Terrorist Incitement

The excrement comes from Marifah, an Islamic forum. Its authenticity is confirmed by MEMRI. In the articles, quoted from al-Qaeda's new web magazine, Abu Basir Nasir al-Wuhayshi and Anwar al awlaki, exhort Muslims living in America to take revenge for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day and other criticism of Moe.

Asked for his advice to Muslims residing in the West, Abu Basir Nasir al-Wuhayshi replied that they should arm and train themselves for violence.

My advise to my Muslim brothers in the West is to acquire weapons and learn methods of war. They are living in a place where they can cause great harm to the enemy and where they can support the Messenger of Allah.

Note the clause which I emphasized, it has a basis in the Qur'an.

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah's Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun

I added emphasis to one crucial clause in the penultimate sentence to make one point extremely clear: taking any step to anger or injure disbelievers is imputed to a Muslim's credit as righteousness. Causing "great harm to the enemy" is valuable to Muslims because Allah will weigh their good deeds against their sins; the balance will determine their eternal destination.

There is no meaning in life if the Messenger of Allah is cursed while they listen to and see such crimes being committed in front of their eyes. It is not enough to defend him, may my father and mother be sacrificed for him, to participate in demonstrations and protests because these methods would not stop the West which is already used to them. The successful means are through explosive devices and sacrficing souls. That is more pronounced and successful way of defending him and this is a practice started by the Taliban of Pakistan, Nidal Hassan, and 'Umar al-Faruq, may Allah release them and on this path are men who are coming to you by the will of Allah.

Life loses its meaning for a Muslim who does not kill someone who criticizes Moe. Bombing and shooting are effective remedies. ....

O Muslims rise up in defense of your Messenger: a man with his knife, a man with his gun, a man with his rifle, a man with his bomb, by learning how to design explosive devices, by burning down forests and buildings, or by running over them with your cars and trucks. The means of harming them are many so seek assistance from Allah and do not be weak and you will find a way. The rights of the Messenger of Allah upon us are great and it is nothing for all of us to die for his sake; may our mothers be bereaved of us if we do not defend him.

Moe, who has been dead for 1368 years, has a right to the death of his critics? Yeah, right. The message of Anwar al Awlaki is similar.

The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is the execution of those involved. A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), the mercy to makind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards its Lord that it defames the Prophet(pbuh) of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve lfe, does not deserve to breathe the air created by Allah and enjoy a life provided for by Allah. Their proper abode is Hellfire.

Of course, the Imam cites precedent.

The Messenger of Allah(pbuh) called for assassination of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf and there are other incidents of his companions killing those who spoke against him. There was a blacklist of names of people in Makkah that were to be killed even if found hanging on to the clothes of al Ka'ba, the holiest site in Islam. This list included, among others, women who sang poetry defaming Muhamed(pbuh). Even though Muhammed(pbuh) prohibited the killing of women who are non-combatants, these women were an exception because of their unprecedented transgression.

Next, he complains that the system is supporting Moe's critics, making the entirety of Western Civilization in a state of war against Islam.

...The main elements in this system are the laws that make blasphemy legal. Because they are practicing a "right" that is defended by the law, they have the backing of the entire Western political system. This would make the attacking of any Western target legal from an Islamic viewpoint. The entire Western system is staunchly protecting and promoting the defamation of Muhammed (pbuh) and therefore, it is the entire Western system that is at war with Islam. Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.

We have the First Amendment because free speech is necessary for the preservation of liberty in a republican form of government. We must be able to criticize and question elected officials and candidates. We must also be free to criticize and question their policies & proposed legislation. Without free speech, our government could devolve into tyranny.

We must also be free to discuss inimical systems which threaten and attack us. Between 1787 and 1815, Muslim pirates attacked our shipping. President Jefferson gave them a lesson in civility, the effect of which has worn off.

According to Muslims, Moe is the greatest and best of men, a role model for everyone to emulate and his cult is the "right religion". How are we to judge those assertions without allowing the presentation of evidence? That requires free speech.

Allah selected as his ultimate messenger a man, who, after his selection as seal of the prophets, married the six year old daughter of his best friend and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. According to Muslims, I just blasphemed Allah & his messenger. They say I should be killed for that.
I have evidence, from Islam's own cannon.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

That is a muttawir hadith; there are other narrators who back it up. Go to http://www.islaam.net/main/hadithsearch.php and search for six years old. If it ain't true, why is it included in the most authentic of the hadith collections?

Allah's ultimate messenger ordered the murder of a critic.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Awlaki cited that hadith in his magazine article. Is it possible that a pedophile and murderer was a saint who brought us the right religion? "Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger." Allah, the most merciful? In a pig's anus!!!

Muslims bitterly kvetch about wrongly associating Islam with terrorism. That complaint is included in their UN resolutions demanding global blasphemy laws. I mustn't mention the fact that Allah said he would cast terror, Allah did cast terror, with consequences and Moe bragged about winning with terror because that would be "negative stereotyping". Kiss my foot.

It is time to pull your heads out of the sand and admit the fact that we need to be rid of Islam. Sign the International Qur'an Petition and exhort everyone you can hope to influence to sign it and induce others to follow suit.

While we wait for the World Court to enforce international human rights covenants against Islam, lets amend the Constitution to acknowledge the fact that Islam is a predatory war cult, not a religion so we can outlaw it. Sign the Outlaw Islam! petition and urge your friends to sign it.

Why Don't We Draft a Bill to Outlaw Islam ?

One signer of the International Qur'an Petition asked a question which deserves an answer.

