Muslim Propaganda at the University of Chicago

Why should a few facts get in the way of Islam?
Besides, everyone knows Islam came before Christianity and Judaism and even the Big Bang. Without Islam there would be nothing at all today, not even the universe,right?

The Prophet Mahomet - recently I was wondering, what exactly did Mahomet prophesy.

Isnt honest-to-goodness prophesy a pre-requisite of the appellation of 'prophet'?

Re the Land of Israel during the Persian period.

At that time, all of Israel plus Syria, etc., were part of the Persian satrapy of Aber-Nahara [= beyond the river, in Aramaic. That is, beyond the Euphrates]. The Jews who returned to Zion appear to have settled in various places in Israel. However, a large area around Jerusalem was called the pahawa of Yehud. This area was smaller than the pre-exilic Kingdom of Yehudah [= Judah]. But it was semi-autonomous and usually or always had a Jewish governor, called a pehah. Moreover, Yehud coined its own coins, some of which have been discovered and are on display in the Israel Museum and elsewhere and in private collections. The word Yehud --spelled with the consonants YHD-- is inscribed on the coins in the Old Hebrew alphabet, basically similar to the Phoenician/Canaanite alphabet which was the basis of the Greek alphabet and later the Latin alphabet.
A political entity with its own coinage was considered autonomous. Of course, this autonomy was within the Persian Empire. The text of the U of Chicago museum is obviously grossly misleading.

Jews lived both inside and outside of the Yehud pahawa [still within the Land of Israel].
In the Hellenistic period, as Diana Muir notes, Jews revolted against the Seleucid empire. The resulting Hasmonean-led state was much larger than Yehud [Hasmoneans were the family of Judah Maccabee]. Eventually, this kingdom was taken over by the Roman empire yet maintained as a kingdom called Judea [IVDAEA], ruled by Herod. Judea spread out over Samaria, Galilee, Golan Heights, the northern Negev and the east bank of the Jordan, and the coastal plain along the Mediterranean.

One side of the current Israeli one sheqel coin is modelled after one side of the Yehud coin. This is the side with the lotus or lily [I forget].

thomas ato,

"recently I was wondering, what exactly did Mahomet prophesy."

Spencer's book has an interesting wry comment on this, on p. 76:

On one occasion, Muhammad's anger and frustration over his failure to convert the Quraysh boiled over... "Will you listen to me, O Quraysh? By [H]im who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter." This was one prophecy of Muhammad that would indisputably prove true.

The hardest part to believe is ole mo going to heaven!

Islam = Gangsta Rap Religion

Freewoman>>>>>
The hardest part to believe is ole mo going to heaven!

What about the winged horse , meeting Jesus and
climbing the ladder of light to heaven ?
If he wasn`t on drugs he should have been locked up...the same goes for anyone today who believes in this nonsense !

Good thing Mo didn't visit what's now the USA. By the twisted logic of Islam the entire US would be a missing piece of the "holy" ummah!

Aladinsane57. I don't think ole mo was on drugs. Just a screw loose...a brick shy of a full load....nut behind the wheel.

Typical Islamic lies, deceit and deception. The Jews who have lived in Israel continuously into pre- antiquity, the Jews, they have no claim to Israel whatsoever, not even a claim by adverse possession. (Was not the establishment of Israel a reconquista by Jews of a sort. If Moslems claim conquest rights, why would not the Jews have the similar rights? Alternatively, is it not true that the Jews have a better claim to Medinah than the Moslems do to Israel, as the Koran clearly indicates that Mohammed maliciously and personally beheaded (obviously a saintly person) and murdered Jewish inhabitants who lived in Medinah and that Mohammed stole Jewish property and enslaved their families)?

Moslems base their superior claim to Israel because Mohammed allegedly slept in Jerusalem a few seconds before he went to heaven.

But the Iranian (Babylonians) claim is the most tenuous of all. It is bizarre. Iran has no claim to Israel unless you claim it as a possession of the ancient Persians. Iranians apparently now stake their claim on Allah's promise to the Arabians that somehow Moslem Iranians benefit from. Alternatively, Iranians base their claim to an occupation initially made by Persian Moslems during the crusades in accomplishment of Mohammed's dream.

