs to become as energy independent as possible.
Why do you think obama never came clean on his campaign donations. The suadi`s own our politicians!
In 2008, Nicolas Kristof (NYT) interviewed Obama, and wrote this:
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it will give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ” one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
Should anyone be surprised that a liberal who already believes he can talk birds down from the treetops would believe that, having lived and studied among Muslims for 4 years as a child, he can do a little “outreach” to talk the extremists into viewing us as their friends, instead of infidels?
We expect such nonsense from the left, but it is really disturbing when it comes from the right.
I’m still convinced that Obama is a closet moslem, or a moslem mole sent to disrupt the US.
tanstaafl you are so right. but the muslims will never apoligise to America. they hate America. they only want what they can get from us. killem all. let God sortem out,
Feet of clay from the neck up!
This pattern fits what columnist Sarah Honig has called wooden-headedness – the abject refusal to reconsider their current thinking, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So invested are they in this narrative, one shudders to think of what it will take to shake them out of their stupor.
It is my conviction that a dedicated Leftist can never be shaken out of his or her stupor.
Any adverse event, no matter how severe, can always be blamed on republicans, George Bush et al. and etc. and the SLN (selected leftist narrative) on any imaginable topic under the sun can never be shaken.
Leftism is a very serious personality disorder that is completely resistant to correction or change.
Please try to use the correct term, “socialism” instead of the names they like to hide behind Leftism and Liberalism. You do not have to oblige them.
In support of my thesis…
The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
(you don’t have to agree with all of these points to see the extent to which modern liberalism has its roots in a certain psychological mindset…hence the clinging, yea the bitter clinging, to the lockstep belief structure and the near desperate hysteria at challenges to the frozen narratives)
As a true liberal, I object to the socialists, communists and other lefties using this word to describe themselves.
Liberals believe in free speech – not ‘hate-speech’ – the only criteria: it must accept critisism and be proveably true.
Liberals do not use the Orwellian twist on vocabulary, redefining peace (as in rest in) or equality, phobia, marriage and rape.
Liberals are liberal, as long as no one is hurt. We accept the consequences of our actions and do not expect The State (or is it god?) to feed and clothe us.
Many object to the distortion and overuse of the word “liberal” these days.
I don’t know what word or words to use to characterize the main/lame/legacy/moronic/bent media these days. Likewise, I don’t know what word to use to characterize the current crop of Progressives.
“Socialists” doesn’t seem strong enough or even completely accurate, since the way I perceive the agenda of key players in the Obama administration (e.g., Cass Sunstein and Harold Koh), the agenda morphs into territory that essentially amounts to the destruction of the United States as we know it, into their ideal of what Andrew McCarthy calls transnationalism.
This President, at close reading and remarks he has made over the past decade, has little or no respect for precepts underlying the United States Constitution, the document he has named as a litany of “negative liberties”, one that puts limits on the power of the federal government, much to his dismay.
Any way you shake it, suffice it to say this ain’t your father’s (or your grandfather’s) democrat party.
Doing some major housecleaning to clear out the Muslim Brotherhood moles would be a good place to start.
The only outreach that works with Islam is a JDAM.
Thank you for this amazing column.
Yes, I knew these things before but…one by one, and I had never seen the whole list together. It is shocking.
Is all this just a “mistake” ?
Are the politicians betraying us ?
Are they selling us to the muslims ?
Of course there is no doubt that the Obama administration is working to weaken America…but here we are talking about many administrations.
The goals of the commie totalitarians and of the islamists are easy to understand, but I am really worried by the third part of the mix, the elitists, the “brotherly friends” behind the curtain…what the heck are they doing ?
The ‘goal’ is always the same.
SUBMISSION.
I am old, I have seen a lot of evil, so I think that you could just be right.
But I do not understand.
ALL the powers of the world fought against the Evil Empire. To get to what ? To accept the muslim invasion of the West and see our Freedom die ?
I do not understand.
Don’t they understand that the islamists will destroy EVERYONE ?
The commie totalitarians do not understand anything, but the elitists, the hidden powers, don’t they understand that they will not survive ?
I am shocked and puzzled.
Don’t be shocked and puzzled.