If Islam is a terrorist org., and it is, than why don't we draft a bill to outlaw it from our country and encourage other countries to do the same. That is the real petition we should be getting out there. Richard Margarit

We can not outlaw Islam with an act of Congress because of the First Amendment. The free exercise clause forbids such legislation. Removing Islam from the penumbra of the free exercise clause requires an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment must recognize the fact that Islam is a predatory way of life with a religious component, not a religion in the normal sense of the word.

Such an amendment was proposed by Pedestrian Infidel in March of '07. That proposal inspired the Outlaw Islam!! petition. The first of this pair of links is to the body of the petition in html format including links to Islamic texts. The second link is to the petition's signature form. At present, it has 182 signatures.

Today, 37 people clicked through from Islam Exposed to Freedom Ain't Free and one more came from another source. Yesterday, the petition was viewed five times. Only one of those 43 readers clicked through to sign the petition. The total number of page views is 1,857.

It is up to us, Richard, to read & sign the petitions and share it with others. The list of on line petitions in the sidebar at Islam Exposed was one of the reasons cited by Pakistan's Ministry of Telecommunications for banning the blog.

Islamophobia: the CAIR Sampler

Barenaked Islam posted a CAIR video featuring audio clips critical of Islam, labeling them Islamophobia. Barenaked Islam exploits the definition of Islamophobia.

It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.

Phobia means irrational fear. Since the death of thousands nearly nine years ago, we know that fear of Islam is rational.

Those who have sampled Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, biography, exegesis and jurisprudence know that revulsion is a rational reaction to Islamic doctrine & practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6REJbJvoQ7Y&feature=player_embedded

The video is entitled "Islamophobia A growing problem". What is problematic? A slowly growing segment of our society is becoming aware of Islam, the hatred it inculcates and the violence it sanctifies and incites.

CAIR does not want us to know that Islam is intrinsically violent; that it has declared and is prosecuting war and subversion against us.

The unspoken subtext is "Islamophobia" breeds intolerance, contempt and assault". Intolerance of the intolerable is a good thing. Islam can not be tolerated because it is intolerant, supremacist and genocidally aggressive.

Knowing the truth about Islam and Muslims, awareness of the fact that we need to get rid of them does not imply assault, murder or arson. Those acts are crimes in our society, and offenders are prosecuted. Reasonable people are not advocating murdering Muslims or bombing Mosques. We advocate outlawing Islam, closing the Mosques and deporting the Muslims for our protection and the preservation of our way of life.

The video begins with a clip from a Dan Fanelli campaign spot. The narrator says "Rising Islamophobia in our nation endangers the rights of American Muslims and creates unjustified fear and hostility towards Islam."

What rights are endangered? How are they endangered? Is there a right not to be recognized as a threat to our system of government and way of life?

Able bodied adult male Muslims who are not indebted nor enslaved are bound by a "religious obligation" classified as fard al-kifaya, to engage in attacks against nearby disbelievers. That obligation is specified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.1.

The second segment begins with this heading "U.S. Senator James Inhofe advocating profiling of Middle Eastern men when speaking at a Senate hearing. "

The clip shows the Senator saying "I believe in racial and ethnic profiling."

CAIR is attacking common sense. All of the recent Islamic terror attacks were perpetrated by young Muslim males. Anyone not suspicious of young men from areas of the world where Islam predominates is several cards short of a full deck.

When it comes to Islamic terrorism, Muslims are the natural prime suspects. Lets solve this problem by excluding all Muslims from all mass transit.

Congresswoman Sue Myrick is up next "there are people who literally are willing to blow themselves up like this guy did--to commit jihad because they believe in a bigger cause and that cause is what they want to do to us: they want to destroy western democracies, they want to bring down America, they want us to live by their rules."

CAIR's objection to her honest statement of fact speaks volumes about CAIR and about Islam.

Next we are treated to a sign, outside the Dove World Church, which says "Islam is of the devil.". The narrator says "Anti-Islam rhetoric has become more explicit and more extreme since the 9/11 attacks."

No mention of relevance or veracity, just how explicit and extreme it is. We are to assume that Islam and Christianity share a common deity since both are monotheistic. If there is only one deity, they must be the same. But "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...". Contrast that with Allah, who rubbed Adam's shoulders to produce one group of people for the fire and another for Paradise. In Surah al-Anfal 67, Allah told Moe that he could not hold captives for ransom until he had "made a great slaughter". He said Moe wanted booty, but Allah wanted to get Moe into Paradise. Does the Christian God require genocide? If the Dove World Church believes and wants to tell the world that Allah is demonic, that is their right, ain't it?

Next we have Congressman Peter King saying "Unfortunately, we have too many Mosques in this country, there is too many people sympathetic to radical Islam, we should be looking at them more carefully. "

I view that as a rare episode of candor, of which we need more, not less. CAIR views it as "Islamophobia".

The narrator says "anti-Islam views expressed by elected officials, can severely impact the ability of American Muslims to engage in the positive civic participation that is every American's right.". That statement comes over the image of Geert Wilders speaking at an American synagogue.

"Admit that Islam is not a religion, admit that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, in other words, the rights to religious freedom do not apply to the totalitarian ideology called Islam."

That is a pretty tough admission to make, and, to the best of my knowledge, no American elected officials have made it.

The fact is that Islam is not a religion; it is a way of life: intra-species predation. Islam's religious component serves as a control mechanism to motivate Muslims to go to war and as a camouflage to prevent us from recognizing it as a predator.

The caption for the next segment is "Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter". She says: "I said we are at war with all these fanatics and we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.".