This all hypocritical because the Koran, with all its faults, actually explicitly says the land of Israel was Allah's gift to the Jews. Hypocrites. Liars. Deceivers. Allah aqba, allah n'aqba!

Compare these 2 statements:
" Jesus was born into this context, and was hailed by his followers as the Messiah, Son of God."

And

" Six centuries later, the Prophet Mohammed would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven."
_____________________________________________________

The first statement postulates that Jesus was hailed by his FOLLOWERS as the Son of God

Whereas....

the second statement states AS A MATTER OF FACT that Muhammad would experience his night flight and ascension into heaven.

More preferential treatement to Islamic theology at another American university.

The only thing that is important here is making enough noise to force a correction of the error.

Soooo...who is the curator and what do we say? Is there any contact information available?

Talk-Talk time is over. Act-Act time has begun. Islam needs to feel real animosity, not the phoney fear they display for the press.

"Islam is not a religion but the Arab National Movement" --From May 24, 1996 interview with Anwar Shaikh, all the more topical today.

"...The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious. This is exactly the theory that Karl Marx adopted after many centuries. Presenting his dialectical view of history; he emphasized that all material progress owed itself to eternal social strife between the capitalists and the proletariats in which the latter would win the struggle.

However, Karl Marx did not show the mastery that the prophet Mohammed did. By creating the Two Nation Theory, he subjected all non-Muslim Arabs to the cultural imperialism of Arabia. He achieved this purpose with a mind boggling subtlety: he made Arab- worship the cornerstone of Islam. Thus. those who embrace Islam naturally feel inferior to Arabia as a devotee believes in relation to his goddess...." Read it all at http://www.hvk.org/articles/0805/82.html

Good post, sir! It is a well-documented fact that the Jews remained organized as a political unit and were recognized as such almost universally until Napoleon Bonaparte's convening of the "sanhedrin" in France in the early 1800's.There is no time or space to get into the history of this issue, but let it be reiterated that much of what passes as history is in fact a perversion of history, or a convenient glossing over of facts to present a distorted image.

Well, the revisionists (Crone) may very well believe that Islam developed in the Levant. She argues that Mecca was used for the same reason Muhammad was illiterate--to remove the chance that he was influenced by Christian / Jewish sources instead of "divine revelation".

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

It is also a big step from failure to "regain their autonomy" to "no entitlement to sovereignty".

However, "Six centuries later, the Prophet Mohammed would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven" is pretty bad. Well, incredibly bad. Not because of it being a political statement but because they should mention that it's the Muslin narrative... just like they did that divinity was the Christian one.

"Six centuries later, the Prophet Mohammed would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven."
--- from a plaque at the Oriental Institute

The claim to Jerusalem in Islam is the result of a decision by the Umayyad Caliph in Damascus to have the phrase "the farthest mosque" interpreted to mean one that just happened to be on top of the Temple Mount. In one fell swoop, then, the Caliph in Damascus could lay claim to the place of greatest signficance to the Jews, and a site also of great significane to Christians in a city deemed holy to both Jews and Christians. It was a political, or geopolitical claim.

It would have been easy for the plaque at the Oriental Institute not to appear to accept the Received Muslim View. Whoever wrote the text need only have put in "according to Muslims" so that the text above would read:

"Six centuries later, according to Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven."

Only three words.

Or it might take two words:

"Six centuries later, Muslims believe, the Prophet Muhammad would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven."

Or only one word:

"Six centuries later, supposedly, the Prophet Muhammad would visit Jerusalem where he would experience his Night Flight and Ascension to heaven."

Three possibilities: three words, two words, one.

Take them separately, or mix-n'-match. N choose K.

So, if I think that tonight I'm going to have a dream about walking on the moon, I should wear a spacesuit to bed? After all, dreaming about going somewhere is the same as physically visiting the place, is it not? What if the place I visit just appears to be the moon? Do I get to decide that later?

If I actually do dream about going to the moon, do I get to claim it, despite the fact that astronauts have been there before me? Do I have to call myself a "prophet" first?

Sounds kinda silly when proposed by someone who isn't a seventh century sand pirate, doesn't it?

