Happy new year

Happy New Year 2010 Robert,Hugh,Marisol, And All who post and read the JW artcles. Enjoy the OBL fireworks!

Happy New Year!

"Here's hoping for a less politically correct 2010, in which the force of reality leads more people to understand what we are up against, and to respond accordingly."
Hear, Hear!

InshAllah there won't be as many terror attacks :).

Personally, I'm a Muslim and don't believe that Islam is bad. I've studied the Qur'an and Hadith and I've concluded that there's nothing wrong with Islam, just the way that people use it. Terrorists aren't following the true Islam, but are creating their own religion. No where in the Quran, Hadith, or Sunnah, does it say that the killing of innocent people is justified. I've been sharing a lot of my thoughts on http://OurIslamic.com as it's a place I've found where I can learn more about Islam.

Also, I don't find this firework offensive at all (YES, I'm a Muslim). Bin Ladin isn't a Muslim, and I have no relation in anyway shape of form to him.

Please share your thoughts regarding my opinions.

Happy New Year, People!

May 2010 be the year Western Europe decides to save it's culture from being swallowed by the hegemonic Barbarians:

"Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tzu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated."

I can't recall where I read the above. It might have been on JW.

All the best in 2010 for Mr. Spencer and his cohorts here at JW!

Darcy --

For a detailed but concise disquisition on the doctrine of political Islam, see Stephen Coughlin's thesis at

www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

Coughlin was the Defense Department analyst whose work got him crosswise with a Muslim mole in the office of an Assistant Secretary of Defense. His research contract was subsequently terminated, but his work is still well worth a read in its entirety.

A very happy and satisfactory 2010 to you, Robert and all the staffers and all the posters of JW.

Amen to your thought of a less politically correct 2010 and a more aware public.

God Bless.

Happy New Year To Robert, Hugh, Marisol and all at JihadWatch.

Dear Humza,

After studying Islam for many years reading the Quran, listening to imams, reading hadith and holding discussions with many muslims I believe that the only way a good person could believe that Islam is good is that they have been brainwashed or blinded by the devil/satan.

There is no way the GOD of the Holy Bible gave Mohammad the Quran-it is way too vague and easily distorted. Why would GOD use a language that is so difficult to translate into every other language of the world? Why do prayers have to be said in Arabic? Why would GOD use a language without vowel points that could be easily translated using syrio-aramaic instead of it's supposed arabic? The Quran in not universal and not for all of man.

Islam is not a legitimate religion to be practiced in the year 2010, it wasn't a legitimate religion to be practiced in the year Mohammad made it up.

The Quran is a war manual. Terrorists are following the true Islam, the Quran and hadith are war manuals.

The Quran is full of loop-holes allowing the killing of people that the whole world see as innocents. The Islamic Golden Rule is different then any other religion.

Some say the Holy Bible has been corrupted and is out-dated. Muslims so deparately want Mohammad to be mentioned in the Holy Bible yes the same one theysay has been corrupted! Actually it is right on the mark with this prediction we have about the man Ishmael. This says multitudes about the legacy of Islam and it's founder Mohammad.

Genesis 16
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

Sincerely, pvb

Happy New Year to all!

More and more people are getting heartily sick of the disruption, death and destruction caused by muslims. Wouldn't it be wonderful if 2010 brings the death of political correctness?

"as we now know that such fireworks are Offensive to Muslims and hence forbidden."

Its not racist if its targeted at Arabs

"run HADJI run"

Wishing a safe and happy New Year to Robert, Marisol, Hugh and all of you who routinely carry on the good fight on behalf of Western Civilization and non-muslims around the world!

Happy New year...2009 is gone?? Really? Are you sure?
We live in an interesting time, when you can't be sure of much of anything...We can't even be sure that George Bush is out of office...He gets blamed for a lot, considering he never shows up for work...But maybe he slips in the back door, does his dubious deeds, and slides out without detection...He is a graduate of Vasoline college, he slid in and he will slide out...My predictions for 2010 are that Bush and Obama will be out of office before 2012...Here's Rasool main problem...He said three time in one speech, shouted actually, 'I'm not tired', I'm all fired up and ready to go'...Then he precedes to move really fast, a blur almost...Here there everywhere like a hummingbird of a housefly...Have you noticed that the faster a critter moves the shorter his lifespan? Rasool is already burning out...He is looking ragged around the edges, his popularity numbers are sagging, his charisma is waning, except for those deluded by the cult of personality, it is obvious that his light is dimming and will soon fizzle out...He will be lucky if he lasts till 2012...

May the Lord bless YOUR (y'all's) new year with creativity and insight and willingness to express truth

i pray that the Gregorian system (perhaps tweeked) continue to be the chronicle of choice for centuries to come

Humza...

I have always wanted to know what the word 'until', means in Q 8:39...'Fight them 'until'...can you explain what Allah meant when he wrote that?

Happy New Year to Robert and all who work at JW!
a side note to Humza l do not give a rat's ass what you think about Islam but to a large percentage of islamist terrorists seem to use islam as a tool to rape,torture and kill. l care more that Robert and his staff will educate non-Muslims about the dangers of islam and how to neuter islam.

1. Happy New Year to all our readers and commenters.

2. Just a thought:

If Arabic really translated that poorly and inconsistently, there would be something very, very wrong with it -- a uniquely flawed language among human tongues. However, the consistency of translations of the Qur'an, even by Muslims looking to promote Islam, and even the nasty verses, suggests someone's pulling our chain.

But anyway, if the Qur'an is so prone to being "misunderstood," there's something wrong with it.

In the West, a product or instruction manual with such a high rate of failure (or behind closed doors, "success") when used as directed would be recalled by its producer, with apologies issued.

Honestly, people like darcy come up against Islam and attempt to bash Muslims. People like darcy feel self-pity and think that all Muslims want to hate non-Muslims, etc. Those types of people are the ones who are stereotypical themselves (don't you think that's hypocritical?).

