Fallaci says that by 1979, the "European Left had fallen in love with Khomeini just as now it has fallen in love with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat.”

How dare she get on a hobbyhorse? Doesn't she know that this is not a Left-Right issue? How can she be so blind? Why are Spencer and Hugh so far from Horowitz, Savage and Fallaci on this one key point?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 16, 2006 10:46 AM

Dr. Pepper-

You do seem to nitpick your friends to death. You have to remember she was a woman of the Left, born and bred from the resistance to Fascism in WWII and every day she lives, the betrayals of the Left to Islamic totalitarianism is an agony and an open wound for her. The so-called 'Left' is meaningless anymore - it is just a repetoire of rote postures and attitudes with utter disregard for reality. At least the so-called Right doesn't live quite as far into la-la land.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 16, 2006 10:57 AM

From the review:

Considerably less intemperate than her last book on the topic of radical Islam, the volcanically angry The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason is despairing, but often surprisingly funny. (“The rage and the pride have married and produced a sturdy son: the disdain,” she writes with characteristic wit.)

Sounds promising. She needed to calm down. I hope she got someone else to translate it for her this time.

Posted by: Interested at March 16, 2006 10:58 AM

Pep,

I don't believe you. You are a liar. You persistently and apparently willfully overlook material such as the chapter "Everybody Must Get Stoned" in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," chronicling the Left/Jihad alliance.

I have been clear on this. You, however, have been a pest, and have ignored my repeated requests to stay on topic.

Get your own soapbox, sir. I paid for this microphone, and you have crossed the line again and again. I don't mind criticism. I get mountains of it every day. But I don't like pests and people who have no decency or courtesy.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 16, 2006 10:59 AM

Fantastic article!

Funny to see an anti-Bush advertisement right in the middle of the article. But this is good. It means the message is penetrating to the PC knee-jerk liberal Hollywood crowd. Will it next appear in our movies? :-)

Posted by: Benjamin at March 16, 2006 11:01 AM

I started reading Oriana's book last week. Her clarity and focus is simply amazing. I find myself 'dog earing' pages for future reference . . .

Pg.37

And whoever believes in the myth of > should reread the stories of the burned convents and monasteries, of the profaned churches, of the raped nuns, of the Christian or Jewish women abducted to be locked away in their harems. He should ponder on the crucifixions of the Cordoba, the hangings of Granada, the beheadings of Toledo and Barcelona, of Seville and Zamora. (The beheadings of Seville, ordered by Mutamid: the king who used those severed heads, heads of Jews and Christians, to adorn his palace. The beheadings of Zamora, ordered by Almanzor: the vizier who was called the-patron-of-the-philosophers, the greatest leader Islamic Spain ever produced). Christ! Invoking the name of Jesus meant instant execution. Crucifixion, of course, or decapitation or hanging or impalement. Ringing a bell, the same. Wearing green, the colour exclusive to Islam, also. And when a Muslim passed by, every Jew and Christian was obliged to step aside. To bow. And mind to the Jew or the Christian who dared react to the insults of a Muslim. As for the much-flaunted detail that the infidel-dogs were not obliged to convert to Islam, not even encouraged to do so, do you know why they were not? Because those who converted to Islam did not pay taxes. Those who refused, on the contrary, did.

I read at Frontpagemag.com that

she published a “trilogy” of books examining the threat of jihad in detail: The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, and The Apocalypse.

I hope to hear that the third book, "The Apocalypse" will also be translated soon.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 16, 2006 11:03 AM

By the end of the day I will have a copy on my desk. I will enjoy every page!

Thank you Jihadwatch for the update.

Robert, we are all comrades, Right. Left, Christian, hindu and Jew, in our struggle to defend the worlds cultures from Sharia and Da'wa.

We need there to be many Fallacis all over the world documenting the rise of Sharia and Da'wa in India, Africa and the America's,

Because this is truly a global problem that effects us all.

God bless you Orianna.

Posted by: El Cid at March 16, 2006 11:08 AM

She is so brave, so forthright. She is a person of character, of depth and soul. I remember reading the rage and the pride, right after I read this essay, which I post, for you enjoyment.

Remember the vulgar depictions of the Israeli's after they cleaned out a 10th of the Jenin refugee camp, and were called nazi's by the arabs, and the Europeans and the UN, and 5000 were supposedly killed? Well it turned out that 58 had been, 50 of them terrorists, and the vulgarity was never publically apologized for, although I can point people to a fine cd made by a soldier who fought there, and went to visit the well known journalists and confronted them with the corrected info.

Anyway- after that slur against the jews, agains Israel, guess who wrote the most stirring, most accurate, most insightful essay of the year on the matters? Ms. Fallaci.
Here it is:

--------------
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Columnist Oriana Fallaci: On Jew-Hatred in Europe

[Originally published in Italian in the Panorama magazine , April 17, 2002 ]

I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals
dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel,
hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn
the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews. And who, in order to see Jews
once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of
Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell
their own mother to a harem.

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with
lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem
with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of
his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in
front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who
massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them "martyrs who
go to their deaths as to a party."

I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-
Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries.

I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt
the kaffiah just as Mussolini's avant garde used to flaunt the club and the
fascist badge.

I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian
students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism. That in Sweden they asked that
the Nobel Peace Prize given to Shimon Peres in 1994 be taken back and
conferred on the dove with the olive branch in his mouth, that is on Arafat.

I find it shameful that the distinguished members of the Committee, a
Committee that (it would appear) rewards political color rather than merit,
should take this request into consideration and even respond to it. In hell
the Nobel Prize honors he who does not receive it.

I find it shameful (we're back in Italy) that state-run television stations
contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian
deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling
tones. I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much
deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to
the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at
Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.

I find it shameful that the press does the same, that it is indignant
because Israeli tanks surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that
it is not indignant because inside that same church two hundred Palestinian
terrorists well armed with machine guns and munitions and explosives (among
them are various leaders of Hamas and Al-Aqsa) are not unwelcome guests of
the monks (who then accept bottles of mineral water and jars of honey from
the soldiers of those tanks).

I find it shameful that, in giving the number of Israelis killed since the
beginning of the Second Intifada (four hundred twelve), a noted daily
newspaper found it appropriate to underline in capital letters that more
people are killed in their traffic accidents. (Six hundred a year).

I find it shameful that the Roman Observer, the newspaper of the Pope- -a
Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the
Jews--accuses of extermination a people who were exterminated in the
millions by Christians. By Europeans.

I find it shameful that this newspaper denies to the survivors of that
people (survivors who still have numbers tattooed on their arms) the right
to react, to defend themselves, to not be exterminated again.

I find it shameful that in the name of Jesus Christ (a Jew without whom they
would all be unemployed), the priests of our parishes or Social Centers or
whatever they are flirt with the assassins of those in Jerusalem who cannot
go to eat a pizza or buy some eggs without being blown up.

I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who
inaugurated terrorism, killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the
Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists.
By shooting them, abducting them, cutting their throats, decapitating them.
(There's someone in Italy who, since the appearance of Anger and Pride,
would like to do the same to me. Citing verses of the Koran he exhorts his
"brothers" in the mosques and the Islamic Community to chastise me in the
name of Allah. To kill me. Or rather to die with me. Since he's someone who
speaks English well, I'll respond to him in English: "Fuck you.")

I find it shameful that almost all of the left, the left that twenty years
ago permitted one of its union processionals to deposit a
coffin (as a Mafioso warning) in front of the synagogue of Rome, forgets the
contribution made by the Jews to the fight against
fascism. Made by Carlo and Nello Rossini, for example, by Leone Ginzburg, by
Umberto Terracini, by Leo Valiani, by Emilio Sereni, by women like my friend
Anna Maria Enriques Agnoletti who was shot at Florence on June 12, 1944, by
seventy-five of the three-hundred- thirty-five people killed at the Fosse
Ardeatine, by the infinite others killed under torture or in combat or
before firing squads. (The companions, the teachers, of my infancy and my
youth.)

I find it shameful that in part through the fault of the left--or rather,
primarily through the fault of the left (think of the left that
inaugurates its congresses applauding the representative of the PLO, leader
in Italy of the Palestinians who want the destruction of
Israel)-Jews in Italian cities are once again afraid. And in French cities
and Dutch cities and Danish cities and German cities, it is
the same.

I find it shameful that Jews tremble at the passage of the scoundrels
dressed like suicide bombers just as they trembled during Krystallnacht, the
night in which Hitler gave free rein to the Hunt of the Jews.

I find it shameful that in obedience to the stupid, vile, dishonest, and for
them extremely advantageous fashion of Political Correctness the usual
opportunists--or better the usual parasites--exploit the word Peace. That in
the name of the word Peace, by now more debauched than the words Love and
Humanity, they absolve one side alone of its hate and bestiality. That in
the name of a pacifism (read conformism) delegated to the singing crickets
and buffoons who used to lick Pol Pot's feet they incite people who are
confused or ingenuous or intimidated. Trick them, corrupt them, carry them
back a half century to the time of the yellow star on the coat. These
charlatans who care about the Palestinians as much as I care about the
charlatans. That is not at all.