Come to think of it, it sounds no less silly when claimed by the aforementioned sand pirate and his addle-minded followers

Eisenhund-

If your dream comes to pass then you can claim to be the founder of a great new religion. If its goal is to rid the world of Islamania I'd like to sign up as follower number one. However, I fully expect some sort of written document to be supplied as well, so I can seek comfort from it.

Someone posted a comment above that Mo was on drugs or something. Mo was possessed by the fallen angels Lucifer and Belial, just like Nero, Hitler and others. But Mo will be their most important child of all because his followers will bring on the apocalypse. It is those descendants of Ishmael, the Arabs, who bring on the final battle, which is the battle between God and Satan. Sorry to be so philosophical, but this is what it all boils down to......we are like pawns on a chess board, small players in the bigger picture coming ahead.

Johnathan,
You wrote what I was going to write.
Jesus was just "hailed by his followers"
MuhamMad = facts

-ISLAMSFORLOSERS

I'm kinda lazy, so I'd probably do what Mo-Dogg did and just pick and choose from whatever was already out there. More likely, I'd just send you a book of blank pages and let you take the Jeet Kun Do approach, use what works from whatever source you encounter, discarding what doesn't. Maybe I could blurt out a verse every so often just to maintain my prophethood.

Don't forget, however, "prophet" rhymes with "profit". I still get a fifth off the top of whatever chicks and loot you accumulate. That's one of Mo-Dogg's ideas I think I'll keep and I'll even write it on the first page for you.

Make sure you don't break any laws as you're a-merrily jihadin', though. I'm not going to jail with you for receiving stolen goods. See that the booty-gettin's on the up and up.

P.S. Beer, barbecue, and [girls in]bikinis are on the approved list.

Alumni often give millions to universities without knowing that much of their money often goes to faculty members and programs that are openly hostile to the donor's values.

Benefactors should stop giving money to universities, colleges, museums & charities that engage in racist diversity policy that often results in the loss of the better scholar in favor of ones who simply fulfill diversity quotas.

Go to the university’s website, if you find Offices of Diversity, close your pocketbook. There’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.

I hope the statement above about Tancredo is not meant seriously, or if it is, that it is wrong.

Truly....
If I make up the wildest story anyone has ever heard, and claim a "god" told me...I'll bet I would have at least a few followers.
L. Ron Hubbard was a science-fiction writer and has more than a few followers.
MuhamMad was a land pirate and got revelations to cover all his lusts and has a billion followers.
"What's his name" that wanted to ride the comet...you know...the one who committed suicide with Nike shoes on...he had followers.
WTH, are people that much in need of being led by the nose?

As Eisenhund and Carolyn2 point out and Islam proves if you get a bunch of losers willing to be led by the nose and a crafty nut ready to spout nonsense and exploit such losers then indeed anything is possible. Including 1400 years of nonstop bloodshed with no end insight.

@pagankapitat

Superb article by Anwar Shaikh! And to think that he wrote that brilliant expose in 1996! Thank you for the post. I've bookmarked it. For anyone that hasn't read the article posted by pagankapitat, it's a must! Here is the link (again).

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0805/82.html

Here it is, for those who want it and want it now:

Anwar Shaikh’s Interview with Chandigarh Times
Author: Dr. Ranjit Kanwar
Publication: Chandigarh Times
Date: May 24, 1996

Ranjit Kanwar: We have heard your name in India, yet we do not know much about you. Will you tell me something about yourself?

Anwar Shaikh: I was born in 1928 in a village near the-city of Gujrat (Pakistan). Religion has been a part of my family tradition. Naturally, I was brought up to be a scholar of Islam: To the best of my knowledge, it was my great great grandfather, who embraced Islam.

He was a kashmiry pundit. After conversion, he became an Imam Masjid, a fervent preacher of Islam. My grandfather was conscious of his Brahmin ancestry, - . . and resented if anyone spoke ill of the Vedas yet he could not return to his roots owing to the psychological grounding he had received over the years. In Pakistan, I was a teacher and then became headmaster of a high school. Though economically,' life was bearable, socially, it was not. I emigrated to great Britain in 1956.

After initial hardships struck lucky. At the height of business success, I suddenly realized that I wanted to do some reformative work instead of indulging in money-making it was in 1973 that I started winding up my commercial activities, and am glad that I did so because it gave me a chance to reeducate myself, especially in philosophy and religion.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have read your book: " Islam, The Arab National Movement " which is becoming world-famous rapidly. Did you write it to oppose Islam?