Ann just told you why we are losing in Afghanistan & Iraq: they are still Muslim. That is a fatal fact, too hot for most to suggest, far to hot for politicians to state explicitly.

Next up: "Christian televangelist Pat Robertson", who cuts loose with this classic remark. "...then if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"....

Islam is not a religion, but it does involve beheading infidels, as we saw in the case of Nick Berg and others. The boiling oil comes later, after we arrive in the Hell fire. But the decapitation is commanded in Surah al-anfal 12.

Pastor Rod Parsley is up next. "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."

Horrible! Pastor Parsley confused deen with religion, which is only part of the deen. We see Islamic advertisements that claim Jesus Christ as a "Prophet of Islam". But those advertisements do not tell us that, according to their scripture, Jesus was not crucified, did not die and was not resurrected. Nor do they tell us that he will return to lead the Muslims in battle and the final genocide against us. Lying is as much by what they conceal as what they dissemble.

Franklin Gaham is up next. "True Islam can not be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife, you cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in some..."

True, Islam does permit wife beating and honoricide. It also permits having as many as four wives at once. It permits a Muslim to divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times. All of those things are contrary to American law.

Next up, saving the best for next to last, we have Pamela Geller, among signs endorsing liberty, memorializing the slain and condemning Codoba House, telling it as it is.

"This is an insult, it is demeaning, this is humiliating, that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11".

Geller is followed by a man I do not recognize saying "This house of evil will be the birthplace of the next terrorist event."

Perhaps, but the plot could, and likely will be hatched somewhere else. But the fact remains, that in every Mosque, Jews and Christians are cursed five times every day when they recite the first Surah of the Qur'an as part of their prayers. Fifteen Muslims died in a Mosque in Afghanistan when the bomb they were building detonated prematurely.

Our narrator returns. "Whether it is anti-Muslim commentators, extremist religious leaders, Muslim bashing politicians or fear mongering dvds sent to millions of American homes, Islam and the American Muslim community are being targeted by hate and intolerance. But with your help, Islamophobia can be challenged and overcome through education and understanding. "

The wise gentlemen who founded this nation gave us something most of the world lacks: the right of free inquiry and expression. we are free to investigate institutions and issues; free to share what we learn. Our founders knew that the right to accurate criticism of government policy and candidates for office is an absolute requirement for the preservation of liberty. If we can not identify threats to our liberty and accurately describe them, we can not preserve liberty.

Islam presents a clear, proximate & persistent threat to our liberty. Islam, through the offices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Islamic law forbids, under penalty of death, the reviling of Allah, Moe & Islam. If you are a conquered Christian living in Egypt or Pakistan, any negative statement ab out Islam, true or not, gets you tortured and killed.

Every year, they ram "defamation of religion" resolutions through the UNHRC & General Assembly. Those resolutions specifically condemn and demand the criminalization of all association of Islam & terrorism. Casting terror is sanctified by 3:151 and commanded by 8:12. It is exemplified by 33:26-27. Moe bragged about it, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. If they get their way, they'll be able to fine me and throw me in prison for publishing this fatal fact.

In November, the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Contemporary Standards will meet again to formulate their proposed protocol to ICERD. The protocol will have the force of law, trumping the First Amendment. We absolutely must stop those fiends from stifling free speech! We must rise up as one, disrespectfully demanding the preservation of our hard won rights. Once lost, recovering those rights will be a difficult, bloody, costly and probably impossible quest.

It is a little know fact that unenforced provisions of ICERD, ICCPR & \CPPCG require that Islam be proscribed by law. We need to obtain enforcement of those human rights covenants before Islam can modify them to use against us. We have one instrument we can use:

International Qur'an Petition

For the love of liberty, sign that petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can influence. Urge the recipients to sign and forward it. Make it go viral. Put a link to it on your blog or web site. If you won't do that, you don't value your life and liberty enough to deserve them.


It was not without good reason that Moe warned his companions not to carry the Qur'an into Dar ul-harb .

Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.2.7:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade travelling with a Qur'an in the land of the enemy. Malik commented, "That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it."

They need to make it illegal to criticize Islam. We need to stop them.
What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm contains what you need to know about Islam, the documentation of the facts revealed above.

• Ad Hoc Committee On Compelmentary standards (126.1K pdf) Compiled from a series of blog posts about a proposed protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam. The cmte meets from Oct. 19-30 '09 to write the protocol.
• Ad Hoc Cmte On Complementary Stds 125KB pdf compiled from several blog posts.
• Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf containing Google's Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.
• “Defamation” Resolutions: Restricted Liberty Impaired Rights 01/04/10 Several excellent articles have been written about the (unintended?) consequences of the UN’s resolutions Combating Defamation of Religions. Now two courageous writers have added a new dimension to the discussion by generalizing about the consequences on the ground and naming the prime offender.
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance 12/20/09 The final form of the resolution.
• Defamation || Negative Stereotyping 11/05/09 What's the difference?!
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09 Link to and dissection of the new resolution plus extensive links to previous resolutions & related documents.

Join this Group to Protest the Ground Zero Mosque!

178,599 178,606 Facebook users have joined 1,000,000+ people who disapprove of building a mosque at Ground Zero!
.
Yes, I am one of the seven new members. I believe that this sort of Facebook group is a good way to demonstrate our solidarity in opposition to the erection of a symbol of Islamic supremacy at Ground Zero.

I found three petition links in the discussion threads. Lets all sign these and pass them on.

• http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/dear-imama-rauf-and-daily-khan.html

• http://tool.donation-net.net/public/ACT4A/entrance/enter.cfm?dn=1097&source=2013&refer=2013&CFID=8781216&CFTOKEN=69993369

• https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3598&ac=1

A search turned up a few more groups dedicated to this issue.

