Focusing on ideology, not the means by which it is advanced

" Is anyone paying attention to the prevalence of this ideology among Muslims in America?"

Shame on you -- you already know the answer to that one!

I'm curious about your audiences -- were they receptive to your message at these conferences?

Did you detect alot of hostility? No hostility?

Did they "look at you funny" or were they receptive?

I avoid cabs in major cities and prearrange my lemo service. Although one day I had an old Russian driver who spoke very little English trying is best to curse at everyone on the road during a Chicago meeting. The profanity he uttered in broken English was the funniest experience I had of this kind.

He peered at me through the rearview mirror and probably wondered what I found so amusing.

I told him in Russian that it was something I was watching -- he assumed it was the television.

Robert,

So many questions. Why didn't you have him drive around the block a few more times?

Consider how much info you gleened in one cab ride. I wonder if Larry Kudlow takes cabs?

Robert -

Yes, we are paying attention. However, I find President Bush's attitude dispiriting. Let's not even talk about the ishtar dinners at the White House.

I knew practically nothing of islam prior to 9-11.
The truth is, I thought they were no more a threat than a bunch of Presbyterians.

Don't worry, President Hillary Clinton will take care of the jihad threat.

/It's going to be a long war.

Robert - a great comment.

There one has the challenge of our times: to understand the nature of Islam, which is the enemy.

When we hear of cabbies in British Columbia Canada emerging from their cabs at a cabstand and jumping up and down with joy upon hearing that the planes have struck the twin towers and fast forward to the news that Dubai seeks ingress to our ports, (or that Rushdie supports the palestineans and Kashmiri muslims)

ya gotta ask - how do we get throught to the tin ears of our leaders ?

I hope the gravity of the subject didn't keep you from feeling just a slight amount of glee that this guy had no freakin' idea who he was running his mouth off to. (Speaking of "no freakin' idea," do you find yourself the target of profiling when traveling?)

So... dawa in the cab. Sounds like this guy had his routine well-practiced. What happens if Mr. Cab Driver finds, among other passengers, a receptive listener?

Is he just hoping he'll inspire some of the people he meets during the day to be more observant Muslims, or is there, perhaps, a means of organizing? Maybe a website is recommended, or this or that group of people, etc.? In any event, how many of his fellow cab drivers hold the same opinion, and may be doing the same schtick to passengers they would assume to be fellow Muslims?

I have this same discussion / argument almost every week. My response is this.

Liberals and other well-meaning, decent, neighborly people wish to give Islam a "pass" merely because some muslim or another happens to "be nice." "Oh he's so nice and religious (never "she") "He brought tabouli to the ecumenical inter-faith kumbayya picnic." Or else some muslim was constrained to act decently in thier presence at the Liquor Store, or the Used Car Lot or the Taxi when they were taking the kuffar's money.

My question is, Did all the Nazi's get a pass because there were a few decent and "nice" acting Nazis??

If one acts decently in public and projects an image of being civil, and yet gives his time and money and energy to an organization which is dedicated to destroying me, am I obligated to "tolerate" him ??

What if this person were secretly in the Ku Klux Klan ?? What if he were secretly a member of the Heaven's Gate Cult, or Aum Shinri Kyo ??

Do I then refrain from denouncing him in the name of "tolerance?"

This mindless mushy-headed "Multi-Culti-Non-Judgmentalism" is a gaping hole where our backbone used to be. Our spines have been removed and replaced with the worthless cotton-candy rainbow of Multi-Culturalism.

Since when must we "accept our enemies?" Since when must we refrain from insulting our enemies??
Since when must we refrain from speaking the truth and calling a spade a spade??

"Oh, Martel, you are such a racist, etc." is the usual reply, as if Islam were a "race" of people amd not an Arab-Imperialist prison-gang.

Islam is here not to live together and bring thier spicy tabouli to the "Unicorn and Rainbow Ecumenical Multi-Culti-Fest" which is what passes for America in the minds of so many. They are here to COLONIZE and to DOMINATE us.

Don't believe me? Just scratch the surface a little tiny bit. Give yourself an education.

More on the Arizona Conference:

Yesterday Congressman Curt Weldon(R-PA) spoke at breakfast here at David Horowitz's fantastic Restoration Weekend in Phoenix Arizona. So far, he has given the most impressive and moving speech and seems to really understand the nature of this war. He spoke of jihad in its world-wide totality - the only speaker so far to do so.

Then I attended a panel on the coming elections that was disheartening. I'm sorry to say the Republican party seems to be unraveling just like the democratic party. A couple of the congressmen attacked Tom Tancredo vehemently about his immigration stand. Tancredo had said bluntly "I'm for a wall" [on our southern border] and expressed the opinion that we cannot allow two separate and distinct societies to exist within our nation. To which I would add, we must think not simply about economics in this equation - the other congressmen attacking Tancredo kept talking about how we NEED Mexican workers and how unless we are prepared to expel 11 million illegals (size of the state of Ohio)...blah blah blah, as though that would just be unthinkable. But I can tell you, that thought was not unthinkable to everybody else in the room who are concerned not simply about short-term economics, but the long term character of our nation as well. One can find little Tihuanas all over the country now. Every city has them. It's the price of cheap yard work for one generation. Sorry, I'd rather mow my own yard than have to put up with Mexican graffiti all over the place.

Next, I attended a panel on "The Media and the War" with Andrew Breitbart (formerly with Drudge), Tammy Bruce, Bill Sammon, and Frank Gaffney. It was just sort of a celebration of the decline of the main stream media and the rise of alternative media. Breitbart was the most knowledgeable on Islam.

After that, I attended a briefing on Guantanamo Bay given by Lt. General Paul Vallely and Lt. Colonel Gordon Cucullu. Nothing new, but the army is beginning to get it. I asked, "Since we know that jihad ideology comes directy out of Islam, why are we providing these people with Korans?" Colonel Cucullu jumped on it and said, "That's not all! They have imams and prayer rugs and signs all over pointing toward Mecca!" He understood the inherent contradiction. Maybe he'll be more likely to discuss it with others in the military now that the issue has been raised.

Then I had a wonderful afternoon talking to our new English friend Roy B. who has wrtten a nd recorded a whole slough of anti-Islam songs. They were wonderful. He says whenever he talks to Muslims he tells them straight out - "I will never live as a dhimmi under Islam. I would rather die first." He says most of the time the Muslims look sheepish and ashamed in response.

It is wonderful to be with like minded people. When my friend, Jula R. said, If they kill me I know I will have died with honor," the head of the NRA, Sandy Froman said, "yeah, and if you have a gun, at least you can take one out with you."

That's a woman after my own heart. Winston Churchill would be proud.

Robert, it would be good if you would write a book about that with a shocking title. It would be helpful to include how Muslims refuse to assimilate into society and how they use civil rights laws to implement sharia. I would like to see a survey of public schools and what "accomodations" have been made for Muslims...how Islamic the schools have become for the rest of the school population. I would like to see a survey of major media accomodations for Islam like calling terrorists "militants", refusal to identify specific attacks based on the Islamic beliefs of the **Muslim** perpetrators, the complete under and nonreporting of heinous acts of torture, mutilation, rape, and murder that are happening to Christians in Muslim countries. Yes, and how the worldview of Islam would never allow a Muslim to pledge alligience to any non-Islamic government...exactly how can a Muslim become an American citizen...this I will never understand...they would have to deny their faith to do so. So they are here under a sham.

I would definitely like to see a book on Jihad in America...how it is being done and how Americans are giving away their freedoms and society in the name of "tolerance".

Robert l wonder what the taxi drive would of said if you told him yeah you were once a muslim, but became a Christian, after you saw the truth of the koran! but then you might not have had a chance to leave the cab alive!

"Sorry, I'd rather mow my own yard than have to put up with Mexican graffiti all over the place."

That's a nice racist statement... Would you also rather not eat ribs than have to put up with Black graffiti all over the place?

What do Mexicans have to do with Jihad? They're the last folks you need to worry about in the fight against Jihad--and in fact, they may be your best ally in the ongoing demographic war of the worlds. Mexicans (and other Latinos) are overwhelmingly Christian/Catholic and as a group have far more children than "whites."

Here is an article from the Salon press that seems relevent.

Them damn pictures
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/24/cartoons/

Robert:

I think that with the beard going you make these muslims comfortable. If that is the case, why not attend some services at a radical mosque and hear what the imams are saying? It could be interesting.

Mr. Spencer says "global jihad is not being advanced only by military means, and that the official refusal to acknowledge that many share the goals of the mujahedin but are pursuing them by peaceful means".

I disagree with this statement a bit. Ofcourse I have always stated that Islam will become globally dominant.....and given time ....it will.

However persuing it by peaceful means....i.e. you have to make that land suitable for muslim habitation and environment...shops that sell Halal meat...jilbabs, islamic banks , islamc coke, islamic toys ...etc. etc....you get the idea.

Ultimately...the indegenious population will get the idea ... see Islam for it's just aims, love for the fellow muslim...and they will follow too.

What I resent is the use of the word "jihad" in this...a peaceful persual is not jihad....but dawa.

And yes this is what I do ....dawa for Islaam,
it is the only religion that keeps you locked with your faith....Allah will not abondon his childrens nor will allow his messenger to be degraded. Alhumdadila....I hope to see you folks at a mosque near you soon.

Allah Hafiz

Robert
If you ever feel that your life lacks danger and excitement I would prefer that you took up chain saw juggling instead. You are too valuable to risk losing.

it is the only religion that keeps you locked with your faith

If it keeps you locked it is not faith. It is coercion and therefore worthless. God has dignified us with free will, to accept the Holy Spirit freely. And I thank God for it.

Enough talk; we need to work towards electing people who take this threat seriously in all its aspects.

Bush is obviously more interested in international finance than in protecting this country from Islamicizers.

Rebecca, having recently retired from the military I can tell you with complete confidence that some members do “get it” they completely understand the threat. I can also tell you as you may already know many more Do Not! and PC speak is everywhere. The problem with the military system it is extremely resistant to change and you have to fight the PC types who worry more about breaking unwritten PC orders than performance. Over my last few years I constantly tried to inform my fellow soldiers that our allies could be part of the problem. I normally got PC answer like “all people want to live free” “everyone wants their children to prosper” “they (Muslims) have even more reason to make this work”. It all comes from the American belief that all men are rugged individuals who deeply treasure individual freedoms and rights. Only in the movies is the military ran by unquestioning, ready to follow orders at all costs, robots. The American military is full of self-starters, take action adventurers, adaptive thinking experts. That is why the PC types do so much damage, they do not let them work.

You see things in the press, which confirm this, calls for more soldiers, more psychological operations, and more civil affairs. Even Rumsfield himself admits we are losing the information war, so why not fight it, why not get the extra soldiers? I think the reason is fear, PC commanders are afraid, more soldiers mean more causalities, more casualties mean more bad press, bad press means lower rating, less promotion potential and risk of lucrative civilian consulting job. Add highly paid “civilian contractors” with PHD’s in Islamic studies giving classes on Moderate Islam and you have a confused grunt that just want to survive. Although, he sees progress all around the press demonizes him and calls him the problem.

One thing gave me hope and continues to do so, the newer generation of soldiers are more open minded and more prone to make up their own minds. I saw many with copies of the PIG, and over heard intense arguments about Islam in general in the last year than in the last 20. The younger generations are technologically advanced and can quickly find sites such as J/W and D/W. They will eventually own this fight and nothing can help the muslims when they do. Our biggest helpers are the muslims themselves. Our future leaders see for themselves how cartoons are worse then civil war to these people. They see outrageous violence, claims and demands for us to change. They see how the establishment has caved to them and don’t understand why. As these soldiers do their duty and return to their old communities the word will spread. True they have to fight the PC ideas taught in our universities but the students are more excepting of people their own age than old bald professors. I think you yourself, Robert, Hugh and all the regulars on this list are doing a fantastic job of spreading the truth. They really are starting to understand.

This article should make one pause:

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/jonsson022506.htm

Dubai Ports — Strategic Implications
By David J. Jonsson
Saturday, February 25, 2006

Contents:

Creating a Global Ports Empire

Islamic Economics: Not an Exotic Addition to the English Country Garden

Dubai Ports Operating Shariah Compliant Ports

Implications of Financing with Sukuk Bonds

Impact of High Oil Prices

The Well Known Causes of Concern

Dubai Key Transfer Point for Illegal Shipments of Nuclear Components

"The goal of Islamists, following in the footsteps of Muhammad is to create the Islamic kingdom of God on earth. The strategy to obtain this goal in our lifetime includes the control of the world’s energy infrastructure, the transportation systems, currency, media, elections, immigration and education. The control of the port facilities is hence a critical element. Foreign ownership, in and of itself, although important, is not as significant as the strategy and goals of the owner. In the case of DP World ownership, my hypothesis is that their plan for utilization of these strategic infrastructure resources is to accomplish the ultimate goal of world domination of the sea borne transportation infrastructure. In similar moves, a newly-formed Dubai consortium unveiled plans to bid for the development and operation of airports in China, India and the Middle East, a market they estimate to be worth $400 bln. The consortium comprises DAE Airports and six other top companies in the United Arab Emirates."

Read the whole article!

Has anyone seen this new Steyn article:

Needing to wake up, West just closes its eyes

February 26, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi?getReferrer=http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html

Some highlights:

"It's not surprising when you're as heavily invested as the European establishment is in an absurd equivalence between a nuclear madman who thinks he's the warm-up act for the Twelfth Imam and the fellows building the Israeli security fence that you lose all sense of proportion when it comes to your own backyard, too. "Radical young Jewish men" are no threat to "Arab-run groceries." But radical young Muslim men are changing the realities of daily life for Jews and gays and women in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Oslo and beyond. If you don't care for the Yids, big deal; look out for yourself. The Jews are playing their traditional role of the canaries in history's coal mine.

Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:

''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.''

Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia, and the other half's feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates. But just as telling is how swiftly the developed world has internalized an essentially Islamic perspective. In their pitiful coverage of the low-level intifada that's been going on in France for five years, the European press has been barely any less loopy than the Middle Eastern media."

