Ibrahim Hooper: Muslims and Christians: More in common than you think

Of course we see nothing of Mohammed's naked attempt to completely deligitimize the Christian Faith in the Qur'an:

Koran 4:157
“‘We [Jews] killed the Messiah, Jesus,’ but they killed him not, nor crucified him. It appeared so to them (as the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man and they killed that man). Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself. Those who differ with this version are full of doubts. They have no knowledge and follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not.”

Time to send out some e-mails...

Check out this blog on Islam Review in comparing Christianity to islam:

www.islamreview.com/articles/nothingincommon.shtml

A MESSAGE TO IBRAHIM COOPER FROM PYTHAGORAS:

"Thou shalt not kill." --Yahweh. The 10 Commandments.

'SLAY THE INFIDELS EVERYWHERE THEY ARE FOUND; BESIEGE THEM; SET EVERY STRATEGEM OF WAR UPON THEM." --Al-lah. the Qur'an.

Contemplate the unbridgeable gulf that separates these two beliefs systems as is clearly discernable from a reading of each quote. Then ponder the unfathomable stupidity of your recent discourse on the topic.

You may as well state "the dish ran away with the spoon."

Sincerely,

Pythagoras.

"Christians may be surprised to learn that the same phrase always follows a Muslim's mention of Jesus or that we believe Jesus will return to earth in the last days before the final judgment. "

Oh, Ibrahim, you barefaced, balls-of-brass, lying sack of sh*t, you. Yes of course Muslims DO believe that "Jesus" will return to earth in the last days. . .in order to violently destroy Christianity and the people who practice it.

So, should I be expecting a "Merry Christmas" from the muslims in the area? How about some Christmas lights to adorn the neighborhood? Oh, yeah, we have so much in common...

WOW,Hooper must really be up against a wall to now stoop to dragging Jesus into CAIR's fight to
build bridges.
Muslims burned their bridges a long time ago and Hooper is a National Joke as the spokesperson for Allah and Muhammed,where were Muslims when the "Holy" sites of the Prophet "Jesus"(PBAH)
were bombed during evening services.

CAIR's major mistake was on 9/11/01 when it automatically posted a Press-release denying
Islam had anything to do with the attack and that Muslims shouldn't fear for their lives because of misguided anger and Islamophobia that would cause backlash by those ignorant of Islams Tolerance and Peaceful teachings.
CAIR still professes the view that Israel was behind it and that the new revealations by Jayna Davis that Tomothy McVeigh was connected to a Saudi Jihad wing of Islamists,below is the link.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/

I wrote a letter to the "public pulse" about his editorial to my local paper.

Unfortunately, I have not heard from the paper which makes me believe that they will not post it.

In it, I pointed out how Mr. Hooper is very selective in the suras he chooses and how he words his remarks so it appears that Islam and Christianity have similarities. I provided a link to the Networlddaily article about Ahmed Omar's remark that Islam should dominate the US. I believe Mr. Hooper's editorial is trying to do just the same, very small steps towards making Islam appear inoccuous (sp?) so as not to raise suspicions.

There is a book out by Mr. Spencer and a convert to Christianity, Mr. Daniel Ali. The title is "The Catholic's guide to Islam." Even if you are not Catholic it is a very introduction to Islam and demonstrates the stark differences between Christianity and Islam. It is in a question and answer form. I highly recommend it.

I have found that if we educated ourselves about Islam, people around us are open to hear it because most Americans are clueless.

Mr. Spencer writes,

"...has sent around this fresh steaming pile of taqiyya..."

What a vivid description. I can actually see the nematoda parasites wriggling their half-truths and blatant lies throughout that fetid mound of a priori otherwise known as Islam.

Mounds, piles, paddies and other hillocks of excrement, i.e., Mr. Hooper, usually dry up and blow away. Hopefully, sooner than later.

There may be teachings, and Biblical stories purportedly in common between Christianity and Islam. However, it is arrant nonsense to claim they are similar in any important manner due to the central facts of Christianity: Jesus Christ as the Incarnation of God, who was killed to atone for the sins of all mankind, and who rose from the dead to take His place in the Trinity.

The words used may differ, and traditions and liturgies certainly differ, but all who confess Christ as Lord believe this. If they don't, they are not Christians. It is definitional, and it sets us apart from Jews, from Muslims, from all other faiths.

The faith we share the greatest similarity to, of course, is Judaism, from whence we sprang (root of Jesse, house of David...). Not to mention that the Tanakh is our Old Testament -- still valid.

Then there is that little bit about Jesus' teachings of loving thy enemy, even unto death, which are so at variance with Islam's as to make any comparison absurd.

Here's the link for the article that was cut and pasted above:

http://www.jihadunspun.net/index-side_internal.php?article=100899&list=/home.php&

US Resorts To More Chemicals Warheads In Fallujah
Dec 13, 2004
By Omar Al-Faris, JUS

Here's the link for the article that was cut and pasted above:

http://www.jihadunspun.net/index-side_internal.php?article=100899&list=/home.php&

US Resorts To More Chemicals Warheads In Fallujah
Dec 13, 2004
By Omar Al-Faris, JUS

Here's the link for the article that was cut and pasted above:

http://www.jihadunspun.net/index-side_internal.php?article=100899&list=/home.php&

US Resorts To More Chemicals Warheads In Fallujah
Dec 13, 2004
By Omar Al-Faris, JUS

pythagoras says:

"Thou shalt not kill." --Yahweh. The 10 Commandments.