Anwar Shaikh: Its purpose is not to oppose, but expose Islam: it is a serious work based on long research and personal experience There is not one word of lie, insolence or intentional misinterpretation in this book. Since it is based on truth and nothing but the truth; it is an open challenge to those who use Islam as the tool of personal gain, politically and religiously. So great is the force and authenticity of this book that no Muslim scholar has come forward so far to refute its Contents.

Ranjit Kanwar: Are you another Rushdie?

Anwar Shaikh: I am being labeled as such. For example, the Urdu daily: "Pakistan" and weekly "Maharat" of Lahore, have called me "a Satan of much greater stature than Rushdie and Tasleema," and The Daily "Jang" of London has described me "a Rushdie whose writings are infinitely more dangerous to Islam than Rushdie and Tasleema put together." The Muslim readers of the "Jang" have written to this newspaper repeatedly begging the mullahs and other scholars of Islam to answer my questions to "save"-but they have deliberately kept quiet to the utter annoyance of the believers, who are really worried by the contents of "Islam, The Arab National Movement". They demonstrated against Rushdie in every country through public meetings, processions, slogans and murders, but about my book they have willfully observed a conspiracy of silence because they do not want the world to know the truth about Islam. This clearly shows that I am the exact opposite of Rushdie. His work is fiction based on insult to the Prophet Mohammed and his family, whereas my book is a serious work founded on scholarship; reason and research. At the most, Rushdie is an artistic protester whereas I am a challenger to the very concept of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: I see. But has your book any relevance to India?

Anwar Shaikh: My book has a relevance to entire mankind, but is especially to India because before the coming of Islam, India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units. This book clearly demonstrates that, as Islam seeks to impose Arab cultural imperialism on other nations through a doctrine of divide and murder, India and Islam cannot live together. This book is a must for India.

Ranjit Kanwar: Do you realize that this book exposes you to serious danger? Aren't you afraid?

Anwar Shaikh: The truth has its price, which I am prepared to pay. I have not resorted to swearing or falsification simply to uphold the dignity of truth. Fear is a part of human nature and it will be wrong of me to deny it. However, I must add that by making me a martyr, they will sound the death-knell of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It is a revolutionary book with profound consequences. What prompted you to write it?

Anwar Shaikh: This is an excellent question and proves your competence as a journalist. Having lived in the West for such a long time, one day it crossed my mind why the white people love their countries but the Muslims of India hate their motherland. There is no exaggeration in it because they think of Bharat not as their Motherland but Dar-ul-Harb i=2Ee. battlefield, where people murder, plunder and deceive out of hatred and greed. Having given this point further thought I soon realized that Islam is based on the doctrine of hating and murdering non-Muslims and reducing them to the status of political slaves. It is totally false to say that Islam is the ambassador of international brotherhood.

Again, it is completely untrue that the Muslims of all countries are one nation. It is the law of nature that nationality is constituted by blood ties and geographical boundaries, that is, the homeland. A nation being an expanded form of family is subject to the familial rules of identity. Of Course, a person can adopt another nationality quite legitimately but it is an exception, and there fore, cannot change the basic rule. Calling Muslims of all countries as one nation is wrong because all these nations have their separate home lands with their independent interests and different policies. Pakistan was soon split into two halves i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government of Pakistan in 1951 stopped entry of all Indian Muslims into Pakistan despite the fact that they were the people who had made most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan even more shameful is the treatment of Pakistanis from Bihar, who stood by Pakistan against the Bangladeshis.

Muslim nationality is a myth, which is extremely injurious to the non-Arab Muslims but highly beneficial to the Arabs. nd this is what leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is not a religion but the Arab National Movement.

Ranjit Kanwar: Good lord! Is it what Islam is? Do you mind explaining this point a bit further?

Anwar Shaikh: The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious. This is exactly the theory that Karl Marx adopted after many centuries. Presenting his dialectical view of history; he emphasized that all material progress owed itself to eternal social strife between the capitalists and the proletariats in which the latter would win the struggle.