I find it shameful that many Italians and many Europeans have chosen as
their standard-bearer the gentleman (or so it is polite to say) Arafat. This
nonentity who thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal Family plays the
Mussolini ad perpetuum and in his megalomania believes he will pass into
History as the George Washington of Palestine. This ungrammatical wretch who
when I interviewed him was unable even to put together a complete sentence,
to make articulate conversation. So that to put it all together, write it,
publish it, cost me a tremendous effort and I concluded that compared to him
even Ghaddafi sounds like Leonardo da Vinci. This false warrior who always
goes around in uniform like Pinochet, never putting on civilian garb, and
yet despite this has never participated in a battle. War is something he
sends, has always sent, others to do for him. That is, the poor souls who
believe in him. This pompous incompetent who playing the part of Head of
State caused the failure of the Camp David negotiations, Clinton's
mediation. No-no-I-want-Jerusalem-all-to-myself. This eternal liar who has a
flash of sincerity only when (in private) he denies Israel's right to exist,
and who as I say in my book contradicts himself every five minutes. He
always plays the double-cross, lies even if you ask him what time it is, so
that you can never trust him. Never! With him you will always wind up
systematically betrayed. This eternal terrorist who knows only how to be a
terrorist (while keeping himself safe) and who during the Seventies, that is
when I interviewed him, even trained the terrorists of Baader-Meinhof. With
them, children ten years of age. Poor children. (Now he trains them to
become suicide bombers. A hundred baby suicide bombers are in the works: a
hundred!). This weathercock who keeps his wife at Paris, served and revered
like a queen, and keeps his people down in the shit. He takes them out of
the shit only to send them to die, to kill and to die, like the
eighteen-year-old girls who in order to earn equality with men have to strap
on explosives and disintegrate with their victims. And yet many Italians
love him, yes. Just like they loved Mussolini. And many other Europeans do
the same.

I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new
Nazism. A fascism, a nazism, that much more grim and revolting because it is
conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders,
progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics or rather Christians, and who
have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth.
I see it, yes, and I say the following. I have never been tender with the
tragic and Shakespearean figure Sharon. ("I know you've come to add another
scalp to your necklace," he murmured almost with sadness when I went to
interview him in 1982.) I have often had disagreements with the Israelis,
ugly ones, and in the past I have defended the Palestinians a great deal.
Maybe more than they deserved.

But I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews. I stand just as I stood as a
young girl during the time when I fought with them, and when the Anna Marias
were shot. I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let
themselves be exterminated a second time. And disgusted by the anti-Semitism
of many Italians, of many Europeans, I am ashamed of this shame that
dishonors my Country and Europe. At best, it is not a community of States,
but a pit of Pontius Pilates. And even if all the inhabitants of this planet
were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so.

Posted by: mgoldberg at March 16, 2006 11:11 AM

Robert, please don't be too harsh on Dr Pepper, I am as conservative as him and it has taken me a while to realize that this struggle can only be won with all hands on deck, yet I agree with him that the journey for the right to understand Islam has been shorter. He must realize that we must give some time for those on the left to reach the same point.

Dr pepper the right must be divided into to camps those that get Islam (traditional/religious) and those that don't (globalist / open market capitalist).

Robert I hope I'm not off topic but I wish Dr Pepper realises that this is can not be a left - right struggle.

It's not just a struggle between Muslims and the rest of the world

It is a struggle of the whole world against Jihad, sharia and Da'wa.

It is also a struggle, and here I may differ a bit from the point of view of JW, against those forces such as multiculturalism that weaken and divide the world.

Again, Robert I apologise of if I'm off topic.

Posted by: El Cid at March 16, 2006 11:26 AM

Cid:

He is banned. I don't have any tolerance for his kind of sniping, trying to divide the jihad resistance when we need to unite.

He is not honest. He persistently ignores what I have written about the Left and Islam, and misrepresents what Hugh and I have said about the nature of and need for an anti-jihad alliance. He seems to willfully misunderstand what I have written about why this should not be a Left-Right struggle, and the elements on the Left that keep them from accepting that.

And also, he has been asked, more than once, not to abuse this space with his constant off-topic posts. I believe he has come back before after being banned under other names, and he probably will again. If he had any decent human courtesy he would start his own blog to air his ideas. I do not have the obligation to provide a platform for every crackpot with an agenda.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 16, 2006 11:34 AM

am about half way through the book. powerful, important, and sort of needed a factchecker.

sirhan sirhan was an arab christian, not muslim. 85% of american blacks are not muslim. etc. these points do not affect the overall argument. but it just looks sloppy.

john
http://www.attackcartoons.com

Posted by: attackcartoons at March 16, 2006 11:36 AM

I am very happy to note that Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason is now available in English.
Posted by Robert at March 16, 2006 10:00 AM

Thanks Robert Spencer. I look forward to buying this book and reading it. In the meantime, I visited Amazon.com and have the following to say:

Reviewer S. Friedman says:
===
At present gravely ill this book may be the swan song of one of the most provocative and courageous of modern journalists.
===

We know that the time of death is recorded for each one of us on the 120th day of conception. So, we do pray to God Almighty to keep her strong, hale and healthy overcoming her cancer and be active to her last breath. Let this book not be her swan song.

May I suggest that she takes a spoon of “Black Cumin Oil” every morning so that her cancer is abated and she recovers?

Another reviewer William J Bonville says:
===
What is "The Force of Reason" of which she writes? She sees that force as the only hope for rescue of not only Europe but also America from the "decline of intelligence" where thought is reduced to "recipes for atrophied brains" and truth is quashed by a Left which "clings to Islam," a Right which seeks out economic and political advantage, and a Church which strangely aids and abets its own destruction.
===

In my own humble way, I have indicated one new test for the authenticity of the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him as topic “7. Consistency: Ever present test of authenticity,” in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ . That test is a test of reason.

It is my belief that Islam would spread by the force of reason and not by the sword. Allah knows.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 16, 2006 11:37 AM

Orianna, my sister, if I could have but one tenth your courage, one tenth of your spirit, one tenth of your compassion, or one tenth of your integrity, I would count myself the luckiest woman on earth.

You have shown us what it is to write as a woman, a real woman, with guts and passion and strength.

Orianna, the lion heart. You are loved.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 16, 2006 11:40 AM

Louder, Oriana!

Where is "60 Minutes", etc.?

Awful quiet out there in media land...

Mohideen-

Reason ends where faith begins. You cannot reason into belief. It is then a parody of belief (like Pascal's gambling that it was 'safer to believe in the existence of God' than not). It is an emotional/non-rational choice.

So Islam cannot move forward through reason.

(And the fact that the Koran forbids thinking critically short-circuits that entire prospect.)

I find it more reasonable to conclude that someone was delusional or a calculating liar than to accept a pre-fabricated "religion" from them, especially when their behavior, from pedophile to slave-holding warlord, falls appallingly short of being decent.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 16, 2006 11:56 AM

Bought my copy yesterday. I plan to start studying it over the weekend. I had hoped the Barnes & Noble store I was in had a copy of her first book on the shelf as well, but was told it was a special order only item. Methinks amazon may be getting a request this evening....

Posted by: jhl952 at March 16, 2006 11:58 AM

Every politician and those within the education system within Europe ought to have a copy of this in their hands, as well as your books too Robert. In fact, I finally ordered my copy of your book PI book on Islam. Can't wait to get it into my hands, if only Amazon UK would hurry!

I couldn't believe that 20 million people live here in our contintent of Europe. I'm depressed, scared and concerned for the future of my kids.

I can see that in just a few short years, that we too in Ireland will become as secular as the rest of Europe which will make us ripe for a major take-over.

What can we do? I'm not very optimistic, except that as a Catholic, I can hardly wait for Our Lord to return. Does this mean we too will have to take up arms. I'm afraid that my view of the future is dismal.

I try to educate my daughter who has a friend at school who is a muslim. My daughter thinks I'm terrible at times until she watches the news and agrees with me. I don't want to teach her to hate but I like what Wafa Sultan has to say that she hates what Islam has done to her people.

PJ

Posted by: PJ at March 16, 2006 12:06 PM

Robert, fair enough.

I agree with you Robert that we should be as united as possible as I always state in my posts this is not a left/right thing or even just a West vs Muslim thing, but a jihad, Da'wa and Sharia thing vs humanity.

I meet a lot of people like Dr Pepper and I encourage them to accept that nothing.... nothing.... is more important then the struggle with this new totalitarian ideology.

Your position on these issues, form your work and the postings on JW, are fair, reasoned and honest.

Again, let me apologize for being off topic.

Thank you Robert for your excellent work.

Posted by: El Cid at March 16, 2006 12:07 PM

"Carlo and Nello Rossini...."
-- from a 2002 article of Fallaci, quoted in a posting above

That is a typographical error for "Carlo and Nello Roselli," brothers who were the founders of Liberta e Giustizia. One (or possibly both, I can't remember) was killed by Mussolini's agents in southern France. Among other Italian exiles in France was a very young Sandro Pertini. In his memoir of the period he deplored the infighting he had observed among the anti-Fascist exiles.