• NO TO THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
• 42,355
• http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/nogroundzeromosque
• NO MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO !
• 330
• NO "MOSQUES" next to 9/11 Memorial Site - NO Cordoba House (mosque)
• 4,119

Only you can increase those numbers, erecting a wall of solidarity to block the Ground Zero Mosque. Will you do it, or will you sit as a silent observer while Islam erects its symbol of triumph over the bones of our fallen heroes ?

Ground Zero Mosque: the Fix

A fiery post by Barenaked Islam brought a detailed and well illustrated post by Atlas Shrugs to my attention. According to Pam Geller, the Landmark Commission met on a 1.5 week notice to consider its recommendation on granting protected landmark status to the Burlington Coat Factory which the Muslims seek to replace with a Mosque as a symbol of Islamic supremacism.

One journalist noted that the "CB1 Landmarks committee, which is a stickler for details when someone wants to install new windows or awnings, voted to recommend to the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission that landmark status not be given to the two antique buildings on Park Place that the owner wants to tear down to build the mega-mosque at Ground Zero."

The historical significance of the property is clear: it was designed by the famous architect Daniel D. Badger. A number of his buildings have already been given landmark status. The New York Times obituary (19 Nov. 1884, p. 2) for Daniel D. Badger (1806-1884), read in part, "Daniel D. Badger, the pioneer of this country in the use of iron for building purposes" ....... Further, the building was the headquarters of Merck & Company from 1911 to 1925.

More importantly, his building has special historical significance because of 911. It was part of the attack. The landing gear of one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers flew out to the Burlington Coat Factory building, and fell through the roof to the basement. The fact that the committee ignores that fact is outrageous, and disrespects the victims of 911.

It is obvious that the Landmarks Commission is going to deny landmark status at its meeting next Tuesday. Again, why the mad rush? So that the mosque can open on the tenth anniversary of September 11th, as promised?

Geller states that the building has historical, architectural & cultural significance. And, of course, part of one of the aircraft rests in its basement. She includes historical details and photographs of the facade.

The full board is scheduled to meet later this month, but they want to ram the vote through in a hurry, Tuesday. Why the rush when?

The LPC has had the Property “calendared” for landmark consideration since 1989, tabled for 22 years. Only within the last two weeks has it provided the public notice that it would be making a decision. It is doing this without full public input, and in the dead of summer, when many people aren't around to provide input.

There probably is no way to get the local state or federal governments to stop the Cordoba House project. Its opponents must act to make the project too costly in terms of public relations.

Rick Barber's campaign spot and Pat Condell's curmudgeonly video excoriating the project led the way, pointing out the fact that the Abomination was done in Allah's name, with shouts of "Alla-hu Akbar!" while slitting the flight crew's throats. Pam Geller followed up by referring to the project as a symbol of Islamic supremacy in several televised interviews.

We need more of those advertisements & interviews and more street protests, and we need more people involved in those demonstrations. Cordoba House must be made too costly in terms of associating Islam with terrorism, triumphalism & supremacism. The proposed erection of a mega Mosque two blocks from the scene of a horrific sneak attack upon civilians affords an opportunity to expose the damnable doctrines of Islam to public view.

Why are there two Mosques, but no Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount? Why do Muslims strive to destroy any archaeological evidence of the Temples and sever the historical connection of Jews to Jerusalem? Why did they tear down pagan temples and build Mosques on the ruins when they conquered India? Why did they replace churches with Mosques in Constantinople?

Why do they shout "Allah is greater!" in Arabic while slitting throats? Those are the same takbir they use while sacrificing cattle for eid. Why won't the mainstream media point that out?

Why did Allah say "fight them" & "fight those who"? Why did Allah say "... nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness."

Why did Allah say that he would cast terror and that he did cast terror, resulting in killing some, captivating others and seizure of their property? Why did Moe say that he was helped by awe and made victorious with terror?

Why can't Christians in Egypt repair and maintain churches? Why can't Christians in Saudi Arabia build churches or meet in the privacy of their apartments?

Muslims and their apologists among our elected officials strive diligently to suppress those fatal facts and questions. Connecting those fatal facts to the Cordoba House project is our best weapon against it. Only by expressly making that connection can we change the cost/benefit analysis of the project into the red.

Kill the Ground Zero Mosque"

Watch this spot now, before You Tube pulls it down. I can't imagine them letting this stay up for long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0&feature=player_embedded

The hard hitting one minute spot belongs to http://www.goptrust.com/ . it is obviously fund raiser, but it also has educational value. The proposed Cordoba House is a symbol of Islamic supremacy. It follows a longstanding tradition of replacing temples with Mosques when Islam conquers.

With the possible exception of a national historic monument designation, there is probably no legal avenue for stopping the construction of Cordoba House. But we can turn it against Islam by using it as a stage for shining the light of truth on Islam. This advertisement is the third step in a long process. Rick Barber's campaign spot was the first step, SIOA's demonstration was the second. Make it go viral!

Related posts:

• Reject Cordoba House!
• Pat Condell Condemns Cordoba House
• Pamela Geller vs Lying Muslim
• Rick Barber’s Stand Up Campaign Spot

Islam's Relations with Scriptural Religions

Sayyid Qutb wrote a tafsir of the Qur'an called In the Shade of the Qur'an. In the past, links to it have proved to be dead ends. Today a link turned up in a large on line library which did not lead to a dead end. It led to download links for 15 volumes of the shade.

