Jude Kenan Mohammad, an American citizen already indicted in 2009 jihad plot and believed to be in Pakistan, named as possible plotter in 9/11 anniversary threat

John Adams also wrote:
“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
(slide #273)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html

Somewhat OT, but reminds me of this comedy skit with Robert De Niro on SNL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMr3QO2Sbc

Probably closer to being on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44

LOL! I missed that back on Dec. 28, 2008! Ha-Ha!!!!!

Funny! But sad, too. As this skit isn't too far removed from how actual Western Liberal MoonBats "think."

Actually, they both are forms of the Hebrew name Yehuda. In the Greek New Testament, the two names are indistinguishable (Ioudas). I've counted about six people of that name in the New Testament, only one of whom was a "bad guy".

"Dazey" wrote:

Perhaps that's more bigoted than actually stupid. Apparently you have no clue what the Constitution says, or why the white man came to this country to begin with. Hint: Religious freedom.
.........................

For pious Muslims, part of that "religious freedom" includes the right to oppress and murder Infidels. Are you down with that, "Dazey"?

More:

What is the payoff for you guys? I mean what do you get out of so much hatred? Does it give you a rush? Does it make you feel righteous? Does it make you feel as if you are superior? Does it allow you to go on and not look at your own faults? I've always wondered that, and I don't only mean hatred toward Islam, but hatred toward anyone different from yourselves.
.........................

"Anyone different"—and who might that be? There are Christians, Jews, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and several Wiccans here.

There are men and women here. There are people from all walks of life. There are whites, blacks, Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Arabs, and Copts here.

There are Americans, Canadians, Britons, Australians, Europeans, Israelis, Indians, Russians, Africans, Indonesians and Malaysians here—and likely those from other places, as well.

More:

I'm thinking that as a child you were one of those bullies who picked on littler kids, stealing their lunches, name-calling and so on...
.........................

Why would you think that those who stand against violent and oppressive Jihad terrorists—those concerned about the exploitation and victimization of women, children, minorities and innocent civilians—like those murdered on 9/11—are *themselves* bullies? What is your reasoning here?

More meretricious ugliness:

By the way, did you know that the Oslo terrorist was a follower of Spencer? True story. I always figured Spencer was relatively harmless - most people can see right through him. Apparently that's not necessarily true. Apparently there are whack jobs out there who actually believe his lies.
.........................

Robert Spencer has *never* advocated violence. This is utterly false.

More:

I will pray for all of you. I will pray that God will soften your hearts, and open your minds to his wisdom. I'll pray that you learn and that God forgives you for all of this hatred and unforgiveness as well as willing ignorance. I will pray that God will bless you - and that you will see the truth.

God Bless you, and may he forgive you.
.........................

You stand with violent Jihadists. The embrace of evil is *not* a virtue. You may feel a frisson at the idea of defending the indefensible, but good men do not.

Newsflash. He's not from Saudi Arabia. He's not an Arab. Another news flash: Not all Muslims are Arabs.

Gravenimage wrote:

For pious Muslims, part of that "religious freedom" includes the right to oppress and murder Infidels. Are you down with that, "Dazey"?

Please supply the proof of your statement that Muslims have the right to oppress and murder "infedels." That is an untrue statement. It's completely untrue, in fact it's one of the common misconceptions that Islamophobes use. I will never understand why people don't simply read the Qur'an, yet they claim to know so much about Islam. (I am not talking about reading Spencer's ridiculous misleading 'blogging the Qur'an" posts. Please show me where, in the Qur'an, Muslims are allowed to do this.

More:

"Anyone different"—and who might that be? There are Christians, Jews, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and several Wiccans here.

So you don't hate anyone different? You just hate Muslims? Have you known any personally? Please give an honest answer.

More:

Why would you think that those who stand against violent and oppressive Jihad terrorists—those concerned about the exploitation and victimization of women, children, minorities and innocent civilians—like those murdered on 9/11—are *themselves* bullies? What is your reasoning here?

If you truly wanted to stand against terrorism and oppression, exploitation and the like, you would use different methods, and it wouldn't be against Muslims. It would be against our current government who's waging this war based on one motive - greed. And many of you are playing the game just as it needs to be played in order for it to continue. You buy the garbage that Spencer offers, you rage against Muslims - in ignorance, because you haven't read the Qur'an for yourselves. Tell me - what is different about this, and the propaganda and hatred toward the Jews during WWII?

There is no difference. The propaganda was put out there, and instead of people educating themselves on the truth - they simply eat it up, and regurgitate it. Soon people here "Muslim" and think "Terrorism" without even realizing why.

The use of the word "infidel" is a good example. That word is not in the Arabic language. It's a Latin word, and the definition generally refers to non-Christians. You can look it up. Yet people hear "infidel" and think about violent jihad or something.

Even Jihad has many meanings. Also even in defensive Jihad - there are specific rules. For instance, no women, no child, not even livestock or agriculture - are to be harmed, ever. Non-combatants are not to be harmed, either. This is an extremely important part of Jihad. The US and NATO forces don't even follow those rules, they don't even try. In fact, they call the deaths of innocents "collateral damage." So who's the terrorist?