I must agree with Kamala. Personally, I'd rather have tons of "little Tijuanas" than "little Meccas." The issue of illegal Mexican immigration is one area where I disagree with Tancredo; I think there are far bigger fish to fry at the moment. Let's try not to turn JW/DW into the American version of the BNP.

Yes, all too often the Europeans act as if they can just ignore the jihadists and maybe they'll go away. Or worse, they placate and appease them hoping they'll play nicely in return.

Delusions. I think it was V.D. Hanson who drew the parallel to the post-WWI era. Europeans were wedded to the idea of disarmament and perpetual peace, economically exhausted and physically drained by the Great War.

I don't see that as the fundamental context to the run-up to WWII.

It was a moral bankruptcy, a faith in socialism and globalism that was operative then and is operative now in Europe.

The moral equivalence that Mark Steyn notes is the result of moral confusion, the moral relativism that affects the entire culture of non-Catholic Europe.

The Church is the one institution that continues to actually teach that right and wrong are not matters of economic convenience or up to personal choice.

The same people who equate Iranian madmen with Israeli peacemakers, equate the Church with Islamic fundamentalists.

This is the battle to be waged, between the faith that gave birth to Europe and the heresy that virus-like has sought to destroy every competitor.

Readers may well enjoy my "Sunday Morning Coffee" feature that's up every week by noon EST, covering the morning news shows and the stories that'll be making news this week.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com

All the best,
D. Ox

Illegal Mexicans isn't a race thing it's common sense. Many emergency rooms in California alone have had to close because of illegals. Why should US tax payers have to pay for services for illegals? I don't care where they are from or what race they are. IF they're in my country illegally then they should be thrown out.

Building a wall between the US and mexico is also good sense as a very high percentage of the illegal drugs that come into this country come in through the mexican/American border.

+++If he holds to Islamic blasphemy law, and the necessity of enforcing it on non-Muslims in a non-Muslim state, it is very likely that this man also holds to the same vision of Islamic law, Islamic supremacy, and the ultimate subjugation of the infidels, that motivates Osama bin Laden. Is anyone paying attention to the prevalence of this ideology among Muslims in America?

Isn't it amazing. Muslims come here, benefit from the freedom they have but all they want is sharia. What idiots. I think we should deport every single one of them back where they came from.

The American military is full of self-starters, take action adventurers, adaptive thinking experts. That is why the PC types do so much damage, they do not let them work.

I was not in the military, but I deal with such people through my job. Also I read their articles and comments on the web. I am constantly surprised by how clear-thinking and articulate many of them are, such as you. What am I saying? Well, sorry for my bluntness, but many civilians have the impression that good brains are not to be found there, and it's simply not true. By contrast, the ability of 'experts' to be dead wrong is simply amazing.

As for cab rides, I had one recently where the driver was Muslim. He seemed like a pretty nice guy. I started a conversation about Islam. First I got the not unexpected line about how Jihad is only in self-defense. I let that pass. Then I asked him whether as an American citizen he thought Iran should get nuclear weapons. He said, 'If the US and UK and France and Israel can have them, why not Iran? It's only fair!' Guess there's nothing surprising here, but it's good to take note of these things so that we can put ourselves in their minds. It's all about fairness!

The problem is, we can't come out and say that Iran is different because it's a radical Islamic nation, because that might offend Muslims in general. We have to dance around it, speaking of non-proliferation and so forth, which, come to think of it does look hypocritical, what with all those countries (and India and others) having the bomb. We need to stop pretending all countries are equal and should be treated the same. However, we also want to stay on good terms with Kofi Annan and so many others. Really, we need to say that there are serious problems with Islam itself, but that is old news here. Is any American worried about India's bomb? Or even France's? :-)

Abby wrote:

"Yes, and how the worldview of Islam would never allow a Muslim to pledge alligience to any non-Islamic government...exactly how can a Muslim become an American citizen...this I will never understand...they would have to deny their faith to do so. So they are here under a sham."

The answer is, Abby, that the koran permits deception if it benefits the cause. That's how Imams and people like Naseem (above) can lie through their teeth at the drop of hat, Islam doesn't have a commandment like "thou shalt not bear false witness" because any lie can be justified by claiming it is for Islam. You can't get more devoid of the spirit of righteousness than that!

Tziona

Allah will not abondon his childrens Posted by: Naseem

'Allah' does not have children. In your own Koran - it states...

037.151 Is it not that they say, from their own invention,

037.152 Allah has begotten children? but they are liars!

That's the one major difference between the God of the Bible - and the god of the Koran.

Naseem? Considering other previous posts given by you, it appears you are confused about Islam. {That is not a 'smart remark' - by no means.

Is it possible - that you are not aware of the fact that the Koran does create murderers?

That cabby - sees no wrong in carrying out murder. His statement - "Only the cartoonists, he said, should be killed" - is proof that the Koran does create murderers.

The American leaders are committing TREASON! big time! by allowing these murderers to raom about freely in the name of "Tolerance"

Proof:

Article. IV. Section. 4 of the United States Constitution of America

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article. III. Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Article. VII

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.

The Son of God is an abomination in Islam 019.088 and the Muslims are commanded to slay His followers

Any blood spilled by these murderers - is upon the hands of the American leaders - for allowing them to roam freely - in the name of "Tolerance"

I think after this - any country that doesn't consider how many Muslims it imports - has got to be foolish.

To have any more of the world forced into Saudi Arabian servitude - to the prized fighter god Allah - while everything that a person is - is cloned, and approved and OK'd with the seal of the Moon God to pre-Islam (all gods of the region were moon or sun gods).

Where - for instance - are the Pyramid builders – the Egyptians – those that now call themselves ‘A-r-a-b’ – and live cowering in the shadow of their ancestor’s great works.

What a dumbing down!

Funny most arguments Islamic people make are no different from the arguments those trying to defend any other religion would make. What distinguishes Islam’s arguments is the whole death side of it, the whole killing aspect.

I once had a conversation with a Muslim telling them about the Discovery Channels and how they discuss many things on there - including religion. And this person said to me in earnest – I think we should have Islam discussed on the Discovery Channel. I had to tell him that Islam would never be discussed on the Discovery Channel, because some one would be around to blow the station up.

On one side we are fighting a lot of ignorance – with people - for good or bad - who have not been allowed to think or to question the religion or its ideas in any significant way.

The illusion is all they know.

It tries to kill you - to join it.
It will kill you - if you try to leave it.
But never mind that - at its very center – there is peace.

Since it is trying to take over and force us under its mental subjugation – we gotta fight it.

Just say ‘No’ to Islam!

Kamala:

Since when is Mexican a race?

How can Mr Spencers statement be racist?

I personally don't have a problem with Mexicans or Spanish (I have moderate fluency in Spanish, my God son is Panamanian and my step son is as well), but "racist"?

Is American or Canadian or English a race?

The first issue to be given top priority is : WHY IS THE WEST SO BLIND?

Islam is an ideology aimed at dominating the world. What makes it apparently different from Nazism or Communism is that Islam comes under the flag of religious belief.

Democracy stems from the quest for LIBERTY, it is a bottom-up process : freedom loving ( i.e. submission hating ) people devised Democracy as the best way for governing themselves. The idea of bringing Democracy to "submission" minded peoples is doomed to the bitterest of failures, as adamantly demonstrated by the rise to power of the obscurantist forces of Hamas in Palestine, Shia clerks in Iraq and the coming to prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Though sanctioned through publicly held polls, that’s not democracy, that’s tyranny under the travesty of Democracy.

Submission minded peoples are bound to be governed either by fascism ( Baath ) or fundamentalism. They still belong to the old ages of SUBJUGATION and that's what Islam is all about : THE WILL TO SUBJUGATE, the worst scourge that keeps haunting the humanity since the very beginnings. Believing that Islam is just a religion like many others is a lethal misjudgment.

Human societies of all kinds have thrived millennia upon slavery in a world where oppression was the norm, while LIBERTY is the antithesis devised -- at last -- by the human spirit for escaping SUBJUGATION.
LIBERTY is very “recent” in human history. It’s enough to have a look at today’s world -- 215 years “only” since when the First Amendment was established -- to understand that LIBERTY is still tottering and very frail.

For the “true believers” the world is divided into two sides: Dar El Islam ( the house of the believers) and Dar El Kufr ( the house of the infidels ). The FIRST duty of a believer is to conquer the land of the infidels and submit them.
Submission comes in three choices: 1st is conversion, 2nd is dhimmitude, 3rd is being decapitated.

However those who believe that not to be free but instead to be rich should be the main purpose in human life won’t find themselves restrained under Islamic rule. There are no provisions in the Qur’an against being rich and wealth is indeed praised and recommended.ù

Islam is akin to HIV : it takes a very long time for the infected host to recognize the lethal enemy and too often when he does it is too late. There is something in HIV that misleads the immune system into trusting the newcomer as one more member of the family while in reality it is an alien.

Would the US have allowed a USSR owned company to run its ports? Well, what the US is doing now with UAE owned DP World is by far worse.
But business is business!! And what about America’s open investment policy?? Goddamn those who dare to say that DP World's takeover of American ports management is not business as usual!!
Never seen glittering Dubai’s streets? The big cars and limos, gold and jewels everywhere, the flavor of greenbacks all around, whole armies of obsequious servants, and all the “brands” of the world available to so-called brand-conscious people. Well, isn't that what the most of us are dreaming of ? Thus, since we share the same dreams, who dares to say that they aren’t akin to us?

In the West unabashed LOVE FOR GOLD stands on top of everything, while LOVE FOR LIBERTY lags by far behind in the values’ ladder. That’s why we get so easily fooled by the virus of “submission”. And when the gates are wide open all kinds of ideological servants lusting for economical and political rewards hurry to show up : political correctness resulting in toleration of intolerance, lambasting common-sense measures of nationality profiling, defending heinous women subjugation as a just different lifestyle, laying down the First Amendment on the altar of so-called religious sensitivity… But that’s history already : now both sheer fear at home and bitter defeat in the Middle East are looming large.
The alien is taking hold but the infected host still insists upon maintaining that it is just a new a member of the family.

Did you hear that the U.A.R. is the most significant donor to the presidential libraries of former president Bush and Clinton ?(gazillions-google it before it is removed).

Why does George Jr. literally hold hands with Saudi 'royalty' when they visit the ranch ?

He explained that it was true: innocent people should not have been killed. Only the cartoonists, he said, should be killed.

Its interesting to note how people in the Islamic World are becoming progressively more extreme.

The supposed reason for the death sentence in the fatwa on Salman Rushdie was that, in his case, insulting the prophet was equivalent to apostasy. Now, this was, of course, a very bad reason; however, with the cartoonists apostasy doesnt come into it. So even that figleaf drops away.

BTW, new Mark Steyn article. To the point, as always.

Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:

''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.''

Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law ...

Nariz -

English is most certainly a race. I am English. I am an Englishman. I belong, thankfully, to the greatest race on Earth and I live in the greatest country on earth, namely England. I speak the language of my race, namely English, which we gave to the world as the primary method of communication between peoples. It is now spoken, in one of its forms, by more people than any other language.

I don't know if any of the others that you name are a race but English most certainly is, so don't offer that insult to freeborn English people again - just learn from us and name us correctly.

Nariz they throw the word racist, as an attack to any statement you make against islam.
then you have total idoits like this naseem person, even when muslims destroy their own temples, even the infidel did not destroy it, took more reverence towards this pigstye, Naseem cannot find any words to question the words of this cult of death. There is no logic, and no human love of self and freedom when you chose islam. it will never succeed in the land of the free. the understanding of this cult of death is being uncovered by the masses via the internet and books such as Robert's PIG to Isalm and the Crusades!

you have to make that land suitable for muslim habitation and environment...shops that sell Halal meat...jilbabs, islamic banks , islamc coke, islamic toys ...etc. etc....you get the idea. - Naseem

........ Right after Saudi Arabia is made suitable for non-Muslim habitation and environment.... shops that sell newspapers & magazines without censorship, permits equality of sexes, opens temple / church, statues, pictures, regular coke, regular toys ... etc. etc.... you get the idea....

Hello all,

I think Robert's experience just adds more confirmation that Muslims will tend to side with other Muslims no matter how irrational or destructive their actions.

Polling of even the "moderate" Muslim world shows a large chunk of the Muslim World believes the 9-11 terrorists are in Paradise right now.

I don't know of any polling here in the US regarding the cartoon Jihad, but I would be curious to see if the tendency remains the same.

All the best,
Mac

Enough talk; we need to work towards electing people who take this threat seriously in all its aspects.

Bush is obviously more interested in international finance than in protecting this country from Islamicizers.
- scribe10

Scribe10,

We needf to bot the dhimmi, spine;ess and corrupt politicians out first, only then can we elect people who take this threat seriously in all aspects. I mean.. how can Juliani become a Sec. of state (hypothetically), if Condi isn't booted out?

Kamala--Re the Mexicans, I can't help but notice that they have a city called "Matamoros" (Moor-killer).

You asked: "Is anyone paying attention to the prevalence of this ideology among Muslims in America?"

The answer is: Occasionally.
Here's a story from the New York Times on September 19, 2001: One week after 9-11, an imam of a mosque in Flushing NY tried to issue a statement denouncing the attack on the Twin Towers, denouncing bin Laden, and supporting America. Half his congregation refused to support it and walked out in protest. It turned out they were supporters of the Taliban:

http://tinyurl.com/zxgbj

I doubt they've changed their minds since then.

We should collect as many of these anecdotes as we can, in lieu of actual opinion polls of American Muslims. I often use this particular story as evidence that there are lots of American Muslims who support our enemies even though they haven't resorted to actual violence--yet.

I agree with Kamala too. It wasn't 19 Latinos who hijacked those four planes on 9-11. While radical Latino separatism is a problem, it pales in significance to the problem of worldwide Islamist jihad.

I also think there's a note of real hypocrisy here: Most of the people denouncing Latino immigration wouldn't be caught dead doing the jobs that Latinos are willing to do at the wages they're willing to work for. Our minimum wage laws have exacerbated that, but that's a problem for a whole other website.