A word to the wise. Is it sufficient?

Posted by: Hugh at March 16, 2006 12:08 PM

How about: "He who is not against us is for us"? We should take care to cast our net wide.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 16, 2006 12:19 PM

Bought it last week and devoured it.

Was disappointed in the translation; some sentences do not qualify as such. A woman as literate as Oriana couldn't have made such errors...one can only assume it is a matter of translation.

But the content is every bit as forceful and animated as 'The Rage and the Pride.'

She's truly remarkable.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2006 12:42 PM

Rebecca, the net has already been cast, by the Jihadists and it truly covers the whole world!

Some will be cast into a holding tank to suffocate from Dihimmitude (so-called peoples of the book) others will submit or be slaughtered out right (every other culture in the world from Hindu to Buddhist.

We could all be the same fish trapped in the Islamic net.

We must all together to fight and win our freedom again.

If mankind can win this fight then we can set our sights to building a better world and my grandson who is studying robotics at university can realize his dream of space exploration.

The dreams of our future generations will free to become reality.

Posted by: El Cid at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM

It is my belief that Islam would spread by the force of reason and not by the sword. Allah knows.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha

Posted by: Mullahmasher at March 16, 2006 12:47 PM

I am eagerly awaiting the book. The Rage and The Pride was great. I am very impressed by the courageous and brilliant women engaged in the fight for freedom; Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rachel Eherenfeld, Phyllis Chessler ... anybody want to add to this list?

Posted by: Papa Bear at March 16, 2006 12:53 PM

Taslima Nasrin would be an important addition to the list, Papa Bear.

OT, but apparently Jihadwatch's email has a firewall that precludes acceptance of attachments from hotmail/yahoo accounts. I tried to send Robert a song of mine and repeatedly got back 'delivery status failure' notices.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2006 1:00 PM

Cornelius, Fallaci says in the beginning how she did the translation herself because she wanted to be fully responsible for every word that goes out under her name. I also would have preferred a professional translation, but there is something very endearing about the way it turned out, nonetheless.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 16, 2006 1:04 PM

WHY AND HOW THERE COULD BE SO MANY MUSLIMS IMMAGRATING INTO THE CIVILIZED WORLD

Because advances in medical science, cleaner drinking water, and similar factors mean that across the globe, even in poor countries, women have more live births and more children make it out of infancy.

In, for example, Victorian London you could expect to have brothers or sisters who never made it beyond the age of three. The death of children was a constant reality for the Victorians. That no longer happens either in the US, or even in far poorer countries. In the West, however, family size is limited by contraception - and abortion.

In the Third World population growth has been released by the advances of medical science and is not checked by contraception either.

The long-term result is more people, looking for more ways to make a living, moving to places where there is a living to made. It's no accident that the Islamic World is poor - the religion stifles thought and creativity, and there is insufficient political stability and freedom for commerce to be able to flourish. There is also widespread repression - some 70% of the world's refugees are Muslim. So what do you do if you live there and have any sense? You get out. Unfortunately, you also bring your way of thinking with you ...

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 16, 2006 1:06 PM

I missed that Rebecca. But now that you've pointed it out, I'd have to agree with you it is somewhat endearing...kind of like listening to old Dylan songs or 'The Band'....where the timing mistakes and such add to the intimacy of the performance.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2006 1:08 PM

And these are the children next door...Islam transforming them into uncaring demons:

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.276107036&par0bWE-

Posted by: Abby at March 16, 2006 1:21 PM

And from the article what Muslim children play with and the songs and games their elders teach them:

TERRORISM: VIDEO SHOWS IRAQI CHILDREN PLAYING WITH REMAINS OF U.S. SOLDIER

Rome, 15 March (AKI) - The children climb down into the crater left by an explosion and start picking up scraps of twisted metal. "Allah is great!" they shout before the camera hones in to show what one boy is holding: torn fabric, the colour of the camouflage fatigues worn by US troops. The next scene shows the same children holding aloft a human leg, shreds of the same camouflage fabric hang from it and the foot is clad in a military-style boot. The children trample the leg and kick it around in the dust.

"Today the Americans came to these parts and the buried bomb blew up their Hummer vehicle," says a teenage boy, adding, "if Allah wants it, the mujahadeen will win."

This grisly footage, purportedly shot in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, has appeared in the form of a three-minute video on the Internet. It marks the latest attempt by Jihadist militants to exploit children for propaganda purposes.

Last week Adnkronos International (AKI) obtained a copy of another video shot in Ramadi. On that occasion the action shown took place in the apparently placid setting of a school classroom.

Still, sinister references to the carnage that blights Iraq on a daily basis soon became evident. The pupils were being taught to sing Jihad songs by hooded militants who rewarded their efforts with pens, rulers and erasers. The video concluded with images of two small boys, clad in black tunics and wearing black ski masks and one holding a pistol in his tiny hand.

Unlike the professionally shot video of the schoolchildren posted on the Internet by the Ansar al-Sunna group, part of the terror galaxy of al-Qaeda linked Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the latest crudely filmed footage bears no indication on who its authors might be.

But the sudden appearance of children protagonists in the videos, indicates that the Jihadist militant groups have no intention of sparing the young from the horrors of the fighting. It also shows the extent of the militants' control in the restive al-Anbar province, were Ramadi is located.

Posted by: Abby at March 16, 2006 1:25 PM

I look forward to purchasing a few copies..These sort of books make exellent gifts.

Posted by: herself at March 16, 2006 1:31 PM

Horrifying, Abby.

Islam has so many different ways of abusing children. Someone posted this link at LGF.

If you rely on the MSM for information, you simply have no idea of what these people are about.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 16, 2006 2:00 PM

I agree - the fight against the global jihad should not be a "left/right" issue. I'd be described as a conservative/libertarian/Republican, but I agree 100% with that socialist Christopher Hitchens on the need to stop Islamism. Likewise, I enjoyed Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism," and Berman writes for The New Republic.

I'm very embarassed to have Grover Norquist on "my" side, especially considering that I liked the man during the late 80s and 1990s.

I'll never understand how a homosexual, BDSM, leftist radical like Michel Foucault could have been duped by the Ayatollah A$$ahola up until the day he died. It's really sad that a person could hate Western Civilization and the "bourgeoisie" so much that he couldn't admit he was wrong regarding Khomeini.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at March 16, 2006 2:04 PM

Robert thanks for your books and many other connections as they are excellent learning tools to the sick world of Islam. Along with David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and the many others who tell the dangerous truth of the horror known as Islam and their sick Jihad.
Michelle's book, Invasion is an unnerving account of how lame the US government and all the idiots who run the FBI, the INS and all the other bureaucracies that impede the rights of the citizens of the USA and give all the rights to the Illegals who invade our borders.
ANGEL RESENDIZ is a fine example of the blunders of the INS and cooperating agencies of how an illegal murdering Mexican national trapes back and forth over the border on his crime spree and murdering rampages right under the noses of the INS agents. They had him in custody over nine times and the last time they let him go he murdered another 4 people before the finally got their s--t together and convicted the scum. He still sits on death row as we speak getting 3 squares a day watching spanish TV. Something is wrong in paradise people. These are the people we pay to protect us and the complete opposite is happening. Just look at the dimwit in office!

Posted by: Siciliano at March 16, 2006 2:11 PM

El Cid said

[W]e are all comrades, Right. Left, Christian, hindu and Jew, in our struggle to defend the worlds cultures from Sharia and Da'wa.

Thank you El Cid for putting it so well.

And thank you, Oriana, for your excellent books.

Posted by: special_guest at March 16, 2006 2:22 PM

I’m halfway through this informative book and I can hardly put it down. Lots of fascinating stuff I’ve never come across even in the fair amount of literature I’ve read on Islam. Muslims, she wants you to know, have for centuries been brutal invaders of the West and she goes into some of the gory detail of their excessive cruelty during their attempts and even retreats from their invasions. One reads Ms. Fallaci and wishes the key city of Constantinople (Istanbul) could be taken back.

The attempt at Islamic conquest continues but primarily through immigration, deliberate high fertility ("Policy-of-the-Womb"), and cultural replacement. However, the book is a passionate invective not only against Islamic culture and Muslim behavior (especially Arab Muslims) but also against the European acquiescence. For, as she describes, the Muslim invasion (Eurabia) over the last decades, esp. during the 70s, was in fact a matter of invitation by the European powers that be – who, despite the economic excuses, were irresponsible in the extreme to have failed to take into account the totalitarian nature of beast to be let in.

I found very interesting her shocking descriptions of the Islamic polygamous “marriage” (de factor allowed in Europe) and the appalling Islamic oppression and abuse of women.

To show the divisive effects of the beast she gives a number of outrageously racist and bigoted quotes by American Muslim celebrities like Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan:

"The inferority of the white race and of the christian religion is proved by the fact that all human progress has been achieved by Islam. The only white man worthy of respect is Aolf Hitler, my idol also because he tried to get rid of the Jews".

And this Farrakhan commands the respect of so many American Blacks?

Even if you think she’s much “over the top” in her assessments you will learn much from this book.

PS: John above needs to be corrected – she writes that 85% of American Muslims are Black (not the other way around).

