Yeah!
Right on!

It brings to mind a comment by a British muslim that I heard on TV last night. to the effect:

"...Islam is both a religion and a culture. To attack one is to attack both..."

They want the freedom to express their muslim religion and identity, without adapting to our house rules. Sorry, no can do.

If things continue on the current trajectory then the only safe and trustworthy muslim in the USA will be one who has had a fattwah issued against him/herself. Maybe that should be a pre-condition for future muslim immigration here?

Posted by: Mike H at November 30, 2004 12:07 PM

This clear-sighted statement mixing welcome and warning calls for one caveat. Is it enough for Muslims in this or any other non-Muslim country to offer outward respect "to our laws" if at the same time they inwardly harbor hostility toward those laws, and toward the Constitution, because those laws, or that Constitution, contradict, in almost every respect regarding individual liberties, what is in the Shari'a? Nor is being a "law-abiding citizen" nearly enough if one secretly hates those laws, or smiles at one's employers, or employees, or colleagues, but hates them as well -- not for anything they have done, but simply for being Infidels. How can we Infidels be expected to winnow the Muslim who feigns friendship, or who feigns alienation from the manichaean creed and lets on that he is as perfunctory a Muslim as it is posisble to be, yet is simply feigning, in order to fit in, to conduct Da'wa or to create an atmosphere that will lead unwary Infidels to remain unwary, for some time longer, whose belief-system offers doctrines -- taqiyya and kitman -- rooted in Qur'anic passages and in Muhammad's reported claim that "war is deception" (and in his own behavior, where deception was an important element in his strategy of conquest), that encourage lying aboutthe Faith in order to protect it, or protect Believers, by offering religious sanction for such lying.

A convinced adherent of a belief-system that is immutable, because its canonical texts are immutable, a belief-system that preaches hatred of Infidels, permitting them to survive only in a condition where they are publicly humiliated, are subject to degradation, and live in a state of permanent physical insecurity (and 1350 years of evidence have accumulated to support that summary -- even if a large number of apologists, or quasi-apologists have managed to ignore the whole subject of the dhimmi and dhimmitude).

What conceivable overlap is there between Islam and American, or for that matter European ways of thought and belief? The Muslim emphasis on the collective, the loyalty owed only to the umma al-islamiyya (and so what if the odd Muslim recruit actually ends up in the army or Marines --that in no way contradicts the general proposition that Muslim loyalty must be to fellow Muslims, for even if an occasional Muslim decides that he can justify being in the army in order either to find out how it works, for the possible use by Muslim enemies or, on the other hand, becuase he is not a complete Believer, in the sense of recognizing that loyalty must be to Islam, and fellow Muslims, alone (or may rationalize his army service as actually doing more to promote Islam in the United States -- in other words, he has to justify that enrollment not simply as the act of a loyal American, but as an act that makes sense "islamically").

Islamic suspicion of individual autonomy, including the right of free exercise of the individual conscience, which surely underlies the First Amendment, Islam's hostility to art (sculpture, painting, music) and science in both its literal teachings of Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and in the attitudes dervied from those teachigns, is as total and implacable an enemy of whatever it is that makes our own civilization worth preserving, even in its debased current state, as has ever existed.

Needless to say, Mr. Watson, now that your photograph is on view, this caveat is offered in the friendliest possible way, and you will not be challenged in any other way, least of all to a contest of arm-wrestling, any time soon. Thank god you are on the right side. You, and the Armed Services from all of the United States, the red ones, and the blue ones, and the ones that swing both ways.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2004 12:45 PM

What an EXCELLENT LETTER DCWATSON! CONGRATULATIONS!! Open, honest and Forthright. Hope you will get equally HONEST, OPEN AND FORTHRIGHT replies from Muslims in America.

Posted by: Morgane at November 30, 2004 1:37 PM

Well said DC Watson! I look forward to reading their reply.

Posted by: Infidel at November 30, 2004 2:09 PM

DC Watson

Excellent letter my friend. It can all be summed up in these lines:

"Understand that it's not our responsibility to adapt to your culture. It's your responsibility to adapt to ours"

You got that absolutely correct! This is what it boils down to, how Muslims want special dispensations and laws, hopw they believe the world and infidels should bend to them, rather than they adapting to the world. The Islamic leader who stated that Islam must be the only accepted religion on Earth was being honest. I wish more of them would be as honest as him and not pretend they are like Hare Krishna's with an Arabic accent, ie: basically harmless.

Good work my friend.

