Was Jihad ever NOT a part of islamic cirriculum?

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at July 25, 2006 9:37 AM

"He said that the topic on the life of Prophet Muhammad would also highlight battles led by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to show his exemplary leadership and tolerance towards his enemies..."

THAT is certainly going to create some mighty fine personalities.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 25, 2006 9:40 AM

"He said that the topic on the life of Prophet Muhammad would also highlight battles led by the Holy Prophet..."

Surely these "battles" only refer to Mo's internal struggle in the path of allah, and not the indiscriminate murder and dismemberment of infidels.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at July 25, 2006 9:50 AM

I for one applaud this new new frank openness.

I want to see the 75 raids that occurred with Mohammed's leadership, and the rapes by Mohammed of the prettiest girl, each time, and the gift of girls to his band on each raid, after the killing of all the men 12 and up.

This, I think is a productive, and will lead to new understandings about the Middle east, about Islam, and about the life of Mohammed.
Let's clear the air.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at July 25, 2006 9:54 AM

‘Tolerance towards his enemies’, eh? Sure, they may as well teach their students that fairies and leprechauns are real, too.

If they want to teach jihad as a basic practice of Islam, that’s fine, but we, as modern societies of the modern world, should have the power and ability to stand up and proclaim that jihad has no place in our countries. Since they wish to continue its teaching in Islam, then it seems that, by simple calculations, Islam should not be accepted in those same societies, as well. Since jihad is synonymous with today’s terrorism and many criminal activities, it should be quite easily argued that jihad, and therefore Islam, should be outlawed.

Let’s just imagine that there was a religion that existed in the modern world which called for virgin sacrifices every full moon. Sure, that thought process may have held sway in ancient times, but in a modern world, people wouldn’t stand for it. People would call it barbaric. People would call for an end to it. Why isn’t the same happening with Islam?

It’s not as if they can’t see the daily violence attributed to this ancient cult, either. They see it, but it’s whitewashed over by the public, the mainstream media, and our governments, as well. So many ambassadors from these backwards-thinking people bringing their wealth to flash in the eyes of the brain-dead causes the blindness.

We need a president with balls. Bush’s ‘good ol’ boy’ tough talk is good up until a point, but unless he has the balls to carry through on these things, nothing will ever get done.

And meanwhile, the FBI and HS are ‘keeping an eye’ on Hizbollah groups here in the states. Umm …hel-lo? How about rounding them up and shipping them off? I don’t care how many busses or trips it takes, just DO IT! Put their butts on a plane headed to Saudi Arabia only half-filled with fuel and get them out of here! When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn’t sit around waiting to see which ones were with us and which ones were sympathetic to Japan –we rounded them ALL up. It may not be very PC, but it sure as hell is a step in the direction of survival.

Personally, I think the government wants another attack on our soil. Whether they want it so that they can step up such actions given that there’s more than reasonable reason for alarm at that point or whether they’ve already sold their souls to their new Arabian masters is still yet to be seen.

Posted by: MaxInfidel at July 25, 2006 9:58 AM

As a wife of an American Soldier...I set out on a search for the truth about Jihad.I figure my outlook on Islam and Muslims may be a little tainted.I am having a hard time understanding it.They claim that its teachings are peaceful.Nothing I read seemed peaceful or tolerant in the least.It seems like Allah just wants them to live in misery in this life in hopes he will take pitty on them.If I am wrong please give me some material that explains something other than attack the Infidel.In my opinion instead of sending humanitarian aid they need to send crates of prozac...

Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 10:04 AM

Keep Enemy Close,
You're defnitely on the right track. Here's a reading list:

Spencer:
Onward Muslim Soldiers
A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

Bat Ye'or:
The Dhimmi
Islam and Dhimmitude
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam
Eurabia

Andrew Bostom:
The Legacy of Jihad

Bruce Bawer:
While Europe Slept

David Selbourne:
The Losing War Against Islam

Ibn Warraq:
Why I Am Not a Muslim
Leaving Islam

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at July 25, 2006 10:22 AM

Since jihad is synonymous with today’s terrorism and many criminal activities, it should be quite easily argued that jihad, and therefore Islam, should be outlawed.
Posted by: MaxInfidel July 25, 2006 09:58 AM
---------------------------------------------------

Here's how the muslims 'rationalize' their jehad/terrorism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8thJYtj-lB4&search=Islamic%20terrorists

Seems to me that Islam is an extreme case of mental disorder, and, therefore, deserves to be not only outlawed but eradicated.