If you want to bash Islam:

1) Don't use bad words (I'm talking to everyone here). It just makes you look uneducated

2) Use the full contest of a quote. Here's an example found on http://OurIslamic.com (it's long, so all you really need to read are the first few parts):

And slay them wherever ye catch them.." (2:191)
A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:
2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:

These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Qur’an clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)
The historical context is something that must always be considered where developing an understanding of Qur'anic verses. Without knowing the circumstances behind the revelation, one cannot apply the verse as accurately. Shaykh Salman Al-Oadah writes about the general principles in Jihad:
Jihad can never be fought for worldly gain, for conquest, or even for revenge. Muslims must only fight to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people, especially their freedom to worship Allah when that freedom is forcibly attacked. They are never allowed to attack innocent people, even when they are themselves attacked by the countrymen of those innocents. Any people that go against this established principle of Islamic Law and murder civilians are fighting against Islam and everything that it stands for. It is ludicrous for them to call this fighting a jihâd, a word that means striving in the cause of Islam. They are in fact murderers in the light of Islamic Law and should be treated as such. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
There are strict and detailed laws in Islam, which Muslims must follow carefully. A military Jihad must be performed under these regulations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes about verse 2:190:
War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
He then re-iterates the general principles behind Jihad in his commentary on verse 2:191:
In general, it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing, and its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively on verse 2:190:
2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” – Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. ‘For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant’ (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words ‘fight with those who fight you’ clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants – children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like – had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, ‘not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.’ (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God’s law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? ‘The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was’, says a modern Christian historian, ‘so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians’ sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct’ (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner:
This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
And on verse 2:191, he states the following:
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
This extensive commentary on this verse should sufficiently address all confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse.

Humza...You're not going to help me understand the word of Allah? I asked you to please explain 'Fight them 'until'...
You are capable of explaining it aren't you?

The "self-defense" canard doesn't limit jihad. In reality, it encourages it. All that's needed is a grievance, and, voila! Casus belli! We see that mentality around the world, from the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons to Ron Paul's favorite, the stationing of U.S. troops in the Arabian peninsula during the Gulf War.

Defensive jihad is, for all intents and purposes, a war looking for an excuse, and all too eager to find one.

Ok Humza I read that loooooooong blurb...about context and historical connections...I always thought the Quran was eternally Allah's word, and all it's principals pertained to today and forever, but thanks to you I can see it's more of a history book...Mohoundians and Kufrs can just ignore all those swell remarks Allah made against dis-belief...No one takes that stuff seriously today...right? Well maybe a few, a minute minority, a tiny number confused jihadists take it more seriously...Have you had any success persuading any of them about their misunderstandings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG3afAIi6IQ

Happy New years...

...to our fearless leader, whose courage and dedication are an inspiration to us all...

...to Hugh, who provides us with the color commentary that makes this site more than it would otherwise be...

...to Marisol, who seems to be available 24-7 to fill in whenever Robert is on the road or in the skies...

...to 'Dumbledoresarmy', who gives us keen insight and telling contributions on a regular basis...

...to 'Graven Image', who somehow won my heart the day we figured out her gender ("yep, I'm a chick")...

...to 'Darcy', whose combative disposition is always refreshing...

...to 'Hesperado', 'Eastwood', 'DavidGreyBeard', 'Duh Swami', 'ImNoDhimmi', 'AlarmedPigFarmer', and the scores of others who have found a home here at JW...(to those whose names I've overlooked, please forgive...I'm hung-over as hell)...

...and a special "shout out" (how Obama has corrupted that phrase) to my buddy 'Wellington', our resident teacher (God, how nauseating the liberal chatter in your teacher's lounge must be), whose expressions of moral outrage at Islamic doctrine AND Muslim behavior speak for all of us here at JW.

Hope that 2010 is good to all of you.

Humza...You don't know your Quran? You are trying to defend Islam and you don't know your Quran??? Amazing...Do you know that is like trying to fight Goliath with one hand tied behind your back...You are in way over your head on this site if you don't know your Quran...I'm not going to look it up for you, you have a computer use it...
The word 'until' means what it means...Q 8:39 has never been achieved and it never will be achieved, because 'until' has no final date, it has a conclusion that is impossible to achieve...What this means in Mahoundian terms is perpetual warfare...

Robert - You ARE Babe Ruth in the anti-Jihad Hall of Fame. An original, a legend. I value our friendship and all the inspiration, education, and good times we shared in 2009. Thanks for being a loud bell-ringer of truth and for exposing CAIR and making sure that people know that CAIR is the propaganda arm of the jihadists. Thanks also for partnering with Atlas and writing a book with her, I have already pre-ordered it.

Hope you and yours have fun and love in the New Year. Keep Swinging!

Hamza:
As salaam aleikum... Judging from your name you're probably a male Arab "hamza." Nice try my friend but it's getting close for us "Muslims" to pay the piper. Time we shat or got off the pot...time we cleaned up our house (Dar al Islam) or then pray that someone else who cleans it up, doesn't take care of our own as well.

Instead of defending "Islam" through your rose colored glasses, you should be busy apologizing for the atrocities being committed EVERY day by your brothers across the world. How do you, my "brother," explain this? Worse, primary targets are fellow Muslims at volleyball sites, mosques, hotels, bazaars, girls schools etc. Yet, not one word from your types condemning and demanding profiling and the closure of all extremist (i.e. Wahhabi/salafi/deobandi flavor) mosques? Why not brother?

Instead, your "type" in the free (and stupidly tolerant) West demand more apologies, concessions and denials that there is anything wrong with how Islam is being leveraged.
Personally, I know how to handle this "problem". The tried and true "eye for an eye." Only then will this Arab led, backward and violent strain be condemned and destroyed.

Heard of the word "RECIPROCITY." Nope, we Muslims don't believe in such things. Well, its coming in one form or another. And, it is about time too.