Literally translated from hebrew it's:

Thou shalt not murder.

Big difference. There's no turning the other cheek -- one must fight and sometimes kill the enemy.

Hey, anyone know what happened to the Catherine squirrel hunter, spider killer?

OT -- does anyone know how make italics etc here?

pythagoras says:

"Thou shalt not kill." --Yahweh. The 10 Commandments.

Literally translated from Hebrew it's:

Thou shalt not murder.

Big difference. There's no turning the other cheek -- one must fight and sometimes kill the enemy.

Hey, anyone know what happened to the Catherine squirrel hunter, spider killer?

OT -- does anyone know how make italics etc here?

pythagoras says:

"Thou shalt not kill." --Yahweh. The 10 Commandments.

Literally translated from Hebrew it's:

Thou shalt not murder.

Big difference. There's no turning the other cheek -- one must fight and sometimes kill the enemy.

Hey, anyone know what happened to the Catherine squirrel hunter, spider killer?

OT -- does anyone know how make italics

Hooper said 'Mohammed sought to erase any difference in his message and what Jesus taught'.

The fact is the koran does not mention one single thing that Jesus said. If it did Muslims would realise that they contradict each other on almost everything.

This is why the Bible is prohibited in many Muslim lands.

When Charles was discussing the death penalty against apostates I hope he pointed out the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son.

Hooper said 'Mohammed sought to erase any difference in his message and what Jesus taught'.

The fact is the koran does not mention one single thing that Jesus said. If it did Muslims would realise that they contradict each other on almost everything.

This is why the Bible is prohibited in many Muslim lands.

When Charles was discussing the death penalty against apostates I hope he pointed out the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son.

Ibrahim Hooper should now now come out with the similarity equivalent in Christianity on this Islamic crap:
“Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’” “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’” -Ishaq 326-327
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PatrickObrian41221.htm

He can keep his bloody allah.

Big difference. There's no turning the other cheek -- one must fight and sometimes kill the enemy.
Hey, anyone know what happened to the Catherine squirrel hunter, spider killer?
OT -- does anyone know how make italics

Posted by: Kemaste

You don't know what your talking about.

The Koran clearly tells it's followers to kill to establish the cult.

Christianity does not.

Your confused thoughts on what Christ said is just that, confused, and WRONG thought.

Christ did say turn the other cheek, he also said you aren't required to lay down and be killed. If you read the whole thing, you will discover the whole meaning.

There is no "sameness" between Islam and Christianity.
"Allah" which is the NAME of the Islamic wannabe "god" is the complete opposite of The Jewish-Christian God. That should give you some idea of who the Islamic god "Allah" really is. It is the lord of the demons, Satan, as the Koran, and early writtings state clearly.

Think about it. Who want's to destroy God's chosen people? (which is now every Jew and Christian) Only Satan wants to be a god, but to be thought as one, he has to destroy God's people. Even then, He will never be a god, he will only have damned many souls to death.

Go home Ibrahim!

Go home before you will be hanged from a lamp post!

You've earned your retirement, whatever the Saudi's paid for your propaganda services, tell them you were 'succesful' and try to integrate back in the desert where you came from...

The 'houris' will be waiting for your... no doubt...??

Strangely, today I had another encounter with a twit accusing me of 'racism' when I was talking about Jihad and the Islamic agenda in a restaurant:
= She was telling us about her mussy friends who started to cover up just about 5 years ago and that she started reading the Qu'ran (I told her: All she needed to know was 9/11)

She didn't get it:
Ibrahim, there are still many fools in the world and plenty more just waiting to be covered up from head to toe!

But if I find YOU in Australia promoting your evil agenda you will be tarred and feathered and covered up, free of charge! Wanna try??

It's strange that the Muslims call Jesus al-Masih (the Messiah), but make him lesser than Muhammad, who receives no such honor. Also, they say it is Jesus who judges the world. But how can he do this if he is just a creature rather than God Incarnate?

I will embrace Ibrahim Hooper as a brother if he confesses Jesus to be God Incarnate who with the Father and Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified from and to all ages; truly died on the cross to pay a final and sufficient atonement for all past, present, and future sins of his people; and on the third day rose from the dead.

But what will this do to Hooper's book of jumbled Bible synopses, excrescences of popular folklore, and out-and-out misrepresentations?

OT,

This was just sent in by Suzi,

It gave me chills and made me want to throw up.

Half way down the page, read the stories of female mutilation.