Ignorance has been carefully groomed in American public school classrooms over decades.
Now America’s chickens are coming home to roost, but not in the way meant by Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah (Bullfrog) Wright.
I still have…wait…I’m not gonna use the word, yes I am.
I still have hope.
(over and out)
Sherab Zangpo,
Do not be shocked or puzzled. Try to see it like this: the war did not end, that is an initial deception.
It just morphed into another thing of stealth attack. The third reich has continued in disguise.
First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people. But the people are waking up.
Delia ” The ‘goal ‘is always the same ” SUBMISSION ” In short ,but true. This was been the ‘GOAL’ for all muslims from the times of Mohammad. From Quran Sura 2:193 ” Fight against them [infidels/kafurs] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme” Now see http://www.blip.tv/file/1382254 We have enemies working behind the lines.
Mr Poole,
I took the liberty without asking you, hope you don’t mind, and posted the following in the “Comments” section after that article today in the Washington Post titled, “America Marks tenth anniversary of Sept. 11 terror attacks….”
…my Comment…
“charlieg1 wrote:
There’s an excellent, revealing article in today’s “Pajamas Media” by Patrick Poole titled, “The U.S. Government’s Failed History of Muslim Outreach”…..”It is too terrible to contemplate how many more lives may eventually be sacrificed before our elected officials decide to reverse course…”
I dare the Post’s commenters here to actually read this, and especially note the names named.
Today 9/11/2011 3:37:07 PM EDT….”
Muslim ‘outreach’?
What? Our necks stretched out for the blade?
I would love to expunge every Muslim blight off the face of the USA. I will never, EVER submit to their backasswords, inbred, mental midget crap sandwich.
F*ck ‘em. All of ‘em. To hell.
Wow,
You are a really hateful person.
If you think that’s hateful, take a look at the way Islamic doctrine treats infidels (that’s us, by the way). There are three choices for infidels: convert to Islam (over my dead body), force us to pay ruinous taxes and to live in the abject status of dhimmitude, or kill us. Any truces with the infidel are to be considered temporary. The object is to take over the entire world.
It’s us or them. I’ve already made my choice. It looks as though you’re on the other side.
and you have had too much loolaid, politicalreach,
Delia I agree with you 150%. and lets go one step further. killem all let God sortem out,
Our scorn, our contempt, our outrage and our actions, whatever they may be, should be directed at those that allow this to happen. It is not the fault of Islam, terrorist groups or any other deviated sector in this world, it is our fault. Our own fault for appeasing the enemy within and their politically correct simple mindedness. The real traitors to our way of life live amongst us, get rid of those that do not stand up for what we have or we won’t have it much longer.
Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace
Violence in Muhammad’s life and the Quran
James M. Arlandson
Ever since 9/11, Muslim leaders who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the essence of Muhammad’s religion.
Even President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Blair have repeated this assertion, saying that Islam has been “hijacked” by a few violent fanatics. Is this true?
Sadly it is not, for empirical, observable facts demonstrate beyond doubt that Islam at its founding is filled with violence—in the life of Muhammad himself and in the Quran itself.
Hence, these Muslim apologists must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners, and they must be honest about the heart of their religion, for once and for all.
Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.
Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive “out of context” defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.
Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website http://www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).
But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.
10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.
Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)
In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.
Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: “Pluck Out,” “Very Sharp,” and “Death.” Two other swords from elsewhere are named: “Sharp” and “That is wont to sink” (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called “Sharp” and “Having the vertebrae of the back.” This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.
Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: “Most conducive to ease, or wide,” “white,” and “of nab wood” (species of tree from which bows are made).
The name of a coat of mail implies “ampleness” or “redundant portions,” probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).
Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: “The obliterator.”
Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.
This article explains Christ’s attitude about swords more thoroughly, as does this one. Certainly he never fondled swords or nicknamed them, displaying them proudly, delighting in them.
Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)
The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.
However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.
Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.
Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):
Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim no. 4194)
Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4].
Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her … (Muslim, no. 4206)
It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.
For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.
Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)
Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).
Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands “fear” highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:
Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:
“He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.” (Muslim no. 2127)
For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article, which has many links to modern discussions of this policy (scroll down to the end).