Curious to see what Qutb had written about Surah at-Taubah 29, I downloaded volume 8 and searched for the ayeh of interest, which I found on page 83 of the pdf file. The translation given does not match any of the usual translations word for word, perhaps Qutb did his own translation, but it does contain the essential elements and does not appear to distort the meaning of the ayeh.

Qutb styles his tafsir of this part of the repentance chapter as "Relations with Other Religions". On page 85, he gets down to the detail I sought.

The main amendment the new rulings include is the order given to fight those who deviate from the divine faith until they pay the jizyah, or submission tax, after they have been humbled. No peace agreement may be made with them except on this basis of submission evident by the payment of a special tax which gives them the right to live in peace with the Muslims. On the other hand, if they become convinced
of the truth of Islam and accept it, they are considered part of the Muslim community.

I would have chosen scriptural instead of other in the topic title, and I find only one fault in the critical paragraph quoted above. A hudna or temporary cease fire would be possible if the Muslims found themselves unable to conquer their intended beneficiaries.

The wording of the previous sentence will seem unusual until you adjust your thinking to the Islamic point of view. Islam views us as slaves to tyrannical systems which must be destroyed so that we can be liberated. Think of it as a mirror image of Shrub's dream of liberating Afghanistan & Iraq.

Inevitably, coexistence between the divine system and human systems opposed to it is possible only in certain situations and under specific conditions. These ensure that no material impediments are placed in the way of the implementation of the universal Islamic declaration of the liberation of man from submission to any authority other than God. The divine system wants to prevail so that people are liberated from submission to other human beings and can submit to God alone. By contrast, the other systems want to defend their own status by crushing the movement aiming to establish the divine system in human life.

Qutb confirmed the obvious: 9:29 is an imperative for perpetual offensive warfare against people with scriptural religions other than Islam. The relationship between Islam and us is perpetual war.

Flight 93 Blogburst: the Kagan Connection

Flight 93 Blogburst: the Kagan Connection

A sudden 140 hit spike to Freedom Ain't Free aroused my curiosity. The referral links to Kathy Shaidle's Five Feet of Fury did not work. I was not able to find a link to Freedom Ain't Free or any mention of the Flight 93 Blogbursts on her home page, but the post being hit is : Crescent of Embrace ---> Mecca.

After some reflection, I discovered that I had neglected and overlooked an important email from Alec Rawls containing the latest Blogburst. You will find it inserted below. I checked the code, and find that Rawls is right. My objection to the Kagan nomination is her attitude toward the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. This just adds another ton of bricks to the load. Use the facilities of http://www.congress.org/ to tell your Senators to vote "HELL NO!"..

Kagan lied to Supreme Court in 9/11 case, should be disbarred As Obama's solicitor general, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged the Court to dismiss the suit that our 9/11 families have been pressing against the Saudi government and several Saudi princes for their extensive funding of al Qaeda. The families sued under the domestic tort exception to sovereign immunity, which according to Kagan's Supreme Court brief (at p. 14):

requires not merely that the foreign state’s extraterritorial conduct have some causal connection to tortious injury in the United States, but that “the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee” be committed within the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

The "tortious act or omission" is the wrongful act (the tort) that leads to the injury. Thus she is claiming that for Saudi funding of al Qaeda to be actionable, the funding itself has to have been transacted within the United States. Compare this with the actual wording of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5):

(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case – ... (5) ... in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment..."

Contrary to Kagan's assertion, the law only specifies that the injury has to have occurred within the United States. Not a word about the wrongful act that leads to domestic injury also having to have taken place within the United. Kagan flat lied about the clear wording of a law that goes to the very heart of our ability to use the courts to combat Islamic terrorism, and thanks to the Court's failure to review this crucial case, the simple wording and intent of Congress—that foreign states whose actions do injury in the United States can be sued for those injuries—has now been undone, as if the law had never been passed. "Oops!... I did it again" Kagan proves that her lie was self conscious by also lying about the relevant Supreme Court precedent, claiming (again at p. 14):

In Amerada Hess the Court considered and rejected the argument that domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad satisfy the exception. 488 U.S. at 441.

In fact, the Court in Amerada never considered "the domestic effects of a foreign state's conduct abroad" at all, for the simple reason that there were no domestic injuries in that case. The injuries occurred outside of U.S. territory, which is why the domestic tort exception was held not to apply. Here are the simple facts, as recounted in Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion (joined by Brennan, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy):

... the injury to respondents' ship occurred on the high seas some 5,000 miles off the nearest shores of the United States. Despite these telling facts, respondents nonetheless claim that the tortious attack on the Hercules occurred "in the United States." [At p. 440.]