I've always challenged an opponent of Latino immigration this way: The next time I'm staying in the Holiday Inn, why don't you ask your wife to work as a maid there and make up my room?

Posted by Naseem above: ” However persuing it by peaceful means....i.e. you have to make that land suitable for muslim habitation and environment...shops that sell Halal meat...jilbabs, islamic banks , islamc coke, islamic toys ...etc. etc....you get the idea.
Ultimately...the indegenious population will get the idea ... see Islam for it's just aims, love for the fellow muslim...and they will follow too. “

Ok Naseem prove it. Prove to me it is being spread peacefully, I have seen your peace 1st hand in several deployments to muslim lands. I guess they were suitable for muslim habitation, the peace thing just wasn’t there. I did see shops, banks etc some with islamic toys, one memorable one in Bosnia served food and behind the counter was an RPG and an AK, peaceful advertising?

The first question I have for any muslim is to explain why the perfect system has screwed up the perfect people. If you can’t make it work what makes you think we can? None of the muslim countries I have been to were anything special. All had crime, violence, and a drug addicted (and brainwashed) youth. You called yourself a businesswoman in one of your earlier posts. In what Islamic country could you practice any business without a male dominating it? True, you could be a Doctor or Nurse as long as you didn’t treat men. Maybe you could run a woman only business?

When you work that one out for me, I also want to see the benefits for us westerners. I do like the muslim my word is god thing when it comes to handling women, my wife might need lessons in “tolerance” before I try and impose my will on her. You stated that I could learn to see the love for the fellow muslim, I’ll give you that one. As soon as you convince me of the benefits I will convert and love my fellow muslim (good luck with that one). How soon after do I get to hate, Jews, westerners, Copts, Christians (insert all non muslims) etc etc? Do you get classes in violent behavior or is it expected to come naturally?

I am a little slow despite Benjamin’s earlier compliment to my intellect (ty btw) so explain to me why after all these centuries this whole sharia thing just doesn’t seem to work. Here is an idea, why don’t you muslims try it our way for a few centuries. Once your people are finally controlling their own destiny and your economy has developed to the point you don’t need handouts, your political leaders actually take care of everyone, including non muslims, then throw it all away and follow sharia again.

Oh, I have a tip for everyone except Naseem. For those of you who still do not own a t-shirt supporting Denmark you can now find them on ebay, I found one at a flea market here in Tampa (you have to ask for them they are afraid some muslim will stroke out after seeing them). I wear mine to walmart, really burns them up but so far none have been brave enough to complain about wearing it. Oh, I have a tip for everyone except Naseem. For those of you who still do not own a t-shirt supporting Denmark you can now find them on ebay, I found one at a flea market here in Tampa (you have to ask for them they are afraid some muslim will stroke out after seeing them).
I consider it a peaceful expression in support of free speech. I will calmly explain why I wear it to anyone just don’t go crazy and threaten to cut my head off, It might cause a “flashback”. None of us want violence, we westerners are a kind people.

One of the amazing things about Islam is that it defies rational thought. No matter how well educated a Muslim is, he or she is unable to think rationally. It's truly amazing that so many people in North America nad Europe (like Ibrahim - Douggy - Hopper) are willing to abandon common sense and embrace Islam.

It's also amazing how the media is so willing to give Islam a "free pass" while constantly attacking Christian religions.

Spencer wrote: "I emphasized the importance of realizing that the global jihad is not being advanced only by military means, and that the official refusal to acknowledge that many share the goals of the mujahedin but are pursuing them by peaceful means is hindering our defense against that particular line of attack."

The military jihad (whether guerilla & commando style [terrorist], or conventionally military [armies]) is the principal danger emanating out of Islam. The "other means" to advance this military jihadist threat all are dangerous only because they in one way or another assist the military jihad.

One should not stand the danger we face on its head, as Hugh Fitzgerald often seems to do: where the non-military jihad becomes more of a danger than the military jihad. That would be an absurd danger to worry about. To repeat: the non-military jihad is dangerous only to the extent that it assists the military jihad.

I would challenge the proponents of the Fitzgeraldian view of Jihad to name me one country or region in the world, throughout the history of Islam (from the 8th century to today) where Islam has conquered without military-physical violence. There are none. (Some might cite Indonesia, but Islam could not have come to dominate that region had there not been waves of piratical attacks and thousands of small-scale acts of violence (and threats of violence) over a long period of time preceding the dominance of Islam there.)

Mark Steyn's article (quoted by someone above) also implies this Fitzgeraldian Theory of Jihad by Non-Military Osmosis, by citing countries where if one merely pauses to think for a second, the Theory dissolves:

"every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia..."

Every one of these countries named where the sociopolitical power of Islam has increased -- every one of these countries has had decades, even centuries (not to mention an ongoing brutal present) of violent, military Islamic attacksas a stark backdrop to the advancement of Islamic law. Indeed, every one of these countries has had an actual physically violent, military takeover by Muslims.

Upshot: There is no danger of non-military Islamic jihad taking us over by osmosis -- not unless specific military violence (before, during or threatened for the future) attends it.

As irrational, pathological and silly I consider our dominant Western PC culture to be, I do not think its carriers are so far gone that they would countenance a non-military conquest by Islam by the sheer osmosis of transforming our socio-politico-legal institutions and culture. To think they would is ludicrously flaky.

Some marvelous anti-dhimmitude by no less a person than Sir Trevor Philips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (UK)

Muslims 'must accept' free speech

Don't worry, President Hillary Clinton will take care of the jihad threat.
/It's going to be a long war.
Posted by: Beagle at February 26, 2006 09:28 AM

Which ever presidential hopeful comes out and states that they will defeat Islam will be the next president. Hopefully, Hillary's leftist attitude will not let her do this........

==============================================

When my friend, Jula R. said, If they kill me I know I will have died with honor," the head of the NRA, Sandy Froman said, "yeah, and if you have a gun, at least you can take one out with you."
That's a woman after my own heart. Winston Churchill would be proud.
Posted by: Rebecca JW

If Hillary gets elected president we will have to fight to keep our arms and fight Islam.

Wars are won by killing all of the enemy that you can till the enemy unconditionally surrenders.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I must agree with Kamala. Personally, I'd rather have tons of "little Tijuanas" than "little Meccas."
Posted by: kafira

Mexico intends on taking back Southwest America including Texas which will be a very hot day in Hell for Mexico before this happens. This also has to be stopped.

11 million illegal immigrants can be removed from America. Build the fence and tell every illegal in America they have two choices, they can leave within the next thirty days with what they own for on day thirty one they will be rounded up and sent home as they came into America only with the clothes on their back.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn't it amazing. Muslims come here, benefit from the freedom they have but all they want is sharia. What idiots. I think we should deport every single one of them back where they came from.
Posted by: fireangel

If we box them up and send them home, do we get a refund like returning coke bottles??

___

English is most certainly a race. I am English. I am an Englishman. I belong, thankfully, to the greatest race on Earth and I live in the greatest country on earth, namely England.
Posted by: Certiorari

I just love the dry humor of the English. The English gave us Faulty Towers and Benny Hill and other such great comedies.

We wish to thank England for helping America to become America. Colonial America just couldn’t take that tea tax any more.

The English deserve our thanks and respect for the tens of thousands of innocent Englishmen, women and children that died holding Hitler at bay until America could finally realize the threat (Pearl Harbor) and join in the battle and defeat Germany and Japan.

I am afraid that it will take another Pearl Harbor, nukes WMD’s bombs going off in America before our America government awakes again. The American public is has realized the threat from Islam by the myriad number of telephone calls and emails sent to the MSM, cable news and Congress in opposition to the Muslims operating American ports.

================================================
The cab driver was a Muslim. He explained that it was true: innocent people should not have been killed. Only the cartoonists, he said, should be killed.
Posted by Robert

The demented minds of the Muslim masses are astounding and is driving the world into a nuclear holocaust.

============================================

Any blood spilled by these murderers - is upon the hands of the American leaders - for allowing them to roam freely - in the name of "Tolerance"
Posted by: Beth

If our leaders can not recognize the threat of Islam, how can they recognize their duties under the Constitution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:
''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.''
Posted by: scribe10

And yet President Bush and his incompetent staff still do not get that Islam intends on conquering the world. It will take nukes going off in Washington so they can see the light..........

The war with Islam is inevitable.

Prepare be armed be ready.

The Texican.

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Ronin,

Thanks for the comments. I have had similar observations from the "inside" of the military.

The careerist field grade and general officers will parrot any line they think is in vogue. Whatever they believe will get them ahead. This has been the case throughout the history of the military. At the present, the party line is still the "great religion of peace being highjacked" crap. However, that is quickly changing. Even the careerists are starting to quiet down with that rhetoric.

The non-careerist junior officers, a good number of field grades, and even a few retired GO's are now openly debating the truth about Islam. In fact, Army Magazine recently published a very blunt article dealing with the connection of Islam to terrorism (title: Islam, Islamism, and terrorism). The author pointed out the violent "war" verses in the Koran, and the fact that they cannot be "interpreted" away from being prescriptive commands (as can the OT violent verses which are descriptive and limited).

As time moves on, even the brown-nosing careerists will start telling the truth. That group of officers will go with whatever direction will help them get ahead. Soon, officers will not get ahead if they are stupid enough to keep saying "Islam is all a religion of peace". The promotions come from the inside. The inside will eventually change with the general consensus.

I was truthful about Islam way back when that was not in vogue (just after 9-11). My change in thinking came after service in the middle east in the 90's and personal reading of the Koran/Hadith (as well as a much closer reading of the Bible). I initially paid for holding that line. However, many of my officer friends are now coming back and apologizing for not believing. I will continue to be bold and serve my country by my oath: Defend the Constitution against "all enemies foreign and domestic". My oath to support and defend this great Constitution and way of life comes above any desire to get ahead. It comes before being PC, if being PC will harm the nation. Many others feel the same way.

The current crop of Junior Officers joined out of a true sense of duty. They will not allow the country to be harmed by following PC above truth. As they rise in rank, the careerists will be canned. Our country will be in good hands.

Thanks for the link Steven L.

As long as we are discussing the various forms of Jihad strategies, I have to plug a very good book on the subject, right up there with Robert's work in clarity. "Future Jihad" by Walid Phares. He divides it into six "tracks" as follows:

1. Economic (basically using oil)
2. Ideological (penetrating the universities)
3. Political (mollifying public opinion)
4. Intelligence (infiltrating our DHS agencies)
5. Subversive (using our freedom laws against us)
6. Diplomatic (influencing foreign policy)

I am paraphrasing here, but the above is the gist of his categories. Paul Sperry does an excellent job in "Infiltration" and of course Robert covers much of this in "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

All of the best,
Mac

Don't be hating on the Mexicans!

I understand that there are some legitimate economic concerns involving illegal immigration. I also understand that the Hispanic MS-13 is the largest growing gang in both the U.S. and the world (though not centered out of Mexico and creates real problems in many of our cities. And, finally, I understand that illegal immigration numbers serve to highlight the ease with which people can get into this country without approval -- but it isn't the Mexicans or other Latinos we need to worry about. The majority of the problems caused by illegal immigration -- or legal immigration but lack of assimilation most specifically in terms of language -- can be dealt with. They are real, but by comparison with the other issues we are faced with at this time -- they are merely an annoyance.

Latinos, as noted by other responders, are largely Catholic, largely dedicated to reproducing, and not afraid to speak up. They simply have not yet been infected with the PC virus that has been handicapping so much of the West. So let them in. And bear in mind, many Latinos are the descendants of the Europeans who conquered South America. They know all about how religion can be used as the point of entry for domination. They are not blind to the Islamic implications.

I love Mexicans, but illegal immigration is,
well, ILLEGAL, and it ends up costing a lot of
money to those that live here, and while it enriches a few, it prevents many from doing
better.

Find out what Cesar Chavez thought about the
practice of importing workers for cheap labor.

Oh yeah, deport all the Muslims too. I hate that
word "unthinkable". Of course all of the Muslims
support murdering the cartoonists. Does anyone
believe in this mythical "moderate muslim"
any more?

toleranceorappeasement:

I've commented a bit on Tancredo/the wall issue in the link below (scroll to the bottom; last, long-winded comment), addressing the short-sighted issue of "compassion" and enabling illegal immigration:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm?blog_id=123

I realize that they are my fellow Catholics, and am proud of the work the Church does on behalf of Latino immigrants, migrant workers, and the many social issues that accompany those communities.

However, if I give someone a free pass to break the law just because they're the same religion as I am, I'm no better than the many Muslims who do the same for Osama bin Laden and other jihadists, out of preferential treatment for the "ummah."

And, the issue has everything to do with terrorism and national security. There have already been possible cases of Mideast terrorists crossing into the US at our southern border:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/009807.php

By the way, MS-13, which you mentioned, has been rumored to have made contacts with al Qaeda, as well.

Stop the presses! Caught this speech on telly last night, here's the transcript: UK Defense Secretary John Reid gets it. By now none of us expect any politician to be able to call out the enemy - it'd be too sensationalist, and besides, anyone paying attention knows that Islam has repeatedly made clear and abundant declarations. All things considered, Reid's statement "what we combat is not a religion; it is a twisted evil using religion as cover" - though ostensibly alluding to unicorns - does seem a well-worded recognition of the true scale of the conflict.

Coming in the wake of treachorous and flagrantly STUPID reporting of British transgressions - which took place two years ago - in Basra by the News of the World tabloid, this speech makes significant references to the failing responsibilities of our medias. One hopes the governors of albeeb were given pause for thought by this; given that the organisation was commisioned - as a mandatory licenced authority - for the specific purpose of galvanising Britain against such threats, their fetishistic obsession with broadcasting unmediated Islamic propaganda must be brought under control.