Wana...Now that was interesting...So interesting in fact, I won't take your remarks to Humza too seriously...I wonder how he feels about a 'brother' talking down to him...

Wana...Where would you like to see this reciprocity start and where would you like to see it end?
You sound bias against Arabs...That's not racially motivated is it?

By way of reply:

Meet me under the Biltmore clock at 3 o'clock today, and we'll go from there.

hamza- "The reason the Qur'an is written in the way it is, is because God did not want anyone to change the words that were written."

WHAT? I do not speak or read arabic but have been told that there are many words in the Quran that have multiple meanings- isn't there one about that means a clot, no a leach, no chewed meat?

Without the vowel points much of the quran can be read using syrio-aramaic and it makes more sense

Allah needs people to explain his extremely vaque message about war and fighting to man?

Hunza...You sound like a recent convert...Who is not too familiar with their own literature...but are sold even if you don't know what you are getting involved in...If you read your Quran and some hadith, you would know that jihad is an 'obligation' on all Mahoundians, and you and Wana, are not exempt...If you refuse jihad, you die a hypocrite...There are no hypocrites in Allah's Paradise...

Hunza Q 98:6...However, God never told us to murder innocent people. In no religion does it say this, not even Islam.

As you should know, all kufr are guilty of warring against Allah, by refusing to embrace Allah and then Islam...
As far as Allah, your god, is concerned there is no such thing as an innocent kufr (dis-believer). Their very dis-disbelief makes them najis, and positively 'not innocent'...Pious muslims are the only innocents...If you have studied for all that time you should know this, so you are either ignorant of your chosen religion, or you are indulging in Taqiyya...

Happy New Year, Robert, Hugh, Marisol & everyone else @ Jihad Watch!!!

May 2010 be a less successful year for the forces of Islam!!!

P.S. I've had trouble logging in from my other computer - that one w/ IE8/Vista. The one I'm typing from now is Konqueror/Linux. Anyone else found the same problem?

Hunza...I believe what you say 100% that Jihad is mandatory for Muslims. However, I still stress that what terrorists are doing is not Jihad.

Hunza...This definition of jihad is attributed to imam Bukhari...This is what 'terrorist' are doing

Noble Qur'an:2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."

Terrorism is a tool and a tactic used by pious Mahoundian jihadists...You try and make it sound like terrorism is it's own religion and nothing to do with Islam...That is a false idea...These terrorist jihadi's have Islam correctly interpreted...You are the one out of step...Allah is watching your ducking bobbing and weaving, trying to escape your 'duty' as described above...Note the last two sentences...That's you bud...

Hamza - You say Bin Laden is not a muslim? He has the title Sheik which means he has studied extensively and I'll wager he can quote the koran frontwards and backwards without it in front of him. And 90percent of the muslims surveyed think he is a great muslim. That is one of the flaws of islam ever being peaceful, you can just say he isn't a muslim and bam, that makes it so in your mind.

And if you really think that islam is peaceful, ask yourself what happened to the first 4 caliphs. They were ALL murdered by the people who surrounded Mohammad in his lifetime. What does that tell you? They were his followers and they all murdered each other.

Can ANY other religion show the followers of the founder being murdered by those who followed him? Not by outsiders. No.

A big happy New Year to all the JW crew and posters. May 2010 bring a renewed thirst for objective truth in the west, and along with it a new resolve to fight for what's worth fighting for and to jettison what isn't (as in PC/MC realpolitik).

Another year begins with another 40 murdered in the name of Islam at a volleyball match in Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8437114.stm

Most muslims(90%) who espouse the tolerance and peace of the qu'ran are unable to speak the language it's written in.

I can recite every word to "La Bamba" but of course that doesn't mean I speak Spanish,nor does it mean that I understand the song.

JLP

I remember the linked story, and how one of the trolls got really upset over the use of “Hadji.” To bad all those Intense Debacle comments are lost. JW did have some pretty good argument strings.

Because muslims consider dogs to be unclean, the wife and I are off to get a third dog, a miniature schnauzer, to add to our little family of the Schnoodle and the Tibbie.

To Humza,

Your faith is incompatible with libertarian values. Your obfuscation and deflection through these interpretations fails to address why you live in Dar al-Harb, and all that entails. You have also failed to explain what sect you are, and how these divisions create so much explosive love between your peaceful brethren. You have also entered a realm here in JW where Islam’s inhumanity is exposed everyday, and if you are as you say, a moderate voice which truly believes all the violence and subjugation carried out in the name of your faith is simply a great misunderstanding, you’re at the wrong site. You should be going to all the other Islamic sites and changing their minds, and then, maybe (but realistically, you haven’t got a snowflake’s chance in Hell), just maybe, you might even convince us that you’re right.

Good luck wit’ that.

Humza,

I appreciate all the effort that you have taken to write about Islamic doctrine. You appear to be sincere. Jesus said that "a tree will be known by it's fruit." I really can't say that the fruit of Islam indicates that it is a good tree. I grow apples and sometimes an apple tree will have a bad year or have a few sour apples. But on the whole I can put away quite a bit of apples. I look at the fruit of Islam now and throughout history and honestly I can't see anyting worthwhile that this "doctrine" has produced. The lionshare of technology and knowledge of this world has not been derived or motivated from Islamic doctrine. It appears to be a doctrine based on blind submision and fear, not on overcoming adversity. I do not want this doctrine in my country, and I don't see Muslims having their enlightenment any time soon.

Does humza remind anyone else of Mikey?

I wish all my fellow JihadWatchers a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous 2010. Thanks to Robert, Hugh and Marisol for fighting the good fight. Wishes also for Humza to come to a more full understanding of Islam. Until that then, there's always this: http://www.guffsturdpolish.com/default.php

С Новым Годом!

It seems Muslimun like Bin Laden more than the media and CAIR want us to believe.

Humza,
You say we can't understand Arabic so we can't properly understand Islam. I assume YOU don't understand Arabic. Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?