More:

You stand with violent Jihadists. The embrace of evil is *not* a virtue. You may feel a frisson at the idea of defending the indefensible, but good men do not.

What makes you think I stand with "Violent Jihadists?" How can you make such a claim without asking me. You assume. You assume wrongly.

I look forward to seeing the proof of your claims.

God Bless you

"Dazey" wrote:

Gravenimage wrote:

For pious Muslims, part of that "religious freedom" includes the right to oppress and murder Infidels. Are you down with that, "Dazey"?

Please supply the proof of your statement that Muslims have the right to oppress and murder "infedels." That is an untrue statement.
.................................

I *never* said Muslims have the right to oppress and murder "infedels" (sic). I said pious Muslims *believe* they have the right to oppress and murder Infidels based on their texts—an entirely different matter.

More:

It's completely untrue, in fact it's one of the common misconceptions that Islamophobes use. I will never understand why people don't simply read the Qur'an, yet they claim to know so much about Islam. (I am not talking about reading Spencer's ridiculous misleading 'blogging the Qur'an" posts. Please show me where, in the Qur'an, Muslims are allowed to do this.
.................................

I've read the Qur'an several times, in several different translations. A few sample Suras:

Qur'an Sura 9.5:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qur'an Sura 9.123:

Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.

Qur'an Sura 4:89:

Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Qur'an Sura 66:9:

O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode!

Qur'an Sura 8:39-40:

Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion is all for Allah.

Qur'an Sura 9:29:

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

Qur'an Sura 9:39:

If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place.

Qur'an Sura 47:4:

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.”

Qur'an Sura 8:67:

It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land.

Things are frequently as bad when one turns to the other texts of Islam, such as the Hadith:

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

Mohammed said: “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir.”(Hadith vol. 9:50)

I could go on and on, but the above gives you a good sense. These Suras urge Muslims to attack and slaughter Infidels, to kidnap and enslave them, to force them to convert or pay Jizya—and even threaten Muslims who balk at such terrible commandments.

You will no doubt claim that every one of these verses has "been taken out of context"—but the fact is that Jihadists cite these Suras and other Islamic texts all the time to justify their vicious acts.

Perhaps you should take up the issue with them.

More:

"Anyone different"—and who might that be? There are Christians, Jews, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and several Wiccans here.

So you don't hate anyone different? You just hate Muslims? Have you known any personally? Please give an honest answer.
.................................

No, I don't hate people merely because the are "different". I live in one of the most diverse regions of the United States.

Actually, I don't hate Muslims as a group at all. I do know some Muslims—many of them have not taken the terrible commandments of Islam much to heart, and are good people.

I *do* hate Islam, though, and its baleful tenets and commandments and the terrible things done in the name of Allah. I do hate the perpetrators of the over 17,000 acts of violent Jihad since 9/11.

There were many good Germans during WWII—but that didn't mean that Fascism was not a vicious and bloody creed.

More:

Why would you think that those who stand against violent and oppressive Jihad terrorists—those concerned about the exploitation and victimization of women, children, minorities and innocent civilians—like those murdered on 9/11—are *themselves* bullies? What is your reasoning here?

If you truly wanted to stand against terrorism and oppression, exploitation and the like, you would use different methods, and it wouldn't be against Muslims. It would be against our current government who's waging this war based on one motive - greed. And many of you are playing the game just as it needs to be played in order for it to continue. You buy the garbage that Spencer offers, you rage against Muslims - in ignorance, because you haven't read the Qur'an for yourselves. Tell me - what is different about this, and the propaganda and hatred toward the Jews during WWII?

There is no difference.
.................................

Absolute rot. The Jews of Europe were not strapping on suicide vests and flying airplanes into buildings. This is an entirely false analogy.

Western governments have made a great number of errors in their response to violent Jihad, but the notion that the response was done entirely in the name of "greed" is absurd. In addition, these governments must be the most inept in history, since in the name of "greed"—as you would have it—they are pretty much bankrupting us.

More:

The propaganda was put out there, and instead of people educating themselves on the truth - they simply eat it up, and regurgitate it. Soon people here "Muslim" and think "Terrorism" without even realizing why.
.................................

The reason so many in the West think of "Muslim" and "terrorist" at the same time is that Jihadists are attacking people all over the world. All one need do is pick up a newspaper or occasionally watch the news—coming to sites such as Jihad Watch is not necessary to know that Islam is far from being a "religion of peace". "Propaganda" has nothing to do with it—in fact the urge in the West has been to play down the violent nature of Islam.

More:

The use of the word "infidel" is a good example. That word is not in the Arabic language. It's a Latin word, and the definition generally refers to non-Christians. You can look it up. Yet people hear "infidel" and think about violent jihad or something.
.................................