Posted by: Kaffir Boy at November 30, 2004 2:15 PM

Very good letter, Big Daddy!
But I think it will fall on ears that totaly cannot understand what you have asked of them. I submit a response:

"There is only one culture, that is Islam.
There is only one religion, that is Islam.
Everything else is Dar-al-habr."

So, DC, what do we do now?
(I want you in front of me when the sht hits the fan!)

Posted by: D' Artist at November 30, 2004 2:44 PM

WELCOME TO THE DAR AL-HARB.

Posted by: Rottweiller at November 30, 2004 2:47 PM

To the Doctor . . .
You are the MAN!

What a perfect letter,
great medicine for my day,
couldn't have been said better
in any other way . . .
Many thanks for your good work and bravery,
we salute you and all those who treasure
the mind of the FREE, where ever they may be.

Posted by: the poetess at November 30, 2004 4:22 PM

It was all good except that goddam picture.... Why the Harley sleeves-too-short t-shirt, the silver (oooh! Big Spender!) jewelery, and the mascara'd goatee? I fear that even thought this may help some people "feel big", some readers--especially first-time readers trying to fing the TRUTH about Islam--could be put off.

What, no Confederate Flag? Hey DC, couldn't you find a straw hat? A big plug of chaw in yer cheek would have made the perfect accessory.

Like I said, take away the ugly mugshot with the juvenille shirt, pooched-out biceps, and the phony-ass "thousand-yard, shell-shocked" stare and the article is great.

Please, run a photo of Catherine next. I want to see this lovely, squirrel-hunting maiden with the short skirts and the Ann Coulter mouth.

Posted by: kj at November 30, 2004 4:34 PM

D.C.

Great article. You asked the right questions with the proof provided to back them up. We need more of this type of straight forwardness.

If you could contact me at susan_b356@yahoo.com, I'd like to submit this to some other sites with your permission.

Susan

(Poor KJ, still hasn't gotten over election night)
BOO HOO!

Posted by: susan_b at November 30, 2004 4:50 PM

Well, I was going to go comment free for the day, but as usual, Keith and his flattering comments have brought out the need for a reply.

Thank you Keith, my anti-jihad brother......You must have a short memory, because I distinctly remember you describing yourself as 6-3 260 or so, red hair, pony tail, and big bushy beard.

No, I apologize that I wasn't pictured in a suit and tie, but with your own self-description, why would that bother you? This is how I dress....Jeans, boots, and t-shirts.

Talk with you soon my friend.

BTW, if you hear something flopping around when a strong wind comes by, don't worry, it's just your gut.

Posted by: DCWatson at November 30, 2004 4:53 PM

Hey DC, good stuff! Keep up the good work.

ps. Glad to see the poetess posting again. I haven't seen anything from her for a while.

pss. whats with kj and his insults, I'm not posting a picture of myself cuz I'm not exactly model material. And whats wrong with Harleys? I have made a small fortune from owning Harley shares. (a very small fortune) I am very thankful for Mr. Harley and the Davidson Brothers.

Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at November 30, 2004 5:09 PM

DC Watson

Your letter to Islamic organisations is one that is going to worry these organisations a great deal. It is not because of the content, though that is important, and in this case highly pertinent. It is the fact that ordinary citizens are beginning to ask questions about Islam, and expect straight and honest answers. So far, the critique of islam has been either anonymous or from highly visible persons, such as Daniel Pipes or Robert Spencer.

Such a development of publicly expressed challenge to Islamic organisations by concerned citizens, is bound to provoke worry within organisations such as CAIR and MCA. If they reply, they get into a damaging public exchange with the public. If they do not, it will confirm people's suspicions of Islam, and provoke more public questions.

So my very great appreciation of your letter. Thank you. We all await with anticipation for the reply.

PS: Perhaps you might consider writing a similar letter to MSM.

Posted by: DP111 at November 30, 2004 5:18 PM

Please, run a photo of Catherine next. I want to see this lovely, squirrel-hunting maiden with the short skirts and the Ann Coulter mouth.

Posted by: kj at November 30, 2004 04:34 PM

Don't do pictures Ann is a size 6 me a size 8 the pictures I have are with Cowboy hat and a cocoa colored see through [somewhat] shirt and they aint computer friendly?? But Just as good looking!!

DC Liked the Picture looks like you get to carry the ammo!! and maybe a Elk or two!!

The suprize is that you are so young thought you were an old man??

I bet kj is just another fat lib?? With soft hands?? Yuck??

Great Job on the Letter DC!!

Keep side arm at ready??