You claim (very predictably) that ALL of the "sword" verses were defensive and localized historical edicts. You answered the question about the "until" in 8:39 (and others) a bit evasively. You said you assumed it was "until" the enemy had been defeated, until "justice" and "faith in God" prevail. Is this correct? I think we can agree that "faith in God" means faith in Allah = practicing only Islam.

If these verses were meant for a single time and place, and obviously God would not want misunderstandings down the ages, why did the verses not read "fight GROUP A until... GROUP A is defeated and..."? Why CONTINUALLY use the word "them" which just about everyone defined as unbelievers?

In the OT, when Yahweh ordered a town's destruction because of "wickedness" or because they were "under the ban of the Lord", the text would clearly state the tribe and location that were to be destroyed. No open-ended warfare edicts.

What are Muslims to believe, then, when Allah orders them to fight against (amongst other things) "disbelief" UNTIL there is only Islam?

8:38 "Say to those who disbelieve..."
8:39 "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah..."

I agree it says to not fight against certain people and to desist in certain situations, but the order to fight against UNBELIEF is clear and ETERNAL, it is an "and" in the list of those to fight, not an "or". UNTIL there is ONLY belief in Allah.

Therefore, if you are an "unbeliever", you are NOT an "innocent", until justice prevails and religion is only for Allah.

Who is confused here Humza, you or the terrorists?

Even the verse that Humza uses as an example of peacefulness, really shows that it isn't.

"fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God"

meaning the muslim god, not just any god. And what about those that don't want to follow a god? Well, islam is pretty clear about that too.

Happy New Year, all!

Many thanks to Robert, Hugh & Marisol for your tireless work at Jihad Watch.

Stay safe -- we need you!

Happy 2010!!! To Robert, Hugh, Marisol, David, and too all JW sentries witnessing and fighting the unrelenting islamic attack and murder of humans and their civilization all accross the World.
Oh yeah, and to all muslims happy 710 A..D.
I’m for peace, that’s why the koran is my and the World’s enemy.

Happy New Year everyone.

May 2010 be a year of peace without dhimmitude and prosperity without greed.

Regards to all, except the apologists.

dumbledore maybe you can put them in a set of txt files a la Climategate hehe.

Humza: Duh_swami and others have, I think, effectively replied to you. I, however, have an additional query I would like to put to you. Do you support my right as an American and the right of other Americans to openly criticize any religion, including Islam? Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we have free speech in this country which allows for criticism, including severe criticism or even mockery of any particular religion. Do you support this?

You see, I don't like Islam and I don't like Mohammed and I have a right to this opinion, including the right to express it publicly. I also don't like the way Muslims across the world go postal when Islam or Mohammed are criticized. I don't care what Muslims believe but I do care how Muslims act. And they act like spoiled brats many times and have made Islam the world's biggest pain in the ass. Just about the best guarantee anywhere in the world to guard against Muslims continuing to think that their religion and founder are immune to critism is the First Amendment. What say you about the First Amendment?

How could I forget?

Happy New Year to: Undaunted (love your website, mate), loremipsum, lorfalcon, AlaskanInfidel, Infidel Pride, Stephen A55, Dogwithoutslippers, profitsbeard, Jewel Atkins, Aiken Bryce, GMcCal, Gymgal, Alwaysonwatch, Virgil, arius (Armenian), reacher (another Scot! Hope you had a great Hogmanay!), Tziona, deus vult, PMK, poetcomic1, JewishOdysseus, CHOI, eurodhimmi (nom de plume clearly chosen for ultra-sarcasm), Gharkad, Stendec, Alexander Munch, WreckerBoy (get those counter jihad warnings out, to the First Nations people!), bewick, Spirit of 1683, Ruslan/ Enraged Since 1999, buraq is dead, kiphamilton, Henrik, FransG, JSobieski, solsticewitch13, Meeker, Indian Tiger, DP111, efoc, proud kafir, greaticon, boakai ngombu, ericthekuffar, boneshack, MikeTrivisonno, CivilusDefendus, Czech6, Tartine, Czechmade, Wannabee, Flippinheck, Rammer, jdamn, Chatillon, Indojasmine {some of these names are 'intensedebate' noms de plume, from Jan-August this year}, Ole, Kash225...and if I went back through my records, covering more than three years, I'd find more, and more, and more names of people whose comments I have found illuminating and interesting and encouraging.

And a special greeting to MikeW and havemercy - in the New Year, may you be granted a sign, a renewal of hope, may you be able to find something to be your 'expecto patronum!' to drive the dementors away and give you strength to fight on against the Jihad.

Oops.

Posting above, I wrote - "intensedebate' noms de plume, from Jan-August this year".

Should have written, "intensedebate' noms de plume, from Jan-August 2009".

Wow. What an inauspicious way to start the New Year and the New Decade. My post was deleted. I wrote nothing abusive nor used any foul language. It was deleted solely for its idea, too potent apparently for this site? Surely my fellow Jihad Watchers recall seeing my comment before it was spirited away; I certainly do. I saw it with my own two eyes, approximately the 67th comment. Or have I stumbled into the Twilight Zone..?

Humza: "I've been sharing a lot of my thoughts on http://OurIslamic.com as it's a place I've found where I can learn more about Islam."

Please stop spamming links to your own forums.

Also, you really don't understand Islam. I highly suggest you read the Islam 101 on this site and check out http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm
that answer some of the points you are making.

It is ISLAM that is causing havoc in the world, not Christians, Buddhists or Mormons. They are FOLLOWING their own commands of their scripture, and quoting it, as opposed to Christians etc. who must DISOBEY the commands of their own religion to do evil. There is NO golden rule in Islam, and any command to do good to others does not apply to non-Muslims (Q. 28:86). Here is a list of how the Kuffir (non-beleivers) are to be treated from the mouth of Mohammad himself! http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir/

I hope you will see the truth about Islam and what it stands for and separate yourself from it.