In France, the media are begining to acknowledge the role of Islamic popular opinion in the horrific murder of Ilan Halimi. Although some are still talking of disenfranchised youth culture, this article does mention the salient points such that only a fool wouldn't make the connections: Islamic literature & videos, antisemitism and violence. The article also suggests that ransom may not have been the principle motivation - it seems opportunities to collect payments were neglected by the murderers. Equally disturbing is the indication that some residents on the estate knew what was going on but kept silent.

toleranceorappeasement, kamal, Stephen L., et al-

If we do not enforce the laws of this country (and not Mexico's or Shariah Law's) then our nation is being betrayed or betraying itself into either balkanization (La Raza's Nuevo Mexico in the southwest) and / or the eventual Islamic Emirates of America.

Keep illegals out.

All.

Otherwise, why stop at stop signs?

Why not steal from shops?

Why not take your neighbor's newspaper from their walk?

Every illegal unravelling our the country's borders and laws hastens the infiltration of those bent on turning what we've won, through sacrifice and intelligence, into a third word crapbox or Muslim hellhole.

Thanks, but I'll fight to keep what we've achieved.

And I do mow my own lawn and clean my own toilet.

And if a hotel or motel can't stay in business without hiring illegals, I'll sleep in one that can, and gladly pay $20, or more, for the better rest.

Scofflaws hurt those who play by the rules, as well.

Why should anyone get a real passport, or apply through the naturalization department to enter the U.S.? Let's have complete illegal immigration if it is so good. And the hell with driver's licenses. Or insurance. Or sanitation laws. Or anti-dumping statutes for toxic chemicals.

Hey, free market everything!

And if your kids are poisoned by backdated chicken, well, jeeepers! it's the price we pay to get rid of those pesky laws restricting the free movement of salmonella bacteria.

No thanks.

Things that destroy our legal system and erode our Civilization will only bring us to one more suicidally-smug dead end. Yet another well-meaning, but blind example of a culture that failed to uphold its core meaning.

The BBC has, finally, reported the march commemorating the murdered Ilan Halimi. It is a rather PC report, however: it mentions the disturbing anti Semitic background (difficult not to as France's Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy actually used the term) but IMO, attempts to gloss it over. There is no mention of the kidnappers' quoting the Koran, nor of what looks like the previous attempted kidnapping of Jews by the same gang.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4753348.stm

I too had an interesting conversation with a recent immigrant from Saudi Arabia who was working as a cabdriver. This was soon after 9/11, and before I became knowledgeable about the Qur'an and Surah, so unfortunately I didn't know the right questions to ask him. Anyways, the conversation was mostly him scolding me (not in a smiling good-natured way) because I told him that my S.O. and myself had waited until we were in our late 30's to have children. He was, umm, emphatic that you need to marry a girl who is in her teens, so that you can get the maximum number of children out of her. Oh, gee, never thought of that.

That episode pales in comparison with a situation where I was on a team writing some software. A Pakistani on the team argued vociferously with me that what I was proposing was impossible. I then, on my own time on the weekend, wrote the code and showed it to him. Unknown to me, he then took that code and called a meeting with everyone on the team except me, and did a demo of the code to our boss. A week later our boss mentioned how impressed she was at the Pakistani's code, since no-one had thought we could accomplish that. I guess deception is not just war (as Muhammad said), but also a normal way of doing everyday business. I was ready to rip his head off in the meeting, but, being an infidel, I settled for a three-way conference with our boss where I explained in clear and loud terms what had happened. I quit that job soon after because of it.

Dr Pepper said

One should not stand the danger we face on its head...where the non-military jihad becomes more of a danger than the military jihad. That would be an absurd danger to worry about.

Is it absurd? If the non-military jihad is waged, as I'm assuming you assume, by using gentle persuasion to convert infidels to Muslims, then I don't see a problem. Every person has a right of free speech to use arguments to convince others of the validity of their beliefs. Our (U.S.) culture will change over time as it assimilates new ideas and cultures, and I think this is good. And I don't think the principles of Islam have a chance in h*ll in being adopted in the U.S. if they are debated openly.

But that is not what is happening with the non-military jihad. It is being waged with deceipt. One message is given in Arabic to the believers, and another message is given in English to the infidels. It is a war to stifle the right of free speech, so that we will no longer be able to point out the true nature of Islam. We can just barely still have an open conversation about Islam in our society. Our own newspapers and tv stations don't report on the jihad and refuse to publish very tame satiric depictions of Muhammad. Why? Which brings us to another front: economic. They are using massive, record-breaking profits from the oil industry to buy influence in our media and in our government. This perversion and destruction of our rights is far more dangerous than the military jihad because it is so slow and subtle. The military jihad is actually a bad move for the jihadists, since it is waking people up to the danger of Islam, in a way that the non-military jihad was not. They have startled the frog in the pot, and woken him out of his stupor. The military jihad is destined to fail, but the non-military jihad is more worrisome.

Ronin, my cousin is a SGTMAJ in the Marines and he certainly gets it. I have been getting him informed and he certainly sees the enemy for who they are.
Thanks for your service.

special guest, the non-military jihad using deceit is still not a danger except insofar as it paves the way for physically violent military jihad. Non-military jihad is often (not always) a tool, a wedge, to enable the project of military jihad. Let's not reverse the importance and nature of the tool and the project.

As for the state of non-military jihad in the West: I'm sorry to inform many Jihad Watchers that Islam's non-military jihad has, at least in one important respect, already won: it was victorious long ago: it's called the Western PC multi-culturalist whitewashing of Islam, which is the dominant view of Islam in the West, and has been for decades: a significant victory for non-military jihad, perpetrated and propped up mostly by non-Muslim Westerners.

Ronin,

Too bad that the boss of all branches of the US Military, Rumsfeld, ostensibly believes, as he emphatically said to Charlie Rose recently, that "Muslim terrorists are a very small minority: the vast majority of Muslims are moderate!"

And too bad that the Boss of the boss also ostensibly believes this.

Some people are misunderstanding me here.
I am not for ILLEGAL immigration. It points at a problem for national security and should be taken care of to stop anyone from getting in without proper approval.

However, I think far too many people are against allowing hispanic immigration. And frankly, Middle America has more in common with Hispanic immigrants in terms of shared values than they do with many other immigrants -- or with many other people who were born here.

I fully admit that the language barrier is an issue that must be tended to. I was all for an English First (or Only) clause way back in the day before most people considered it much of an issue. However, once you get past the language gap, there is an awful lot of common ground between Hispanics and traditional Middle America.

I would like to see greater attention paid to immigration in general, I am not in favor of illegal immigration. BUT, there seems to be a bit of Mexican hating going on here, and given the larger issues and culture clashes at play in our world today? I don't get it.

Do we agree on everything? No. Is it always an adjustment to change the cultural makeup of a society? Yes. Is ours swinging toward a much larger hispanic percentage? Yes.

So embrace them now. Make friends now. Solve our problems and areas of difference and concern with this new (large) piece of the American Pie now so that we can move forward together, united against those with whom we will be very hard pressed to find the same kind of common ground.

The MS13 issues are troubling. I have long called for immediate deportation of any confirmed member of MS13 is who not a citizen. I have also called for citizen members to be tried for treason since they have given allegiance to a foreign movement.

I am not blind to the issues. I just think that working together, we can overcome them and Latinos could be a very important part of our successful resistance to Islam.

yojimbo - they first mentioned it two days ago, but as you say they glossed over the Islamic incentives of the murderers, saying only that "authorities believe antisemitism may have played a part", and so neatly sidestepping any insinuation on their part, the weasels.

Incidently I think they only picked up the story because Skynews were already covering it - as a clearly antisemitic murder, by Moslems.

Given that there are no major Moslem neighborhoods near albeeb, and that Sky is right next door to a sizeable one at Hounslow, the disparity is all the more marked. Sky also announce on-air their equivalent of "have your say", which has recently consisted largely of ordinary ppl expressing concern at the Islamification of Britain and their abuses of our laws & protections.

Although Sky aren't immune to the occasional poor choice of words, unlike albeeb they respond positively to polite objection. I ain't no Saudi prince but I think I may have got them to drop several "distasteful" reports of late. They deserve their consistent awards for Newschannel of the year, and put the publicly-funded albeeb to shame.

As far as I'm concerned, albeeb can whistle for their licence fee. No way am I funding terrorists.

Anyone who knows anything about the rules of warfare knows that the first thing to do once war breaks out is to secure one's own position. Since this is a war by civilians on civilians, we must be prepared to defend our civilian population by whatever means necessary. I just came from the last session of this conference and it was specifically on immigration.

Our speakers were Tamar Jacoby and Doug McIntyre. The audience wanted to talk about national security and Muslim immigration, but neither panelist was prepared to speak to the issue much. McIntyre's position was, secure the border first, then let's talk about immigration. He put the number of illegal immigrants at 20 million, the size of the state of New York. He spoke passionately about how corporations no longer have the interests of the nation at heart and how they are not even expected to have the interests of the nation at heart anymore. In this he echoed the vehemence with which Pat Caddell spoke about how the corruption in government was a sickness that will destroy the nation by selling her out.

Tamar Jacoby, when asked sincerely about Muslim immigration by a woman who works through her Church to help these immigrants and then they turn around and call her a kafir, (she said, "and the Koran tells me that infidels, can be killed!!), Jacoby responded, "Oh, Muslims are less than three million, they're like the shavings of a fingernail, they're so small. They're not a problem."

The room erupted! Absolutely erupted! The mood in that room was incredibly hostile. Then another woman from the audience spoke about her experience visiting Germany recently and their Muslim immigrant problem. Jacoby came back with a bunch of baloney about how Europe is lousy about assimilation, but "it's what we do best." Another eruption and a man pointed out how Germany had loyalty oaths and language tests and the whole nine years and still, Muslims didn't assimilate.

During the entire conference the average people were, by and large, way ahead of the speakers on the issue of Islam (except for Robert and a couple of others). That's the good news. Unfortunately, I see the Republican party splitting down the middle on immigration and Islam and then corruption, buzzard like, circling in to finish it off.

So now what?

Yes, and how the worldview of Islam would never allow a Muslim to pledge alligience to any non-Islamic government...exactly how can a Muslim become an American citizen...this I will never understand...they would have to deny their faith to do so.
Posted by: Abby at February 26, 2006 10:32 AM

What happened to the ‘First Amendment’ to the American Constitution? As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country.

disciple its great your cousin in the Marines gets it! l know my nephrew who was the middle of the road now gets it! he just saw the cartoons, and cannot understand all the fuss over some lame cartoons! many more of the youth and even some older ones will get it! it will work its way up in the ranks...there is no turning back till the cult of death is gone. maybe there is something to the reborn Christians thinking of fighting in the end of times.. as islams is the opposite of Christanity!

Thanks, Animus. I haven't got Sky - clearly, I'm the loser there.

BTW, I just discovered that Ken Livingstone:

is to spend £50,000 of tax-payers' money on an inquiry into alleged anti-Muslim bias in the media. The mayor of London ordered the review before the disciplinary hearing last week at which he was suspended for a month for comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Livingstone really is disgusting. I think there are no depths to which he will not sink. It is certainly remarkable that a self-described "socialist" should throw his lot in with people like Qaradawi ... travelling the same road for awhile, I suppose. He obviously hates our civilization so much that any one else who does is a friend to him no matter their ultimate ends.

I'd like to see the idiot Londoners vote him out next mayoral election, but I don't know that they will. I suspect his standing is actually rising with Muslim voters.

Go Here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7337500E-3AE5-419D-82DB-90794104BD51.htm

We can all sleep a little better tonight knowing the head dhimmi at the UN has solved the cartoon capers. Guess what!! The Western World is to blame because we are insensitive and don't have blasphemy laws. Time to show Kookie Kohfi the door.

Mohideen,

Nothing has happened to the 1st amemdment, that is why we are free to study the life of Mohammed from historical text authored by Moslem and non-moslem alike, and conclude from that record that he was nothing more than the typical 7th century Arabian warlord who engaged in murder, rape, pillage and plunder, not to mention his sexual perversions regarding a certain nine year old girl.

Joseph Smith has a more legitimate claim to prophethood than Mohammed, and neither one of them can prove their prophethood except by their own words. By the very definition of the word, prophethood can only be tested in time, not contemporaneously. Nostradamus has proved to be far more prophetic than either Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

The younger generations are technologically advanced and can quickly find sites such as J/W and D/W. They will eventually own this fight and nothing can help the muslims when they do.
Posted by: Ronin at February 26, 2006 11:29 AM

Muslims indeed look forward to such a development. These intelligent youngsters would examine the Islamic Scriptures and they would know the injustice done to Islam. Then they would fight the biased media.

Intelligence and critical examination will fight the present bias in our media and expose Islam for the destructive ideology that it truly is.

Folks, we have truth on our side, the muslims worst enemy is themselves. Every time one of thier spokesmen opens his mouth he puts both feet into it. Some of our own political leaders fail to see the threat or if they see it, they ignore it. So we vote them out. The last election proved we do not just blindly vote for a party. I think islam will be mentioned alot in the next election. How do I know, because we will make them explain how they see the problem and hold them accountable. True, alot of our leaders are in need of better advisors but we are waking them up.

Mohideen,

I HAVE examined the Islamic Scriptures in some depth. It is what finally brought me to this site. And I am here at this site to fight the biased media. The media that seems unable to state the truth about what is taught in those scriptures. Those scriptures which the current Dubai Emir offers a prize for memorizing btw...

The scriptures you refer to call for death for me and mine. I am offended that publishers of the Koran keep printing that Jesus was not the son of God but "merely" a prophet. Perhaps, the Islamic world has overstepped freedom of speech and the Koran should be banned worldwide (not just in non-islamic countries) until the offense passages are removed? Perhaps I should go burn something in the street to note my offense?

The biased media you speak of, however, is not biased in the direction you would like us to beleive.

Freedom of speech allows the West to speak the truth as they see it. Until the cartoons, far too few were doing that. The response to the cartoons is far more "disrespectful" than anyone could accuse the cartoons themselves of being.

So, I am glad to hear that you welcome the youth of the world to the endless information of the internet. I do too.

And then, I encourage those western youths to fully defend and utilize their freedom of speech to speak the truth.