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildabuse/index.htm

Perhaps Mr Hooper should have made these comparisons:

By Ayesha Ahmed

Allah, you did not practice what you preached. You said, Mo is dearest to me, he is best of creation, he is the top ranked prophet, his mother tongue Arabic will be the language of heaven, he can intercede on judgment day, Iman is not complete unless he is accepted as your rasool. You, and him are mentioned together in quran hundreds of times like you two are equal partners. You and all your angels even sent salam to him. You wrote in the Quran obey me and my apostle, love me and my apostle, follow me and my apostle, listen to me and me my apostle. You left no doubt that he was way higher than all other prophets. He led the prayer of all the prophets in the Meraj night at Jerusalem. Only he could ascend to the 7th heaven to meet you whereas even Jibraeel, the messenger, had to stay back at the 6th heaven. However I personally feel that it was more of lip service than anything else. Actions speak louder than words. You did not deliver what you promised. Let us examine what you really did for my beloved (and your beloved) Mo in comparison to what you did for other prophets.

You gave Noah a life of 950 years, you gave Mo only 63 years. What a shame. Even Ibn Afak, an infidel Jew lived to be 120 and died only when Mo had him assassinated.

You made Adam 60 cunits (30 meters) tall but you made Mo less than six feet. Even many infidel 7 feet tall basket ball players dwarf the greatest prophet

You made Yousuf so handsome that even his boss's wife chased him around . As far as Mo is concerned, he was the one doing the chasing. Many women even shunned him. As a matter of fact every time he came to Juavaria, his gorgeous captured-women-turned-wife for a quickie, she would stand up and start praying namaz to avoid him (she was known to pray for hours until horny Mo had to go next door to another wife to fulfill his desire). Once he proposed to have sex with a noble woman, she refused and prayed for protection from Allah, how insulting for an apostle. Many of his marriages could not be consummated (perhaps because the young girls given in marriage by fathers probably started crying when they saw the naked old man).

You gave Jesus the power to make dead people live, give back parents to orphans and husbands to widows. The only power you gave Mo was to make live people dead, take away parents from children and husbands from wives which any common criminal can do.

You gave Sulaiman power to control Jinns who used to bring him treasures from the bottom of the sea. Mo had to rely on himself and his cronies to acquire wealth by looting and pillaging.

You saved Ibrahim's son Ismail when he was trying to behead him after a bad dream by replacing his son with a ram. You did no such saving when Mo's sons were dying in infancy.

When Younus prayed from inside the stomach of a large fish you listened and saved his life. When Mo prayed from the lap of Ayesha you did not listen, and let him die.

You gave long lives to children of Dawood and Yaqoob. Mo had to bury six of his seven children who died young . The 7th (Fatima) died 2 months after his death before reaching 20.

You yourself came down to earth to meet Moses. Mo was escorted by Jibraeel on the back of a winged horse and travel billions of miles to see you ( I bet he had a very sore behind after the trip). Could you not come down yourself for your best man.

You gave real miracles to all prophets. Ibrahim could convert burning fire into a garden. Moses could convert his staff into a snake, walk through an ocean, give life to a dead cow. Jesus could cure the sick, give eyes to the blind, give life to the dead, make a clay bird fly, talk right after birth. Noah could build an arc to carry millions of animals. Sulaiman could communicate with jinns and animals. All of them had something to show except Mo. When Mo asked for a miracle you gave a run around and said Quran is your miracle. Some miracle, a hodgepodge of silly fables and a collection of misinformation. A book which says Sun sets in muddy spring, stars are missiles to attack jinns, Moon is a lamp, Sun goes around the Earth, mountains are pegs and sky is in seven solid layers. Even kids are laughing at his miracle.

You gave Sulaiman mastery of all the tongues of animal kingdom. Mo could not even read or write his own mother tongue.

You gave many prophets the ability to cure (Ayub could cure himself by prayer). When sick people came to them they gave them health. When sick people came to Mo , he gave them camel urine (no wonder some of them went berserk after drinking fresh camel urine and committed murders). He could not cure even his own sons whom he desired and loved dearly, all three died in infancy.

You sent ababil birds to defeat an army on elephants to protect your own house Kaaba. No ababils showed up when Mo's house in Madina was attacked three times. He almost got killed once.

Sulaiman was helped by superhuman invisible help in his wars. No such help for Mo. Yes he won many wars but It was the lure of booty, captured women and the 72 perpetually virgin houris in heaven for martyrs which made his soldiers fight and win, not your ababil birds or the thousands of angels which were promised but never showed up.

You were sending Jibraeel for every little information, even to show how to wipe asses, why didn't you send him to warn Mo against eating the poisoned meat which pained him so much and eventually took his life?

In view of the above facts, can you still say you were fair to Mo.

That the Qur'an and hadith are full of anti-Christian rants is indisputable. These rants are in no way mitigated by the odd passage that simply confirm what all non-Muslim scholars of early Islam know -- that Islam itself appropriated large amounts of material from the Jewish and Christian sacred texts, mixed them up, changed details (in the Qur'an, Christ is not the Son of God but just one among a long list of previous prophets; the Jews, in the Islamic texts, were not responsible for Jesus' death -- he didn't die on the Cross, you see -- but they are so wicked that they think they did, and boast about it, and what's more, they worship a different Son of God, one "Uzra" etc.).