God bless you all, my dear friends in JW
Deus vult!
We will win this.
Have a great 2010 disabusing the ignorant and the deceptive.

Humza,

We've seen these kinds of apologetics before, such as the standard "translation" and "context" objections. These apologetics can be refuted in detail or, to cut to the chase, we can push them all aside and look at what Muslims believe and follow today. The translation and context apologetics for example, don't matter in a practical way to non-Muslims now if Muslims today believe and want implemented a harsh interpretation in the form of strict sharia. Polls and surveys indicate the majority of Muslims in the most populous Muslim countries want "strict" sharia law to be implemented (see World Public Opinion), and that the majority want a caliphate to be set up. In the West, polls indicate that the majority of Muslims want some major elements of sharia to be imposed on non-Muslims, including blasphemy penalties to be brought down on non-Muslims who make critical comments about Islam and Muhammad. That is, if a Muslim does not approve of what some non-Muslim says about Islam or Muhammad, most Muslims believe that the non-Muslim must face harsh criminal prosecution and punishment, in accordance with sharia blasphemy laws.

Given the present-day reality, which follows an increasing trend toward the implementation of classical sharia in the Islamic world over the past approximately 40 years, and an increasing trend toward adoption of Islamic norms and standards (and even, in some jurisdictions such as in the U.K., partial adoption of sharia) in the West and in international institutions, discussions about what some verses in the Quran "really mean" seems academic and irrelevant to many people. The meanings of the verses are obvious enough to the so-called "kufaar" who are, or who would be, on the receiving end of such hatred and policies of murder, genocide, rape, slavery, plunder, etc., that are advocated and indeed glorified in the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and Islamic law. We "kufaar," as the characters in your books call us, reserve the right to interpret what we may read in the Quran and other Islamic texts according to our own concerns and interests. If you want to reach out to non-Muslims, as you seem to suggest, I recommend against insulting the intelligence of your intended audience; don't make claims about tricky translations and don't make appeals to "contexts" that supposedly dispel all reasonable concerns about commands such as "kill them wherever you find them," "right-hand possessions," and so on.

A Happy New Year to so many here at Jihad Watch. What a great site JW is. Thanks first and foremost to Robert Spencer, one of the great defenders of freedom of our time. Thanks to Hugh, whose knowledge of Islam I would match with anyone's. Kudos to Marisol, who's the Keeper of the Flame, much as the Vestal Virgins were in ancient Rome. Happy New Year to Cornelius, undaunted, dda, darcy, duh_swami, gravenimage, PMK, Spirit Wolf, livingengine, ebonystone, sheik yer mami, AlaskanInfidel, CivilusDefendus, Worroy01, Hesperado, traeh, pulsar182, DaveGreyBeard, Mackie, Eastview, Spirit of 1683, jdamn, deus vult, Infidel Pride and so many others whom I am certain I will feel badly about for not mentioning (gettin' old, you know). May 2010 be a year where true kwowledge of Islam expands worldwide and where Islam is increasingly put on the defensive, as it needs to be, as it should be. I raise a glass of beer to you all.

Thank you, Dumbles, Wellington and Cornelius, for your kind mention. Your posts are invariably interesting and informative. I also thank all the other great people that post here (see the list that Dumbles so thoughtfully put together) that make this site what it is.

And not lastly, thank you Robert, Hugh and Marisol for providing this, the most informative site on Islam and its World Wide Jihad, on the web.

Happy New Year all – may the truth prevail.

DEUS VULT!

I would like to know why my reply to Humaz was deleted? It had an offer to counter his Islamic beliefs with that of the Bible. Which is far superior than anything that Muslims can muster.

I will abide by the rules but I need to know were I crossed the line.

THANK YOU

Oh, Happy New Year everyone!!

For the New Year. The Bells in their Courses.

This will be a long posting, but I am putting it in because it sums up a great deal that we are fighting for.

I refer to the main portion of English author Dorothy L Sayers' unforgettable account of the ringing-in of a New Year in most un-Islamic manner, deep in the Fen Country of England, in her novel "The Nine Tailors" (1934).

She begins with the New Years' Eve service, attended by Lord Peter Wimsey (her fictional detective-hero, who having been stranded in the Fens by a car breakdown, has been roped in by the vicar, to assist with the ringing of the bells). And then it proceeds from there.

"Dearly beloved brethren' -
'Wimsey scrambled to his feet and looked round.

'At the first glance he felt himself sobered and awestricken by the noble proportions of the church, in whose vast spaces the congregation...seemed almost lost.

The wide nave and shadowy aisles, the lofty span of the chancel arch - crossed, though not obscured, by the delicate fan-tracery and crenellated moulding of the screen - the intimate and cloistered loveliness of the chancel, with its pointed arcading, graceful ribbed vault and five narrow east lancets, led his attention on and focused it first upon the remote glow of the sanctuary.

'Then his gaze, returning to the nave, followed the strong yet slender shafting that sprang fountain-like from floor to foliated column-head, spraying into the light, wide arches that carried the clerestory. And there, mounting to the steep pitch of the roof, his eyes were held entranced with wonder and delight. Incredibly aloof, flinging back the light in a dusky shimmer of bright hair and gilded outspread wings, soared the ranked angels, cherubim and seraphim, choir over choir, from corbel and hammer-beam floating face to face uplifted.

'"My God!" muttered Wimsey, not without reverence. And he softly repeated to himself, "He rode upon the cherubins and did fly; he came flying upon wings of the wind."

....

"Praise Him in the cymbals and dances: praise Him upon the strings and pipe."

'The shrill voices of the surpliced choir mounted to the roof, and seemed to find their echo in the golden mouths of the angels.

'"Praise Him upon the well-tuned cymbals; praise Him upon the loud cymbals.
"Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord."