Posted by: Razdan at July 25, 2006 10:31 AM

what did you expect. In Saudi Arabia, memorization of the Koran is considered the most important educational requirement. For example, if you want to get into graduate school for engineering, it is not your grades or standardized aptitude tests that are most important. It is your results in memorization of the Koran that are weighted most heavily.

In Afganistan, the term Taliban means teacher. So why would anyone be surprised that Muslim countries would stop teaching Jihad in their public school system. If Japan can still produce textbooks that place the blame for their WWII military adventures and sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on other countries, then how can we expect little Malmood from getting his daily dose of Jihad at school?

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at July 25, 2006 10:46 AM

what did you expect. In Saudi Arabia, memorization of the Koran is considered the most important educational requirement. For example, if you want to get into graduate school for engineering, it is not your grades or standardized aptitude tests that are most important. It is your results in memorization of the Koran that are weighted most heavily.

In Afganistan, the term Taliban means teacher. So why would anyone be surprised that Muslim countries would stop teaching Jihad in their public school system. If Japan can still produce textbooks that place the blame for their WWII military adventures and sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on other countries, then how can we expect little Malmood from getting his daily dose of Jihad at school?

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at July 25, 2006 10:46 AM

Those teachings are ancient so they will never be stopped.The middle east is the worlds pain in the ass.When you have pain ...you get rid of it.

Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 10:52 AM

Do not forget, they kill teachers who actually dare to teach reading, writing and arithmetic or encourage acutal thinking

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 25, 2006 10:54 AM

I was reading a Islamic web site yesterday (before I got a trojan)that dared anyone to find the meaning "Jihad" as holy war in the teachings..They said this was a western propaganda term and that the real meaning was not holy war but the struggle of Islam.

Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 11:04 AM

July 25, 2006
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME??

READ THE WHOLE THING??

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israelchrono.htm
The Recognition of the State of Israel: Chronology

May 14, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis. The White House issues the following statement: "This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel." To see a color copy of this document click here.
May 14, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.
May 15: On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack Israel.
1949
January 25: A permanent government takes office in Israel following popular elections.
January 31: The United States recognizes Israel on a de jure basis.
February 24 to July 20: Israel signs armistice agreements with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria

OH BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE??

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004
Bemis’ landmark 1949 review also included a vague footnote referring to a work which I located formally in a comprehensive annotated bibliography of John Quincy Adams’ writings, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons 2:

“Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :

“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ’. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”3

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

Indeed, the famous Shafi’i jurist of Baghdad, al-Mawardi (d. 1058), highlights the most salient aspect of the consensus view of classical Islamic jurisprudence regarding the vanquished non-Muslims “tribute”, i.e., the jizya: the critical connection between jihad and payment of the jizya. He notes that “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however “it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future.”. (II). Payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established.” Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years.4 The nature of such “protection”, i.e., a blood ransom, is reinforced in this definition of jizya written by E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:

“The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain” 5

Adams’ staunch anti-imperialism, one of the “fourteen fundamentals” of U.S. foreign policy which Samuel Flagg Bemis states, “…we may connect with the name of John Quincy Adams more than with that of any other man” 6, is consistent with Old Man Eloquent’s support for the struggle of the Greeks 7 to liberate themselves from the yoke of centuries of dhimmitude, imposed by the imperialism of Ottoman jihad 8. At minimum, in light of the global war on jihad terrorism, John Quincy Adams’ candid, timeless ruminations should be required reading for all contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians.

Key annotated excerpts from John Quincy Adams’ remarkable series of essays, are provided below.

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and Islam

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims; Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman Turkish State

“As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.” [p. 274-275]

“Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained between the Osmanli and his christian neighbors, then would have been the time to establish it in good faith. But the treaty was no sooner made than broken. It never was carried into effect by the Turkish government.” [p. 276]

READ THE WHOLE THING AND REMEMBER THIS WAS BEFORE WW2 AND WW1??

AGAIN WHAT IS THE COMMON FACTOR IN ALL THESE WARS NOT ISRAEL BECAUSE ISRAEL WAS NOT A STATE UNTILL AFTER WW2??

THIS IS AS PLAN AS THE NOSES ON PEOPLES FACES LEBANON HAS PAID THE DIMMI TAX HOPEING THAT THE MULSUMS WILL LEAVE THEM ALONE BUT IN THE END WE ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT A DEAL THAT WILL BE KEPT??