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 stay the course to Victory to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen

PS
Mayor Daily's son has Joined the US Army!!

Posted by: Catherine at November 30, 2004 5:29 PM

DC-
I think kj was hoping to find you dressed up like Liberace - more his type.

Posted by: Mike at November 30, 2004 5:36 PM

DC - Loved the picture. Glad you have the muscles to go with the mouth. And I had you pegged for a bookworm type...

Posted by: 3812Michelle at November 30, 2004 5:50 PM

DC ,,very well written ,,
cant wait for the response,,

you have huge arms ,,lol

Posted by: mark7762 at November 30, 2004 6:23 PM

Wow, I'm impressed - both with your article and your bravery in sending it to various organizations. Well done!

Posted by: libbysmom at November 30, 2004 6:53 PM

Why doesnt anyone post a story like this, maybe because all of you are a bunch of hypocrites

Freelance Columnist
18/11/2004



US marine pointing his rifle at a wounded Iraqi in a mosque

Millions of viewers around the world were horrified when their local news media broadcast footage of a US soldier killing at point blank range a wounded Iraqi man lying in a mosque.

Pool journalist Kevin Sites, an embed traveling with US marines, shot the footage and later said the man appeared unarmed and unthreatening. This is what the footage showed.

“He's (expletive) faking he's dead!”

- Fallujan Families' Crisis

- Pray for Fallujah

- Fallujah’s Historic Role


“Yeah, he's breathing,” another Marine is heard saying.

“He's faking he's (expletive) dead!” the first Marine says.

A Marine raises his rifle toward the wounded prisoner lying on the floor and umps a bullet into his head. US networks blurred the image or blacked it out. The BBC showed it. So did Aljazeera. As the wounded man is shot, his legs rise in the air in reaction to the impact of the bullet to his skull. Blood is spattered on the mosque wall behind him.

“He's dead now,” a Marine is heard saying.

There is no escaping this was a war crime. Now the world can see for itself that the torture and murderof Iraqis while in detention at Abu Ghraib was not an isolated matter.

How many more Iraqis were killed in this way that video cameras were not able to capture?

Hello America. This is your US army, valiant and proud. Today we will review the finer merits of military strategy when taking and maintaining a hold on a vibrant city of some 300,000 men, women and children.

Step 1: The Media.

This has to fully comply with our strategic goals by ensuring that key words are repeated thoroughly when referring to a certain subject matter. In Fallujah’s case, we will allow the media to repeat words like “bastion,” “stronghold,” “insurgent base,” “insurgent center of Iraq,” “terrorist heart of the Sunni triangle,” and so on, until all semblance that this was once a city bustling with civilian life is erased from the psyche and the reader is fully engrossed in the mandated logic that the US military is fighting insurgents in their terrorist base.

Furthermore, ensure that the local and world media toe the line when it comes to reporting about Fallujah and any other military campaigns:

Iraq’s media regulator has warned news organisations to stick to the government line on the US-led attack in Falluja or face legal action.

“We hope you comply ... otherwise we regret we will be forced to take all the legal measures to guarantee higher national interests,” the statement said, without elaborating.

Count on a media blackout and our ordinary citizens’ ignorance to ensure they do not realize that our tactics are as terrorist and inhumane as those of countries we previously condemned on the world stage:

The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood seized Hama as the first step towards its goal of a national uprising against the secular Baathist regime. The Syrian President demanded their surrender. His army shelled the city, and special forces went in to kill or capture the militants. The Syrians employed the same strategy that the US is using now. Its tanks and artillery waited outside the city; they fired on militants and civilians alike. Its elite units, like the American Marines surrounding Falluja today, braced themselves for a bloody battle.

The US condemned Syria for the assault that is believed to have cost 10,000 civilian lives. The Syrian army destroyed the historic centre of Hama, and it rounded up Muslim rebels for imprisonment or execution. Syria's actions against Hama came to form part of the American case that Syria was a terrorist state. Partly because of Hama, Syria is on a list of countries in the Middle East whose regimes the US wants to change (Charles Glass in Sulaymaniyah, The Independent, November 9, 2004).

Step 2: Public relations. Tell the world the city we are about to storm has been emptied of civilians:

Mohammed Abboud said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Falluja home yesterday, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down.

“My son got shrapnel in his stomach when our house was hit at dawn, but we couldn't take him for treatment,” said Mr Abboud, a teacher.

“We buried him in the garden because it was too dangerous to go out” (Fadel al-Badrani for the BBC in Fallujah, November 10, 2004).