I just don't think you are going to like what they have to say.

Mohideen Ibramsha writes:
"What happened to the ‘First Amendment’ to the American Constitution? "

As usuual, mohammadans are innately prone to
twisting the meaning of words to suit their
purposes.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of
religion as we understand it. As mohammdans like
to say, their cult is a deen, not a religion,
and encompasses politics, ass wiping, etc.

If I make up a cult who's aim it is to overthrow
the government and replace the Constitution, I
think it's fair to say that isn't a religion as
we use the word, but a scam designed to use our
respect for religion agiasnt us. No go!

"As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country."

A few problems my brain damaged friend. First,
Mohammadans don't practice their cult in peace,
anywhere. Second, even if they did, the First
Amendment, and the COnstitution, only applied to
the USA.

Mohideen from your mouth to Gods ears, let them study islam and they will be 100% on my side, unlike your children ours are raised to make up thier own minds and always question authority. The last thing you want is American kids finding out about islam. They are not willing to trade our lifestyle for yours. The islamic warrior is a joke, I have never seen them when a force on force battle. Stick to cowardly attacks, misdirection and propaganda, you do well with those. We have the most important things, the truth and the power to use it.

What happened to the ‘First Amendment’ to the American Constitution? As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country.

What seems to confuse Muslims is that in America we have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.People are perfectly free to practice their religion, what they cannot do is impose religious dogma on free people.For example if a religion forbids the drawing of a cartoon of a so-called prophet.No one can compel a member of that religion to draw such a cartoon.However other people are free to draw a cartoon of the so-called prophet if they want.As no religion has the right to impose it dogma on a free society.That's Democracy 101.

How is it that mohammedans are free to practice their "religion" in the USA when that "religion" openly advocates replacing our constitution with sharia law and our government with a caliphate by any means deemed nessary?

Dr. Pepper said

Let's not reverse the importance and nature of the tool and the project.

Project: Worldwide Caliphate with Shar'ia law installed globally. Non-Muslims killed, converted to Islam, or allowed to live in dhimmitude. That's the three choices offered to infidels.

Tool: violent jihad (in Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan, Israel, Iraq, Philipines, Malaysia,...), or non-violent jihad (in U.S., U.K., Canada, France...).

If I understand you correctly, you're mainly concerned about one of the Tools: violent jihad. I am concerned about the Project as well. Even if the Project is brought about by non-violent deception and corruption and influence-peddling and by the stifling of free discussion, the end result is still violent. If Shar'ia is installed non-violently, the results of living under Shar'ia will still be violent. We saw the soccer stadiums in Afghanistan turned into death stadiums, where infidels and Muslims-who-were-not-quite-Muslim-enough were beheaded/hanged/shot in public executions.

I'm sorry to inform many Jihad Watchers that Islam's non-military jihad has, at least in one important respect, already won: it was victorious long ago

Nonsense. I'm disheartened at how far down we've gone, but there is no way I'm ready to concede defeat. We have just barely begun to fight the non-military jihad. Martel360 asked

My question is, Did all the Nazi's get a pass because there were a few decent and "nice" acting Nazis??

Mohideen sez:

"...What happened to the ‘First Amendment’ to the American Constitution? As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country..."

Mohideen, we've been there before: You know very well that if you follow Mohammed, if you rape and rob and kill people in order to forcibly convert them, you will end up in Jail or dead.

Don't take my word for it: Just try it!

You should have noticed by now that we are actively working to change Mohammedan immigration, which is obviously of no benefit to any western nation. By infiltrating western countries under false pretenses and swearing to uphold the constitution and a political system which you then seek to overthrow and to replace with a 7th century tribal 'law' (which you call 'sharia') is nothing short of treason and sedition. We have laws against that and they will be implemented.

Internment and deportations NOW!

special guest,

We could be talking past each other, and disagreeing on the surface, but agreeing in substance.

Or not quite.

1) Tool and Project: Your post helps me to clarify what I meant. It's more complex: In the arsenal of Islam, there are two Tools and one ultimate Project:

Tool #1: military jihad (includes subsets 1a) Terrorism and 1b) outright Warfare: the West has not seen 1b in over 300 years, and has not seen truly threatening 1b in at least over 600 years)

Tool #2: non-military jihad.

Ultimate Project: Global domination.

Where it gets complex is that Tool #2 is principally, directly geared to facilitate Tool #1. It is Tool #1 (currently in the form of 1a) that is, and always has been throughout Islamic history, directly geared to faciliate the Project. To repeat: Tool #2 is not by itself a danger. It is only a danger insofar as it is linked with Tool #1. Important proviso: the historically unprecedented, spectacular global geopolitical dominance of the West has created a parallel culture in Islam whereby Tool #2 is not always geared to be linked up with Tool #1 (but that's a minor point, since we as Infidels must rationally suspect all manifestations of Tool #2 as potentially dangerous).

"Even if the Project is brought about by non-violent deception and corruption and influence-peddling and by the stifling of free discussion, the end result is still violent."

Tool #2 (non-military jihad) cannot pose any such danger to the West, because the West is so spectacularly dominant and superior and robust -- no matter how much PC idiocy reigns, no matter how much corruption and decadence of traditional morals abounds.

"If Shar'ia is installed non-violently, the results of living under Shar'ia will still be violent."

Sharia cannot be installed non-violently in the spectacularly dominant West -- unless violent means accompany it.

"We saw the soccer stadiums in Afghanistan turned into death stadiums, where infidels and Muslims-who-were-not-quite-Muslim-enough were beheaded/hanged/shot in public executions."

You (like Hugh constantly does) are mixing apples and oranges. Afghanistan was a country that a) in the distant past had already been violently conquered by Muslims and b) in recent history had been violently attacked and overthrown by Muslims. No such situation exists in the West: the last time such a situation existed was in the 15th century when Muslims violently conquered the southeastern flank of Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire, and before that beginning in the 8th century when Muslims violently conquered the southwestern flank of Europe, the Iberian peninsula.

I wrote: I'm sorry to inform many Jihad Watchers that Islam's non-military jihad has, at least in one important respect, already won: it was victorious long ago

"Nonsense. I'm disheartened at how far down we've gone, but there is no way I'm ready to concede defeat."

We have in fact been defeated in, as I wrote: at least in one important respect (I choose my words very carefully): to wit: the PC whitewashing of Islam. To deny that is not only silly, but downright perilous. The PC whitewashing of Islam is one significant victory for the non-military jihad: it reverberates all around us and flexes its muscles in our academic institutions, in our media, in our government, in various domains throughout our society even among ordinary Europeans and Americans who are PC-brainwashed -- and Muslims could not have won that particular victory without enormous help from gullible PC idiots in the West. Victories can be reversed. There is hope. But there will be less hope if we persist in the obtusely stubborn conceit (evidenced time and time again by Jihad Watchers from the top down) that this PC whitewashing of Islam is not a grave cultural defeat we have brought upon ourselves in the last 50-odd years.

Mohideen wrote: "As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country."

Mohideen, to become a citizen of the United States, every immigrant, including Muslims, must take the following solemn oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

If he refuses to take this oath, the immigrant may not become a citizen. If he takes this oath only as a deception (e.g., Muslim taqiyya), and does not live up to its provisions, that is grounds for revoking citizenship and deportation.

No one is free to come to or live in the United States if his goal is the destruction of our Constitution.

That Muslims lie about their hostile intentions all the time is not surprising, given the utterly vile and self-serving teachings of the Koran concerning the dealing with and treatment of the other, both the infidels and the dhimmi.

That our government frequently gives Muslims a pass on this outrageous ideology, out of a misguided sense of compassion, is just plain stupid.

That our citizens at large--through the internet services, a free press, critical analysis, open discussion, cartoons (!), and self-education--are finding out the truth about islam (in spite of all the pernicious dawa, taqiyya, and kitman) means that the door is going to slam shut on Islam.

Our compassion is fading toward those who are not compassionate. Our tolerance is drying up toward those who are not tolerant. Our kindness is evaporating for those who are not kind. Our offer of freedom will be withdrawn from those who choose not to be free.

What happened to the ‘First Amendment’ to the American Constitution? As long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace, they are free to live not only in America, but in any other non-Islamic country.
- Mohideen Ibramsha

Right here you have a problem: (and pay careful attention):

Cartoon Jihad just proved that Islam is not compatible even with the 'First Ammendment' Yet, when it is convenient, Muslims (like Mohideen Ibramsha) hide behind 'First Ammandment' to wage Dawa, which will morph into a silent Jihad. Given time, opportunity and ammunition, a grows into a full-fledged Jihad against Dar-al-Harb!

.. all thanks to US Constitution & First Ammendment, which (the likes of Mohideen Ibramsha will never admit to), is Un-Islamic!

Clever, very clever!!

This article should make one pause:

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/jonsson022506.htm
Dubai Ports — Strategic Implications
By David J. Jonsson
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Posted by: scribe10 at February 26, 2006 11:33 AM

We find the following in the above article:
===
An Islamic Sukuk bond is structured by bundling leasing transactions but behaves in practice like any highly rated bond.
…
If no IPO takes place prior to the final redemption of the Sukuks, investors would be compensated with a higher yield.
===

Higher yield compared to what? When no IPO is issued, the comparison must be with some pre-determined rate. Once there is a fixed time and a pre-determined rate, what we have is interest in another name.

From http://www.bradynet.com/bbs/asia/100099-0.html a news item dated September 30, 2003, we have:
===
Qatar's floating-rate bonds due 2010 probably will be priced to yield between 0.39 and 0.41 percentage points more than the six-month London Interbank Offered Rate, said the HSBC banker, who declined to be named. With six-month dollar Libor at 1.18 percent today, the bonds would yield between 1.57 and 1.59 percent.
===

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-6-2005_pg5_16 has the following information:
===
The global Islamic bond market kicked off in 2002 when Malaysia issued the first global Islamic sukuk government-backed $600 million five-year sukuk with a yield of 0.95 percentage point over Libor.
===

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20060211%5CACQDJON200602110740DOWJONESDJONLINE000294.htm& a story dated February 11, 2006 states:
===
The seven-year Sukuk bond will mature Oct. 22, 2012, it added. The price guidance on the deal is 35 basis points over the six-month Karachi Interbank Offered Rate.
===

In 2002, the sukuk rate was 0.95% over London Inter Bank Offered Rate. In 2003, it was between 0.39 and 0.41% over London Inter Bank Offered Rate. And in October 2005, the sukuk rate is 0.35% over the Karachi Inter Bank Offered Rate.

In Islam, a partnership requires sharing both the profit and loss in a pre-determined ratio. The Inter Bank Offered Rate is interest. To add an arbitrary pre-determined rate to Ibor at the time of issue still yields interest only.

Thus to this writer, the sukuk is just window-dressed interest. Mortals could play with words. There is no loss-sharing in the sukuk as practiced. Thus, the DP World gaining authority would not result in Islam getting stronger. Instead DP World and their ilk would window dress un-Islamic behavior and present the same as Islam. Looks like the International Banking System has bent Islam to match its practice!

Allah knows best.

BTW, I just discovered that Ken Livingstone:

is to spend £50,000 of tax-payers' money on an inquiry into alleged anti-Muslim bias in the media.

Meaning: Redken will be handing over 50 grand to a panel of MCB members to donate to "Palestinian charities" of their choice, to be told that YES, of course the media is Islamophobic. To a Muslim, having the Infidel parody the truth about Mohammed is more devastating than if their own wives and daughters were raped and killed a million times over, because they love their "prophet" more than themselves, and the media are just demonising Peaceful Moslems, because it's run by joos, and Moslems are peaceful, Islam means peace, and it's not wise to upset 1.2bn Moslems by making them seem threatening... that's a lot of angry Peaceful Moslems to get on the wrong side of... Free speech doesn't actually mean "fredom of speech", that's just an excuse for gratuitous Islamophobia - critisize Islam, by all means, but let's do it in a non-offensive, uncritical way... sorry my head's spinning

Allah knows best? He can't even laugh at a cartoon. I'd look for a stronger role model, maybe the charmed ones should start in a few.

Rebecca,

Tamar Jacoby is a shill for the cheap labor lobby. Check out VDARE.com; they often write about her. Hispanics do jobs that Americans won't do at the wages certain employers would like to pay. Decrease the supply of labor, wages will rise and Americans will take those jobs. Simple economics. Also we need not have mass deportations - employer sanctions and ceasing to pander to them will cause many illegals to depart on their own.

I also seem to recall reports of many Mexicans cheering for Osama at some American vs Mexican sports event. Does anyone else remember that?

There are many posts that are against Islam, but what have you done personally to help overcome Islam???

Have you taken the personal time written, sent emailed or called your Congressmen and Senators??

You can reach your Congressman and Senators here:
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

I have sent two separate emails concerning the port fiasco to my congressman Dick Burgess and to Senators John Cronyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

The screaming wheel will get attention. If enough people scream about Islam, Islam will get the exposure that it does not want.

The Texican.

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Dr. Pepper,

I agree with you that the silent jihad will never succeed in the West the way it has in Afghanistan et al. But only because we still have the mechanisms to stop it: free press, politicians who (supposedly) are responsible to their constituents, free speech, separation of religion and government, and a strong connection to Christian values (Golden Rule, Turn the Other Cheek, Let Him Without Sin Cast the First Stone, forgiveness, compassion, etc., and no I'm not a Christian). The silent jihad won't succeed, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it and only focus on the more visible violent jihad. The attacks on our economy and our rights and freedoms must be fought at least as strongly as against the bombers and beheaders. In the end, there is one hierarchy churning out warriors on both fronts: lawyers, clerics, spokespersons, lobbyists on the one side, and bomb-vest wearers on the other. They're two prongs of the same fork. [Hint for our leaders: the hierarchy is not based in Iraq]

special_guest: "They're two prongs of the same fork."

Actually, the shtick between so-called "moderate" vs extremist Muslims reminds me of your basic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine.

Robert, welcome back, great to hear form you.

I have had many conversations with the average nice guy muslims, some of who work for the DHS and have ow level security clearance.