'The time wore on towards midnight. The Rector, advancing to the chancel steps, delivered...a simple and moving little address, in which he spoke of praising God not only upon the strings and pipe, but upon the beautiful bells of their beloved church...

'Hezekiah Lavender exclaimed sonorously, 'Now, lads!' The ringers, with much subdued shuffling, extricated themselves from their chairs and wound their way up the belfry stair. Coats were pulled off and hung on nails in the ringing-chamber, and Wimsey, observing on a bench near the door an enormous brown jug and nine pewter tankards, understood, with pleasure, that the landlord of the Red Cow had, indeed, provided "the usual" for the refreshment of the ringers.

'The eight men advanced to their stations, and Hezekiah consulted his watch.

'"Time!" he said.

'He spat upon his hands, grasped the sallie of Tailor Paul, and gently swung the great bell over the balance.

'Toll-toll-toll; and a pause; toll-toll-toll, and a pause; toll-toll-toll; the nine tailors, or teller-strokes, that mark the passing of a man. The year is dead; toll him out with twelve strokes more, one for every passing month. Then silence. Them, from the faint, sweet tubular chimes of the clock overhead, the four quarters and the twelve strokes of midnight. The ringers grasped their ropes.

'"Go!"

'The bells gave tongue: Gaude, Sabaoth, John, Jericho, Jubilee, Dimity, Batty Thomas and Tailor Paul, rioting and exulting high up in the dark tower, wide mouths rising and falling, brazen tongues clamouring, huge wheels turning in the dance of the leaping ropes.

'Tin tan din dan bim bam bom bo - tan tin din dan bam bim bo bom - tin tan dan din bimb bam bom bo - tan tin dan din bam bim bo bom - tan dan tin bam din bo bim bom - every bell in her place striking tuneably, hunting up, hunting down, dodging, snapping, laying her blows behind, making her thirds and fourths, working down to lead the dance again.

'Out over the flat, white wastes of fen, over the spear-straight, steel-dark dykes and the wind-bent groaning poplar trees, bursting from the snow-choked louvres of the belfry, whirled away southward and westward in gusty blasts of clamour to the sleeping counties went the music of the bells - little Gaude, silver Sabaoth, strong John and Jericho, glad Jubilee, sweet Dimity and old Batty Thomas, with great Tailor Paul bawling and striding like a giant in the midst of them. Up and down went the shadows of the ringers on the walls, up and down went the scarlet sallies flickering roofwards and floorwards, and up and down, hunting in their courses, went the bells of Fenchurch St Paul".

DDA -- yes!
Whatever happened to our church bells?

When I was a kid, they used to ring out on Sunday mornings and for the Prottys' Evensong too.
I've been thinking a lot about the bells lately. How can we get them pealing again? It is a beautiful sound.

DDA -- Thank you so much for remembering me and for your kind words!

I always pause to read your comments because I know I'll learn something of value. I really appreciate your thoughtful and informative contributions to Jihad Watch. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't put you on the payroll yet (I'm not joking).

I don't understand the need for some to present hamza with a zero sum predicament. He needs an exit from the illiberalism of Islam. Let him have it. Who cares if it's Koranically unsound?

It is highly unrealistic that demanding of Western Muslims that they choose either apostasy or acceptance of true Islam will have a positive result.

You're not going to convert a billion people. You can build a wall and hope that eventually the "cultural imperialism" of sex and booze grows the Muslim Lite franchise.

Happy New Year to everyone at JW!!! Sorry its late as I have been unwell and no it wasn't a hangover!!

To Robert, Marisol ( Thank you for banning mike ab and jowen, thier lack of manners grated on my nerves!!) and Hugh, thank you for your well thought out essays!

Happy New Year, everyone--literally at the eleventh hour of the first day of 2010! (It's just like me, to be late.)

May the Lord give you comfort, joy, and peace.

DDA, Isn't it wonderful how all the bells have names and characters, in the snippet you posted? :-)

Happy New Year to Robert, Marisol, Hugh, the JW Staff ...and to my friends, Boneshack, Hesperado, Duh_Swami, Awake, Gymgal, Susanp, and sooo many others. Have a blessed 2010!

It is a contemporary article of faith for Muslims to kill those that insult their prophet, Muslims away from Islam, and Muslim apostates.

The case of Danill Sysoyev, the recently murdered Russian Orthodox priest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxNtNPSqV0

Killing Apostates:

Tafsir:

"People who turn away from Islam and do not repent but wage war and create mischief in the land are also considered as murderers. "But if they break their oaths after making compacts and taunt you for your faith, you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief because their oaths are not trustworthy: it may be that the sword alone will restrain them"

Hadith:

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle

Killing Danill Sysoyev ... is in fact simply an article of faith for Muslims for spreading "corruption in the land".

It is not "lawful" for Muslims to kill innocent human beings, but you are not innocent if you spread corruption in the land.

5:32: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."

It was in fact a contemporary article of faith for Muslims to kill Danill Sysoyev by Islamic doctrine. Basically it is okay for Muslims to convert and preach to non-Muslims, but not okay for the reverse, because Muslims do not see us as equals if our ideas on faith are considered "corruption in the land" and are deserving of death if we think ourselves worthy of talking about them with Muslims. In essence this is the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, so it isn't our fault that our societies will only ever have temporary peace agreements.

Killing those who insult Mohammed from the mouth of Islamic scholars.

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet.

In essence Islam goes against everything our founding fathers stood for. At some point we are going to have to take a look at our freedom in the context that the founding fathers intended for us in regards to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

George Mason :

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By integrating large numbers of Muslims into our society isn't our government violating the spirit of the type of nation our founding fathers intended for us? How is integrating a faith that is bent upon murder, mayhem and domination as one of its central themes conducive to the sort of society our founding fathers intended to create? Does the freedom of religion supersede the foundation of our society? Seems if you consider Islam a religion the two are at odds with one another. At some point we'll have to fix that, because Islam and "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." don't coexist geographically.