Make sure our soldiers know that they aren't fighting for the people of Iraq but for cold revenge:

I'm not sure it will be better when we're gone, but it's gotten to the point of retribution for all the things that have happened. The beheadings, the bombings and everything (Tom Lasseter Knight Ridder/Tribune news – November 13).

Even if Fallujah has to go the way of Carthage, reduced to shards, the price will be worth it. We need to demonstrate our strength of will to the world, to show that there is only one possible result when madmen take on America (Ralph Peters, New York Post, November 4).

“This is for the Americans of Blackwater that were murdered here in 2004 Semper Fidelis (always faithful),” is scrawled in black print on a section of the bridge across the Euphrates where the remains of two out of four Americans, killed by a mob in Fallujah at the end of March, were hung.

The graffiti is signed “3-5”, an abbreviation of the 3rd Battalion 5th Marines, one of the units that is taking part in a massive US-Iraqi assault on the rebel stronghold to regain control of the city.

It finished with: “PS, Fuck You” (AFP, November 14).

“I see the little kids in the cars and I feel sorry for them, but when they turn 16 they’re evil.” (Lindsey Hilsum, with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Fallujah, November 14, 2004)

Tell enough lies to our troops until even our own spokesman starts to believe them:

The goals are simple: to win the gratitude of Fallujah civilians who will no longer have to cope with Iraqi and foreign fighters in their midst; and to demonstrate to other insurgent-dominated towns and cities what can happen if they refuse to participate peacefully in the Iraqi political process (John Diamond, Steve Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY, November 12).

Let our troops know that God wants them to kill Iraqis in Fallujah, that US President George Bush received direct orders from the Divine that war was sanctioned in Fallujah:

The marines that I have had wounded over the past five months have been attacked by a faceless enemy,” said Colonel Gareth Brandl. “But the enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him” (Paul Wood, BBC News, embedded with US Marines near Fallujah, November 7).

We must not be afraid to make an example of Fallujah. While we always seek to fight humanely, the most humane thing we can do in that tormented city is just to win, to burn out the plague of fanaticism and prove to Iraq's people that the forces of terror will not be allowed to enslave them (Ralph Peters, New York Post, November 4).

Tell the Iraqi people that their own representatives in the interim government are negotiating a peaceful settlement, while in reality, we are preparing for a major assault:

Although the Fallujah operation has lasted less than a week, it was several weeks in the planning and the forces involved may be tied down establishing stability for some time to come (John Diamond, Steve Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY – November 12).

Make the fighting seem like a video game our young soldiers may have played a few years ago, or even better, a Hollywood production:

“A psychological operations Humvee drove by, blaring Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries,” the music used in a famous helicopter attack scene in the movie “Apocalypse Now” (James Janega, Chicago Tribune staff reporter, November 10).

Step 3: Kill everything in sight.

Fire at everything that moves. This will guarantee that we save our own skins. Fire before you even know what you are firing at:

“Jump out. Kick in door. Spray machine-gun fire. Run to rooftop. Kill enemy. Jump back into armored vehicle. Move to new location” (Tom Lasseter, Knight Ridder/Tribune news, November 13).

To disarm possible booby traps, mines, and other explosives, the advancing forces fired rockets charged with plastic explosives down the empty streets and alleys, which detonated a number of jury-rigged bombs (Anne Barnard, Boston Globe Staff, November 9, 2004).

“I'm supposed to shoot into the houses before our troops go in”, a weary Porter told an Agence France-Presse correspondent in this dusty, devastated city that was once home to around 300,000 Sunni Muslims.

Shoot unarmed Iraqi soldiers. It’s okay; we’ll probably get a few Purple Hearts for it:

Jeff was about five feet away from two unarmed Iraqi soldier-prisoners - each about his own age - when he was ordered to shoot them. He said he looked them in their eyes before closing his own, then pulled the trigger.

He took off two dog tags around his neck, threw them at me and said, ‘Don't you understand? Your brother is a murderer,’ Debbie said (Adam Gorlick, Associated Press, November 13).

A US marine has sparked world-wide revulsion after being seen shooting an injured and helpless Iraqi. The sickening scene was broadcast by Channel 4 News after a fire-fight in the rebel stronghold of Falluja.

The trigger-happy soldier had been asked to get nearer to the injured man. But instead of trying to capture him, the marine is seen leaning over a wall and cold-bloodedly shooting him (Paul Gilfeather, Political Editor, Sunday Mirror, November 14).

“I decided to swim … but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river.”