Ibrahim Hooper would prefer that you, gentle and unwary Infidel, do not start to read the Qur'an and hadith on-line (at www.usc.edu). He would prefer that you not consult any of the websites devoted to exposing the lines of taqiyya (religiously-sanctioned dissimulaton about the tenets of Islam, and about the particular Muslim's own beliefs) or kitman ("mental reservation"), both grounded in Qur'anic passages, that are most employed -- including the family-values emphasis on the essentially trivial (celebration of Ramadan) acts of worship, as opposed to the central tenets of Islam that are based on a manichean division of the world between Believer and Infidel, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb. In fact, if Ibrahim Hoooper had his druthers, the words "taqiyya" and "kitman," or the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, or the name "Aisha" or "Asma bint Marwan" or "Khaybar" or "Bani Qurayza," or "dar al-harb" or "kuffar" or "shirk" or "bida" or "ijtihad" would never ever be learned by Infidels -- who would get all their information about Islam at local Mosque Outreaches, and Interfaith "Dialogues," and the nice Pakistani lady who comes to your children's school with the small prayer-rug, and the postcards she passes around of the Blue Mosque and the Mosque of Omar, and after she has finished telling all about Ramadan there will be some special treats for the children.

And one more thing. Some of the most violent and aggressive Muslims -- such as Azzam Pasha, the same Azzam Pasha who as Secretary-General of the Arab League in 1948 promised that the impending massacre of the Jews would dwarf what the Mongols had done, a few years later (1950 or 1951) was wishing everyone a Merry Christmas in order to obtain Christian support for the continued Jihad against the small state of Israel.

And Azzam Pasha was the great--uncle of -- Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And the Ayatollah Khomeini, much as he hated all Infidels, and wanted to make war on them forever (see his remarks reproduced both in "Islam Unveiled" by Robert Spencer and in "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq), in the period when he was just consolidating power, was careful to wish the world's Christians a good Christmas -- an act not of hypocrisy, but of taqiyya, or kitman or, possibly, both.

Hooper is just as preposterous, just as outrageous. But what would you do, if you were a Muslim, except to find the handful of passages that could help you mislead as to the real Muslim teachings about non-Muslims? Wouldn't you be forced to do precisely the same? What other texts could you use, except here and there, the odd misleading one, no doubt among those abrogated by later passages.

Calm down Nathan.

I don't read the new testament. I read the Torah (or what you call old testament -- the five books of Moses) where the commandments originated. In Jewish tradition when someone attacks there is no turning the other cheek. A Jew is commanded to defend ones life or that of another -- that was my point. If you know someone is coming to kill you -- rise up early and kill him first!

To hell with pacifism and ultimely dhimmitude!

Poor Mr.Hooper,brainwashed to the point where
he accepts ignorance as a virtue,Islam is a retro-active religion that Muhammed used to take bits and pieces of previos knowledge to construct the Quran to fool the uneducated masses.

I assue you Mr.Hooper,YOUR Allah isn't even close to the Father in heaven that I'm accountible to,the Jesus you speak of warned of a "False-Prophet" that would come after he had left the world,this Prophet would foll the people and promise Peace,Love and a end to all suffering.
The truth was that the False-Prophet would only bring pain,war and oppression while quoting words from God as his own messages from the Father.

Hooper,you were fooled and wake-up before you
lose your attonment to God.
CAIR preaches hate and unforgivness as part of their "Revenge" mindset that justifies Jihad for Allah. My God tells me that even someone like you is precious to him and my brother in Christ,I would never kill you since I would be killing my Fathers child that is also my brother.
Maybe if the Muslim jihadists knew that God was the Father of all people they would see that they're really murdering Allah's children and sealing their fate for an eternal separation from the Loving,compassionate,forgiving Father of Jesus that we Christians know as or Lord.
Worship Muhammed all you want,when you kill me you're hurting God and doing more harm to Islam than good.

Perhaps Hooper’s quoting of a Qur’anic passage about Mary is not quite enough to allay ou r fears, our suspicions, and above all, our knowledge? Certainly, as a kind of gloss on Hooper’s homily, one would like all those Christians who have been on the receiving end of Muslim sharing-and-caring, such as Copts from Egypt, Maronites from Lebanon, , and Indonesian and Pakistani Christians, in addition to all those ex-Muslims in the West have become Christians, or if they have not, at least can testify as to what attitudes toward Christians (and other Infidels) are encouraged by the texts of Qur’an, hadith, and sira. It would be fascinating to engage Mr. Hooper in live debate which would contain both the testimony of such Christians – not to mention the Christians tortured and imprisoned for their belief in Saudi Arabia, a country whose inhabitants apparently do not share Mr. Hooper’s believe that Islam and Christianity “have more in common than you think.” But what do those imams all over Arabia know about Islam, when Mr. Hooper knows so much more, and is quick to tell us all about it.