The Amerada Company ship was attacked at sea. Since the tortious act and the damages from it both occurred "5,000 miles off the nearest shores," the Court did not bother to distinguish between the wrongful act and the injuries from it. Kagan uses this to claim that the Court found Amerada's domestic injuries to be unrecoverable, when in fact the Supremes agreed with the district court that there were no domestic injuries (p. 439-441). Has any solicitor general ever flat lied to the Supreme Court before? Isn't any lawyer who unambiguously lies to the Court about the simple facts of a cited holding subject to disbarment for unethical behavior? And she did it for an unethical purpose: to help the financiers of 9/11 escape justice. Any moral person would either resign in the face of such a job assignment, or would limit himself to making what honest arguments could be mustered. This moral pervert chose to lie and ought to be busted out of the profession for it, not promoted to the highest court in the land. Obama favors a legal response to terror while working to pull the law's teethObama has long been a proponent of shifting from a military response to Islamic terrorism to a civilian/criminal law response. Putting the terrorists in jail is supposedly more effective shooting them on the battlefield. This is why Attorney General Eric Holder decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York City. There is supposedly nothing Mohammad wants less than a public platform for crowing that America must submit or die, while credibly demanding that we must either reveal our intelligence secrets or let him go free. It is an insane idea, seeking to move the fight against Islamic terror to an arena that disarms us and empowers them, but even that isn't enough for Obama. He has to have his solicitor general lie to the Supreme Court for him in a way that guts what laws Congress has already passed for fighting terror in the courts. First he moves the fight to our relatively toothless courts, then he pulls what teeth the courts have. If Obama's gutting of the legal fight against terror is intentional it means that he prefers America to have NO effective defense against Islamic terrorists (perhaps because they are his co-religionists). Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court is a clear indication of this intent. Obama is ratifying, in the strongest possible way, her gutting of the law, and like Kagan, he also proves intent by repetition, nominating Kagan's partner in crime, James Cole, to be his Deputy Attorney General. Oops!... Obama does it again: DAG nominee also favors a legal response to terror while working to pull the law's teeth Shortly after 9/11, Cole wrote that, since the targets were primarily civilian, the 9/11 attacks should not be viewed as acts of war, but as violations of civilian law, to be combated through our civilian court system. If Cole really wanted to make the civilian courts our main line of defense against Islamic terrorism he would be for aggressive use of the courts in this fight, but in practice, he comes down on the other side, arguing as the lawyer for one of the implicated Saudi princes that the family suit to recover damages from the 9/11 attacks is invalid. Cole's service to the Saudis creates "a direct conflict of interest" writes Debra Burlingame:

In light of this history, it is impossible to fathom how Mr. Cole can ethically carry out his duties and responsibilities as the de facto head of the Justice Department while U.S. troops are fighting terrorists who receive funding and support from organizations associated with the Saudi government and their proxies. This is a direct conflict of interest. Given Saudi NGOs’ continued involvement in terrorist facilitation world-wide and their connection to the Saudi royal family, this conflict of interest will cripple Mr. Cole’s ability to ethically perform his duties as head of a department charged with investigating and prosecuting terrorist facilitators associated with or working for the Saudi government.

Yes well, to Obama, that's a feature, not a bug. Like Obama, Cole is against a military response to Islamic terror and he is against a civilian court response. In sum, neither of them want the United States to fight on any front, but want us instead to appease and submit to Islamic terror. Which is nothing new. Obama's entire Department of Justice is of the same stripe:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in. [Byron York February 2010.]

Which is worse, the DOJ lawyers who defended terrorists pro bono on the basis of shared contempt for America, or the DAG nominee who defends the financiers of terror for a share of their filthy lucre? "Why decide?" says Obama: "Hire 'em all!" So long as they are defenders of al Qaeda, its all good. Why isn't Congress fighting back?While Obama's terror-defending lawyers are determined to secure rights and civilian court appearances for Islamic terrorists who should be treated as criminal combatants under military justice, they are equally determined to prevent our 9/11 families from getting their day in court, despite the clear intent of Congress that they should. It is time for Congress to start fighting back. The Supreme Court shamefully failed to review a blatant subversion of congressional intent on a crucial front of the war against terror, but Congress doesn't have to take it lying down. How about passing a clarification to the domestic tort exception that explicitly renounces Kagan's attempt to gut the clear intent of the law? Just use the Senate hearings on Kagan's nomination (commencing this week) to expose her devastating lies to the Supreme Court and to agitate for a clarification of the law that would allow the families' suit to proceed. Kagan would be routed, and the destruction she has wreaked on our terror war efforts would be repaired, killing two dirty birds with one stone. From Error Theory. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url. Most Flight 93 blogburst posts are about our effort to stop the Park Service from planting the world's largest mosque atop the Flight 93 crash site, but sometimes they are on related topics. What is the relation between the crescent mosque and the suit against Saudi funding of al Qaeda? Both are spearheaded by Tom Burnett Senior (father of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Junior), who is lead plaintiff in the families' lawsuit and co-sponsor of our petition to stop the Flight 93 memorial. Please join us:

Hector Aleem: Update

Sometimes it is good to be wrong. This is one of those times. I assumed that Hector had been murdered when he disappeared from the jail. The latest update from his family reveals that I was excessively pessimistic. Hector has been returned to the jail after being tortured.

The story of Hector Aleem's torment is illustrative of what happens when Islam gains power over people. Don't let this happen here!!

Mehwish Aleem July 3 at 4:12pm Reply

Dear all group members,

First of all welcome all new group members, please invite your friends to join this group.

1st July was daddy's hearing and luckily I got five minutes to meet him and he told me lots of things in those five minutes. Here are the details:

Daddy told me that people from FIA (Fedral investigation Agency) came and took daddy to some unknown place. There they kept him for five days and during those five days they beat him and tortured him mentaly and physically. Daddy told me that members of Sunni Tehreek (a terrorist organization in Pakistan) and their head Mulana Tahir Iqbal Chisti who is also the plantiff of our case was there. We only know that they tortured daddy, but we dont know how they tortured him because we had only five minutes. But daddy showed me his swelled hands and feet which had bruises on them. He was very very weak and he could barely stand. Then he told me that a person named Shehzad who is 25 years old and is locked up in a cell next to daddy's cell made a Crucifix on a bed sheet. Then he disrespected the Cross by walking on it and after that he urinated and spitted on it and then he wiped feces with it. When daddy informed Ashraf (head Warder) and Imtiaz (an Incharge who assists Ashraf) then they not only encouraged that man and also didn't take any action against him. They told him if he do it next time then they would be more happy of him and he would be given much more facilities in jail. In the end daddy said " first I was being tortured physically and now they are hurting me religiously and mentally". Daddy is not allowed to go to Church, not on Christmas nor Easter. He is not even allowed to pray in his own cell. Its a request to please tell the Suprietendent o the jail to let daddy pray and visit Church. I am giving you his address and phone number, but remember DO NOT day anything against Islam or Pakistan because that can put daddy's life in danger.