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he “helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands.”

“I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards” (AP, ABCNews.com, from accounts by AP photographer Bilal Hussein, November 14).

The morbid gallery of quotes, facts, and figures above printed and published in Western media by verifiable and veritable sources can stream on endlessly. But these testimonials are enough to conjure the reality of the US onslaught in Iraq. It is not humanitarian, nor is it compassionate. It bears the mark of skull ‘n’ bones—the more killed the better.

It is the taste of hatred and brutality, one that has been equalled by the razing armies of history—the Nazis, the Romans, the Visigoths, the Mongols—but rarely exceeded.

This article is not endowing the reader with fuel for hatred. It is not about wanton violence or revenge. It is about truth, the truth that has been kept from a majority of readers and viewers. Insulated and protected from the way war is waged, they refuse to believe that a Western army can execute people in cold blood and fire on unarmed civilians, that a free press is actually less free than many presume.

Posted by: u r all retards at November 30, 2004 6:53 PM

What conceivable overlap is there between Islam and American, or for that matter European ways of thought and belief?

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2004 12:45 PM

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
* * *
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:
Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, He had the power to restore the whole world to His rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:
Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself.... I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.
Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.
It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.
* * *
But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.
Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.
The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.
The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.
* * *
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":
Our faith was strong in th’ Orient,
It ruled in all of Asia,
In Moorish lands and Africa.
But now for us these lands are gone
’Twould even grieve the hardest stone....
Four sisters of our Church you find,
They’re of the patriarchic kind:
Constantinople, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, Antiochia.
But they’ve been forfeited and sacked
And soon the head will be attacked.
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.
Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

AS ALWAYS HISTORY FORGOTTEN IS REPEATED!!

WILL EUROPE FALL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PC??

LOCUS MAKE IT TO THE CANARY ISLANDS??

Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Hugh You always speak of this yes like the word extinction.

will this happen to Europe what a lose all the beauty they once had but will lose??

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 stay the course to Victory to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen

PS
DC
You did your homework well Went to all those post and the one from Iran were they Hung the Teenager for the sharp tounge WOW ! OH! MY!
HOW DO YOU THINK AMERICAN KIDS WOULD FAIR??

Posted by: Catherine at November 30, 2004 6:57 PM

Here are verses from the true book of God(The Quran) that promote peace, i know all you hypocrites do is pick and choose but you always seem to ignore these verses

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)"

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):......(The Noble Quran, 18:29)"

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"

Prophet Muhammad is a Murderer for KILLING the enemies? WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD?

Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their live bodies on trees until they DIE.

Girls at the age of 3 were forced into sex in both the Talmud and the Bible. Also, the age consent in US and Europe was as low as 10:

The sections of this article are:

1- My use of the history and elaborations about specific Biblical verses in the Talmud.
2- Girls at the age of 3 were forced into sex and marriage in both the Talmud and the Bible.
3- Age consent in our world today only 100 years ago to girls as young as 10.
4- Rebuttals. See my rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's response.

My use of the history and elaborations about specific Biblical verses in the Talmud:

The pedophilic Biblical verses are Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40. Below, you will see DETAILED HISTORY on these SPECIFIC verses from the Jewish Talmud explaining the pedophilia that took place against the 3-year old slave girls under the direct command of Moses.

While Christians are not obligated to follow the laws of the Talmud in their social lives, but the historical FACTS that exist in the Talmud about the Biblical verses Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40 below, and how the "BIBLE FOLLOWERS" during those days were mostly pedophiles who literally forced sex on 3-year old girls after Moses' supposed 'Divine' order is clear indication that the Bible condones pedophilia.

Christians are not the only "Bible Followers". Jews are too!

You also need to keep in mind that Christians are not the only "Bible followers". Jews are too, and what ever they did counts for and against the Bible.

So while the pedophilic mentioned verses don't exactly specify the 3 years old minimum age limit, but they most certainly don't condemn it, and according to the Talmud's detailed elaborations on the verses, as shown below, and what actually took place during their events, the verses actually allowed it, AS MOSES HIMSELF ALLOWED IT!

Moses' Commands for pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls do count against the Bible!

As shown in the quotes below:
"....The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."

"....According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]...."

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."....."

The detailed quotes, elaborations and bibliography are in the next section below.

Girls at the age of 3 were forced into sex in both the Talmud and the Bible:

The Quotes and Proofs for Pedophilia Please pay attention to the bolded and underlined parts below:
The following was taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html regarding Numbers 31:17-18 in the Bible:

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Children

Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131]:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."
Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]

The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):

A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
(Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134]

Thus, one "of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women," [135] and the "entire society of Judaism – that is, the community formed by the Torah – found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well." [136]

While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).
[This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man...
But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood." [137]

According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography:

[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.