This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article written by an Arab Christian is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics, offering many translations of 4:34.
Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:
Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, “A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards.” (Bukhari and note two other hadith below this one).
A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.
Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams. (Bukhari and note the three hadith below this one)
The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, “God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!” (Bukhari, see this parallel hadith here)
Some commentators are quick to say that an “egg” is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.
For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.
Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.
These two poets represent others in early Islam.
March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt
Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
March 624: Asma bint Marwan
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, “because they saw the power of Islam,” so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.
In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).
However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a “positive” way?
For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.
Go here, here, here, and here for more information on three of the assassinations of poets, along with other assassinations of non-poets. This page has some links to articles about how Muhammad dealt with his personal enemies.
Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.
5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)
According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies “fighting” and “corrupting” the land.
Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.
This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.
For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. This shorter article explains the background of these verses and this gruesome law. Muhammad tortured people.
Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.
A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.
W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:
The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)
It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)
Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans “passed through” Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.
To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).
For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.
Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.
Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a “virgin-rich” Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).
In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word “jihad” (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.
61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)
These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.
For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s “Martyrdom” on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.
Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.
After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.
The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)
Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:
16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)
Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.
For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article. This one explores Muhammad’s relations with the Jews, answering the standard replies by Muslims for their prophet’s indefensible atrocity (scroll down to “Politics, Warfare, and Conquests,” no. 5). See this series of articles for more information about Muhammad’s atrocity against the Banu Qurayza. This online index provides other links.
Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.
In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:
9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)
The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the “privilege” of living under the “protection” of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.
The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.
Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the “protection” tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.
Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.
For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).
Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.
What the ten reasons mean for us today
These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.
The theological implications are as follows:
First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.
Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the “pure” but violence-filled Quran over the “corrupted” but peaceful New Testament?
Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.
Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].
Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.
The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:
Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?
Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:
(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.
This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.
Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.
Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.
Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.
Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.
On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.
Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.
[ Note: This article has a companion piece: Does Islam improve on Christianity? — Muhammad fails Jesus’ simple fruit inspection. ]
Explain then Luke 19:27 and that parable.
Luke 19:12-29 parable is about a noble man who went to a foreign country, he commissioned certain people to take care of things while he was gone, some of those people did not want him to reign over them and became his enemies so he had them killed.
Keep in mind it is a parable (an earthly illustration used to convey a spiritual truth)
What has this do with the call to ‘murder the infidels’ that is clearly taught in the Koran and practiced by some Muslims?
Delia I still say killem all let God sortem out. thats the solution,
And Auschwitz was not teh consequence of Nazism but of a rogue group called the SS. Read teh Koran by yourself instead of relying on the drivel spout by some chomskite “expert”.
Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law- JR Dieckmann Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.
Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws. Islam has the Qur’an that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings. If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.
We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam‘s Qur’an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values. Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else. How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Qur‘an?
What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world? If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law. How can we call that a religion?
What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws? No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed. Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).
As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation – financed by Saudi Arabia – they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government – take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom
Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours. We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.
What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one. They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded “thou shall not kill” – it is the law of Mohammed who commanded “kill them all who will not convert.”
The Qur’an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God’s law
The Qur’an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God’s law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state? To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.
Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people? Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in “Dreams Of My Father” – “When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?” It is always nice to know that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.
L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country
The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.
The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature. Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.
These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people. Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life. Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.
What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law? They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.
Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created? I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists. It must be one or the other.
Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say. To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.
Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.
Are you tired of being called “an immigrant” right here in your home country? I know I am. “America is a nation of immigrants,” they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American. My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?
We are not immigrants, we are Americans – and America is a nation of Americans – not a nation of immigrants. How much longer will we be able to call ourselves “Americans” with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don’t even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.
When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant – from Europe. That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American – but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies? Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” Kennedy said. Oh really?
If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem. But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line. It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims – and our own government – can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.
I’ve tried reading the Quran and its a bunch of drivel. It is totally disjointed from one line to the next. If this is the pattern of the writer’s personal thoughts, he must have been schizophrenic at the very least. Add to that mix some serious psychosis and the results are a delusional murderer.