Posted by: Odysseus at March 16, 2006 2:34 PM

Audio of BBC World Service interview by Owen Bennett Jones with Father Richard Neuhaus, who "explains why he thinks Europe is dying and how Islam could conquer the continent."

Nothing new here, but it's interesting to hear the to and fro. It's remarkable to note just how aggressive the BBC interviewer was at times - in the way he insisted, for example, that the riots in France had nothing to do with Islam. His pieties were being questioned (albeit not particularly skilfully) and he really did not like it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/the_interview.shtml

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 16, 2006 2:39 PM

I nominate Miss Fallacci the patron saint of enlightment, peace, and freedom!

Viva Orianni!

ps-We hope you are feeling better. Cancer treatment is no picnic.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 16, 2006 2:46 PM

"Force of Reason"
Oriana's last will and testament.
This is her Viking funeral, I can only hope it serves to wake people up.

Posted by: dennisw at March 16, 2006 3:10 PM

The New York Observer 27 Jan. 2003

Last April, she said, Ariel Sharon phoned her to praise an article she had written in the weekly Italian publication Panorama about the problem of European and Arab anti-Semitism.

She said she answered the phone and said, "'Hey, Sharon! How are you? Are you as fat?' Because I know him. Sharon said, 'Oriana, I called you to say, "Damn, you have guts; damn, you are courageous; damn, do I thank you."' I said, 'Ariel, you thank me-I apologize with you. I was too tough to you 20 years ago.' And he was, as usual, a gentleman."

The night before the phone call, there had been an attack on a kibbutz.

"I said, 'Listen, dear, I know what happened last night in that kibbutz. Will you please permit me to express to you and to your people my condolences?' Sharon started crying. I don't know, I didn't see the tears. But the voice was of a crying man, and he started to shout: 'Oriana! You are the only one who says the word condolences! Do you know... I just spoke to the British and Americans ... 'they did not say that word to me.' And then with broken voice he said, 'Do you know who were the dead last night? One was the grandmother who was in Dachau and who still had the number on her arm. The second one was her daughter, who was seven months pregnant. And the third one was the child of the daughter, who was 5 years old. And they are all dead! All dead! All dead!' He was crying."
http://www.jewishgrassroots.com/Resources/Fallaci-interview-NYObserver.htm

Posted by: dennisw at March 16, 2006 3:15 PM

what is this test?
Posted by: patriot2 at March 16, 2006 11:47 AM

The five conditions listed above do not verify the semantics of the Traditions. However, 39:23 of the Holy Quran declares that the Holy Quran is consistent. As a Tradition is the explanation of some part of the Holy Quran, any authentic Tradition must be consistent with the Holy Quran. Thus, we add a test of consistency as an additional condition for the authenticity of the Traditions.

A Tradition that is consistent with a part of the Holy Quran or an already established authentic Tradition is authentic; any Tradition that is inconsistent with a part of the Holy Quran or an authentic Tradition is not authentic.

Read the rest at http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 16, 2006 4:13 PM

The important point she makes is how the "left" have apparently forgotten the role of Islam in cosying up to Fascism during and after the second world war when Middle Eastern countries gave succour to Nazi war criminals. Franco used Moroccan armies to defeat the Republicans. It really is a sign of just how unprincipled and corrupt the left have become.

Posted by: londongirl at March 16, 2006 4:25 PM

patriot,

If you're amazed at the notion that the truth is to be arrived by "sifting among textual entrails" try this article:

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/oct02/havana.htm

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 16, 2006 4:29 PM

OT. SandMonkey: Member of CAIR is on the board of the ACLU in Florida. Did anyone know this?

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gary at March 16, 2006 5:26 PM

Thank you special_guest, but my words are the faintest of pale reflections, compared to most of the other writers on this site, especially our hosts Robert and Hugh.

The only reason I make an attempt is because often i must speak to co-workers and friends. I share the same passion for this fight as the more articulate members of the anti-jihad vanguard, but I use the simple tools that god has given me.

Thank you all the same it has warmed this old mans heart.

If one good thing can come out of the comming terrible struggle with Islam, it will be that is will truely bring the worlds cultures together in mutual respect and aslo that it will save the West.

Posted by: El Cid at March 16, 2006 5:30 PM

Geez o peetez' were in deeper poopoooo than I thought.

Posted by: AMartinez at March 16, 2006 5:32 PM

As a Tradition is the explanation of some part of the Holy Qur'an, any authentic Tradition must be consistent with the Holy Qur'an. Thus, we add a test of consistency as an additional condition for the authenticity of the Traditions.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha

Both the traditions and the "Koran" come to us from the same mouth, and were "handed down" to Muslims the same way- by word of mouth passed on from generation to generation.

The traditions have the same value as the words in the koran since they both came out from Mohammad's mouth. The difference is, Mohammad supposedly had an epileptic fit, and shortly after "revealed" a sura, whereas a hadith from traditions were just an everyday saying of Mohammad's, usually "inspired" from the talking rock "allah" to settle a dispute, or to get himself out of a jam.

How stupid ARE Muslims anyways?
Do you think that the Koran floated down from "Allah"? (a talking rock)
A SMART Muslim would realise that the hadith are what the koran was written from.
If you discredit the hadith's then you must also discredit the Koran since BOTH are from Mohammad.

A sick, twisted murdering pedophile, a rapist and thief, a smelly flea infested camel humper is the sole source of everything Islam.

Mohideen Ibramsha, how could ANYONE with half a brain consider Islam to be inspired by a deity which created the universe? Heck, your allah god couldn't even avoid contradictiing itself in the Koran, It included fables from folklore and the Jewish Talmud, which is NOT biblical.

Muslims are so dumb, they even try claim decendancy from Abraham, and then claim he had a religion, which he did not. God, the true God, has no religion, He never required Abraham to preform rituals.
This is another fatal mistake the early creators of the Islamic cult made, and wrote into
the Koran, the so called word of a very stupid god.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at March 16, 2006 5:44 PM

However, 39:23 of the Holy Quran declares that the Holy Quran is consistent... Posted above

Well if the Qur’an declares that the Qur’an is correct, it must be true, or is it?

Infidel Question : How many days did it take Allah to create the earth?

Allah’s answer : 2 days or was it 4days, no maybe it was 6 days?
Apparently Allah cant remember. (Sura 10:3, 41:09-12)

Infidel Question : How does inheritance work in Islamic law?

Allah’s answer : When a man dies leaving 3 daughters, 2 parents and 1 wife.
His daughters get 67%, his parents get 33% and his wife gets 12.5% which according to infidel knowledge equals 112.5%. Or man leaves, 1 wife, 1 mother and 2 sisters, the mother gets 33%, the wife gets 25% and the sisters get 67%, which according to infidel math now equals 125%. So which one cant add, Allah or Muhammad or both?
(Sura 4:11-12,4:176)

Infidel Question : Who was the first Moslem?

Allah’s answer : I think it was Muhammad, no wait, it was Moses, no wait, it was some Egyptians, no wait, it was Adam, no wait, it was Abraham, why are you asking me, I haven’t a clue. (Sura 6:14, 163, 7:143, 26:51, 2:127-133, 3:67)

Infidel Question : Will their be inquiry in paradise?

Allah’s answer : Yes and no, but it is 2 against 1. (Sura 23:101, 52:25, 37:27)

Infidel Question :Can the words of the Qur’an be changed?

Allah’s answer : Sura 6:115, 6:34, 10:64 and 18:27 claim the words of Allah can not be changed, but in Sura 2:106 and 16:101, impulsive Allah changes his mind yet again.

Infidel Question : Is wine good or bad?

Allah’s answer : Sura 5:90 refers to wine as Satan’s handiwork, yet Sura 47:15 claims that rivers of wine flow in paradise, Satan’s handiwork in paradise, how did it get there?

That is just the beginning of the test for consistency in this consistently inconsistent book.

Posted by: Bar at March 16, 2006 5:48 PM

And then there is predestination. Nothing in the koran matters anyways, because your fate is already determined before you are even born, according to the stone god named "Allah". No amount of killing gets a muslim into the brothel.

I ask and ask, but none of our muslim believers ever answers- What was the first thing this stone god named "allah" created?

Surely this is an easy question for these devote muslims to answer. It's stated in the Koran, which states that it is clear and easy for all to read and understand.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at March 16, 2006 6:10 PM

"That is just the beginning of the test for consistency in this consistently inconsistent book."
posted above by BAR. Great points - keep this up!

OT- Robert, thanks for make your points VERY clear! bye-bye Dr. Pep

KnightHawk

Posted by: KnightHawk at March 16, 2006 6:40 PM

Bar: "Infidel Question : Is wine good or bad?
Allah’s answer : Sura 5:90 refers to wine as Satan’s handiwork, yet Sura 47:15 claims that rivers of wine flow in paradise, Satan’s handiwork in paradise, how did it get there?"

Let me guess. LOL. What a great post.

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 7:09 PM

“In 1974 [Algerian President] Boumedienne, the man who ousted Ben Bella three years after Algerian independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And without circumlocutions he said: ‘One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.’ ”

Archimedes - I trust you caught that one for your compilation...