[132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. "Menstruating" here of course refers to the ritual "flux uncleanness" described in Lev.15.

[133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original.

[134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704.

[135] Neusner 1993, 41.

[136] Neusner 1995, 7.

[137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood.

[138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.

The following was sent to me by brother Johnny Bravo; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after the conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered that all the women "who have known a man" be killed but that "all the young girls, who have not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.

Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "

Is the GOD of Israel a pedophile? Quick side Note:
Numbers 31:35-40 "[From the captives of war] 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.......of which the tribute for the LORD was 32 [among them were virgin girls]."

Even though GOD Almighty's share of the 32 virgin girls is metaphoric, meaning that He didn't come down and have sex with them, but if any wants to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile or womanizer for marrying (not forcing into sex) a young girl and marrying multiple women throughout his life, then he should not only call his Biblical Prophets as such, but also the GOD of Israel Himself!

Anyway continuing with the above Talmudic quotes, today, the Jewish law for marriage, sets the age of consent for females at 11. (Consent is only one way of marriage) I do not know if modern Jewish law still allows (in theory) betrothal by intercourse as it was practiced in ancient times.

Thirty years ago, the renowned sexologist R.E.L. Masters and Allan Edwardes said in their study of Afro-Asian sexual expression (_The Cradle of Erotica_, Julian Press, New York:1962) said, "Today, in many parts of North Africa, Arabia, and India, girls are wedded and bedded between the ages of five and nine; and no self-respecting female remains unmarried beyond the age of puberty."

I emailed a friend of mine, a former Jew who speaks Hebrew, and he further gave me more information regarding the Jewish view to marriage:

"I have just called up a seriously orthodox friend, a dealer in manuscripts with whom I do business, and a good fellow, to double check my response, and we are in perfect agreement. He runs a strictly orthodox and observant home and life, dresses in black, etc...I checked with him about it, as my own copy of the Code of Jewish Law is the shortened version, known as the "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch". The full book is the "Shulchan Aruch", which means "The Well-Set Table" (The Jews have a talent for clever book-titles).

This is the reference of brother Johnny Bravo's Talmudic quotes.

A girl must be 12 years old for marriage, but a 3-year old may be betrothed with the father's approval. As for the permissibility of marriage to a minor (katanah) by coition...*Fuggedaboudit!!* as they say in the Mafia. My friend assures me that *humanitarian treatment* is the final authority. If a man did that, that is, had intercourse with a minor for purposes of marriage,it would be considered a crime, even if the father approved. A girl that young would be considered unable to make a momentous decision like that. And even if she were older than 12, if it were done by force, as if she were a Moabite captive, they would be made to divorce once the circumstances were known.

Furthermore, and very importantly, the Jews are *required* to observe the "deen hammalchut"...the laws of the country in which they reside, before applying their own halacha, or laws. So the short answer is, yes, marriage by coition is considered legal, but not with a katanah, and never by force. Betrothal to a katanah is OK, but the bride must reach puberty before actual marriage and consummation. Also, according to my own exceedingly imperfect knowledge, nowhere in the Talmud is betrothal to a minor by intercourse *recommended*. If all this were permissible in the days of the Mishna, well, those days are gone."

Age consent in our world today only 100 years ago to girls as young as 10:

The following was sent to me by brother Johnny Bravo; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

Assalam Alaiqum Brother Osama.

I thought you might find the following information of some use pertaining to the marriage of Hazrat Ayesha (RAA) with Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). I took this info from the soc.religion.islam newsgroup and it is written by various knowledgeable Muslims informing that the age of consent in the USA was 10 hardly 100 years ago and 11 in the UK, Talmud allowing 3 year olds to get married! etc. :-

"(And there is evidence that Ayesha was substantially older. That some of our ancient scholars preferred the younger age shows, in fact, that they did not consider marriage at that age to be reprehensible, otherwise they would have preferred the evidence for a later marriage and consummation.)

At the time the marriage was arranged, Muhammad had not left Makka; he was not the leader of a powerful community; indeed, his life was in danger. I raise this point because it is asserted, sometimes, that, essentially, he could have whatever he wanted. Rather, if this marriage had been an outrage to the community, it would have been *very* harmful to his cause."

Above comments by Abdulrahman Lomax.