Liberals reache out to the people who have dedicated September 12th as a day of celebration at every amusement park in the US; look it up
Why don’t we organize a day of celebration marking the death of Binladen ?
We can burn Islamic flags; throw pork at CAIR members everywhere and declare bacon the official food of the day
Would it be any worse than the efforts of CAIR, the September theme park days organized around 9-11 or the mosque at ground zero ?
Jihad on muslims who don’t speak out and a fatwa against CAIR…thats the only thing that will end the radicalization of Europe and the US
LIBERAL = POLITICAL CORRECTNESS = GUTLESS POLICIES = HEADLESS AMERICANS
Exactly right, tx.
.
.
.
.I hope the minders over at CIA/NSA/FBI who watch Muslim fundamentalist forums, also watch and record IP addresses in these forums, so when another Norway shooter type scenario (right wing craziness), they can access the hate talk here and target homes of individuals for investigation & prosecution.
.
.
.
.
9/11 does NOT give you the license to spread Hate and Violence, not in America you don’t! You people should be ashamed of yourselves, my husband and my bestfriend died in those towers and this is how you honor their memories?
.
.
.
.
You’re a misinformed MORON.
Legal Beagle NYC,
We have a right to free speech in this country. If you don’t like what you read here, don’t come. It’s not “Right wing crazies,” instigating hate and violence in this country. It’s the left and Radical Islam. You sound very ignorant. Please educate yourself about who the real enemies are. By your standards George Washington would be considered dangerous.
Wow Mommie I just saw a dinosaur, a Red Diaper Stalinosaurus called Legal Beagle in NYC who wants to call out the secret police on people exercising their first amendment free speech rights. I bet that dinosaur would boast at upper west side soirees how tolerant she is too. Go away tool.
I call troll. And a troll with anxiety at that.
I agree that hate begets hate, maybe we should find an island somewhere, drop these right wing haters and islamic fundamentalists together and they can hate all they want–because they are the same.
Stop pretending you are a Jew.
Only in your demented mind are pissed off conservatives in the same league with Muslim monsters. You’re so twisted, you probably support the building of the mosque at ground zero even though they would love to slit your throat as a Jew. You’re pitiful.
“… my husband and my bestfriend died in those towers …”
Which plane were they piloting?
You, my friend, just won Best Line of the Day!! Great comeback to Legal Beagle NYC!!
AMEN TO THAT SPARKY,
Zooooey Mama!!!
I wonder if she was intimate with both?
I can hate anyone I please, and I can talk about if I please, without reference to your opinions.
Also I’m not Eugene Debs or Gus Hall, and any “liberal” who tries to put me in jail just for expressing my opinions is going to accidently get shot.
Following the death of Mohammed, Islam spread throughout Asia Minor, the Middle East, into Egypt and across North Africa, making inroads into Spain until halted by the forces of Charlemagne in the Eighth Century AD. Christianity and Judaism, which flourished in those areas disappeared. The disappearance of the faiths these not caused by a widespread voluntary conversion to Islamism. It was accomplaished by force of arms and penalty of death. Christianity and Judaism was not allowed to coexist with Islam where Islam had political control, nor is Christianity permitted today in areas under control of Islam, except under tight control when the Islamic government thinks it politically expedient to do so.
In the fifteenth century following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, Islam spread into southeast Europe by force of arms, reaching the gates of Vienna in the fifteenth century where it was halted.
Islam has a military element which will brook no disagreement with its beliefs. It does not tolerate dissent. This arm of Islam has adopted terrorism to undermine Europe and the United States, qhich are its primary targets.
Those who think differently are in foolish and blind error and in the United States, they are supporting the very forces which will destroy our Constitution by acts of terror and intimidation. And they are doing it by claiming protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will be abolished should Islam be successful.
If the President of the United States thinks he can instill tolerance by being nice to militant Islamic leaders, he is jeopardizing the safety of the very people he is sworn to protect. The kindest one can say is that the President is misguided.
Actually it was Charlemagne’s grand-father, Charles Martel, who led the Frankish forces at Poitiers.