While the naïve remain, their numbers are diminishing. Some simply cannot reconcile the evidence of their senses with the taqiyya and tu-quoque offered up by Muslim spokesmen (CAIR may be the most egregious, given the charges made, and proven, against many of its officers, but it is just the tip of the taqiyya iceberg). Of course, it is possible to find, here and there, bits and pieces of Jewish ahd Christian lore. That, after all, is what the Qur’an is – an overlay or mixture of passages, usually misunderstood or distorted from their original sources, taken from the Jewish and Christian holy books, mixed with pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliyya or Ignorance (before Islam arrived to clear everything up). Of course we all know that Jesus and Moses and a few thousand others were prophets; Islam took over, lock stock and barrel, all sorts of things from the prior monotheisms, appropriated them, distorted them into an Islamic version (for example, Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God, and did not die on the Cross; the perfidious Jews, however, even though they did not kill Jesus, thought they did and boasted about it, and besides, they had a different candidate for the Son of God, one “Uzra,” and so on). that is hardly recognizable to either Jews or Christians. Islam is irreconcilably hostile to both, and never more so than in Sura 9, the very last of the Suras to be written. Yet Hooper, who is not interested in the truth (one does not see him mention, by the way, the doctrine of naskh or abrogation – though it is hardly surprising that he should have neglected that little matter). Not to worry. Just remember his theme: Christianity and Islam “have more in common than you think.”.

The attempt, by those who denounce Christianity as “shirk,” (polytheistic, because of the divinity attributed to Christ) and who are adherents of a belief-system that for 1350 years has been persecuting Christians as it has other non-Muslims (see “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam” by Bat Ye’or in order to learn enough to pass judgment on the matter); the status of dhimmitude – the humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, where all the non-Muslim’s rights derived from whatever the Muslims wished to offer, and from nothing else – was imposed on Christians as it was on Jews, and then, in a different way, first to Zoroastrians and then to Buddhists and Hindus (the latter only because there were too many to kill, and besides, allowing them to live and to finance the Muslim state through their “Jizya” made economic sense)..

The numbers of unwary Infidels diminish every day. But there are still some, who want to believe, with George Bush, that there is nothing wrong with Islam, a religion of “tolerance” and “peace” (one wonders if he still believes that, or ever really did). But newspaper editors have a duty to do some research on both “taqiyya” and on “kitman” and to warn their readers, and arm themselves. And if they choose to carry such a blatant example of both, then they have a duty to publish, and to discuss, a comment from scholars (not apologists, but scholars) of Islam, or a comment from a Copt or a Maronite, or some Christian who has been on the receiving end of Islam’s “respect” for Christianity. Someone who knew Bishop John Joseph in Pakistan, or who has seen his church attacked or burned down (in the Balkans, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Indonesia, in the Sudan, in Nigeria).Not to do so would be to collaborate in propaganda that is essentially distributed in a cunning and sinister fashion – and would be as intolerable as a newspaper carrying propaganda for the Japanese militarists, or the Nazis, during World War II. This kind of criminal negligence as to the nature of Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, cannot be allowed to continue, and editors, and reporters, and papers that continue to ignore the evidence, continue to allow propagandists to have their way, should suffer – either by boycotts, or in other ways. They have no right to allow themselves to be the instruments of a belief-system whose adherents are determined to have Islam, and the dar al-Islam, spread all over the globe. This is not fantasy, though it may seem to be. It is to be derived clearly from the texts/ The history of Muslim conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslim lands and peoples, offers the evidence that cannot be ignored or explained away.

In discharging his responsibilities, editors and reporters should insist that they learn about the subject they are reporting or commenting on, particularly when it requires sustained study.. In the case of Islam, with its religiously-sanctioned doctrines of both of both dissimulation (“taqiyya” from Qur’an 16.106) and "mental reservation" (“kitman” from Qur’an 3.148), permitted and even encouraged, in order to protect the Faith and the Believers from outsiders, non-Muslims have to be unusually wary, circumspect about believing what is told to them by apologists, and willing to do some research on their own – always keeping in mind the treacherous nature of so much of what now passes for “Islamic scholarship.” The best guides are students of the past 100 years – Schacht, Margoliouth, Snouck Hurgronje, Leone Caetani, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, Henri Lammens, Sir William Muir, Ignaz Goldziher, are some of those available, and another 40-50 names could be added, names that need to be known and not just to specialists, but given the importance of the subject, to a much wider educated public. And that public is ready to educate itself, because it senses that it needs to – needs to far more than it needs to pick up a gun and march through Iraq.

Over the past 30 years many posts in universities have been systematically created and funded by Arab interests. Arab money funds individual chairs – the King Abdul Aziz II Chair, the “Guardian of the Two Noble Sanctuaries” Chair, the Edward Said Chair – as well as whole “centers” such as Esposito’s “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding” and the Georgetown Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. This is all about the vast financial resources deployed, carefully and with malice aforethought, by the Saudis, the Kuwaits, the U.A.E. And as any study of MESA (Mesa Nostra) would show, there has been over the past three decades an inexorable takeover or infiltration of many university departments (one thinks of Columbia’s Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures – a situation beyond parody, and beyond belief – made even more horrific by the crude and transparent attempt to limit scrutiny of the MEALAC department only to the anti-Israel antics of some of its faculty, and not to the fact that the main subject – Islam – including the early history of the Qur’an, a history of Jihad-conquest, and a history of dhimmitude or dhimmitude studies – are simply not even mentioned, much less taught, as part of the standard curriculum) by apologists for Islam. Some of them have been given publicity because of their extreme anti-Israel views. But that is just one aspect of their function – which is to misstate, or omit, the role of Islam, the belief-system that animates and explains so much of the present behavior, and past history, of those who live in what are now, but were not always, the countries of dar al-Islam.