However, Karl Marx did not show the mastery that the prophet Mohammed did. By creating the Two Nation Theory, he subjected all non-Muslim Arabs to the cultural imperialism of Arabia. He achieved this purpose with a mind boggling subtlety: he made Arab- worship the cornerstone of Islam. Thus. those who embrace Islam naturally feel inferior to Arabia as a devotee believes in relation to his goddess.

Ranjit Kanwar: This is an unusual explanation of Islam. Can you tell me how the Prophet Mohammed raised reverence of Arabia sky-high and made it an artist of faith for his non-Arab followers?

Anwar Shaikh: Here is a small summary of the steps that the Prophet took to realize his dream.

1. e declared that when Adam was evicted from paradise, he came to Mecca where he built the first House of God. Thus, he identified Godliness with Kaaba, a Sanctuary of Mecca where God lives! Not only that, Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, also came to Mecca to rebuild the House of God!

2. For the purpose of imposing Arab psychological superiority on non-Arab Muslims, he decreed that they must prostrate five-times-a-day facing Mecca. This is not only an act of submission to Mecca, the capital city of Arabia, but also proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God lives in Mecca, otherwise why should people prostrate in that direction?

3. A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.

4. When Muslims die, they must be buried facing Mecca, which is the guarantee of their salvation.

5. To make sure that the Arabs enjoy economic opulence, the Prophet made Hajj as obligatory ritual for his followers. It is a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are countless Indian Muslims who sell their homes and personal belongings to undertake this journeys can give many more examples to this effect but this should be enough to explain the real purpose of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It does show the Arab national tendency of Islam, but the non-Arab followers of Islam do not have to adopt a slavish attitude to the Arab national Institutions to prove their Islamic faith. Do they?

Anwar Shaikh: I regret to say, Sir, like countless non-Muslims, you do not know the master stroke of the Prophet.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have never heard of this master stroke before. Can you enlighten me in the interest of humanity?

Anwar Shaikh: I am referring to the prophet's declaration that Allah has made him the Model of Practice for his followers it has come to mean that the Muslims must copy him in everything, they must eat, drink, walk and talk like him, even must look like him, that is, they grow beard like his, have a similar hair-cut and dress like him. This is what is called followings the Sunnah .i.e., the Prophetic: Model which is the guarantee of salvation. One can easily say that Islam has been designed to induce respect and love for Arabia.

There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned from their own nationalities and motherlands, and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory., Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh).

Ranjit Kanwar: What is likely to happen if the non-Arab Muslims do not follow the Prophet in loving Arabia even if it involves unpatriotic practices against their own homelands?

Anwar Shaikh: The Muslims must love Arabia because the Prophet did so. They must follow him as the Divine Model of Practice. This is what Islam expects if don't, they are sure to enter hell because the Prophet will not intercede on their behalf.

Ranjit Kanwar: What is intercession?

Anwar Shaikh: This is the special power of the Prophet Mohammed. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgment. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet. On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been.

Piety has no meaning and value without believing in Mohammed and the greatness of his homeland. Intercession is the climax of the Prophet's National wisdom--It is this Muslim belief which gives them the hope of free sex and economic abundance, and they feel obliged to kill in the name of Islam. This is why they are ever ready to stab their motherland. After all, caring about one's country entails sacrifices whereas the comforts of paradise are sweet and splendid. And it is especially so when they involve no moral responsibility.

Ranjit Kanwar: Poor India! "Islam, The Arab National Movement" seems to be the book, not only for every Indian, irrespective of his religion, but also for every Pakistani and Bangladeshi as well. After all, they all belong to the Indian subcontinent. What have you done to propagate its contents?

Anwar Shaikh: By writing this book, I have discharged my duty. Its propagation, I believe, is a duty of every one.

Ranjit Kanwar: Will you be prepared to allow translations of this book into various languages without expecting any financial reward?

Anwar Shaikh: I shall be delighted to do so provided such a task is undertaken for public good, and not as a trade.

ya the so called Prophet Mahomet was was realy a profit monger sob who raided took gold and slaves and made himself rich from his cult

Having been to the Museum often enough, I never noticed the plaque. Thanks for pointing it out. But then, U of C was long known as a hothouse for Communists, so a grain of salt is always taken with info spouted by them.