I never believed Obama is a Muslim (for the simple reason that I don’t think he believes in anything bigger than himself), but it’s pretty clear to me that our government won’t stop this foolish “Muslim outreach” until we get rid of him. What we should have been saying all along is, “Here’s our hand in friendship, but if you bite it, we will smash you.”
This is a suicidal policy. Here is a good documentary titled The Man Who Knew. His name is John O’Neill, and he worked for the FBI. He may have been able to stop 9/11 if the egos and pc in the higher ups in Government hadn’t stopped him.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/ This is from Frontline
I remember seeing that program not too long after 9/11. It stunned me that O’Neill was working in the Towers when they came down and he didn’t get out in time. You have to wonder what was running through his head in those last minutes….
The wife of Representative Anthony Weiner was a close aide of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (I have forgotten her name.) Her whole family (and probably she herself) are closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other such organizations – yet Hillary Clinton allowed her close access to files at the State Department.
The indictments of rampant Islamic overt aggression, both terrorist and political, are justifiable to any rational mind. The big question is: Why are all these demonstrations, going beyond tolerance into embracing and active support, verging on proselitizing, conducted in the name of “preventing violent extremism.”
What violence? Name one example. What extremism? What street rallies? What burning of mosques? Burn one copy of the Koran and you are arrested for hate crime and are on the front pages of the NYT and harangued by MSNBC. There is certainly loud and completely justified opposition to building a memorial mosque for the 9/11 martyrs of Allah right at the site of Ground Zero, but is that violent extremism? Every complaint of offense to to their intolerant faith sends public officials into frenzies of apologies and supplications, motivated primarily by fear of assassination. Demanding time and special space for prayers in both public and private organizations. Orientations toward Mecca. Special plumbing installations for ritual cleansing. If Roman Catholics, a far larger number in our population were to request such concessions they would be,bluntly, refused. These are people who seriously loathe dogs, do not allow them as pets. Are we next to abolish animal refuges, PAWS?
This is insane, ubdefensible, totally against our founding principles, our Constitution. It is the intrusion of a “church” into our government.To cater to it i verges on treachery. Would we not object if the Rev. Wright was given a place of honor at a White House even?. Does it not say a lot about the level of political and moral lassitude to which our governments have fallen? Islamaphobia -fear of an invidious, retrogressive theocratic faith. We should support it, loudly and unapologetically. Islam is a cancer invading the heart of our culture and our government. We must keep in from mestasasizing within our Republic. It must be made clear to this faith, with world hegemony as its openly stated goal, that it is not entitled to special treatment within our laws.
What IS “violently extreme’ is the refusal of our politicians and public officials to abide by our most honored principles of sovereignty.
Anyone following the joy of Arab Spring in Egypt with Israeli embassy under assault??
The burden is not on the kuffar to reach out to muslims living in the West to assist us to fight jihad. Rather, it is THEIR responsibility to take the lead and prove to us their willingness to defend the culture that provides them more rights and freedoms than they could ever hope to have in a muslim country.
That in September 2011 there is a still continued silence on behalf of the vast majority of muslims in the West can lead one to only one conclusion. This silence reveals but utter contempt for us.
Thank you, “maraouin” for posting that.
This vast ‘silence’ as you call it….I’d call it a dangerously meek ‘passivity’, of too many of these Muslims here in America leaves them right on the hook, or another favorite phrase I like to use, “..hoist on their own petard”, if they don’t grow lots of testicles. The rank stench of their hypocrisy hovers over them.
And, then they have the brass to run to the likes of the A.C.L.U. and shriek….”Racism!”
George Orwell is smiling very broadly. He really was prescient, wasn’t he?
http://www.kcet.org/shows/ken_watanabes_america/ken-watanabes-america-1.html
Japanese Americans and Post-911 America. Ken Watanabe explores the link between Japanese American internment, racism, and discrimination against Arab/Muslim Americans after the 911 terrorist attacks.
ever heard of muslims in japan?
cause japs are super racist bigots.
Actually, there are Muslims who have lived in Japan for a very long time. I live near Kobe where the first Mosque in Japan was built in 1935. It survived WW II and the big earthquake in 1995. Just yesterday, I walked by it. Anyway, please have a look at this. http://www.kobemosque.info/en/top.html#
Why don’t you liberal trolls take a day off and let us celebrate our wonderful country on this hallowed day. You are a bigger threat to our future than the jihadists. You’re rotting the heart out of it with your putrid political correctness and hatred of all things American.