Just like Romania had to pay a high price for siding with Hitler which they suffered more than 50 yrs so to will the Lebanese people have to pay the hard price for siding with Islamic terrorist…

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM GIVE US VICTORY OVER THIS EVIL ENEMY AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at July 25, 2006 11:21 AM

The keenest and most aware, in every part of the Western world, are now engaged in one vast, but not collective, History Lesson. Those in this class, necessarily a class of auto-didacts given the failure of our governments to instruct us, and given the near-total monopoly over academic departments and courses on Islam by those engaged not so much in instruction as in apologetics, whether by Muslims (who in 1970 constituted 3% of the members of the Middle East Studies Association, or MESA,and now make up over 60% of the membership of what is known as MESA Nostra. And they are assisted by non-Muslims, eager not to offend Muslim colleagues (on whom they may depend for advancement and favors -- summer grants, book blurbs, light teaching loads, not to mention how unpleasant departmental meetings can be made by resentful Muslims, aware that a colleague may be guilty of presenting students with something like the truth about the teachings of Islam and about Jihad, and the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule). Of course, some of those non-Muslims may well have been attracted to their field in the first place by something in their own mental makeup, that made Islam, or the Arabs, appealing (and that is also true for those in the State Department who man the Middle Eastern desks) to them, and these self-selected students of the subject are unlikely to be the best guides. Furthermore, there is so much Arab money around to endow chairs, or even whole centers -- such as the two carefully placed at Georgetown, the better to influence government policymakers and the national media -- Esposito's fiefdom, the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (a farcical undertaking, by Esposito, Voll and Haddad, that deserves a book-length study of its own) and Michael Hudson's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. The rich Lebanese contractor who first got Esposito on his way has had his initial funds supplemented by the Saudis and others; the Kuwaitis appear to have been the major donors, early on, to Hudson's undertaking. One center is in charge of misleading Infidels about Islam' the other handles the "Palestinian" matter -- their portfolios overlap, of course.

So here we are, now redisvoering the history of India even if we are not Indians, and perhaps learning more about it, reading more sympathetically about what Muslim rule did to India, than many Indians who, to prove their lack of parochialism, their freedom from "communalism," overlook the real history, and continuing menace, of Islam in India. Here we are, even those who until a few years ago hardly knew about the Ottomans in Europe, realizing why the Serbs need to be protected from Muslim demands, either by "Bosnians" or by Albanians. Here we are, even those who had no real understanding of why the Arabs seemed incapable of making any kind of peace, or accepting one Israeli compromise and surrender of Jewish claims, legal, moral, and historic, after another, but always wanted more -- as, according to Islam, they must, and now teaching ourselves about the Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya, and learning, since no one in the press chooses to mention, the basis for all Muslim treaties with Infidels.

And here we are, learning not the Arab or Eurabian version of French rule in North Africa, but the real version. Here we are, learning who it was who stamped out slavery in the Maghreb (the French),and gave freedom from legalized Muslim oppression (1871, la loi Cremieux) to various communities of non-Muslims, who stamped out the African slave trade concuded by the Arabs in East Africa (the British), who prevented the Arab tribes from constant mutual slaughter (which is why those "Trucial" states were given their names -- one hudna or truce after another). Here we are, learning about the Seljuk and the Ottoman Turks.

Oh, we are not experts. We can't compete with Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and Tisdall. But we can read Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and St. Clair Tisdall and Arthur Jeffery and Tor Andrea and for that matter, some of us can even read Noldeke and Ignaz Goldziher, and we can compare these scholars, with what passes for "experts" from Esposito to Oliver Roy, from Khaled Abou el Fadl (do google "scholarofthehouse" and "Posted by Hugh) and Mark LaVine and so many others who have managed to first creep into, and then to slither upwards from rung to slippery rung, in that academic game of snakes-and-ladders, with which some are long familiar.

Here we are, all over the world, the unsung History Boys.

And we are learning a lot. And passing it on. And we no longer accept the false authority of those whom, we realize, have been falsely instructing us on the nature of Islam. We have the real authorities to go to -- that Schacht, that Hurgronje, that Tisdall, that Jeffery, and the hundreds of others, from many different countries, who saw Islam steadily and whole, and whose work, preserved in books and articles, can no longer be hidden from view.

Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2006 11:35 AM

An excellent survey of Pakistan appeared in
the July 8th issue of the Economist

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7107838

The Economist predicts that 'the future looks
bearded' for Pakistan.

Posted by: george_rem at July 25, 2006 12:41 PM

Take this story about Jihad in the Pakistani curriculum, Story #1, that will remain part of the lesson for every young Pakistani.

Now put beside it another story, Story #2, about Pakistan, also put up today, about Pakistan's plan to produce 40-50 nuclear weapons each year.