Here is the address: To the Suprintendant of Jail, Adyala Jail, Rawalpindi Pakistan.

Phone number o suprintendent is: 0092-51-557-4786

Daddy is being kept in a death cell which is a very small and dark room. He can only see the sky when he comes out for the hearing.

*****Update of Hearing*****

The Judge was absent so nothing happened and the next date is 7th July 2010. It is requested to please keep on donating as the lawyer is asking for his fee. The lawyer is not moving without the fee and we must give him the fee asap to get daddy out of that jail. You can donate through any way you want, and any amount you can. You can donate through pay pal and through western union or any other way.

Here is the link to the paypal: http://tinyurl.com/hectoraleem

And if you wanna donate through western union then contact Mehwish Aleem (in the group Admin)

We recieved each and every kind of amount, from $5 to $1000 so any amount helps.

Keep praying, we need your prayers

Regards

Mehwish Aleem

Is Dr. Sott Smearing Rep. Andre Carson ?

Dr. Marvin Scott's campaign position on Islam has drawn media attention from News8, wishtv.com whose coverage of the issue appears to suggest or hint that Dr Scott is running a smear campaign against Representative Andre Carson in Indiana's 7^th District. Barenaked Islam posted Dr. Scott's position and a video of the suggestive news report.


If the video does not appear above, use this link to view the video and read the related article.

The position page begins with a densely packed preambular paragraph which I will break down point by point. His points are in the outer node, my commentary in the inner node of the unenumerated list. Bold blue, underlined text is linked to a source document. Links to the Qur'an and hadith are direct. Some links to Reliance of the Traveller will require searching for the book letter, chapter & reference numbers.

• Dr. Scott first quotes the establishment & free exercise clauses of the first amendment.
• Problem: the Constitution does not define religion nor does it list covered institutions. Islam is not a religion, Muslims call it a deen: way of life. That way of life is intra-species predation. Islam's "original religion" is jihad: to war upon non-believers. The religious component of Islam serves a dual purpose: to conceal its true mission from our eyes and to motivate the mujahideen with threats of Hell & promises of Paradise.
• Every American has, and should have, the right to worship in the way they personally see fit.
• That includes jihad, terrorism & genocide, which are mandatory sacraments of Islam. Killing others and being killed in Allah's cause is what Muslims do; therir purpose in life.
• America stands for honoring and protecting that God given right.
• If Muslims have that right, then the rest of us have no rights! Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims; we have no rights until we become Muslims.
• No such thought or law exists in any Muslim country on the face of the earth.
• Islamic law forbids religious processions, reciting the Gospel aloud, displaying crosses and building churches.
• If Muslim law were to be imposed in our country, freedom of religion would disappear here as it has in Muslim countries around the globe.
• As demonstrated above by reference to Reliance of the Traveller, freedom of religion is for Muslims only where Allah's writ runs..
• Islam advocates the eventual elimination of all Christians and Jews.
• It declares war upon us in Surah at-Taubah 29. Moe prophesies that Muslims must hunt down and kill the last Jew before the gates of Paradise will be opened to them. He also prophesied that Jesus will return to fight the people for Islam and destroy Christianity & Judaism.
• We are threatened by past and current deadly acts committed in the name of Islam.
• Technically, those attacks were carried out in the name of Allah, Islam's deity; Muslims pronounced takbir while slitting throats & shooting: "Ahllah-hu Akhbar".
• We are threatened by those who want Shariah or Muslim law to be honored and to eventually replace our law.
• Advocacy of Shari'ah is a threat whether the advocacy is through dawa, deceit, demographics or jihad. Islamic law requires that 1/8 of 2.5% of each Shari'ah compliant transaction be distributed to those waging war against us. See Reliance of the Traveller, Book H8.17.
• Women are cruelly and regularly subjugated to second class status by many practicing Muslims.
• Although it is an artifact of Arabic tribalism, it is sanctioned by the Qur'an & hadith; see Islamic Mysoginy for the most significant details.
• Honor killings of women are widespread in the Muslim world and happen in our country too.
• Honoricide has been in the news recently, beyond any doubt. Shari'ah declares that there is no indemnity for killing one's offspring. Refer to Reliance of the Traveller Book O1.2-4.
• Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR (the Counsil on American Islamic Relations) said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant”.
• Ahmad denies saying it, the reporter affirms that he did. Refer to Surah at-Taubah 33, Sahih Muslim 20.4482, and The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book.
• Many Muslims are respectful and model citizens, but many are not.
• Big deal; The same can be said of Christians. But Islam is inimical to our lives and liberties, by design. Members of sleeper cells can disguise themselves as secular, Muslims in name only. Secular Muslims can become zealots.
• Radical elements of Islam are funding and building mosques across America and they use our laws to protect themselves while advocating the overthrow of our laws and our way of life in their mosques and online.
• Adjectives such as "radical" & "extreme", when applied to Islam and Muslims, imply a false dichotomy. Orthodox Islam as Moe preached and practiced it is genocidal violence, neither peaceful nor moderate. There are Muslims who are not true believing zealots. There is no moderate Islam.
• Attacks against America and Americans here and in other parts of the world can not and should not be ignored or explained away.
• Those attacks flow from Islamic doctrine & tradition, not from our foreign policy or actions. American shipping was attacked by the Barbary Pirates between 1787 and 1815 without any provocation on our part.
• We are forced to be, based on their acts and statements, at war with radical Islam and we could lose if we do not fully understand and fully confront the Muslim menace.
• "Radical Islam" is a lie; no such entity exists. Islam exists, it is what Moe preached and practiced between 610 and 632. Every implication that Islam is peaceful, anodyne & benevolent is an accursed lie. As a wise man wrote: "Its Islam, stupid.".
• I will not be intimidated and I will not be fooled. I will stand against the immediate and real threat of radical Islam to all Americans and to our country.
• Taking a stand against the Islamic threat requires total honesty: drop the disingenuous adjectives. Muslims & dhimmis will label you "Islamophobe", "racist", "bigot", "extremist" & "Nazi" if you tell the truth about Islam, no matter how you try to soften the blow. So don't try to soften it, tell it as it is.