One nice guy, told me that the tsunami was caused by naval experiments in the Indian Ocean and was done there so if something went wrong it would not hurt non-muslims. You must realize that he passed the standard DHS background check, but how can you screen against his mindset or inner Ummah beliefs.

One person was sending notes and harassing other coworkers by telling then that Christianity was a false faith and only Islam was true. It led to a physical confrontation with a Christian coworker, who knocked him on his ass. He was reprimanded and the Christian coworker being an veteran of the Iraq, did not lose his post. This Muslim coworker is still employed by DHS, and must have passed his standard background check, but how could this really see what his intentions are. Where his loyalty is.

This is why I have serious doubts about the current system of background checks and their effectiveness.

Robert, these guys were blatant and acted unafraid. I was once told by my superiors that they could only act to remove one of these guys if he was caught with the plans of an attack or betrayal in his hand.

I say why can't we be proactive and prevent the next tragedy?

We can't because our superiors don't understand Islam and the deep seated beliefs of even the average nice guy Muslim.

El Cid my friend if you really wan't to get upset read "Infiltration" by Paul Sperry if you haven't already read it. It's germain to your post and will really piss you off. Cheers

As a Hispanic immigrant (legal) I agree with the above posters, build the fence, stop the gangs, and force the Americans from Latin America to internalize the values of this country.

My parents left Latin America to escape the corruption, lawlessness and tribalism of that society. The problem is Latin society and Latinos themselves because although most come here to change their lives they carry with them the mental toolset that if not moulded by the best of American culture, will only succeed in replicating here what they left behind in their home countries.

I love this country and am grateful that my parents came here and gave me a better life. My children and grandchildren, while keeping some of their hispanic heritage, are fully American and will prosper and contribute to keeping this country great.

Not all speak Spanish, some have married into other immigrant groups Chinese, Italian, German to name a few, they all share a common understanding of the freedoms and rights America.

Stop illegal immigration yes, build the wall but don't burn your bridges to the South.

Remember Matamoros means Moor killers in Spanish and like my JW name implies El Cid, we still remember our subjugation under Islam.

El Cid-

Kudos.

Muy Bueno!

The only people who came to the U.S. without a need for immigration clearance (that I don't worry about) were those who dared the Siberian-Alaskan ice/land bridge tens of thousands of years ago.

Since then, we have built up a great country here, between Mexico and Canada, and it is founded on holding self-indulgent chaos in check, so it makes sense to rationally regulate those who are trying to enter this prosperous zone of human liberty -or we will lose what created it: a rule of laws and not men.

As a smart Spaniard said:

Mas vale saber que haber.

(Wisdom is better than wealth.)

Dr Pepper. so true, we have weakened ourselves with PC thought and Islam has exploited this weakness.

el cid, "we have weakened ourselves with PC thought and Islam has exploited this weakness."

You nicely distilled my verbose posts down to the essence of the problem.

Obviously from the same meeting in the Hague
Source Sunday times

Islamists are stifling debate in what was Europe’s freest country, says Douglas Murray


‘Would you write the name you’d like to use here, and your real name there?” asked the girl at reception. I had just been driven to a hotel in the Hague. An hour earlier I’d been greeted at Amsterdam airport by a man holding a sign with a pre-agreed cipher. I hadn’t known where I would be staying, or where I would be speaking. The secrecy was necessary: I had come to Holland to talk about Islam.
Last weekend, four years after his murder, Pim Fortuyn’s political party, Lijst Pim Fortuyn, held a conference in his memory on Islam and Europe. The organisers had assembled nearly all the writers most critical of Islam’s current manifestation in the West. The American scholars Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer were present, as were the Egyptian-Jewish exile and scholar of dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, and the great Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq.

Both Ye’or and Warraq write and speak under pseudonyms. Standing at the hotel desk I confessed to the girl that I didn’t have any other name, couldn’t think of a good one fast. I was given my key and made aware that the other person in the lobby, a tall figure in a dark suit, was my security detail. I was taken up to my room where I changed, unpacked and headed back out — the security guard now positioned outside my bedroom door.

I had been invited to deliver the closing speech to the memorial conference on what would have been Fortuyn’s 58th birthday. I said I would talk on the effects of Europe’s increasingly Islamicised population and advocate a tougher European counterterror strategy. There was no overriding political agenda to the occasion, simply a desire for frank discussion.

The event was scholarly, incisive and wide-ranging. There were no ranters or rabble-rousers, just an invited audience of academics, writers, politicians and sombre party members. As yet another example of Islam’s violent confrontation with the West (this time caused by cartoons) swept across the globe, we tried to discuss Islam as openly as we could. The Dutch security service in the Hague was among those who considered the threat to us for doing this as particularly high. The security status of the event was put at just one level below “national emergency”.

This may seem fantastic to people in Britain. But the story of Holland — which I have been charting for some years — should be noted by her allies. Where Holland has gone, Britain and the rest of Europe are following. The silencing happens bit by bit. A student paper in Britain that ran the Danish cartoons got pulped. A London magazine withdrew the cartoons from its website after the British police informed the editor they could not protect him, his staff, or his offices from attack. This happened only days before the police provided 500 officers to protect a “peaceful” Muslim protest in Trafalgar Square.

It seems the British police — who regularly provide protection for mosques (as they did after the 7/7 bombs) — were unable to send even one policeman to protect an organ of free speech. At the notorious London protests, Islamists were allowed to incite murder and bloodshed on the streets, but a passer-by objecting to these displays was threatened with detention for making trouble.

Holland — with its disproportionately high Muslim population — is the canary in the mine. Its once open society is closing, and Europe is closing slowly behind it. It looks, from Holland, like the twilight of liberalism — not the “liberalism” that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.

All across Europe, debate on Islam is being stopped. Italy’s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about Islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice.

Those of us who write and talk on Islam thus get caught between those on our own side who are increasingly keen to prosecute and increasing numbers of militants threatening murder. In this situation, not only is free speech being shut down, but our nation’s security is being compromised.

Since the assassinations of Fortuyn and, in 2004, the film maker Theo van Gogh, numerous public figures in Holland have received death threats and routine intimidation. The heroic Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her equally outspoken colleague Geert Wilders live under constant police protection, often forced to sleep on army bases. Even university professors are under protection.

Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.

The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. And so it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal.

I had planned — the morning after my speech — to see Geert Wilders, but instead spent the time catching up with his staff. Their leader had been called in by the police to discuss more than 40 new death threats he had received over the previous days.

As I left the Netherlands I once again felt terrible sorrow for a country that is slowly being lost. A society which should be carefree and inspiring has become dark and worried. The jihad in Europe is winning. And Holland, and our continent, takes one step further into a dark and menacing future.

Douglas Murray is the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It

Texican is right.

We need to keep in the habit of contacting or writing letters to our politicians, journalists, and editors.

Putting together coherent letters can be difficult, given the size of the problem. These articles (links below) give brief overviews of the problem with Islam, and provide useful examples.

Read this first http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm
And this http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/ProphetCartoons.htm

James Arlandson’s Article “Why I don’t Convert to Islam.” (3 parts)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5197&search=arlandson

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5258

Almost any specific issue that arises, in the various forms of the Islam problem, has already been covered by people like the writers at this site or those at http://www.faithfreedom.org and http://www.islam-watch.org/

If you need primary sources from Koran and Hadith, use these handy sites.

Koran, with problems annotated by a skeptic.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Tafsir (or tafseer) is necessary to understand the meaning and context of the quran.
http://www.tafsir.com/
Other tafsir are available, and should also be considered.

Hadith
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/

Posted by: Beth at February 26, 2006 12:15 PM
Posted by: Pass It On at February 26, 2006 12:29 PM
Posted by: FreeSpeech at February 26, 2006 12:46 PM
Posted by: Yojimbo at February 26, 2006 12:58 PM
Posted by: Lulu at February 26, 2006 01:01 PM
Posted by: Alert at February 26, 2006 01:29 PM
Posted by: amana39 at February 26, 2006 01:37 PM
Posted by: Ronin at February 26, 2006 02:03 PM
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 26, 2006 02:11 PM
Posted by: FallingProphet at February 26, 2006 02:19 PM
Posted by: American at February 26, 2006 03:13 PM
Posted by: special_guest at February 26, 2006 03:51 PM

The list seems to grow. I hope, God Almighty willing, to respond some aspect of the above posts and possibly some that follow. In case I could not complete the responses before the time for comments gets over, the response might be found in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

Yesterday, I was called a racist for objecting to Mexican graffiti. Let me be clear. I hate graffiti. I loathe graffiti. Graffiti is a direct assault and affront to the fading establishment we are trying so desperately to revive. It is an expression of scorn and to view it as anything else, another "human right" say, is delusional. The existance of graffiti is a reminder of our toleration of scorn for society at large and so its existence accurately reflects our own self-loathing. Eventually our businesses stop painting over it and the city stops painting over it out of resignation, sadly bowing to the what seems to be the inevitable, ever encroaching chaos. No one want to fight a losing battle on their own.

What bothered me most about Tamar Jacoby's talk yesterday was her essential reduction of human beings to units of production and consumption. She seems to worship the god of the ever expanding economy. No matter what, we must always do what's best for the economy. What she described was an "upper culture" built on the backs of a "lower culture" and yet the implications of this arrangement didn't seem to bother her at all. The tide of cheap labor flowing in over the border today will irrevocably alter, if not rend, our social fabric and will color the nature of our society FOREVER.

Jacoby never addressed the question of culture or what it takes to make a culture cohere. Homo economicus must sacrifice all to the god of the economy including the most basic right and responsibilty to steer the course of our civilization.

What does it mean to have an "expanding economy" in actual human terms? Why should we fear an unexpanding economy? Is it impossible to achieve some sort of economic equilibrium? How can our economy be expected to expand forever? Would the sky fall in if it didn't?

Perhaps we could live a bit more simply and with that, a bit more freely as well. I'll mow my own lawn, thank you.

Mohideen

Maybe you believe that Islam is peaceful. Maybe YOU do want to see conversion through peaceful methods. However, all your talk of which verse does or does not supercede another and whether anyone other than your God can supercede anything is meaningless to me.

I don't say this to be rude. I say this to make the point that Muslims everywhere seem to be missing.

I have a religion. I am perfectly happy with it.
Jesus didn't tell me to listen to what he had to say until another guy came along with an update 600 years later... He said "no man cometh unto the father but through me".

He didn't mention another prophet. He didn't say he hey lets set up this temporary agreement. He said he was the way, the truth, and the life.

I reject your book. I reject your religion.
I have my own. I believe my faith is the one true faith. I believe that YOUR people should convert.

I am still offended that I am forced to deal "respectfully" with a book that slanders God. That book being, of course, the Koran.

So, if Muslims really want to push this no publishing things that offend other religions -- your book is offensive. You demote Christ from GOD to Prophet, and not even the most important Prophet at that.

I think that if the cartoons shouldn't have been published, then we better ban the Koran right away. In your country as well as mine...

Do you see my point here? Because right now I am being a touch facetious. Hey, you want your book -- read it -- that's the western way. But you want to push up on the religion question all that hard, just remember, the other religions will push back.

I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven.
--- screamed by the Moslem Adel as he gouged out the eyes of his Jewish neighbor

Moslem neighbor. Islamic religion. Moderate Moslem.

So much adulterated langauge, so many mistaken assumptions. Such a surfeit sanguine, suicidal mythology.

How can a political ideology be termed a religion is it is based on hate, worships the practice of evil, and has global military objectives?

If he holds to Islamic blasphemy law, and the necessity of enforcing it on non-Muslims in a non-Muslim state …
Posted by: fireangel at February 26, 2006 12:01 PM

From another post above:
I hate graffiti. I loathe graffiti. Graffiti is a direct assault and affront to the fading establishment we are trying so desperately to revive. It is an expression of scorn and to view it as anything else, another "human right" say, is delusional. The existance of graffiti is a reminder of our toleration of scorn for society at large and so its existence accurately reflects our own self-loathing. Eventually our businesses stop painting over it and the city stops painting over it out of resignation, sadly bowing to the what seems to be the inevitable, ever encroaching chaos.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at February 27, 2006 10:44 AM

Isn’t graffiti a form of speech? If one paints graffiti on the wall of his house can he be questioned? No. However, graffiti in public spaces is to be punished.

How about a cartoon? Could there be any objection to any cartoon drawn on a napkin to amuse the diners? No. Can the same abusive and offensive cartoon be published leading to loss of lives? Is it unreasonable to seek curbs on ‘freedom of speech’ that leads to loss of lives?

When does one commit blasphemy in Islam? An indication is found in Verses 87 and 88 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran.
===
2:87 WE gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called imposters and others ye slay!

2:88 They say “Our hearts are wrappings (which preserve Allah’s word we need no more).” Nay Allah’s curse is on them for their blasphemy; little is it they believe.
===

What did Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him do when he encountered blasphemy? An extract of Tradition numbered 119 in Volume 5 of Fiqh-us-Sunnah is given below:
===
Ibn Al-Qayyim said, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to proclaim the rites of Islam at a place where disbelief, blasphemy, and hostility to Allah and His Messenger were dominant.”
===

What is wrong in preaching Islam in Denmark? Is there anything wrong if wealthy Muslims advertise the “Principles of Islam” in the paper that published the cartoons?

That cabby - sees no wrong in carrying out murder. His statement - "Only the cartoonists, he said, should be killed" - is proof that the Koran does create murderers.
Posted by: Beth at February 26, 2006 12:07 PM

The Holy Quran does not create any murderer; it indeed recommends death for a murderer.

That cabby is wrong. We would recommend that the cartoonists learn “Islam 101” and pass it like the offending driver is sent to “Driving School” in USA to improve his / her skills.

What is wrong with preaching Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Zorastrianism, Animism, Paganism, Bhuddism, Taoism, Mormonism or Rastafarianism in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Tunisia?

Dear Mohideen:

The Holy Quran does not create any murderer; it indeed recommends death for a murderer.

Allah commands all al-muminum (true believers) to maim and kill those who create mischief in the land.