Indeed the most fascinating subject of all – how the doctrines of Islam affect economic and political development, social liberalization and the development of individual rights, and intellectual freedoms without which civilization cannot exist, including the freedom of artistic expression (music, painting, sculpture) and the free and skeptical inquiry without which there cannot be modern science – these are the topics that are so carefully avoided, and are the central topics that the Western world, its peoples and governments, need to now most about. And now, not in twenty or thirty years, for certain decisions will be taken, or fail to be taken, based on the quality of information and understanding of Islam that the Infidel world comes to posssess.

Journalists are as lazy, or as preening, as any of us, and they may assume that they can, for example, write about the sitatuion in Iraq, and note the behavior and attitudes of Iraqis, without learning about Islam. After all, they are reporters, not scholars. But all their reporting from the Middle East, and not only from Iraq, is “mere” reporting, without understanding, if they fail to understand Islam, and the affect it has on almost all of i8ts adherents, and even on those who silently dissent, but are afraid to announce it. Islam is the central matter for all stories about Islamic countries or Muslim populations. And, more and more, it is also a subject that needs to be studied, if one is to comment intelligently on the potential islamization of Europe, or on what is happening in the southern Sudan, or on why the U.N. seems incapable of ever dealing with Muslim-inspired atrocities (in Darfur, Southern Sudan, northern Nigeria, slavery in Mauritania and Mali, attacks on Buddhists in Thailand and Hindus in Kashmir, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and so on). The loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya, the strength of the Muslim lobby at the U.N., the effective manipulaton of the twin pathologies of antisemitism and anti-Americanism by the agents of Islam (not all of them Muslims) to split America from Europe – not one of these matters can be discussed without studying Islam. It is now the sine qua non for any political, or geopolitical, or sociological, commentary that wishes to make sense of what is happening in so many places around the world.

And how can Iraq be discussed, and the dismal performance of Iraqi soldiers, or how can the indifference or hostility of Iraqis to Americans now trying only to rebuild the country, be explained – except by reference to the inculcated hostility against Infidels, and that, as anyone who has been in Iraq knows, is the constant refrain, and not only in Fallujah or Mosul – the Infidels, the Infidels. Just because it sounds so cinematic, from some movie about the Mad Mahdi in Khartoum, does not mean that one should refrain from noting it, and grasping its significance. And the same understanding should come to the Joint Chiefs, and to all those involved in the making of policy (the recent stubby, by one Aboul-Enein, issued as an”Army War College study” but in reality was the product of two people, one a Muslim lady who was versed in opinion-poll taking, the other apparently a navy officer, a Muslim (was that what supposedly made him into an expert on a subject he had begun to study only in 2000?), who concluded – without, it is clear, much time spent on the real scholarship available in many languages – that the recent aggression has nothing to do with permanent and immutable doctrines in the canonical texts of Islam – for if the author, a certain Aboul-Enein, had spent real time with those texts, or had read Bat Ye’or’s three books on aspects of the dhimmi, he could never have reached the conclusions he did. Or perhaps he was simply inhibited by an inability to recognize, out of filial piety, or some other inner prompting, what the real attitudes towar d non-Muslims are, and what the history of Muslim Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims has been. For how could he, really, admit, much less report to his superiors, the truth about Islam? This is not a task that should ever be assigned to a Muslim, but only to Western scholars who have no record of being apologists, or to ex-Muslims who, when they cease to be Muslims, do not suddenly forget all that they learned about Islam when they were growing up within the faith, attending madrasas, listening to khutbas, and swimming in a Muslim sea.

Perhaps the best thing the officer corps of the United States military can now do is to set itself to school, and to take the occasion of their own puzzlement at Iraqi hostility, those crowds that dance around and celebrate American corpses, or those other Iraqis who wait to pocket whatever the Americans will do for them – but without any real or permanent gratitude (perhaps 3-5% of the Iraqi population might feel a gratitude that, where exhibited, is neither feigned nor fleeting, but those 3-5% would be mainly Christians, and some of the Kurds, and people like Allawi himself, the intellectual elite who spent between 20 and 40 years in the West as political exiles, and are hardly representative of the Iraqi population. If Bat Ye’or and Ibn Warraq start to lecture at Fort Bragg, or at the Pentagon, or at the Army War College, it will do a lot for re-allocating the resources – men, materiel, money – now being misallocated to the “Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project in Iraq

At no other time have the citizens of an entire civilization been called upon to educate themselves, since those whose duty it is to instruct them are afraid of telling the truth about Islam, and indeed are falling all over themselves misinforming us about its nature. This is done out of fear, out of denial, out of stupidity, out of all sorts of motives except that of recognizing, confronting, and articulating an unpalatable truth – one that implies a struggle without an end-point, that will require measures to be undertaken that, in the West, many had not thought appropriate even to contemplate (the kind of expulsions that the Czechs undertook, in dealing with the perceived threat of future German aggression, by expelling 3 million ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland after World War II).