The web page lists ten points attributed to: Ten Reasons By James Arlandson – August 13, 2005. The list is reproduced below, followed by my commentary in a similar list.

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

1. Islam does command offensive jihad, in Surah al-Anfal & Surah at-Taubah. Obedience to those commands is exemplified in Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition. Those commands are codified into Shari'ah, refer to: http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html and http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html.
2. Shari'ah prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. Refer to: http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html.
3. Shari'ah lists 20 acts and attitudes entailing apostasy for which the penalty is death. Refer to: http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-7.html . Shari'ah also lists five acts which break a treaty of protection, subjecting the Christian who breaks it to the death penalty: http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-10.html.
4. True; refer to Sahih Bukhari 9.89.303
5. True; refer to Sunan Abu Dawud 38.4447.
6. While the statement is true, it falls short of the mark. The penalty also applies to disbelievers in general. Refer to Surah al-Ma'idah 33 and Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of that verse, which defines "wage war" as including disbelief.
7. True; refer to Surah al-Ma'idah 38.
8. True; refer to Surah al-Ma'idah 45.
   
9. True; refer to Surah an-Nisa' 34
10. Half true; refer to Sahih Muslim 14.4226 and Reliance, Book P71.1 & 71.2.

I go to great lengths, spending hours researching and writing these posts because I want truth to prevail over lies. The first point raised above is the most important, one that must not be ignored. Muslims & Islampohiles assert that the citations to Islam's canon are out of context, mis-translated or mis-interpreted. In my response to the first point, I provided links to the Hilali & Khan translation of the Noble Qur'an so that you can read it with the translator's notes. That translation, though 95% accurate, is reputed to be Wahhabist. The Muslim Student Association at USC hosts three parallel translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthall & Shakir. 8:39, 9:29. Scroll through the text, read the context and compare the translations. Those are three of the most trusted translations. Which one of them is mis-translated? How can they be mis-interpreted?

Interpretations of the Qur'an are called tafsir. Exegetes compare similar ayat and ahadith which confirm them. I am doing something most bloggers won't do; I am giving you links to several tafsirs of those crucial ayat. I am also providing links to the commentary of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Asad. Yusuf Ali, Asad & Maududi are deceptive. To verify this fact, you need to read several ahadith. Here they are again: Jihad, Khumus & Expedition. For a broader selection, read Riyad us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234. Then read 8:1 & 41 which you can access through the Qur'an links in the previous paragraph. Follow up with 8:67 and 48:20. 8:1 & 41 tell us who gets the spoils. 8:67 reveals Moe's motivation: ransom money & spoils. 48:20 reveals Allah's promise of rich spoils to be captured. Before comparing those ayat to the commentary of Yusuf Ali, Asad, & Maududi, read these ahadith which reveal Allah's special dispensation to accrue spoils: Sahih Muslim 19.4327, Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331.

• Ibn Kathir
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• Abdullah Yusuf Ali
• 8:39
• 9:29
• Mohammad Asad
• 8:39
• 9:29
• Tafsir al-Jalalayn
• 8:39
• 9:29
• Tafsir Ibn Abbas
• 8:39
• 9:29
• Maududi
• 8:39
• 9:29

Not convinced yet? How did Moe gain his income? The hadith which answers that question reveals arrogance which will outrage any decent person. It has been bowdlerized from Hilali's translation of Sahih Bukhari but Aisha Bewley included it. Unfortunately, it is not a named anchor. Click the link and search for LXXXVII . Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

How was Moe made wealthy? The answer is in Sahih Bukhari 3.37.495 : by conquests. Jihad is entirely about bringing the Kuffar to Islam, making Allah's word superior. Yeah, right. What makes the difference between holy war and profane war? Sahih Muslim 19.4294: don't embezzle the spoils and don't kill the children, because they are part of the spoils. Of course, I am a liar, Yeah, right. http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-13.html Captive women and children are automatically enslaved.

The jihad imperatives say "fight them" and "fight those who" ... until... . You need to deny those imperatives, to declare them false, metaphorical or anachronistic. You have an insoluble problem because Moe confirmed them. He said he was ordered/commanded to fight and that jihad would continue until Judgment Day.

• Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387
• Sahih Bukhari 4.52.196
• Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388
• Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635
• Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526

What Dr. Scott posted about Islam is essentially true. Islam is a clear, present, proximate and persistent threat to our lives, liberties and way of life. To the extent that they believe in and practice Islam, so are Muslims. That is not a smear. That is not Islamophobia. That is not racism neither is it bigotry. Religion is about worshiping God; Islam is about genocidal aggression. That is truth. I did something Dr. Scott did not do, I made the evidence available to you.