We are not conversing in Arabic here. Still—simply replace any reference I have made to "Infidel" and replace it with "filthy Kaffir". Isn't that better?

More:

Even Jihad has many meanings.
.................................

This is true—although by far the most common usage refers to violent Jihad warfare. Still, if someone wants to wage a personal Jihad against dustbunnies weight gain or impoliteness, I have no objection. It's the sort of Jihad that involves murdering unbelievers or the "insufficeintly Islamic" that concerns me.

More:

Also even in defensive Jihad - there are specific rules. For instance, no women, no child, not even livestock or agriculture - are to be harmed, ever. Non-combatants are not to be harmed, either. This is an extremely important part of Jihad. The US and NATO forces don't even follow those rules, they don't even try. In fact, they call the deaths of innocents "collateral damage." So who's the terrorist?
.................................

The claim that violent Jihadists—who regularly deliberately target civilians and women and children and *openly say so*—are more moral than US and NATO forces who go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties is just grotesque.

More:

You stand with violent Jihadists. The embrace of evil is *not* a virtue. You may feel a frisson at the idea of defending the indefensible, but good men do not.

What makes you think I stand with "Violent Jihadists?" How can you make such a claim without asking me. You assume. You assume wrongly.
.................................

You ask "So who's the terrorist?"—clearly indicating that you do not consider those who murdered nearly 3,000 innocent civilians to be terrorists. This may not be "standing" with violent Jihadists, but it is such a blatant apologia that this is a distinction without a difference.

Speaking of attractive.... my God - you really made yourself as unattractive (to anyone) as it gets with this post!

"Dazey" wrote, replying to Istanbul Chick:

Speaking of attractive.... my God - you really made yourself as unattractive (to anyone) as it gets with this post!
.................................

I'm sure that when Istanbul Chick realizes that she has made herself "unattractive" to someone who hates and vilifies the West—while making apologies for savage Jihad terrorists—that she will be completely beside herself...sarc/off

Hello,

First please accept my apology for not getting back to you in a timely manner.

Secondly, yes I would say that your verses are taken out of context, however I am impressed that you were able to come up with them so quickly.

Instead of a blanket statement from me stating that they are out of context, could you instead simply tell us what context each of the verses are in? For instance, what was going on in the surah that the verses were in - what were they referring to and why were they stated? I would appreciate that very much.

With all due respect, I think it is only fair that you do provide us with the context so that we may all benefit from it.

Take care

Hello,

I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I must say it is nice to be able to discuss these issues with people who have given this a lot of thought. Some of the comments here were blanket hate statements which is why I mentioned the lack of education among some of them. I stand corrected - many of you seem to have at least made an attempt at understanding some of these issues.

I have to disagree with the critique of the book, however. I didn't get any of that from it. I don't believe that Muslims are taught to believe that they must overthrow any non-Islamic government, particularly in the United states, especially if one CHOOSES to live here.

One of the things American Muslims treasure about the United States is "Religious Freedom." If one is naturalized here one has to agree to abide by the constitution and laws of this land. Every Muslim I know loves the freedoms that this land affords. Any Muslim who wants to live in an Islamic Government is going to move there, or "make hijrah" there.

The American Constitution is not in any way against Islamic rules, except for in the case of Usury and then of course some other laws, like the right to abortion and so on - however those laws are again - about individual freedoms, and they do not affect the lives of those who do not believe in abortion. For instance, the law does not say "you must have an abortion" (as in China with a second child.) It simply allows those who choose to to have access to them.

That's a simplistic example, but there it is.

Now as for wanting to overthrow - this makes no sense. It's the same with "terrorism." If it is true that most or even half of the Muslims on earth are terrorists, wouldn't be all be dead by now? There are relatively few terrorist attacks. Islam is the second largest religion on earth - again, if even half of them were terrorists, we'd all be toast.

This is propaganda that has been going on for years. It's insidious. Even on television entertainment shows Muslims are portrayed as terrorists. It's no wonder then, that the biggest part of the population equates Islam with terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then we'd have to say that Christians are life Fred Phelps and his ilk. That isn't true, either.

I think it's immoral for people like Spencer to go about making money on this incorrect perception of Muslims.

As for Jews not strapping on suicide vests, again it is a tiny percentage of Muslims who do that as well, it's just that the media reports it, going along with the propaganda.

I think we should all ask ourselves what the payoff for this propaganda is. I think it's about money. Ask Halliburton, Blackwater etc etc etc.. they made and are making billions from it.

Yet Muslims are God's people. We will all have to pay for what's being done in our name. I think we all carry a responsibility for speaking out about the truth. Muslims are not terrorists. A small percentage of them are criminals, just as in any other religion on earth INCLUDING Judaism. In fact, look at Mossad's methods. They basically used theft to take Israel. They use torture, they use many dishonest means to take that land - this is not the place to go into all the methods, but they have fake land owners and everything else.

So let's speak truth. I'm interested in truth. I consider myself a follower of God, and I want to please Him. For that reason I cannot go along with lies and misconceptions.

Peace,