Yusif Ali
5.33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

All it takes is mischief. the cab driver knows it, you know it, WE KNOW IT.

The Son of God is an abomination in Islam 019.088 and the Muslims are commanded to slay His followers
Posted by: Beth at February 26, 2006 12:15 PM

What does the Holy Quran say?
===
19:88 They say: “(ALLAH) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
19:89 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
19:90 As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin.
19:91 That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
19:92 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
19:93 Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.
19:94 HE does take an account of them (all), and hath numbered them (all) exactly.
19:95 And every one of them will come to Him singly on the day of Judgment.
19:96 On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow Love.
19:97 So have We made the (Quran) easy in thine own tongue, that with it thou mayest give glad tidings to the righteous, and warnings to people given to contention.
19:98 But how many (countless) generations before them have We destroyed? Canst thou find a single one of them (now) or hear (so much as) a whisper of them?
End of chapter 19.
===

Where does Chapter 19 command the Muslims to slay the Christians? In contrast, the Holy Quran says:
===
5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: “We are Christians:” because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world and they are not arrogant.
===

How come the Holy Quran recommends slaying the Christians? Shall any slay one who is nearest in love?

The Son of God is an abomination in Islam 019.088 and the Muslims are commanded to slay His followers
Posted by: Beth at February 26, 2006 12:15 PM

What does the Holy Quran say?
===
19:88 They say: “(ALLAH) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
19:89 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
19:90 As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin.
19:91 That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
19:92 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
19:93 Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.
19:94 HE does take an account of them (all), and hath numbered them (all) exactly.
19:95 And every one of them will come to Him singly on the day of Judgment.
19:96 On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow Love.
19:97 So have We made the (Quran) easy in thine own tongue, that with it thou mayest give glad tidings to the righteous, and warnings to people given to contention.
19:98 But how many (countless) generations before them have We destroyed? Canst thou find a single one of them (now) or hear (so much as) a whisper of them?
End of chapter 19.
===

Where does Chapter 19 command the Muslims to slay the Christians? In contrast, the Holy Quran says:
===
5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: “We are Christians:” because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world and they are not arrogant.
===

How come the Holy Quran recommends slaying the Christians? Shall any slay one who is nearest in love?

Actually, Mohideen, there is nothing wrong with preaching Islam in Denmark or in any representative form of pluralistic society as long as the proponents of Islam also agree that those holding opinions and beliefs contrary to Islam are equally free to criticize Islam. Any ideology in a pluralistic society must be open to criticism, otherwise there no longer is a pluralistic society in which are all equal.

Furthermore, any such criticism must be able to shake the very foundations of the ideology.

Mohideen, are you capable of spontaneous analytical thought and deductive reasoning, or are you committed to rote memorization and regurgitation?

Dear Lisa,
Why spontaneous?

you have to make that land suitable for muslim habitation and environment …
Posted by: Alert at February 26, 2006 01:29 PM
It is the free market in operation – provide what sells.

We should collect as many of these anecdotes as we can, in lieu of actual opinion polls of American Muslims.
Posted by: Steven L. at February 26, 2006 01:41 PM

The anecdotes really show the bias of the collector. Anecdotes are not a substitute for opinion polls.

Rebecca, brilliant post, I like the way you think, so true about Graffiti, I hate it too and gang Graffiti is territorial challenge to orderly society. Just as Jihadies want to change our culture by creating a climate of fear, the gangs do the same by marking a street or building as their territory.

By leaving their mark they are telling citizens that they own this neighborhood.

Remove Graffiti and you take big step in stopping crime, it's called the "Broken windows theory" and Gulianni transformed New York with it.

Rebecca you are not a racist, and I object to those who use this term to stop any discussion.

I am against uncontrolled immigration.

Let those who come here be the those who want to preserve the American constitutional system ( the best ever devised for any society).

Let those that stay be those that can internalize the basics of our society.

My parents did this and gave us our key to an American life. My wife's parents who came from Poland did the same.

Sure I like Latino food and on occasion dance latino music and my wife makes great pirroges. I am a religious Catholic and have a big family, but my children and grandchildren have found their place in American society and love and revere this country.

Mohideen, I will not let Islam change that or sharia destroy my culture, I am an American I will defend my way of life. Oh and did I say I am a licensed gun owner.

explain to me why after all these centuries this whole sharia thing just doesn’t seem to work.
Posted by: Ronin at February 26, 2006 02:03 PM

We give two reasons:
1. The abolition of the Khilafath by Abdulaziz, father of Abdullah, the current Custodian of the two holy mosques.
2. In Islam there is no class called “priests.” The society has copied the other religions and has appointed salaried Imams for the Masjids to conduct the prayer.

Why do we say as above? If three Muslims are to offer a prayer, the most learned among them would lead the prayer. That meant, every Muslim tried and studied as much of Islam as possible. Once the Imam to lead the prayer is appointed, the others relaxed and the overall knowledge of Islam in the community declined.

In the absence of the Caliph, the rulers of even tiny bits of land assumed final authority and their whims and fancies became part of Islam. Because there are so many rulers they are manipulated by the empires and the rulers of the Muslim lands are more obedient to their western masters than to God Almighty.

Oh and did I say I am a licensed gun owner.
Posted by: El Cid at February 27, 2006 10:42 PM

That is very kind of you El Cid that you offer to protect me. Thanks!

Yes I would protect you if am angry mob of rioting Christians came to burn down your house after a WMD attack.

I would protect you straight out of the country. You would be much safer then waking the streets of a devastated American city.

Now if I wanted to live in Arabia and wanted to build a church and maybe convert a few Muslims would you protect me? I don't think so. This is the moral difference between my superior culture based on Judeo-Christian values of morality and the amoral belief system in Islam that only offers help and protection to other Muslims.

You are dam right I will fight for my culture and their are billions like me so good luck and may the best civilization win.

The Mexican issue is a symptom of the problem. We don't as a people, value America the way we should. We should teach our young what this country has done, why it's unique, and why it must be fought for. The RNC & the the DNC care about corporate interests & voters. Same thing with the ports deal. Isn't there something that transcends these issues? Patriotism. Not zenophobia, or hate. Patriotism. This country is great because of many things, but the freedoms we have are extraordinary. We are more free than anyone, unless multiculturism isn't stopped. Bit by bit, hate-crimes laws & enforced tolerance will tyrannize us.

this was a typo: "unless multiculturism isn't stopped" should be ** IS STOPPED **...

Thanks El Cid. I like the way you think too.

Mohideen:

You have offended me AGAIN!

"19:88 They say: “(ALLAH) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
19:89 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
19:90 As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin.
19:91 That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
19:92 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son."

How can it be possible that Muslims expect people of other faiths to respect a strictly Islamic sentiment that the Prophet not be depicted and yet they can flat out say that Christ is not the son of God. (Although, I will agree with you that Christ is not the son of Allah...)

To begin the true war of theological ideals one need only demand the logical probability of gods existence. In particular, the sacred belief in "Allah". Does "Allah" exist or not?

This demand must be met by Muslims wishing to spread Islam (or agree that cartoonists should die). To enforce this faith based upon an unproven deity is irrational and as we have seen, barbaric and animalistic.

People have slaughtered each other for centuries for "god" and it is high time we human beings begin to either deeply redefine the meaning of an ultimate creator or abandon it all together.

I'm not talking mass-atheism here as I believe that religion provides everything science cannot. What I'm talking about is agnosticism. I firmly believe this universe is godless but I would not be surprised if there was a god after all. I Just see no god willing to reveal itself for the sake of guiding humanity. Islam is no exception but rather the most perverted rule.

Case in point: Predicating that god DOES exist - as many as 50 billion lives have been systematically murdered in various germicides around the world in the last written century. Why did this "creator" not intervene? Is the human creation sacred at all or worthy of preservation? Does "God" respect life at all? Does god feel empathy for suffering at all?

Those who would argue that only our souls and afterlife are important forget to recognize one important fact. If our bodies are disposable, there is no need for a body to begin with. Furthermore, this is the same twisted reasoning of suicide bombers.

There has been far too much suffering and if I'm not mistaken, people who visit this site wish to counteract the imposed suffering brought on by the injustice of Islam.

If the logical definition of an ultimate creator proves unreliable, Muslims had better come up with a stronger argument for their claim to superiority of non-Muslims. If Muslims cannot prove truthful validity of their faith, Islam deserves no right to claim this world or impose it's laws. Ever.

In order to fight this ideology to the bitter end, Muslims must face an intractable modern problem. Agnosticism.

If any of you are reading this can see a cultural weapon in any of this - consider it.

As long as we keep the ideal of God as sacred and without question, we willingly submit to the possible destruction that have faced others who equally believe in god.

I certainly do believe that many faiths can survive - and even grow, in the face of a redefinition of spirituality that can reconcile itself to this universe. As for Islam, I highly doubt it can survive a world public questioning outright, the validity of "Allah".

Care to prove your god to me Mohideen Ibramsha?

Care to prove your god to me Mohideen Ibramsha?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at February 28, 2006 01:02 PM

This challenge is indeed a tough one. Let me try. Since this question is of paramount importance, I hope to answer it in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ Kindly check there. In case the comment duration is open when I post my reply there, I hope, God Almighty willing, to post it here also.

First off, the graphical presentation of the Quran you've pointed out can be changed by simply changing the vectors and re-plotting them to arrive with a new interpretation. Furthermore, numerology can in general, reveal many coincidental miracles used to validate any and every religion...even from a Harry Potter book.

Unfortunately this is a very weak theory at best. Numerological coincidence to validate roughly 99.9% of any unproven theory. This of course would prove 99.9% of many wrong theories correct and leave us in a real conundrum. This also does not provide any answers regarding the inaction of God regarding historical sufferings experienced by humanity.

Instead of numerological symbolics which provide no concrete answer as to the motives of an existential god, let's return to the heart of the matter. The existence of an Abrahamic god as the paramount question.

I only need to ask one question to get a solid answer from you. Yes or No. This challenge may not be as tough as you think.

1) According to the Qur'an, if Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?

If true - can you provide those findings in either Sura or Hadith? We can search for further relevance if you can provide proof of Allahs love for and creation of all life.

Good luck.

What I'm talking about is agnosticism.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at February 28, 2006 01:02 PM

From http://www.answers.com/agnosticism&r=67 we find a meaning of agnosticism as below:
===
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
===

Is it possible that God Almighty has already anticipated this attitude? Chapter 109 of the Holy Quran states as below:
===
Al-Kafirun (Those who reject Faith)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
109:1 Say: O ye that reject Faith!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship,
109:3 nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:4 And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
109:5 nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 To you be your Way, and to me mine.
===

To a believer, the very existence of the above chapter is evidence that the Holy Quran is the Word of God Almighty. That is, for a believer it is proof that God Almighty exists. We hope to offer other arguments as well in due course of time.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is that no other inference can be made from the evidence. To claim that the a book believed, but for which no other corroboration is given, to be the word of God is proof of God is the same as believing Harry Potter is a wizard.

Yes I would protect you if am angry mob of rioting Christians came to burn down your house after a WMD attack.
Oh and did I say I am a licensed gun owner.
Posted by El Cid.
-------

I will bring the hot dogs, mustard, onions, chill, cheese and buns.

In Texas, you do not have to have a license to own most weapons.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof is that no other inference can be made from the evidence.
Posted by: Lisa at February 28, 2006 08:33 PM

True. Evidence is not proof.

There can be no proof now on the existence of God Almighty. That proof would appear on the Day of Judgment.

Four Traditions are found in
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=thorns&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all . We quote the first Tradition below for immediate reference.
===
Narrated Abu Huraira: The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He replied, "Do you have any doubt in seeing the full moon on a clear (not cloudy) night?" They replied, "No, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "Do you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?" They replied in the negative. He said, "You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way. On the Day of Resurrection, people will be gathered and He will order the people to follow what they used to worship. So some of them will follow the sun, some will follow the moon, and some will follow other deities; and only this nation (Muslims) will be left with its hypocrites. Allah will come to them and say, 'I am Your Lord.' They will say, 'We shall stay in this place till our Lord comes to us and when our Lord will come, we will recognize Him. Then Allah will come to them again and say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'You are our Lord.' Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers. Nobody except the Apostles will then be able to speak and they will be saying then, 'O Allah! Save us. O Allah Save us.' There will be hooks like the thorns of Sa'dan in Hell. Have you seen the thorns of Sa'dan?" The people said, "Yes." He said, "These hooks will be like the thorns of Sa'dan but nobody except Allah knows their greatness in size and these will entangle the people according to their deeds; some of them will fall and stay in Hell forever; others will receive punishment (torn into small pieces) and will get out of Hell, till when Allah intends mercy on whomever He likes amongst the people of Hell, He will order the angels to take out of Hell those who worshipped none but Him alone. The angels will take them out by recognizing them from the traces of prostrations, for Allah has forbidden the (Hell) fire to eat away those traces. So they will come out of the Fire, it will eat away from the whole of the human body except the marks of the prostrations. At that time they will come out of the Fire as mere skeletons. The Water of Life will be poured on them and as a result they will grow like the seeds growing on the bank of flowing water. Then when Allah had finished from the Judgments amongst his creations, one man will be left between Hell and Paradise and he will be the last man from the people of Hell to enter paradise. He will be facing Hell, and will say, 'O Allah! Turn my face from the fire as its wind has dried me and its steam has burnt me.' Allah will ask him, "Will you ask for anything more in case this favor is granted to you?' He will say, "No by Your (Honor) Power!" And he will give to his Lord (Allah) what he will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then turn his face from the Fire. When he will face Paradise and will see its charm, he will remain quiet as long as Allah will. He then will say, 'O my Lord! Let me go to the gate of Paradise.' Allah will ask him, 'Didn't you give pledges and make covenants (to the effect) that you would not ask for anything more than what you requested at first?' He will say, 'O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched, amongst Your creatures.' Allah will say, 'If this request is granted, will you then ask for anything else?' He will say, 'No! By Your Power! I shall not ask for anything else.' Then he will give to his Lord what He will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then let him go to the gate of Paradise. On reaching then and seeing its life, charm, and pleasure, he will remain quiet as long as Allah wills and then will say, 'O my Lord ! Let me enter Paradise.' Allah will say, May Allah be merciful unto you, O son of Adam! How treacherous you are! Haven't you made covenants and given pledges that you will not ask for anything more that what you have been given?' He will say, 'O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched amongst Your creatures.' So Allah will laugh and allow him to enter Paradise and will ask him to request as much as he likes. He will do so till all his desires have been fulfilled . Then Allah will say, 'Request more of such and such things.' Allah will remind him and when all his desires and wishes; have been fulfilled, Allah will say "All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides." Abu Said Al-Khudri, said to Abu Huraira, 'Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'That is for you and ten times more like it.' "Abu Huraira said, "I do not remember from Allah's Apostle except (his saying), 'All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides." Abu Sahd said, "I heard him saying, 'That is for you and ten times more the like of it." (Book #12, Hadith #770)
===

So, please wait for the Day of Judgment to have the proof of existence of God Almighty. God willing, we hope to justify the absence of proof now soon.