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 7:13 PM

I can just hear in my head the voice of the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live answering the question from whom did the koran come.

Interesting post on the inconsistencies within the koran, I've seen those before and used them on other dawa boards where posters like to claim the "miracle" of the koran. Of course the biggest "miracle" is that this is the only book to be from god because it says so. Logic is not a strong point of the moslem mind.

In the recent past I came across a site setting forth the evidence for the Book of Mormon as being a true book as revealed to Joseph Smith. I must say that the strength of the evidence far exceeded anything I ever saw on islamic site. It was far more detailed and analytical proof than any moslem proof of authenticity of the koran "because the koran itself says so." I've seen better proofs of Nostradamus' prophecies than anything ever offered on an islamic website.

Tonight, when I look up at the stars, I will just remember that in the seven layers of heaven, they are in the layer closest to Earth. Thank you mohammed for that insight into allah's knowledge. After all, allah knows best, he made this dang universe, didn't he?

Posted by: Lisa at March 16, 2006 7:29 PM

How was Europe, which was saved by the U.S. in world wars I and II, and whose Muslim Bosnians were rescued by the U.S. as recently as 1999, transformed into a place in which, as Fallaci puts it, “if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell?” Dr. Pepper

How dare she get on a hobbyhorse? Doesn't she know that this is not a Left-Right issue? How can she be so blind? Why are Spencer and Hugh so far from Horowitz, Savage and Fallaci on this one key point? Posted by: Dr. Pepper

Could not agree more with that question. But ....and there is a 'but'...Fallaci sees something that the majority has yet to consider. She' way ahead of them.

This is not a '''''''right-left''''' issue. Your are correct Dr. Pepper.

The so-called 'Left' is meaningless anymore - it is just a repetoire of rote postures and attitudes with utter disregard for reality. At least the so-called Right doesn't live quite as far into la-la land. Posted by: poetcomic1

'But' .........which leader who has a real voice in this world .......has come forth to condemn the mouth of Islam? Start naming them

If anything, truly, - Fallaci deserves far more honor....for speaking the Truth about Islam...a thing that the so-called ''''right''''' who have a huge voice - and yet, have defiantly refused to do, while Fallaci, a defensless woman who has put her life in jeapordy....not for herself - but for the sakes of others. Fallaci is a modern day heroess - to those who see what is coming.

liberal Hollywood crowdPosted by: Benjamin

There is a portion of Hollywood - that spends tooooooooooooooooo much time studying ''''''sripts''''' for the money and fame - and not the '''''sripts'''''' that are getting people slaughtered

If only they wood. If only they wood.

I don't mind criticism. I get mountains of it every day. But I don't like pests and people who have no decency or courtesy. Robert Spencer

It can be TRYING!!! in MANY ways. '''''But'''''......they only make you better - at what you do. [even the most bizarre or simple] - never forget that. You never know, when the most minute thing may come in handy - teaching you to properly arm yourself in a way that can shut the mouths of kings. [Thank you Robert]

God bless you Orianna. Posted by: El Cid

Ditto

Posted by: Beth at March 16, 2006 7:37 PM

My favorite part of the article:

"As when, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her (while a bodyguard aimed a submachine gun at her head) that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.”

The Arab goal? If that isn't a forthright acknowledgement of the fact that Islam is Arab political supremacism disguised as a universal religion , I don't know what is. I hope that all non-Arab Muslims are taking notes...

The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

And so they have, for 1400 years. That statement was made in 1972. And look where they are a mere 30 years later. I hope all infidels are taking notes...

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 7:37 PM

At the end of his review Bernhard says, "Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, so hated the British Empire that he sided with the Nazis in World War II, to his everlasting shame"

I didn't know that. "Growth of the Soil," was a novel I greatly admired at one time, many lives ago.

Hugh may have something to say about Hampsun.

Another reason I admire Fallaci so much because she is absolutely secure in her feminity. She was ferocious, but never masculine. I am afraid our educational system is gradually turning our girls into self-loathing little creatures, neither female, nor male: something in-between, like Margo Channing's "creatures with a French provincial office," but not women, not really.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 16, 2006 7:57 PM

This brave woman, together with Mr. Spencer, Mr Fitzgerald and the others here - not to mention many others we could name elsewhere, puts us all to shame. There she is, out in the public eye fighting for us.

We, who cower here behind our witty tags, do not deserve her, or all the others. So, will I be the first to reveal my real identity? Sorry, no, for I do not have their courage. I am a coward. I am truly afraid of what the mohamedans might do to me and my family. However, I can recognise courage and bravery when I see it and Ms. Fallaci has both by the bucket-full. All we can do is buy her books, even if we never get around to reading them all the way through, so that she can have a few more pennies in royalties from us - royalties that she richly deserves. That is the least we can do, and, at best, it is a paltry gesture on our part.

Posted by: Certiorari at March 16, 2006 8:07 PM

Rebecca

Speaking of femininity: the photo in the LA Weekly is the first I've seen of Oriana. Took my breath away. It looks like Henri Cartier-Bresson work. Beautiful doesn't describe her or does her justice. She's all intensity and purpose, contained, almost severely, in a perfect oval that Brancusi would have swooned over, and a disciplined coiff that leave the eyes and the mouth do the talking.

Regarding the Left and Right matter: She was lionized in the communist Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s, for obvious reasons. She was one of the comrades in the fight against Western imperialism and capitalism.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 16, 2006 8:31 PM

"Banned!!"

Thank you, Robert! I found the Dr's comments to be a distraction, and that they undermined the overall theme of JW, so I for one am glad to see his pesty-posts go.

Posted by: champ at March 16, 2006 8:47 PM

Rebecca: "I am afraid our educational system is gradually turning our girls into self-loathing little creatures, neither female, nor male:"

At this point in time, I am more concerned about what our (feminist influenced?) educational system has done to western men.

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 8:51 PM

Ovidious,

Oriana's beauty has somehow survived the ravages of age. But you should catch a photo of her in her prime...utterly devastating.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 16, 2006 9:13 PM

At this point in time, I am more concerned about what our (feminist influenced?) educational system has done to western men. Posted by: Caroline

Is that not the Truth?

Just take a good look at the leaders of this world - whether they be '''''right''''' or ''''left''''

Is that not True?

Are the teahings of beheadings and rape right or wrong?

It's a very simple question - one that is weeding out the men from from the boys

Posted by: Beth at March 16, 2006 9:27 PM

There aren't too many men these these days

Posted by: Beth at March 16, 2006 9:28 PM

Beth: "Are the teahings of beheadings and rape right or wrong? .....It's a very simple question - one that is weeding out the men from from the boys...
There aren't too many men these these days"

Well, to be very simplistic about these things (and somtimes it's good to be simple about things) - I don't think that westerners are in need of more female "empathy" at this point in time. Not that I don't think that empathy is a good thing. I do. It's simply a matter of proprtion...

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 10:05 PM

Uh, that would be "proportion"...

Posted by: Caroline at March 16, 2006 10:07 PM

Get your own soapbox, sir. I paid for this microphone, and you have crossed the line again and again. I don't mind criticism. I get mountains of it every day. But I don't like pests and people who have no decency or courtesy.
Dr.Pepper)
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at March 16, 2006 10:59 AM
---------------

Thanks Robert for the site and the information gained from it and the service that you are doing. My knowledge of Islam was good, but has increased ten fold from JihadWatch and the articulate and not so articulate posters.

Keep it up.

You are making a difference.

The Texican.

Posted by: Texican at March 16, 2006 11:17 PM

What can we do? I'm not very optimistic, except that as a Catholic, I can hardly wait for Our Lord to return. Does this mean we too will have to take up arms. I'm afraid that my view of the future is dismal.
Posted by: PJ at March 16, 2006 12:06 PM
--------------

PJ, to answer you question I will get a little off subject. Years ago while reading Revelations, I realized that I am one of those that will live through the tribulation to carry on the Word and that the Prosperity Christians (pre-tribulationists) will go through the coming war before the rapture and are not prepared.

Your question shows that you are being nudged to become knowledgable.

Prepare for the war and become more knowledgeable as you are doing.

Be armed to protect you family, your religion and your country.

Be ready for the war can start at any time.

Hope this helps.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 16, 2006 11:31 PM

Rebecca:
Knut Hamsun's masterpieces are those early books, Hunger (1890), Pan, Mysteries, Victoria. His influence was immense (on other writers) but his work declined as he aged. Hamsun had kept aloof from politics most of his life, he had no use for social reformers or democracy but at eighty the old man let himself be taken in by Nazi demagogues and a picture appeared of him greeting Hitler in the newspapers. He became anathema.

Posted by: Nick Danger at March 16, 2006 11:42 PM

This is good stuff, Robert. You are now a household name when it comes to discussing islam and that's exactly what we need. Even though Oriana Fallaci is a legend in her own right there is room for more legends... The anti-jihad movement is gaining momentum. Let's push it even further.

Posted by: disillusioned_german at March 16, 2006 11:47 PM

Why do I get this sudden urge to change my login ID to Betty Jo Bialowski?