So where are all these Arab Americans being interned? I know they scream loudly about their supposed treatment; however, 72% of all classified hate crimes are committed against Jews not Moslems. This means that in the 28% that is left is divided up with hate crimes against Mexicans, Blacks, Homosexuals and other minorities. Exactly how much of that 28% is Moslem hate crimes? I bet you very little. This means you just bit on one best lies put out by CAIR. Please research your statements before quoting them as facts. Unlike you people on this blog are informed.
Wow no hate crimes are committed against whites, how about that?
Isn’t that something?
There are statistically 10 times as many documented hate crimes against Jews and gays than there are against Muslims in the U.S.
To me 9/11 was the perfect example of what happens when a super power over reacts. RIP to all those that died, suffered and suffer still.
Gen. Hayden said it best during his CNN interview today, when he said the next terrorist attack will happen, it’s how we react and deal with it that’s important.
Do we use a scapel or another sword? Our next reaction has to be balanced. CT is not the only means to prevent and deter, we need to interact more with others, volunteer in a Mosque, learn Arabic. Love one another, visit your local Museum of Tolerance and be reminded of what happens when we hate.
Enjoy the day and remember.
kafirs are not allowed in muslim barracks (mosques) except on special lie to infidel days.
By the way the Museum of Tolerance in LA has a Palestinian flag that was being carried by a peace loving Moslem. The only problem was that this peace loving Moslem physically attacked my son at a demonstration. He was lucky that the only thing he lost was just his flag.
would the Americans of the Barbary wars years allow pirates to migrate to the USA knowingly?
it’s bad enough that Islam infected 20-30% of the 5% total Atlantic trade slaves that ended up in the USA.
there is no way in hell muslims would ever be welcome unless a mass ignorance project had been successfully implemented.
voila. project complete.
Glenn Beck is actually a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the NAACP and the Church of Latter Day Saints. Yes, the embodiment of all that is evil–or good, depending on how you look at it.
shudup you chicom douche. I’m not a fan of any of those crappy groups, but you be just trollin’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege
You idiots need to watch “the Siege”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCKe_EpJJk
Not enough folks on this site are reading Kipling:
———————————–
The Mother Lodge
URL: http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_motherlodge.htm
Perhaps we’re not reading Kipling because he’s best retained by the 19th Cent., and in survey courses of romantic English Lit. Perhaps his most ill-used partial-quote is that business of “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”…with apologies to his shade for my misquote, but always left out is the remainder of that quote which says something like, “….until Judgement Day”.
That’s pure treacle.
LOL … Charlie Griffith, it seems that PJM/Tatler’s editors didn’t receive yer memo that Kipling is irrelevant (see link below). Not to mention, don’t many of Heinlein’s juvenile novels — Citizen of the Galaxy in particular — draw heavily from Kipling’s Kim?
Golly … by PJM/Tatler’s standards … does Heinlein’s extensive (and unattributed) borrowing from Kipling make him a plagiarist?
————————————
Obama, Kipling, and the Bomb
by Roger Kimball
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/04/06/obama-kipling-and-the-bomb/2/
This should do the trick!
HOW TO SOLVE AMERICA’S TERRORISM PROBLEM IN 5 EASY STEPS by Craig Biddle
Here is how America could solve her terrorism problem in 5 easy steps:
1. Stop sacrificing American soldiers to bring “freedom” to savages in Iraq. Pull our soldiers out of that hellhole, and let the savages have their civil war. ( Iraq is not and never was the main source of terrorism against America. Iran and Saudi Arabia are.)
2. Declare war on Iran.
3. Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night). Do not send soldiers in on foot, except as necessary to identify targets or gather intelligence. We do not need to send soldiers in on foot to fight, and it would be immoral to do so. We have many big missiles, fast planes, and good bombs, and we should use these liberally while building bigger, faster, and better ones. (As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.)
4. Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: “From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We look forward to the time when you decide to civilize yourselves, stop taking religion seriously, renounce the initiation of physical force, recognize the principle of individual rights, establish rule of law, and join the free world. Until then, we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning.”
5. Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize “its” oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.
If we took these (or similar) measures, our terrorism problem would be solved. Sure, there would still be a few isolated instances of terrorism here and there in months and years to come; this much is inevitable given how long we have permitted the Islamists to plan and plot and establish cells. But, so long as we follow through as indicated above and immediately destroy anything that we think looks even remotely threatening, state sponsorship of terrorism against America would be over; the major threat to our lives would be gone.
Of course, we will not take such measures any time soon. Altruism will not let us. We will not take such measures until there is widespread understanding of the moral rightness of doing so—that is, until a substantial number of Americans understand that self-interest is moral and self-sacrifice is evil—and we are a long way from that. But such measures are morally correct—they are what we should do—and everyone who understands that they are should say so loudly and clearly. By placing such actions on the table for discussion, we create an opportunity to explain why they are morally correct—and that is what Americans (and westerners in general) most desperately need to learn.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2006/08/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem-in-5-easy-steps/
As long as you stay away from gov’t service, foreign policy, national security and military strategy, you can play stupid all day.
Allison you have hit the nail right on the head. I agree with you 150%.
The project you are referring to is about jihad culture, or “the things jihadis do when they don’t fight.” It is inspired by the observation that militants in the underground spend a lot of time doing things that appear to serve no immediate military purpose, like singing songs, reciting poetry, or discussing dreams. They also do unexpected things like weep on a regular basis, notably when reciting the Qur’an.
The infamous Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi, for example, was known among fellow militants as both “the butcher” (al-dhabbah) and “a weeper” (baki). All this “soft matter” of jihadism remains virtually unstudied; one reason, I think, is that it has been considered less consequential than the hard stuff of terror, such as attacks, resources, organizational structures and the like.
My hypothesis is that jihad culture is not inconsequential at all; instead I think it may shed important new light on the processes by which jihadi groups recruit, exercise organizational control and make tactical decisions. I am sure that the military men and women reading this blog will find all this rather intuitive, because they have experienced the important role of music and rituals in their own organization.
As a first step in the inquiry, I am currently working with a great team of scholars on an edited volume that will explore various dimensions of jihad culture. I have recruited subject specialists – including a musicologist, an Arabic poetry expert, and an anthropologist of dreams – to help document and decipher al-Qaida’s internal culture. We are only scraping the surface of this vast topic but hopefully it will inspire others to dig deeper.
Eventually I hope to write a monograph on some aspect of this topic, but that’s a few years down the line.
Is your post a satire? Are you really studying the soft (feminine side) of a murderous monster like Zarqawi? What next, a CD of Himmler’s favorite operas while stoking the ovens at Treblinka? The only weeping that the jihadists will do is when they spend eternity in hell for their monstrous shedding of innocent blood.
A great study, I commend you on this, sir. That should show the human side of these people and shed more light to our understanding and hopefully a solution will come from it. Bravo to you for your efforts, it’s too bad Americans are less inclined to understand their enemies, maybe the thousands of our young won’t have to die every year for nothing.
At the risk of bringing some coherence to this barrage of comments which veered off dramatically from the subject, would it be impolite to ask if “outreach” could at times have been “collaboration” or “service for pay?”
Just finish a good favorably reviewed book, “In the Garden of the Beasts” by Erik Larson. The world simply could not believe what they saw in early NAZI Germany nor react. AMB Dodd and the Berlin Embassy had problems with the SA and others beating and torturing US citizens. The NAZIs said they were sorry, but asked how you could blame their people who are now finally free? Sounds like Egypt now, to me.
The Mein Kampf British edition was bowdlerized so as not to create a ‘climate’ of hate. As a note, hate has an element of envy, disdain does not and the two should not be conflated as some above have done.
What I see above is a desire for easy exculpation to make friends: oh it is not their fault, it is those baddies who drove them too it.
Racism is an easy word, short of like heretic for the Holy Office. It should not be applied to cultural criticism. All cultures are not equal, and that can be tested by the flow of people to one place and another.