Waiting for judgment day for proof may be all well and good but I asked you a simple question to provide us a theory now: Does Allah love all life?

You DID come on to this forum to defend your position and your faith - telling us to wait for judgment day hardly helps your stance.

Asking this question of course does not elude to any proof of Allah, yet, answering this question will reveal the morality of Allah - if there is any. A simple answer may provide reason to re-consider the underpinnings Islam as genuine.

I'll ask you the question again - a Yes or No answer will do just fine.

1) According to the Qur'an, if Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?

Hope to hear from you soon Mohideen....

According to the Qur'an, if Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 1, 2006 01:25 PM

God willing I planned to offer a full answer to the above question. Since the questioner seems to think the delay is possibly due to ‘no answer’, we provide a partial answer now.

Do you love a criminal as much as you love a law abiding citizen? I expect that the love for the law abiding citizen would be more.

Tradition numbered 1359 of Sunan Abu Dawood establishes that God Almighty indeed loves His servants. Quoting, we have:
===
Narrated Amir ar-Ram
We were in our country when flags and banners were raised. I said: What is this? The (the people) said: This is the banner of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). So I came to him. He was (sitting) under a tree. A sheet of cloth was spread for him and he was sitting on it. His Companions were gathered around him. I sat with them. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) mentioned illness and said: When a believer is afflicted by illness and Allah cures him of it, it serves as an atonement for his previous sins and a warning to him for the future. But when a hypocrite becomes ill and is then cured, he is like a camel which has been tethered and then let loose by its owners, but does not know why they tethered it and why they let it loose. A man from among those around him asked: Apostle of Allah, what are illnesses? I swear by Allah, I never fell ill. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Get up and leave us. You do not belong to our number. When we were with him, a man came to him. He had a sheet of cloth and something in his hand. He turned his attention to him and said: Apostle of Allah, when I saw you, I turned towards you. I saw a group of trees and heard the sound of fledglings. I took them and put them in my garment. Their mother then came and began to hover round my head. I showed them to her, and she fell on them. I wrapped them with my garment. They are now with me. He said: Put them away from you. So I put them away, but their mother stayed with them. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said to his companions: Are you surprised at the affection of the mother for her young? They said: Yes, Apostle of Allah. He said: I swear by Him Who has sent me with the Truth, Allah is more affectionate to His servants than a mother to her young ones. Take them back put them and where you took them from when their mother should have been with them. So he took them back.
===

By the above Tradition, Allah is more affectionate to His servants than a mother to her young ones.

I will answer your question as incentive to at least pursuade you to answer my simple question:

"Do you love a criminal as much as you love a law abiding citizen?"

I can love both equally.

If I can understand how circumstances can shape a childs life to became a criminal, I can easily understand the origins and thus the actions of a criminal. I could ultimately feel greater empathy and pity for a criminal than a law abiding citizen if I could understand such desperate actions.

Some things, of course, are unexcusable but all reasons are still comprehensable.

I ask you again but I will simplify my question for you.

1) If Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?

Yes or No?

Mohideen, I'm still waiting for a simple answer.

Stating: "Allah is more affectionate to His servants than a mother to her young ones." is not an answer.

This statement predicates that Allah only loves his "servants". I am not asking about servants. I am asking about ALL created life.

I'll ask you one more time.

Does Allah, who you claim to have created all life, love all created life?

Yes or No?

Does Allah, who you claim to have created all life, love all created life?
Yes or No?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 1, 2006 06:57 PM

Let us look at Verse 151 of Chapter 6 of the Holy Quran.
===
6:151 Say: “Come I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from”: join not anything as equal with him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want; We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not nigh to shameful deeds whether open or secret; take not life which Allah hath made sacred except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you that ye may learn wisdom.
===

Does this add as an ‘Yes’?

Does this add as an ‘Yes’?

First I must tell you, Mohideen, this will mean a checkmate for one of us. I am certainly not trying to be harsh with you nor lead you astray in a trap. I ask for empirical truth. You are my fellow human being and the battle we face may define the living and the dead. If you truly believe in Allah as the lord of all worlds, the absolute creator of our reality in totality and the Qur'an as his final perfect word, then surely you can provide an answer that does not add to a yes but IS yes. Ask an Imam if you must but defend your position you should for the sake of truth.

Second, your response does not add up to a yes at all. Sura 6:151 is a rule for human conduct and ascribes little regarding an absolute creators love for all life.

This sura is subjective on two points in this sentence: "take not life which Allah hath made sacred EXPECT by way of justice and law".

1) To which Allah considers "sacred"
and/or
2) To justice and law.

This reveals little if anything regarding my actual question Mohideen.

IF Allah is morally and ethically superior you can answer with a absolute "yes" or absolute "no".
Allah, the sole creator either has love for all his created life or he does not.

To proclaim that you are the follower of the absolute creator, you most certainly can give an absolute answer. Not be be snide but the absolute answer to 2+2 is 4. Not 5 and certainly not 3. The absolute answer to the equation is 4.

Does Allah, whom you believe to have created the totality of all reality, love all created life?

Yes....or no?

EXPECT=EXCEPT

Stupid typo - silly me....

"This sura is subjective on two points in this sentence: "take not life which Allah hath made sacred EXCEPT by way of justice and law""

Does Allah, whom you believe to have created the totality of all reality, love all created life?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 2, 2006 02:18 PM

Yes, indeed.

Life is created by Allah. As the Creator, He destroys life. Indeed the life span of every one of us, human beings, is recorded before we are born. From the four Traditions given in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=flesh+forty&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
We quote the first one below:
===
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise." (Book #54, Hadith #430)
===

Suppose a crook looks at the above Tradition and shoots a person claiming that if the time of death has not yet come, my shooting would not kill him. Well, if the person dies, then the crook could claim that “he died because his time of death has come, not because of my shooting.” Permitting such behavior would really lead to anarchy. So, God Almighty says no life is to be taken unless it is required by law.

For example, if a married man and an unmarried woman commit sex in such a manner that there are four witnesses to the act, the man must be stoned to death, and the woman must be lashed a hundred times. The offense is same: the punishment of death is inflicted on one and not the other as per the law.

Does Allah, whom you believe to have created the totality of all reality, love all created life?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 2, 2006 02:18 PM

Yes, indeed.

Life is created by Allah. As the Creator, He destroys life. Indeed the life span of every one of us, human beings, is recorded before we are born. From the four Traditions given in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=flesh+forty&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
We quote the first one below:
===
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise." (Book #54, Hadith #430)
===

Suppose a crook looks at the above Tradition and shoots a person claiming that if the time of death has not yet come, my shooting would not kill him. Well, if the person dies, then the crook could claim that “he died because his time of death has come, not because of my shooting.” Permitting such behavior would really lead to anarchy. So, God Almighty says no life is to be taken unless it is required by law.

For example, if a married man and an unmarried woman commit sex in such a manner that there are four witnesses to the act, the man must be stoned to death, and the woman must be lashed a hundred times. The offense is same: the punishment of death is inflicted on one and not the other as per the law.

Sorry for the double posting.

Yes, indeed.

After reading your last response twice (double posting - no problem) if find great flaws and a very troubling quandry in your statement.

I had to ask you for a yes or no answer to an absolute question (remember 2+2?) roughly four times.

1) According to the Qur'an, if Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?

2) Does Allah, who you claim to have created all life, love all created life?

3) If Allah has created all life - does Allah love all life?

4) Does Allah, whom you believe to have created the totality of all reality, love all created life?

Why Mohideen, should such an obvious answer to such a direct question be so difficult?

Does Allah love his total creation without condition as does a parent to a child? Yes or No?

This shouldbe simple, profound...ABSOLUTE and without doubt - do you not agree?

Herein lies the problem with "yes" Mohadin. I searched with the Sunna and three interpretations of the Qur'an and found that which directly contradicts

Yes, Indeed.

To deny what follows is to deny your own faith. To argue these points is to argue wrongly the word you believe to be the word of god. Please answer these questions the these various Suras and Ahadith if you may:

Qur’an 20:8 “Allah! There is no Ilah save Him. His are the most beautiful Names. To Him belong the most beautiful attributes.”

To this, you believe the most beautiful attributes of god. Should not all-encompassing love be the very greatest of attributes?

Qur’an 59:22 “Allah is He, no other Ilah (God) may be worshiped; Who knows both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. He is Allah, Whom there is no other Ilah (God); the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Security, the Guardian of Faith, the Majestic, the Irresistible, the Superb, the Compeller: Glory to Allah! He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colors). To Him belong the Best Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth declares His Praises and Glory: and He is the Mighty, the Wise.”

Not once is love mentioned to describe Allah. I still desire to hear you claim love to be the nadir, the pinnicle, the perfection of Allah despite what follows..........

Ishaq:403 “Allah killed twenty-two polytheists at Uhud.”

This claim testifies that it was Allah who killed his own creation.

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”

Is this Allah who commands suffering of his beloved creation?

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Allah has commanded slaughter and desired killing?

Tabari VIII:182 “Allah had enabled Muhammad to take the persons of the Quraysh by force, giving him power over them so they were his booty. Their lives were now his spoil.”

Is it Allah who has consigned the lives of his beloved creation to a prophet as "spoil"?

Tabari VII:133/Ishaq:387 “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”

Allah sactions victory then enables Muhammad to "mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody"?????

Ishaq:324 “Allah said, ‘Leave Me to deal with the liars. I have fetters, fire, and food which chokes.”

Allah would inflict suffering upon his beloved creation with fetters, fire and food that torments by suffocation?

Qur’an 89:21 “Nay, when the earth is made to crumble the Lord comes, His angels rank upon rank, and Hell is brought face to face, man will remember, but how will that avail him? For His Chastisement will be such as no other can inflict. None punishes as He will punish! None can bind as He will bind.”

Allah would punish and bind that which he loves as none would bind?

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

Allah, the ultimate creator that loves ALL his creation, terrorizes Jews to be killed or made captive?

Qur’an 8:17 “It is not you who slew them; it was Allah who killed them. It was not you (Muhammad) who threw (a handful of dust), it was not your act, but it was Allah who threw (the sand into the eyes of the enemy at Badr in order that He might test the Believers by doing them a gracious favor of His Own: for Allah is He Who hears and knows.”

Again - I ask you Mohideen - if Allah loves all his creation then why is it that "it was Allah who killed them"? How, if you belive Allah to be the source of love and all knowing be incapable of understanding and thus loving, accepting and even taking pity upon ANY life?

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Again and again, over and over as far as I read in the Qur'an and Hadith, how can the ultimate source of love then desire killing?

Ishaq:324 “He said, Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.”

This may not have much to do with love, yet how is it that Allah, an all powerful being even need the command to deal with "rivals"? An absolute being automatically has no rivals. An absolute being would have no equal rival to be concerned of.

Qur’an 104:4 “He will be sure to be thrown into that which breaks him into pieces, flung to the Consuming One. And what will explain to you that which Breaks him into Pieces, Consuming and Crushing? It is the fire kindled by Allah which leaps up over them penetrating the hearts of men.”

If it is the fire kindled by Allah, is this the same Allah that you claim loves all his creation?

Qur’an 2:61 “Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah’s wrath.”

Why would Allah, who by claim of absolute creator then stamp the Jews with humiliation and wretchedness? Does not a parent, a creator of flesh and blood life not love a child?

Qur’an 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone in the whole world.”

If Allah is absolute, there is no need whatsoever to submit the whole world to the religion of Allah for the whole world already belongs to Allah. Am I wrong?

Qur’an 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making them captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom them based upon what benefits Islam until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

Finally Mohideen, are you telling me "Yes, indeed" because this is what you believe about Allah? Or are you claiming "Yes, indeed" to me because you are lying to me?

If I am wrong Mohideen, I ask you one last time to correct me and tell me these Suras and Ahadith are false for I have studied them and their meaning.

I have studied the Qur'an, as have many "infidels" here at Jihadwatch and we have studied the many meanings of all Suras in the Hadith to be sure we are not in the wrong.

I will ask you only once more for truth and your testament of faith.

Does Allah, whom you believe to have created the totality of all reality, love all created life?

Should not all-encompassing love be the very greatest of attributes?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 3, 2006 07:24 PM

See http://www.dawateislami.net/general/devotions/99names/ In this web page, including the name “Allah”, the 100 descriptors are arranged in 20 rows of 5 elements each. On the tenth row, the third element is “Al-Wadud” which means “The Loving.”

Who are we to grade the attributes of God Almighty? For a Muslim, the fact that “The Loving” is one of the attributes is enough.

God willing, the other objections would be considered in due course.

Should not all-encompassing love be the very greatest of attributes?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 3, 2006 07:24 PM

In case one feels that we have given evidence from outside of the Holy Quran, here are two Verses from the Holy Quran:
===
11:90 “But ask forgiveness of your Lord and turn unto Him (in repentance): for my Lord is indeed Full of mercy and loving-kindness.

85:14 And He is the Oft-Forgiving Full of loving-kindness.
===