Posted by: Lisa at March 16, 2006 11:47 PM

Robert how can I ever thank you for all you do. I am a big fan of your blog and I learn so much by coming here.
Thank you for all you do and for telling us about Oriana book coming out in English. I am so excited about this.

Posted by: WildThing at March 16, 2006 11:56 PM

She has also published a novel,"Inshallah"..
Buy it and read it.
It is pretty rare,i had to order it at Borders and it took almost a month to get a used copy,but it was worth it.

Posted by: adela at March 17, 2006 12:13 AM

odysseus...

good catch. it was poor reading comprehension on my part. classic example of why people need fact checkers. the sirhan sirhan thing is still there though. page 128

can't believe the l.a. weekly gave it a fair review. the tabloid is really just a collection of whore and futon ads with some leftist rants thrown in.

Posted by: attackcartoons at March 17, 2006 1:58 AM

"St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. Restrain him, O God, we humbly beseech Thee, and do Thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast him into hell with the other evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen."

That's it in a nutshell, pray. Pass it on.

Posted by: WIDEAWAKE at March 17, 2006 2:16 AM

If you're amazed … try this article:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/oct02/havana.htm
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 16, 2006 04:29 PM

It is very educative to quote the last paragraph of the above article.
===
When I see the uses to which our freedom is so often put—the terrible vulgarity, degradation, and triviality of modern popular “culture”—I am sometimes tempted to think that the drastic curtailment of freedom would be no bad thing. But then I visit the bookshops of Havana and Dubai. Everything in life is a choice between evils, and I choose our own evils, however much they may upset me. Freedom of thought at least makes improvement without terrible upheaval conceivable, and is in any case an incontestable good in itself.
===

Looks like “freedom of thought” is a religion by itself: Freedom of thought … is in any case an incontestable good in itself.

Put in other words, “freedom of thought” cannot be questioned! Freedom indeed!

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 17, 2006 3:20 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601889.html
===
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A09
Scientists said yesterday they have found the best evidence yet supporting the theory that about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe suddenly expanded from the size of a marble to the size of the cosmos in less than a trillionth of a second.
===

From the Holy Quran:
===
2:117 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth; when He decreeth a matter He saith to it: “Be”; and it is.

6:101 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: how can he have a son when He hath no consort? HE created all things and He hath full knowledge of all things.
===

Is that expansion in less than a trillionth of a second evolution?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 17, 2006 3:49 AM

I have the book in spanish, it´s good.

Posted by: Franze at March 17, 2006 3:49 AM

Mohideen Ibramsha

If 'freedom of thought' can be questioned, doesn't it then follow that the suppression of thought is legitimate? And would the suppression of thought be something that can be questioned, the way you want freedom of thought to be?

And if it can't be questioned, because questioning suppression of thought would mean suppressing the suppression of thought, would you want to be free to suppress the freedom of thought, or would you rather prefer the freedom to support the suppression of thought? Since there is ZERO thought involved in the Quran, as pointed out by Bar above, this opinion of yours above - which is a freedom of thought, and which therefore, by your wishes, should be suppressable - figures.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 17, 2006 3:54 AM

and your point, Mohideen, is? ...

... that you are completely clueless?

Posted by: Lisa at March 17, 2006 3:58 AM

If 'freedom of thought' can be questioned, doesn't it then follow that the suppression of thought is legitimate?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 17, 2006 03:54 AM

Can the Chief of Staff or even the Commander-in-Chief reveal the future strategy of the US Army in Iraq as a “freedom of thought?”, as a freedom to think aloud?, as a “freedom of expression?” Won’t that be treason?

Freedom of expression must be tempered with “Responsibility for public good.”

Quoting Tradition 2 of Al-Tirmidhi Hadith from ALIM CD, we have:
===
Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal
I said to Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him): Inform me about an act which would entitle me to get into Paradise, and remove me away from Hell-Fire. He (the Prophet) said: You have asked me about a matter (which ostensibly appears to be) difficult but it is easy to those for whom Allah, the Exalted, has made it easy. Worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him, establish prayer, pay the Zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan and perform Hajj to the (sacred) House (Ka'bah). He again said: Should I not direct you to the gateways of good? Listen to me: The fasting is a shield against evil, the charity extinguishes (the fire of sin) just as water extinguishes fire, the prayer of a person during the middle of the night. Then he recited: 'Who forsake their beds...(up to)....they used to do.' Then he said: Should I not direct you to the highest level of this matter, to the pillar on which (it rests) and its top? I said: Allah's Messenger yes, (do tell me). He said: The uppermost level of the matter is al-Islam. Its pillar is the prayer and its top is Jihad. He then said: Should I not inform you of the sheet anchor of all this? I said: Allah's Apostle (of course do it). He took hold of his tongue and said: Exercise restraint on it. I said: Apostle of Allah, would we be held responsible for what we say with it? Thereupon he said: Mu'adh, may your mother be bereaved. Will anything else besides (irresponsible) talk cause the people to be thrown into the Hell-Fire upon their faces or on their nostrils?
Transmitted by Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah.
===

Freedom of thought and the consequent freedom of expression have to be restrained to avoid injury.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 17, 2006 5:20 AM

... that you are completely clueless?

I think the point is, Lisa, that there is nothing that can be said to him. This isn't primarily a problem that can be solved by discursive reason. This is a matter of emotional attitudes that simply can't, or can't easily, be broken down - and certainly not by talking. (Wafa Sultan's change of heart, note, was the result of a traumatic event, and of certain experiences.) What he thinks of as his response to me shows some interesting misconceptions - for example, the notion that Daniels venerates freedom ("a religion") whereas, in fact, its value becomes apparent to him, so to speak, negatively when its no longer there and is not so much stated as shown in the shape of the whole piece - but there would be little point in my trying to discuss them with him. If someone can read the piece I linked and not see - feel perhaps - the point of it, then nothing can be said to him.

This is obviously why he's tolerated on the board - because he demonstrates the problem.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 17, 2006 5:55 AM

For picture of Ms. Fallaci from the 60's, look
on the back cover of "If the Sun Dies"
hardback edition. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005W54A
(not sure if used copies available today have
this photo.) Makes clear why the astronauts were
so willing to talk to her.
- Andy

Posted by: andyp at March 17, 2006 6:00 AM

Here is the compelling...almost defiant...beauty of a young Oriana Fallaci...

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/blog/pics/oriana.jpg

Posted by: Cornelius at March 17, 2006 8:01 AM

Infidel Question : How many days did it take Allah to create the earth?
Allah’s answer : 2 days or was it 4days, no maybe it was 6 days?
Apparently Allah cant remember. (Sura 10:3, 41:09-12)
Posted by: Bar at March 16, 2006 05:48 PM

Please read my post: “^. A test of our understanding of Islam,” in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

Inshah Allah, all infidel questions shall be answered in due course. Keep checking my blog.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 17, 2006 10:17 AM

...HE created all things and He hath full knowledge of all things.. ~ Posted above

Sura 4:82 claims the Qur’an has no discrepancies, so it must be true, or is it?

Infidel Question : Where does good and evil come from?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 4:78 claims that “all things are from Allah”, yet Sura 4:79 claims that evil only comes from oneself.

Infidel Question : Is a person free to select their own religion?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 2:256 says “there is no compulsion in religion”, yet Sura 8:39 says “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah...”

Infidel Question : Are unbelievers persecuted or forgiven?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 23:117, 9:29 says persecuted while Sura 45:14 says forgiven, so the correct answer is yes.

Infidel Question : Who do we blame for wrongdoings?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 35:8 says Allah leads those astray he wishes, while Sura 30:9 denies that Allah leads anyone astray.

Infidel Question : Who is to be blamed for belief or unbelief?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 6:12 claims it our own fault, while Sura 10:100 claims it is Allah’s fault.

Infidel Question : Who misleads people, Allah or Satan?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 4:119-120 claims it is Satan who leads people astray, while Sura 14:4, 16:93 claims Allah is the one who misleads.

Infidel Question : How long is a day to Allah?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 32:5 claims 1000 years, yet Sura 70:4 claims it is 50,000 years.

Infidel Question : Is Jesus in heaven or hell?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 3:45, 4:158 claims Jesus was raised up to Allah, while Sura 21:98, claims that Jesus and his followers are the firewood of hell. So the correct answer is yes.

Infidel Question : Was creation quick or slow?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 7:54, claim six days of creation while Sura 2:117 claims Allah creates in an instant. So the correct answer is yes.

Infidel Question : What was man created from?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 96:1-2 claims a blood clot, Sura 24:45, 25:54 claims water, Sura 15:26, claims clay, Sura 30:20 claims dust while Sura 3:47 claims out of nothing.

Infidel Question : Heaven or Earth, what was created first?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 2:29 claims Earth first, while Sura 79:27-30 claims that heaven was first.

Infidel Question : Are angels our protectors?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 2:107, 29:22, claims we have no protector besides Allah, while in Sura 41:31, the angels themselves claim “we are your protectors in this life and the hereafter”

Infidel Question : Does Allah have a mouse in his pocket?

Allah’s Answer : Sura 14:4, We sent not a messenger except......