"ya the so called Prophet Mahomet was was realy a profit monger sob who raided took gold and slaves and made himself rich from his cult"

And hopefully he's also suffering the eternal fate described in Dante's Inferno. Regardless of whether his entrails are currently dangling out of his body, he's suffering the fate of a man who lived out his own personal lusts "in the name of god."

Don't some Western critics of the official history of Islam say precisely that - that Islam in fact arose in the Levant, as a heterodox Jewish sect? For this they earn the displeasure of Muslims, because they do not use this as an argument to grant the Muslims the right to the whole of Palestine. For me the right of Israel cannot be grounded in the existence 3,000 years ago of a state of Israel covering approximately the same territory (or two states of Israel and Judea), but simply in the following facts: 1. It has existed for 60 years, with a small percentage of its population descended from Jews who had always lived there, though the majority are descended from immigrants going back approximately 130 years. 2. Of more recent immigrants a number approximately equal to the number of Palestinians displaced were refugees, immediately after the state's founding, from Arab countries from which they were expelled, or in which they were made to feel unwelcome in varying degrees. 3. The dhimmi status accorded to Jews, Christians and others within Muslim states, and the persecution suffered by European Jews makes it perfectly understandable and justifiable that Middle Eastern and European Jews should seek protection within their own nation state. Now Arabs within Israel proper ARE second class citizens. But under conditions of recognition and acceptance Israel is much more likely to rectify this than are Muslims to give up the concept of dhimmi peoples. The refusal of Arab countries, other than Jordan, to take in and grant Palestinians citizenship shows their moral bankruptcy here. After all the granting of citizenship now does not prevent people reacquiring Palestinian citizenship later should a state of Palestine come into existence. Their arguments are spurious. There was a de facto exchange of populations, never a desirable solution to a problem, unfortunately sometimes a necessary one. Arab countries applaud one side of this exchange, while refusing to accept the other. So in the end it must boil down to this - Muslims have the right to rule over everyone. They are not prepared to grant autonomy to anyone else. Their claims must be resisted.

3. A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.

Good to know this one.. I'll make sure I always piss in the proper direction from now on - whenever feasible of course :-)

It didn't say anything about spitting.. oh well..

The University of Chicago must think that idiots who cannot think for themselves will accept these assertions because they have been handed down out of the ivory (mosque) towers of the UC. I wonder how much money has changed hands to bring about the absolute intellectual corruption of these academes?

Average men who are intimidated by academics will not question for themselves. Average men who cannot or will not question such lunacy will accept such lunacy as fact. Eventually, lies told or printed enough become embedded in the minds of the gullible.

If our government is serious about fighting terrorism then they need to innoculate average Americans with the truth. Compile a very graphic, entertaining comic book about the history and currency of Islam. Print it up and disseminate it to every American, to every prisoner. Fill every library with books debunking Islam. Flood the internet with the absolute truth about Mohammed and Islam and its past and present barbary.

Our religious leaders need to take up where the Pope abandoned his message. Tyrants can intimidate one man, but they would be hard pressed to intimidate every minister in Christendom in the free world on any given Sabbath.

The message of 9-11 will suffice to test every assertion, law and edict of Islam:

"For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building. 9
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 10
"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 11
I Corinthians 3:9-11

Islam is incongruous with this message. The religion of Islam is a parasite which draws on other religions to establish its credibility, but which violates the principles of its host religions. It is time to excise that parasite.

This piece of remarkable scholarship, detailed knowledge of history and correlate investigative journalism that interprets historic misstatements as not only propanda, but illicit arguments intended to influence today's wars and political negotiations is the reason I read Mr. Spencer's Jihad Watch. As usual, I'll send this specific piece to my mailing list of interested persons. We will win this war with the tools and ammunition provided by Mr. Spencer.

Jesse Collins

Thanks Hugh. Anwar Shaikh is a Prophet! Ibn Warraq says of him, 'As he said in an interview in 1995, "...Britain is my home and unless you do something about Muslim fundamentalism there is going to be a huge fifth column in our midst. England must wake up. You [the British] spent hundreds of years getting Christian fundamentalism out of this country. Don’t let fundamentalism come back."'