I understand you are trying to help Hamza, but at the most basic fundamental level your faith is incompatible with western standards of freedom of thought and conscious. This is deeply rooted in Islamic verse, tradition, and scripture. The best thing you can do is to take the knowledge you have gained in Islam and become an apostate, and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Islam can't reform .... wish it were otherwise.

Hamza,

It is a contemporary article of faith for Muslims to kill those that insult their prophet, convert Muslims away from Islam, and Muslim apostates.

The case of Danill Sysoyev, the recently murdered Russian Orthodox priest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxNtNPSqV0

Killing Apostates:

Tafsir:

"People who turn away from Islam and do not repent but wage war and create mischief in the land are also considered as murderers. "But if they break their oaths after making compacts and taunt you for your faith, you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief because their oaths are not trustworthy: it may be that the sword alone will restrain them"

Hadith:

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle

Killing Danill Sysoyev ... is in fact simply an article of faith for Muslims for spreading "corruption in the land".

It is not "lawful" for Muslims to kill innocent human beings, but you are not innocent if you spread corruption in the land.

5:32: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."

It was in fact a contemporary article of faith for Muslims to kill Danill Sysoyev by Islamic doctrine. Basically it is okay for Muslims to convert and preach to non-Muslims, but not okay for the reverse, because Muslims do not see us as equals if our ideas on faith are considered "corruption in the land" and are deserving of death if we think ourselves worthy of talking about them with Muslims. In essence this is the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, so it isn't our fault that our societies will only ever have temporary peace agreements.

Killing those who insult Mohammed from the mouth of Islamic scholars.

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet.

In essence Islam goes against everything our founding fathers stood for. At some point we are going to have to take a look at our freedom in the context that the founding fathers intended for us in regards to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

George Mason :

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By integrating large numbers of Muslims into our society isn't our government violating the spirit of the type of nation our founding fathers intended for us? How is integrating a faith that is bent upon murder, mayhem and domination as one of its central themes conducive to the sort of society our founding fathers intended to create? Does the freedom of religion supersede the foundation of our society? Seems if you consider Islam a religion the two are at odds with one another. At some point we'll have to fix that, because Islam and "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." don't coexist geographically.

I understand you are trying to help Hamza, but at the most basic fundamental level your faith is incompatible with western standards of freedom of thought and conscious. This is deeply rooted in Islamic verse, tradition, and scripture. The best thing you can do is to take the knowledge you have gained in Islam and become an apostate, and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Islam can't reform .... wish it were otherwise.

"No where in the Quran, Hadith, or Sunnah, does it say that the killing of innocent people is justified."

That one just keeps popping up, doesn't it? "Innocent people," according to the Qur'an, are Muslims. They are the ONLY innocent people. The Qur'an gives Muslims permission to rape and kill everyone else. And why not? Muhammad did.

Leave it out, Humza. If you want to dispense a little peace and light, join the 'ethnics' or 'naturals' or whatever term comes to mind for the hospitable, empathetic, kind and occasionally just plain awareness-raising folks who have the misfortune to be born under the star and crescent, and just act human. Quit blethering. The logic of the Koran is beyond redemption, especially on this site.

I'm far from the only one on this site to have travelled and lived in Islamic lands, to have been changed and enlightened by Iranians unconscious that they carry the flame of Mithra when they teach their kids that The Lie is worst thing on earth; by the Malangs of Afghanistan, the dopeheaded marvel-mongers so loathed by Arab fanatic intruders; by Badakhshani Turkic jokers who made a giggling farce of every day; by the Kafirs of Swat Beyond, for whom I grieve nearly daily, who wore their Islam very lightly while letting their superb women run the place and making sure the ancestors got true respect; or by whatever personal equivalents our lives have thrown up.

My thanks to this site for a breath of sanity, and to all the more level-headed people here who post my own thoughts better expressed and bring new thoughts clearly put.

Again, Happy new Year

Late as usual. Thanks DDA and Happy New Year to you and to all the students who gather here at JWU.

Hard to believe we are into year seven of Jihad Watch. I don't know what I expected when I first stumbled upon this site in late fall or early winter of 2003. I suppose I hoped things would get better but looking around I see the Muslim marauders and their useful idiot enablers have really made a mes of things, not the least of which spawned a Communist in our White House. But unlike some people in my orbit who tell me it's all over, I have great hope for this next go round and for the reactions of my fellow patriots, be they American or from some other place on the globe.

This new/very old war of ours will depend not on how we conform but on how we don't. We've seen how nothing constructive gets accomplished by following the PC prescription. We've also allowed the enemy to develop some very bad habits as our "fearless leaders" let them literally get away with murder. I believe that in every time in history God has raised up good people to fight evil and he is raising us up now. And I believe we will stand and fight as we see that our governments have abandoned us.

If it's true what Thomas Jefferson said that "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," we need to take that to heart and stop being afraid. We need to not be afraid of what the IRS could do to us or the local police or the traffic cops. We need to stand and say, no, you will not take away my liberty and if you try to I will fight you for it. And I may even kill you. Each of us has to take a look deep into our souls and ask ourselves what we believe, what we cherish and hold sacred and what we are willing to kill for or be killed for. Unfortunately, we can't wait to find these things out. There's no more time. The Hun is inside the gate and if we believe in freedom now is the time to grab our weapons, first take the stand to oppose them and then go on the offensive to hunt the enemy down and destroy it. There is no other way.

As for Humza or whatever his name is it really doesn't matter what he thinks or whether he is sincere or not. Our task is much bigger than convincing one little old Muslim that he's wrong. He will learn, like the rest of the ostriches in our midst. All of this "He wasn't practicing Islam when he murdered those people" is at best, total denial and at worst, out and out deliberate lying. Enough. I don't want to hear it anymore. The American people may be busy but they are not stupid and thanks to the Muslims in our midst who keep practicing that old time religion "the wrong way" people are waking up and connecting the dots. Humza will either become a sad statistic if he really does wear rose colored glasses or we will meet him on the battlefield, and then let the chips fall where they may. But I'm not going to wait and be surprised. That Islamic puzzle I've been putting together for the past 6+ years has been presenting the big picture for some time now.