“If the President of the United States thinks he can instill tolerance by being nice to militant Islamic leaders, he is jeopardizing the safety of the very people he is sworn to protect. The kindest one can say is that the President is misguided.”
Therein lies the problem. We have a man that has the ‘authority’ over the nation opening doors to an enemy. All it would take to STOP this crap is a word from the POTUS. Currently the POTUS is AWOL and playing with an extremely dangerous enemy – one which we know unequivocally to be the most murderous and insane to ever span the years since its tenets were penned in the Quran, Haditha, Sunna. We are the Gates of Vienna – and Islam is STILL on the march.
There is no excuse for Obama; it’s HIS watch and he’s the only POTUS to have benefitted from a “treasure trove” of intelligence regarding the current physical jihad around the world. Obama remains unmoved and clueless … maybe something this last weekend may have stirred his heart and informed his conscience regarding the severity of our problem with Islam.
We’ll see … if he VETO’s the unilateral Islamic proposal for ‘palestinian statehood’ at the U.N. hatefest in a couple of weeks. If the POTUS fails to veto the Islamic proposal; he will signal to the entire world that he is on board with the Islamofascists and partnered in their anti-American and anti-Israel agenda. Lord have mercy.
Why is America such a dangerous place to live? The government MAKES it a dangerous place. The FBI recruits at mosques, including ones controlled by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
And note who work at the FBI:
Celebrating 9/11 at the FBI
FrontPageMagazine| February 11, 2004
When
linguist Sibel showed up for her first day of work at the
FBI, a week after the 9-11 attacks, she was offered cookies filled with dates set out in the room where other Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance translate terror-related
communications. The dessert is customarily served in the
Middle East at celebrations, and asked what
the happy occasion was.
To her shock, she was told the Arab linguists
were celebrating the terrorist attacks on America, as if they were some
joyous event. Right in front of her supervisor, one translator cheered:”It’s about time they got a taste of what they’ve been giving the Middle East.”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14210
When President Bush asked HUGE terrorist supporter Alamoudi to post-9/11 events (and Siddiqi), Bush spat on the graves of our cherished 3,000. The suffering and terrible deaths of our 3,000 were regarded as irrelevant.
Reacting to the mass slaughter of innocents, the top priority was to HONOR Islam, the same priority as it is today, with Obama, Bloomberg, NYC officials and other leaders’ strong support for a victory mosque honoring Islam at sacred Ground Zero.
The term “Muslim outreach” is a cleverly devised phrase to cover up both the Democrats and Republicans affinity for, and close working relationship with Muslim terrorists.
The government in a warning made it clear who they consider to be the enemy: Patriotic Americans – Tea Party attendees, pro-lifers, American veterans returning from the wars.
A recent Homeland Security video characterizes white Americans as the most likely terrorists! WAKE UP, AMERICA! Patriotic, law-abiding Americans are being deliberately demonized for future severe persecution!
Google: Concentration camps in America
and Detention camps in America
These camps are NOT for Muslim terrorists!
Some of the government’s Muslim outreach has been pretty successful. For example, reaching out and touching al-Zarqawi with a 500 pound bomb worked great. Same with Bin Laden. The Obama adminstration reached out to Bin Laden, touched him with a couple of rounds…and, now he’s doing exactly what we want him to do…namely burning in hell for eternity.
See, Muslim outreach can work, and work well, if you employ the correct outreach tools.
America`s government did not fail on the muslim problem. The American government was bought lock stock and barrel, by the suadi`s!
And just this year Siddiqi, the former head of ISNA and current head of the Orange Couinty mosque was honred as a community leader by the politically-correct Orange County Human relations Commission.
Hi Guys, you’re doing great. Make more people aware of the threat from islam. Oppose it and send them muslims who are trying islam back to the middle east.
here’s a book I read which give lots of information about the evils of islam and its available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Deception-Allah/dp/0982413726/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1310184452&sr=8-2
wonderful points altogether, you simply won a emblem new reader. What could you suggest about your submit that you just made a few days ago? Any certain?
whoah this weblog is great i love reading your articles. Stay up the great paintings! You know, lots of persons are hunting around for this info, you could aid them greatly.