The age of sexual consent is still quite low in many places. In Japan, people can legally have sex at age 13, and in Spain they can legally have sex at age 12. (This data comes from the Age of Consent chart, which you can see at: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

The Prophet's contemporaries (both enemies and friends) clearly accepted the Prophet's marriage to `Aisha without any problem. We see the evidence for this by the lack of criticism against the marriage until modern times. However, a change in culture caused the change in our times today.

A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a "pedophile" in the USA today, but not in China today (where the age of consent is 14), nor in the USA last century. Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things in my view, not the arbitrariness of human culture.

***** In the USA last century, the age of consent was 10 years old. California was the first state to change the age of consent to 14, which it did in 1889. After California, other US states joined in and raised the age of consent too. (Source: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberone.htm)

As for the reasons why we age of consent just seems to get higher and higher, Essentially, we need more education just to survive in today's society, and this takes much more time. This additional education we need to function in today's society seems to me to be the main cause of the increase in the age of consent in many 20th century societies. The Common Law age of consent was 10. The French penal code raised the age from 11 to 13 only a century ago. In England, it was only in 1929 (70 years ago) that the ancient Christian minimum age for the marriage of females, which was 12, was abandoned. The early rock and roll singer Jerry Lee Lewis was considerably older than his 13 cousin whom he married in all legality in Arkansas. Since then, the age there has been raised to 16. That marriage lasted for about 15 years and there was never any other "scandal" associated with Jerry Lee Lewis. The story is quite different, however, for his cousin Jimmy Swaggart (the well-known and disgraced tele-evangelist) who married a woman his own age but later publicly confessed that he was an adulterer and a whoremonger.

In the seventh century, 3 year old girls were burned to death or tortured in Europe for copulating with demons, witches and sorcerers. Strong sexual passions were attributed to the youngest children. Even Jean Bodin, one of the greatest legal authorities of his time, said that the appropriate age of consent for a female was 6. (I do not mean to suggest that 3 year olds did in fact have sexual relations with demons. It is however interesting to see that at that time it was publicly believed that child-adult relations were the fault of seductive children who sought out mature men rather than today's popular belief that it is instead pedophiliac adults who prey on innocent, unsuspecting children.)

In the US (an example of a prominent western country, since the west had the greatest effect on the world in the last couple of centuries.) They considered a seven year old female competent on making decisions regarding sex, though it was raised later on (in 1886, after attempts to raise the age of consent, Delaware was the only state to retain the common law age of seven, while twenty five states set the minimum age at a mere ten.) In older times, children were not perceived in the same sense that we perceive them, but the perception was changed gradually, which is due to a great extent to industrialization, and of course sigmund freud and others came along with their theories and supported these changes in social thinking (the word adolescent itself was introduced as recently as 1904.)

Posted by: u r all retards at November 30, 2004 7:00 PM

I can go on about the hypocracy in the bible and i will

read this:
Prophet Muhammad is a murderer for killing the enemies? WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD Almighty?

The sections of this article are:

1- The murders of the Bible's Prophets.
- Killing of Innocent Children.
- What Allah Almighty Said regarding innocent souls in the Noble Quran.
- Allah Almighty also Commanded uncompromised Justice.
- Murders by Prophets in the Bible.
- Killing the Righteous before the wicked.

2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an extremely brutal way in the Bible. Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they DIE.
- A Jewish Levite cutting his concubine into pieces.
- Cutting even the Jewish women's hands for the most ridiculous reasons!
- Killing the women and not the men for an even lesser sin!!

1- The murders of the Bible's Prophets:

In his list of nonsensical articles, Silas of the "Answering Islam" team, wrote a number of articles inventing lies against Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him while so hypocritically ignoring the same incidents ("murders" as he called them) that happened from the Bible's own Prophets!

Let us look at few examples of the Biblical Prophets' "murders":

Killing of Innocent Children:

The following verse was sent to me by brother Jibril; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

2 Kings 2
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!"
24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Important Note: When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him tried to migrate from Mecca to the city of Al-Ta'if, the pagans there had their own children throw rocks on the Prophet until his face and body were swollen and bleeding. The Prophet peace be upon him prayed for the people of Al-Ta'if to be Guided to Islam. And ultimately they were Guided and they embraced Islam.

While Prophet Muhammad loved and forgave children for throwing stones at him, the Bible shows ZERO tolerance to even innocent name-calling from children; let alone having them throwing stones!!