More on Anwar Shaikh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Shaikh;
http://www.answers.com/topic/anwar-shaikh;
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Islam/anwarsheikh.htm;
Islam ¬-- The Arab Imperialism: Book Review
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb99/shaikh.htm;
"Bharat Mata" by Anwar Shaikh
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1995_11/msg00014.html;
Eternity by Anwar Shaikh;
http://www.indiastar.com/shaikh.htm;
Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/AnwarShaikh.html;
Islam and the people of the Book
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/shaikh.htm

Americaningermany

Tom Tancredo is on record as having said that he will run if none of the major candidates take up his top causes - presumably illegal immigration. In a straw poll or something like that some time ago in either IN or MI, he got a plurality of the vote of GOP candidates, besting Allen, McCain, and some others, I forget which.

The GOP can't pull his support, unless the White House decides to do it. Since neither Bush nor Cheney will be running, it will be an open field, and as far as the GOP anti-illegal-alien vote, as well as a lot of the otherwise disaffected right wing support would go, I'd expect that to go there. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if Tancredo chooses to run, he could beat not just McCain, but also Allen or Frist. In fact, if tomorrow's vote in VA is too close, I believe it's curtains for Allen.

But if the Dems win big in the house, and impeach Bush, thereby making Cheney the prez, I happen to think that he will actually run in 2008, if he happens to be the sitting president. I don't recall any praises of Islam from him in the past, although I could be wrong.

One more thing - if the GOP does badly tomorrow, they won't have the clout to thwart Tancredo, or anyone else seeking the nomination. I also don't think it's Tancredo or nothing. Romney has been pretty good about surveiling mosques, and while Giuliani has mouthed platitudes about Islam, one thing likely from his mayorial record is that he's unlikely to tolerate CAIR or other Islamic activism in the way that Bush has.

does anyone have any information about the Islamic claim that the opression of women in Islamic countries is based on culture as opposed to the actual teachings of Islam...?

thanks

US universities that are responsible (even indirectly through affiliates of theirs) for the dissemination of Islamic propaganda should have their taxpayer funding eliminated wherever possible (at least if they do not halt this pracftice once they have been put on notice for it). There are some art institutes that receive funding from the NEA (could the Oriental Institute be among these?), and it might possible to stop them from spreadingislamic propaganda by applying economic pressure on them.

Taxpayers do not have to subsidize Islamic propaganda, and I am sure in many cases that is what has been happening (possibly in this case with the Oriental Institute).

ps-the Jews have been in what is now Israel for a longer continuous time than any other ethnicity. That is probably all the argument needed to defend Israel's sovereignty.

as far as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem being the site of the Farthest Mosque [masjid al-aqsa], it was not claimed to be so until the Umayyad caliph ruling about 690 CE. The Muslims had rather ignored the place before then. However, the caliph at that time was faced with a rival dynasty or clan ruling Mecca and Medina. Now, in order to lessen the rivals' prestige on account of possessing Mecca and Medina, and in order to show that the Umayyads still had a holy place of their own, he decided that the Farthest Mosque mentioned in the Quran must have been located on the Temple Mount [a Jewish holy place] and he ordered building of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque there. So the holiness of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem in Islam go back to the political needs of an Umayyad caliph. By the way, the `Umayyad capital was Damascus, where Muslims transformed a large church into a mosque. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock was modelled on a Byzantine church a few kilometers south of Jerusalem on the way to Bethlehem, the Kathisma church which was also octagonal, like the Dome of the Rock [as discovered by Israeli archeologists a few years ago].

as far as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem being the site of the Farthest Mosque [masjid al-aqsa], it was not claimed to be so until the Umayyad caliph ruling about 690 CE. The Muslims had rather ignored the place before then. However, the caliph at that time was faced with a rival dynasty or clan ruling Mecca and Medina. Now, in order to lessen the rivals' prestige on account of possessing Mecca and Medina, and in order to show that the Umayyads still had a holy place of their own, he decided that the Farthest Mosque mentioned in the Quran must have been located on the Temple Mount [a Jewish holy place] and he ordered building of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque there. So the holiness of the Temple Mount and Jerusalem in Islam go back to the political needs of an Umayyad caliph. By the way, the `Umayyad capital was Damascus, where Muslims transformed a large church into a mosque. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock was modelled on a Byzantine church a few kilometers south of Jerusalem on the way to Bethlehem, the Kathisma church which was also octagonal, like the Dome of the Rock [as discovered by Israeli archeologists a few years ago].