Now add Story #1 to Story #2.

What do you get?

Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2006 12:42 PM

In the early 1800s America paid the Jizah to the Muslim pirates in the Med, who were attacking American ships. The US paid a couple of million dollars to the Muslim pirates. Of course, the pirates never stopped attacking. The US then sent in the Marines (to the shores of Tripoli) who promply put an end to the Muslim pirates.

Goes to show, appeasement has been tried and verified as an effort in futility. Only the military succeeded against the Muslim pirates then and only the military can succeed today.

Lessons learned should not be forgotten

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 25, 2006 12:43 PM

from above

"What do you get?"

A sudden desire to stock up on ammo and rolaids.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 25, 2006 12:53 PM

Now add Story #1 to Story #2. What do you get? Posted by: Hugh

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 25, 2006 5:17 PM

Yes Hugh - we can read all that. Or we can merely get one casual email post in our overflowing email boxes saying - Hey! Did you know that the prophet Muhammad (whom Muslims worship as the most perfect man) was actually a mass-murderer? A thief? A rapist? A slave trader? A pedophile?

And we "rubes" can think to our ignorant "rube" selves - no bloody way! And then do about 2 hours of homework (1 solid day max for the skeptical) and confirm to ourselves - oh hell yes effing way!

And in several short hours (OK- a an entire day for the skeptical) put 2 and 2 together - what the Koran says + what the likes of UBL and Hamas and Hezbollah say + the massive obfuscation coming from the likes of CAIR and Tariq Ramadan and the MSA say (a 5 minute lesson in the meaning of taqiyya takes care of that ambiguity) + what a rapid perusal of world history would confirm (OK - to be fair - give that a whole extra day) - and one readily goes from no way in hell! to Holy s**t! This is for real!

It ain't rocket science. And seriously, infidels (both westerners and easterners) ought not to insult their dignity and intelligence by pretending it is.

Old Hans Christian Anderson will no doubt live on as the wisest sage the west has ever known where Islam is concerned. A fairy tale ostensibly designed for children yes. But once one realizes how really childlike we all actually are (look at the huge influence of Hollywood for example which is merely high school writ large in many ways), one won't be so inclined to scoff at such a fairy tale.

Which is my blunt way of saying that by all means, those so inclined should read Schacht, and Hurgronje and Tisdall.

But also to point out that some of us won't. Some of us would just as soon look at the noses on the end of our faces and have no doubt whatsoever about what Islam is all about.

In the end, one need only look at Islam's source - Muhammad - and confirm just a few facts about the man himself (and those facts are easily confirmed for those who are willing to look) - and all the rest just falls easily into place.

Posted by: Caroline at July 25, 2006 9:48 PM

You are right. Whatever manages to supply enough of the truth, and to allow one to convey that truth convincingly to others so they begin to comprehend the nature of the belief-system (try not to call it a "religion") of Islam, surely does not require all kinds of study. But such study, when one has the time, merely deepens one's horrified convictions. Ordinarily, as you read more about something, you more and more see the thing in its complexity, and shades of gray, and are more and more hesitant to pass judgment. With Islam, the more you find out about what it teaches, the more you find out about the example of Muhammad, the more you find out about what Islam does to its adherents, the more you find out about Jihad in time and space, the more you find out about the fate of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, the more horrified you become.

But it isn't all necessary. Sometimes a single thing will do it. Here's the single thing about Iran that often does it: the fact that when he came to power, one of Khomeini's very first acts (perhaps the first) was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine. Tell that to people you know. And then tell them why.

Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2006 10:41 PM

Infidel Pride wrote:

"A plan to re-create the Moghul empire but have it extend from Morocco to Mindanao, not just the South Asian sub-continent."

That is exactly the Mohammedan gameplan. To create dar-al-Islam and that can be brought into existence by: (a) constantly fighting Israel, and, (b) terrorizing India. The Shahi Imam Bukhari (of Jama Masjid) has rejoicingly stated that one day, India shall again become Islamic. That is, the British overtook Mughals in India. Now that the British are gone, it is time, per Imam Bukhari to convert India to an Islamic State.

Suppose India became Islamic, i.e. the tricolor flag fell to the banner of Islam. (This of course would happen because of the proverbial Hindu cowardice and apathy to react in any form, except expressing anger and condolences.) Then in that case all the way friom Ankara to Mindanao would be a stretch of landmass that is dar-al-Islam. Presently it is dar-al-harb because of the existence of the polytheist Hindus in India. (At least that's what SIMI in India feels is the problem.)

Posted by: Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal at July 26, 2006 2:50 AM