Perhaps this is the year that we who stand for freedom begin to learn and even practice the art of deception, just like our enemy does so adroitly. I'm not saying lie and cheat but learn to play the game, and practice, practice, practice so that when the battles come we can outfox them. I have been arguing with a person who calls themselves Reader on the Columbus Dispatch article about Rifqa. This person eloquently dismisses "with facts" everything anyone who is a Rifqa supporter says. I used to not want to engage this person because the work was tedious and it took a lot of time. But over the past few months I've watched "her" make some mistakes that if relentlessly refuted and proven false with good references doesn't have driver her to drink. This person attacks Pamela Geller but then uses the same sort of stories and articles she complains that Pamela "distorts" to do the same kind of distorting of her own. Very interesting, and not difficult to pick apart. Some people have asked me why I bother but this chick is helping me to hone my skills at debate and I've learned how to ignore questions I don't feel like answering (just like she does) and focusing in on the really important issues that will make the biggest impact on the average Joe who comes along to read that thread. And as some people have posted comments thanking Reader for her information I think it is important that they understand it can't be taken at face value and she plays them every time she types a word. This also is helping my memory because a lot of what she says brings to mind stories and articles that Robert has posted here and it doesn't half drive her crazy when I immediately point out how her information is inaccurate and here's the proof. It's actually fun and I'm building my confidence at it.

Oh and about those bells, they still exist where tradition rules.

I attend a little church in Northern Virginia where only the Tridentine Mass is said, the traditional one that is prayed in Latin. Our church is about 160 years old and was a little Protestant chapel back in the day and was even used as a Civil War hospital many years ago. We have a bell tower but the bell doesn't ring so our pastor has an arrangement with the Methodist church across the street and down 1/2 a block to ring their bells for us. I most often attend the 11:00am mass on Sundays and get to hear the bells that ring at high noon. It is the greatest sound you've ever heard.

Dear HUMZA: MPBUY but can you in your own islamic vernacular define "Innocent" for us? I am no great Christian but I will leave you with a thought for 2010;
Under Islam your son must die for god, under Christianity
God's son dies for you. By the way, do you speak the native language of Indonesia where most muslims live or do they all speak Arabic?

So nobody saw my deleted post? And nobody cares that a post of mine was deleted, apparently solely for its ideas? Thanks a lot.

Hesp: I didn't see it, and I'd suggest contacting Mr. Spencer directly.

Rico said: "Under Islam your son must die for god, under Christianity God's son dies for you."
Well put.

Isabel: Though conversations with Mohammad apologists can be apologists, I do feel like I am learning, like you said about effective debating. I'm actually almost sad to see AM go. (Almost!)

Belated Happy New Year to everyone - and may the first year of the new decade be the one in which the mainstream - in spite of the Humza-style Taqiyya artists, and Reader-style naive latte-drinking liberals - finally wakes-up and smells the real coffee of the Jihad against it, being brewed all across the World.

To Ethoman, Davey and Foolster,

Aw, thanks guys. So many people, including my very intellectual brother, think I'm a nut for continuing on. But we are in a wart and this is part of our resistance movement. I would have to believe that if anyone just stumbling around who came across those threads would either run for the hills or stop and think twice when they see that I will not back down or give any ground to this lying sack. Like Davey I did not want to get off my butt and engage this chick because I knew it wouldn't be a two comment conversation and then I could be on my merry way. But such is not real life. (Sigh) I'll tell you what really motivated me to go after Reader. There were several other patriots who were effectively cleaning her clock and so I piled on. But it didn't take long for me to realize that she has weaknesses that I can exploit and last week I even managed to get her on the defensive, which was very effective. As other people continue to stop by they cannot help but read our posts and I feel pretty good about refuting everything she presents as fact when if you go back and read it she merely "suggests" or surmises. She's clever but she ain't all that and a bag of chips.

Davey, I would love to meet you in the field this year. I have been ill for the past several months and not out as much as I usually am, although I did make two tea parties on the Capitol lawn and got out to Columbus for the Rifqa Rally on 11/16. But I'm getting better now and will be back out in full force, probably in the spring. I will be at the March for Life on 1/22 in D.C. though. If you are out this way let me know.

Ethoman, good idea. The links to the Columbus Dispatch articles (all by Hijab Heagney) are as follows:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/columbus-dispatch/T68RS8IEOEFLDCP4F

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/columbus-dispatch/TB3O8K61GTIFVTBHC/p4#lastPost

Please, feel free to join me in excoriating this chick who lies through her teeth and claims she is a Christian. The jury is still out but it's looking more and more like she is and educated Muslima. She really hates Pamela Geller and does everything she can to make Pamela look like an idiot.

Foolster, is Abdullah Mike gone? Was he banned? Or is if off secretly celebrating the Christian holidays that he remembers from his younger days? I haven't kept up here like I normally do.

Happy New Year, all!

We are in a war, not a wart. Jeepers!

Hi Champ! Happy New Year!

Oh-my-gosh, Abdullah Mike was sacked? What the heck was the last straw?

Isabella: The last straw was the use of a racial slur. 45ch/loveverybody was banned too (finally for spamming) but I care even less than the very little I had for AM's departure.

I'm not sure Reader is a Muslim but he/she doesn't seem like a useful idiot. He/she has a definite agenda and it is to discredit Rifqa in every way possible. Why would a mere liberal spend month after month after month on those threads? Wouldn't their bleeding heart have at least a little compassion for the poor girl? No, it's all smoke and mirrors and has been since the gitgo.

P.S. Isa ..AM was essentially banned for making a "racial slur", which you will read in the thread. I, and others, got a front row seat to him being spanked by Marisol ..yeah, it was awesome.