And because the apologists for Islam have been honing their skills in taqiyya and kitman, and have such well-financed operations, and are not inhibited by any scruples in their campaign to spread Islam and to remove all barriers to its spread, within the Bilad al-kufr, a further requirement of Infidels is not only that they learn about Islam, but that they also familiarize themselves with the repertory of rhetorical and other tricks – what are the passages that keep being quoted, what are the appeals that keep being made to win over or disarm Christian (or Jewish) critics, what are the lines of attack, the lines of defense – for there are a small number, endlessly repeated. Even the Muslim Outreach programs focus on a few matters – for example, the observance of Ramadan – that it is felt are especially appealing, and unthreatening to Infidels, and with which they can identify, and that divert attention from other matters, such as the need to spread Islam through a variety of instruments, instruments of Jihad, including not only combat, but economic warfare, propaganda, and demographic conquest (and Da’wa) from within.

Possibly the best way for Infidels to mentally prepare is to study first some of the articles and comments at websites devoted to the matter. In fact, one could print out 500-1000 cards, listing websites that enlighten as to the nature of Islam, Jihad, and dhimmitude. And then others are free to study. Those preprinted cards could then be handed out to friends, acquaintances, the person you strike up a conversation with at the checkout line, the waiting room, the optometrist’s office, the schoolyard, at an office, at the hairdresser’s. Here are five possibilities:

www.jihadwath.org
www.nojihad.org
www.secularislam.org
www.dhimmitude.org
www.faithfreedom.org

"Islam and Dhimmitude," "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," and the forthcoming "Eurabia," all by Bat Ye'or, and the many articles that can be found at www.dhimmitude.org, will help immunize one against the hordes of Hoopers. Armed with information, you can in turn better inform others.

On the Internet, at www.usc.edu, one can find several different translations side-by-side of the Qur'an, the hadith of Bukhari are available at the same site. Non-hagiographical works on Muhammad are also easily obtained, including the recently- reprinted one-volume biography by Sir William Muir ($50 at Kessinger Reprints), or the short biographies by Tor Andrae and Arthur Jeffery.Books by Margoliouth on early Islam,and Schacht on Muslim law, have recently been reprinted. Peroncel-Hugoz, a French journalist, wrote "The Raft of Muhammad," which deserves to be read;, though out-of-print it can be obtained on-line..

Many of the essays in "The Moslem World" from 1900 to 1950 (the journal has a new name, and has been changed, for the worse, from what it once was) are also worth unearthing in a university library.

But start, perhaps for those you will see over Christmas, by googling two words "taqiyya" and "kitman." Study their definitions, and print them out, and share them with everyone you see over the holiday week. Begin to spread such information, and be able to answer doubters and pooh-poohers, who think you are an alarmist. Tell them one or two things that cannot be denied. If it is Muhammad, tell them not only about Aisha, but that Muhammad is a model for all time, and that Khomeini lowered the marriageable age for women to nine, on the model of Aisha. Tell them about demography, and how 1 out of every 3 babies born in France is now a Muslim. Explalin to them how all paintings of live beings, and all scultpture, and all music, are forbidden in orthodox Islam (and exceptions exist, but despite, not because of Islam). Help them to make sense of the daily Jihad news. You may influence one, or five, or ten people. Every new addition to the ranks of the informed is important. The civiilzation they help save may be their own.

Ask these people to vigilantly note, in the daily news, all reports of attacks by Muslims, anywhere in the world, on non-Muslims, whether it is within Muslim countries, or within Infidel lands. They will soon begin to see the similarities, not surprising since the actions will be based on the same doctrine, the same tenets. Let them look for demands made by Muslims within non-Muslim countries for special attention, special rights, or for a change in the local customs and ways in order to accommodate Muslims.

Now when they read or hear of a violent series of khutbas, or bombs in Baghdad or Bosnian or Indonesian or Pakistani churches, read of Hindu or Sikh villagers in Kashmir or Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh, who are persecuted, or tried for blasphemy, or beaten to death by a mob exiting from Friday Prayers (always a worry for the Hindus of Bangladesh), those you have initially set on the path to understanding will make sense of things. They will read of attacks on Copts in Cairo, or the forced starvation of Christians in the southern Sudan, or about Buddhist monks and teachers decapitated in southern Thailand, and it will no longer surprise them. The explanatory model you have supplied,which is the true one, will not only explain current data but predict, accurately, future data. And with each day, as they read – perhaps read even here at Jihadwatch – they will see confirmed, day by day by day, the explanation for Muslim behavior – that it comes from Islam itself. No other explanation works, or makes sense, or accommodates the data.