Posted by: Bar at March 17, 2006 10:56 AM

"Scientists said yesterday they have found the best evidence yet supporting the theory that about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe suddenly expanded from the size of a marble to the size of the cosmos in less than a trillionth of a second."
-- from a posting above

Or more exactly, 13.7 billion years, seven months and five days.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:47 AM

Freedom of thought and the consequent freedom of expression have to be restrained to avoid injury. Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 17, 2006 05:20 AM

So what you are really saying is that freedom of speech or our right to it, is really based on the reactions of others who cant or wont control themselfs?
Which wouldn't be apparent until after the fact.

That is the most uneducated statement any retired "Associate Professor of computer science" can make, it is a "garbage in, garbage out" statement, that is just meant to allow Mohammadanism to continue with its vociferous falsehoods completely unchallenged. I understand that this consistently, inconsistence book, must be protected, for it can not standup to criticism on its own.

Mr Mohideen, one must question how any so called “educated” person could ignore all the errors in this book and still believe it to be the word of a deity, unless that deity is a reflection of the book, or this deity doesn’t have the power to keep its word pure, which would call into question, the deity being a deity.

Posted by: Bar at March 17, 2006 12:10 PM

39:23 of the Holy Quran declares that the Holy Quran is consistent.

To funny..

Posted by: Denver at March 17, 2006 12:48 PM

Mohideen writes:

Freedom of thought and the consequent freedom of expression have to be restrained to avoid injury.

Please, Mohideen, then restrain yourself from posting. The shear idiocy and lunacy of your incoherent and illogical posts are causing great mental anguish, pain and suffering.

Posted by: Lisa at March 17, 2006 1:17 PM

"39:23 of the Holy Quran declares that the Holy Quran is consistent."

Wish I'd thought of that one in college when I was writing papers. "Don't bother checking my facts, I declare them all to be true". The profs would be obliged to give me instant 4.0's, no?

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 17, 2006 2:41 PM

all infidel questions shall be answered in due course. Keep checking my blog. ~ Mohideen

The Qur’an already contains the answers, I posted those below the infidel question, in case you missed it.

Your blog claims you are a “freelance researcher”, perhaps you should research
per-Islamic Arabia, and then explain on your blog how all those pagan ceremonies made there way into Moslem tradition.

Posted by: Bar at March 17, 2006 3:42 PM

"...Freedom of thought and the consequent freedom of expression have to be restrained to avoid injury..."

Blackmail:

'If you use your freedom of expression you will be injured'-

In other words: If you ridicule the ideology of the ridiculous, if you keep poking fun at the collective insanity of the Mohammedans, we will go on a rampage and cut throats, burn cars and embassies and behave like the lunatics we are.

See what you did? You caused it! Its your fault!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 17, 2006 6:21 PM

"Scientists said yesterday they have found the best evidence yet supporting the theory that about 13.7 billion years ago,
----------
Or more exactly, 13.7 billion years, seven months and five days.
Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:47 AM
-----------

Or there about. Whats a few months and days if your 13.7 billion years old.

The unanswered question: Just what caused the big bang? ----- God sneezed and you can see the results.

Posted by: Texican at March 18, 2006 3:17 AM

Mohideen writes:
Freedom of thought and the consequent freedom of expression have to be restrained to avoid injury.
Please, Mohideen, then restrain yourself from posting. The shear idiocy and lunacy of your incoherent and illogical posts are causing great mental anguish, pain and suffering.
Posted by: Lisa at March 17, 2006 01:17 PM

First and foremost, let us pray to God Almighty to strengthen sister Lisa to sustain my posts without mental anguish, pain and suffering.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. The freedom of expression must be restrained to avoid injury. When does injury occur? Does it occur if one individual feels mental anguish, pain and suffering, or when society at large suffers great mental anguish, pain and suffering? The freedom of expression needs to be restrained for the benefit of the general public and not of an individual or a small group of individuals.

The posters here are advocates of different opinions addressed to the court of public opinion. So one poster opposing the statement of another poster is like an advocate raising a point of objection on the statement of another advocate in a court of law. Who decides on the sustainability or otherwise of the objection: the judge.

The judge in the court of public opinion is the public, in the case of Jihadwatch, some 800,000 and more readers. If they decide that the posts of Mohideen Ibramsha cause great mental anguish, pain and suffering, Mohideen Ibramsha, God Almighty willing, would – indeed should – stop posting in Jihadwatch. May I request Dr. Robert Spencer to conduct such a poll?

Of course, I could ask Dr. Robert Spencer to decide. If I do that, I am certain he would allow me to continue to interact in view of his opinion quoted below:
===
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127
… The free world should be standing …, ready to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will surely be lost. … The defense of free speech and free thought will not be easy, and is not the matter of just a day.
===

I remember to have raised this question earlier. Let me do it again. Is it free speech to call a chaste woman a prostitute? I hope not. If such a maligned woman takes the offender to court, it is reasonable to expect that the court would award damages against the one who called her a prostitute, might even punish the offender with jail term.

Does a dead woman have the right to her dignity? Does a dead man have the right to his dignity? Who can defend the dignity of that dead person? Do the courts allow such cases to be initiated? Won’t the court demand ‘right of intervention?’ Won’t the court demand that the person initiating court proceedings be a blood relation of the maligned dead person?
Who is the blood relation of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, living today? Kindly introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf that dead person, and once you have such laws, God Almighty willing, I would be the first person to suggest that public outrage be delayed until the court can issue its verdict.

Let me repeat: Freedom of expression needs to be constrained so that it does not cause chaos in society. But for that, yes, we are for freedom of expression.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 18, 2006 6:16 AM

Is it free speech to call a chaste woman a prostitute?

Mohideen

No, that would be freedom of thought, followed by freedom of speech. And unless the women could prove actual damages to more than her ego, the courts would not award any monetary damages. Don't you watch the peoples court?

Kindly introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf that dead person

I say go for it.

I would not stop from saying that Mohammad is a false prophet that never prophesied. Mohammad is a murdering pedophile, terrorist, the worst of men. He should be hated by all men, may he burn in hell for eternity. This god of his imagination, is the devil himself.

Now prove me wrong! And the burden of proof must rise above the level of “Mohammad said so”.
Example :
Q - How do you know that Mohammad was a true prophet?
A - because he said so.

Q - How do you know that the Qur’an is God’s word?
A - because Mohammad said so.

It would be fun to have my own fatwa to proudly hang above the fireplace.

Posted by: Bar at March 18, 2006 10:43 AM

Mohideen,

Let's just say I find your tortured logic to be... ah... torturing.

Bar is right, it is free speech to call a chaste woman a prostitute. One who utters such words, knowing them absolutely to be false, may be liable for legal damages, but the utterance itself can not be banned.

But what if one who utters such words only beleiving them to be false, and the woman can not prove herself to be chaste, and evidence is admited that shows she has carnal knowledge of another. The person who uttered the words of her being unchaste now as an absolute affirmative defense to the libel action.

But, what if there was no free speech, and based on his original erroneous belief of chastity, he was barred from every saying otherwise about this woman? Then the truth would have been forever suppressed.

Rule 1. Any ban on free speech may lead to suppression of truth.

that is why in free societies, the right to free speech is considered the greatest of and superior to all other rights.

Is it possible to defame a dead person? Yes, but can there also has to be a legally enforceable right vested in some successor interest to that dead person, such as his estate. Those that just believe in the dead person have no such interest.

For example, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people worldwide believe Elvis Presley to be the greatest rock and roll performer ever. (He is dead, some people refuse to believe even that.) If I were to say, knowing the absolute falsity of my statement at the time made, that Elvis Presley stole all of his material, all of his songs, from unknown black artists playing small rural bars in the Mississippi Delta, who would then have the legal interst to persue a legal claim of defamation against me. Definitely not his millions of fans, because they have suffered no legal monetary damage to wealth or reputation.

The same holds true for Mohammed. He is a historical figure who onced lived and about whom much history is written, in the Hadith and from other verifiable Islamic and non-Islamic sources. If one were to make an untrue statement about Mohammad, who has the right to sue for damages to wealtha and reputaion. Similarly to Elvis Presley, that interest is not vested in those who just believe in him, since they are not successors of legal interset.

Furthermore, if one were to make any statement about Mohammed, that although offensive to Mulsim sensibilities, is nontheless true and verifiable from any of these sources, there can not be any action, short of outright banning free speech, that could prevent such statement form being made. Once such speech is banned, then the truth about Mohammed is suppressed.

See Rule 1 above.

Posted by: Lisa at March 18, 2006 4:38 PM

Rule 1. Any ban on free speech may lead to suppression of truth.
Posted by: Lisa at March 18, 2006 04:38 PM

Rule 2: Unfettered free speech leads to pent up emotions, and might lead to avoidable bloodshed.

Rule 3: Emotional health is much more valuable than material wealth.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 18, 2006 9:41 PM

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)

Posted by: Bar at March 18, 2006 10:29 PM

Mohideen sez:

"... Kindly introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf that dead person..."

and this: "free speech leads to pent up emotions, and might lead to avoidable bloodshed..."

The audacity! The outrageous stupidity of a believing fanatic who demands fundamental change to the laws of the host country that allowed him to settle and gave him, in his own words: 'sustenance'...

We have laws against sedition and subversion, Mohideen. We also have laws against terror, murder and it is only a matter of time before the cult of Islam will be outlawed and the Koran 'verboten', just as cannibalism and incest is forbidden.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 18, 2006 11:08 PM

demands fundamental change to the laws of the host country that allowed him to settle and gave him, in his own words: 'sustenance'...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 18, 2006 11:08 PM

Sustenance is given by God Almighty and not the host country.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 19, 2006 3:02 AM

Furthermore, if one were to make any statement about Mohammed, that although offensive to Mulsim sensibilities, is nontheless true and verifiable from any of these sources, there can not be any action, short of outright banning free speech, that could prevent such statement form being made.
Posted by: Lisa at March 18, 2006 04:38 PM

In addition to the above, we have:

Mohideen sez:
"... Kindly introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf that dead person..."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 18, 2006 11:08 PM

Islam is TRUTH. A Muslim must uphold the truth. I do not advocate safeguarding the sensibilities of Muslims when their sensibilities are hurt by truth. When I suggest that “introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf of that dead person,” I am seeking a way to establish the truth.

Quite a few posters have accused Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as a child molester simply because he had sex with his wife, mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, as soon as she became mature at the age of sex. Whether having sex with one’s legally wedded wife molestation? Who arbitrates this question now? The bloggers and the media? When the change in law is made so that I could sue the person accusing Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as a child molester is made, then the court of law would look into the claims and counter claims and decide the issue. A fundamental question that needs to be answered is: How can a man be judged by the norms of today, which are different from the norms of his day?

Does a law permitting the initiation of libel proceedings against the accuser of a dead person infringe the “freedom of speech?”

From http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html we have:
===
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
===

What is meant by “to petition the government for a redress of grievances?” Is not the judiciary one arm of the government? All I have suggested is that a part of the population of USA when it is aggrieved has the chance to petition a part of the government, the courts of law, to redress their grievances. In what way does that infringe the “First Amendment to the Constitution?”

Take the case of a chaste woman accused of being a prostitute. Everyone agrees that she, the accused, has a right to initiate libel proceedings against the accuser. What happens if she dies in an accident (!) and her son initiates the libel proceedings? It is legal. What is the case if the woman under question has no surviving sibling and was unmarried and thus has no heir? Is her dignity so worthless anyone can accuse her of being a prostitute? Are we saying that single woman in America without a legal relation can be abused just like that?

My suggestion to introduce a law so that the dignity of a dead person could be restored by a libel action by an admirer or a group of admirers indeed protects the First Amendment from being abridged.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 19, 2006 6:24 AM

Islam is not 'truth', but a bunch of lies. Your 'prophet' was not only a child-abuser, but he led a life of crime of rape and murder.

Compared with Mohammed, Al Capone was small-time, in fact, many would agree that Al Capone was by far more honorable than Mohammed. Since you worship Mohammed, you condone his crimes and all other crimes committed in the name of Islam. If you rob, rape, deceive and follow what the Koran teaches, you will end up in jail or dead.

You would be better off milking she-camels in the desert and curing your ills with camel urine, Mohideen. But to expect infidels to change their laws in order to accommodate followers of a barbaric cult will not happen anytime soon...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 19, 2006 7:57 AM

When I suggest that "introduce laws so that those who love a dead person can initiate libel proceedings on behalf of that dead person," I am seeking a way to establish the truth.

Ok, lets establish some Islamic “truths”.

Charge : Mohammad was a murdering terrorist, the very worst of all men.
Evidence : Qur’an, ahadith

002.193
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

009.111
YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Mohideen
I think you have a really good case for slander, if I was you, I would call the law offices of Weinberg & Goldberg and have them start legal proceedings right away.
You cant sit back and let the false prophet Mohammad be disgraced and scorned like that, you must stop such open indignation, in the name of Islamic “truth”.

Posted by: Bar at March 19, 2006 11:47 AM

"Sustenance is given by God Almighty and not the host country."
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha

How about we drop you off in the middle of the desert and put your claim to the test?

Posted by: Caroline at March 19, 2006 1:59 PM

Mohideen writes:

My suggestion to introduce a law so that the dignity of a dead person could be restored by a libel action by an admirer or a group of admirers indeed protects the First Amendment from being abridged.

Perhaps Mohideen in a rush to protect the idealized vision of Mohammed held in contradiction to established and verifiable fact has not realized the unintended cosequences of such a law.

Under such a law (which would never sustain a challenge to its constitionality if it ever got past standing to sue arguments) it would be possible for a Christian to file suit and, in the way that Mohideen suggest it be written, seek its certification as a class action on behalf of all Christians, to have declared as libel any Koranic passage that states that Jesus Christ did not die from crucifixion, which is confirmed by Roman and Jewish historians independently of the Gospels, but that a "stunt double" was crucified instead. Further libel actions could also be found on Koranic passages calling all Christians blasphemers and all Jews apes and pigs. The Hindus would also have a field day suing Mohammedans for libel.

Posted by: Lisa at March 19, 2006 3:06 PM

If I refer to Muhammad as a "semen stained old man" -- would that be blasphemous? Would it be untruthful? What about "a deranged maniac who cut off people's hands for petty crimes"? Someone who "recommended the drinking of camel urine as medicine"? A "pimp for little boys"? A "theif"? How about a "polygamist"? A "liar"? What about a "murderer"? A "fanatic"? How about a "deluded individual"?A "slave owner and trader"? How about an "advocate and practitioner of rape"? What about "a deranged maniac who cut off people's hands for petty crimes"?

All of these things are verifiable in your Islamic Koran, your Islamic Hadiths, your Islamic Suras... All of these things are true -- there's now way to deny it. How could such things be actionable in any reasonable and fair court of law? But you as a Muslim, no doubt, take great offense at such statements. I have no doubt I'd be murdered in a Muslim land for uttering these truths about your filth stained execrable false "prophet".

***********************
Muhammad -- "A semen stained old man":

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "
(by this time Muhammad was well into his 50s... Aisha was between 9 and 12 when forced to wash the semen from the old coots robes...)
*************************
Muhammad: "a deranged maniac who cut off people's hands for petty crimes"?:

Book 017, Number 4175:
'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) cut off the hand of a thief for a quarter of a dinar...

& this:

Book 017, Number 4190:
Jaibir reported that a woman from the tribe of Makhzum committed theft. She was brought to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she sought refuge (intercession) from Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him). Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, even if she were Fatima, I would have her hand cut off. And thus her hand was cut off.

**************************
Muhammad: Someone who "recommended the drinking of camel urine as medicine"(with cutting off of hands and torture thrown in to boot!):

Al-Bukhari 8: 797
Narrated by Anas bin Malik 

A group of people from 'Ukl (or 'Uraina) tribe--but I think he said that they were from 'Ukl--came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water... (The same narration is repeated in 8: 794 & 1: 234)

**************************

Muhammad the "pimp for little boys":

Quran 52:24 Round about them will serve to them, young male servants handsome as Pearls well-guarded.
****************************

It goes on and on and on... All of it true -- all of it a portrait of a horrible life led by a horrible inhuman beast -- ALL of it your "prophet" Muhammad -- your perfect man -- God's best and last apostle on Earth.

Your religion is contagion, Mohideen Ibramsha -- there's just some of the proof!

Posted by: jsla at March 19, 2006 3:51 PM

1. Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 19, 2006 07:57 AM
2. Posted by: Bar at March 19, 2006 11:47 AM
3. Posted by: Lisa at March 19, 2006 03:06 PM
4. Posted by: jsla at March 19, 2006 03:51 PM

Congratulations. You all have exploited your legal superiority now. What a pity that I would have forgotten these exchanges when the law on “abuse of freedom of speech” gets enacted, Inshah Allah, in USA soon. Further, even if I remember, I would be the first one to argue that no law can harm an individual retrospectively, so your taunts now do not lead to any harm for all of you: enjoy.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 19, 2006 9:10 PM

Mohideen,

If a law on abuse of freedom of speech, i.e., a censorship law, I would be the first to violate it to challenge its constitutionality. Celebrity would be mine. Such a law would also be, God willing, the end of Islam in America.

Posted by: Lisa at March 19, 2006 9:20 PM

How about we drop you off in the middle of the desert and put your claim to the test?
Posted by: Caroline at March 19, 2006 01:59 PM

You are welcome. However, it is my duty to resist you with all the avenues at my disposal, Inshah Allah.

Even though I might dream to be succored by God Almighty like mother Mary, Allah be pleased with her, I dare not try my luck. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=Mary+Zakariya&chapter=3&translator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have:
===
Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure."
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #37)
===

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 19, 2006 9:48 PM

If a law on abuse of freedom of speech, i.e., a censorship law
Posted by: Lisa at March 19, 2006 09:20 PM
We can possess a gun for self-protection. However, when the same gun is used to murder, the murderer must be punished. Likewise, the freedom of speech is for the benefit of all. However, if that freedom is misused, it is like the misuse of the gun, and deserves to be punished.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 19, 2006 10:01 PM