And the same explanation will make sense of the demands made within Europe, for the removal of crucixes in Italy, or a “religious hate law” to be passed in England, or pressure on a French television station not to show a program on December 2 about Tariq Ramadan (accusing the presenter, Mohamed Sarfaoui, with being an “apostate” if he were to show the program, and hence, fit for being killed), or the demand that the hijab be permitted (and the Muslim mobs shouting “Death to France” in Paris), or the murder of Theo van Gogh. And all of that, too, now begins to make sense.

Of course, the silly definition of “Jihad” as “struggling to master your own self” will continue to be offered. Expuergated editions of the Qur’an will be forced on innocent entering freshman, or assigned by professors uninterested in really acquainting their students with the Qur’an (a lawsuit, based on the claim of “educational malpractice,” needs to be brought against individual professors of Middle Eastern studies, and against their universities – for the deliberate misrepresentation of reality, and the avoidance of the most important subjects; that day, and those lawsuits, are coming). What can one call those who construct those bowdlerized Qur’ans, or those who knowingly assign them, if not “apologists”? What other word can be used to describe John Esposito, the direct or indirect recipient of Arab financial support, who continues to belittle or minimize the idea of Jihad (though he has done some quick rewriting for new editions of older works where the word “Jihad” almost never came up), who claims that until the Crusades, the history of Islam in the Midlde East was one of “peaceful coexistence” with its non-Muslim neighbors, a curious way to describe centuries of conquest and subjugation and slow asphyxiation, of non-Muslims. What word, except “apologist” fits those who, like Karen Armstrong, describe Muhammad as the man who brought “peace” to the Arabian peninsula? What word except “apologist” fits Azizah al-Hibri, a professor at a law school who, at the U.N. Islamophobia meeting, claimed that the real trouble between Islam and Christianity began not in 650 or 700 or 1100, but with the advent of European “colonialism” – i.e. in 1798, when Napoleon entered Egypt – which means that for the previous thousand years all was well between Islam and Western Christendom. Thomas Pellow, and a million other Christian Europeans kidnapped by Muslims, and the millions of others who must have been killed in the Muslim raids up and down European coats for that same thousand years, would beg to differ, as the recent “Black Gold” (by Giles Milton) testifies.

Hooper’s Christmas-tide attempt to make nice is of a piece with two famous Christmas messages that were sent by well-known Muslims to the Christian world.

The first was that of Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, and great-uncle of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda associate. A year or two after May, 1948, when he confidently predicted that the invading Arab armies would cause, in Israel, “a massacre the likes of which would not have been seen since the days of the Mongols,” Azzam Pasha offered his Christmas greetings.

This is how it is described by Alfred Guillaume, himself an apologist for Islam in the Montgomery-Watt vein, at the very end of his book “Islam”:

“Meanwhile all men of goodwill may take comfort from the words of the Secretary-Geenral of the Arab League, Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha who, in a Chirstmas message a year or two ago, prayed that Christams would remind the peoples of the world of the principles of peace andmercy that Christ taught. The Arabs, he said, would specially remember their Christian Arab brethren who stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the struggle in which they were engaged.”

Just a few years before he uttered those soothing words in which, Alfred Guillaume suggests, “all men of goodwill may take comfort,” Azzam Pasha had promised the Jews of Israel, just before the attack on the nascent state in May 1948, that they would suffer “a massacre the likes of which had not been seen since the days of the Mongols.” Guillaume’s curious belief that Azzam Pasha’s words about Christmas were to be taken at face value, and not as a transparent propaganda ploy, tells us something about Alfred Guillaume. For he must have known, or should have known, that it is forbidden for a Muslim even to recognize the religious holidays of non-Muslims, much less to wish them well. But of course, when taqiyya is being practiced, even what is prohibited is allowed, in order to fool the Infidels. In the same way, an Al-Qaeda operative might drink alcohol, or eat pork, or be friendly with a Jew, not because he had a change of heart, but because his mission for Al-Qaeda, which might require him to disguise his own fervent Islam, would justify such violation of what would, were he not engaged in promoting the Jihad against Infidels , be clear violations of Islam.

But Azzam Pasha was not the only murderous figure to engage in what should have been – but certainly was not at the time taken as such by the world’s Christians – transparent taqiyya. Even that learned theologian of Shi’a Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was not above wishing Christians a good holidy season, as he did at Christmas-time in 1979, when his power had not yet been consolidated. Yet here is how the Ayatollah Khomeini expressed his real attitude toward non-Muslims, from which he never wavered, and which every act of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which he founded, confirms. The speech may be found in both Ibn Warraq’ “Why I Am Not a Muslim” and in Robert Spencer’s “Islam Unveiled.” And it is worth remembering because it is one more bit of evidence that those who keep telling us it is, if not a “handful of extremists,” then at least it is just those “bad Wahhabis” who are the problem, when the problem is Islam itself.

Here is the Shi’a cleric Khomeini – see if you find it one whit more comforting than what you know the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia routinely rant:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
Yes, Azzam Pasha and the Ayatollah Khomeini, just like Ibrahim Hooper, were pleased to offer a Christmas-tide message to Christians.

Don’t you feel much safer now?