Numbers 31:17-18
"Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

According to the historical elaborations about Numbers 31:17-18 Biblical Verses in the Jewish Talmud, the girls in "every girl who has never slept with a man" were AS YOUNG AS 3 YEARS OLD, and were forced into SEX! See the Talmudic and Biblical proofs and quotes here (Terrorism and Pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls in the Bible).

Exodus 13
14 "In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'
16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand."

While I fully understand GOD Almighty's Wisdom in these verses, but using the team of clowns' (Answering Islam) logic, this makes the Bible as a false book and a book of terror.

By the way, NOT A SINGLE NOBLE VERSE in the Noble Quran does it Command for Muslims to kill innocent children!

I openly challenge the team of weasels to produce one, JUST ONE, Noble Verse from the Noble Quran that allows killing of innocent children or people!

Allah Almighty Said regarding innocent souls in the Noble Quran:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

Allah Almighty also Commanded UNCOMPROMISED Justice:

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"

"And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (The Noble Quran, 2:193)"

"But if at the time of division other relatives, or orphans or poor, are present, feed them out of the (property), and speak to them words of kindness and justice. (The Noble Quran, 4:8)"

"If any do that in rancour and injustice,- soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. (The Noble Quran, 4:30)"

"God doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For God is He Who heareth and seeth all things. (The Noble Quran, 4:58)"

Murders by Prophets in the Bible:

Exodus 2
13 The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, "Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?"
14 The man said, "Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and thought, "What I did must have become known."
15 When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well.

Numbers 25
17 "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."

1 Kings 21
20 Ahab said to Elijah, "So you have found me, my enemy!" "I have found you," he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD.
21 'I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel-slave or free.
22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.'

2 Kings 9
7 You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the LORD's servants shed by Jezebel.
8 The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel-slave or free.
9 I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah.

In 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9, were all "last males" guilty of what the enemies of GOD Almighty did? In other words, did they all have to die for the sins of others?

Killing the Righteous before the wicked:

Ezekiel 21
3 and say to her: 'This is what the LORD says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked.
4 Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north.
5 Then all people will know that I the LORD have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.'

We don't see the hypocrites of "answering Islam" complaining about their bible killing the innocent before the guilty, do we?

As we've seen above without any doubt, Islam prohibits Muslims from being the aggressors! Muslims are not only commanded to not start any war, but also if war was declared by the enemy and they then incline toward peace, then the Muslims are also Commanded to incline toward peace.

The point is that if Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him killed his enemies, even though Islam is truly a Religion that respects the enemies (even when they're killed), then why is it ok for the Bible's Prophets to kill their enemies?

What kind of ridiculous hypocrisy is this by the weasels of the "Answering Islam" team?

2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an extremely brutal way in the Bible:

Cutting the hands and feet and hanging the alive bodies until they DIE:

2 Samuel 4
10 when a man told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron.

It is not clear if the maimed bodies were hanged on the trees before or after they were fully dead. This is why I took the worst-case-scenario and used it against the bible; that is the bodies were still alive when they were hanged. Also, since David killed them, then they technically became his enemies. It doesn't matter whether they were Israelites or not.

Please visit:
Rebuttal to Jochen Katz' 2 Samuel 1:2-16 about justifying David's selective murders.

Note to the reader: Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also ordered the cutting of hands and feet of enemies in one incident, because they pretended to have embraced Islam and then betrayed and killed Muslims. The Prophet sent his men to chase them down, while they were running back to their tribe, and finally captured them and brought them back for punishment. But the point is that you can't disprove Islam or any religion through incidents like this, especially when worse scenarios exist in your own Book!

A Jewish Levite cutting his concubine into pieces:

Judges 19
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.
24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.
26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.
28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

What is the point from this brutality? Why does the Bible contain overwhelming amount of body-maiming verses in it that show it was part of the Israelites culture and tradition to practice it?

Cutting even the Jewish women's hands for the most ridiculous reasons!

Deuteronomy 25
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,
12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

The reason I added this verse is because even women are treated as enemies and are maimed in the worst way for even the silliest mistakes they make.

Killing the women and not the men for an even lesser sin!!

Let us look at Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

Let us look at Leviticus 20:16 "If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Notice that in Leviticus 20:15 the man has to be caught having sex with an animal in order for him to be put to death. We have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt to kill him.

Notice however in Leviticus 20:16 that if a woman only looks SUSPICIOUS and not necessarily gets caught having sex with an animal, she would still be put to death. We do not have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt with her in order for us to kill her.

It is beyond question that Leviticus 20:15 and Leviticus 20:16 prove that the Bible prefers to put women to death whenever an opportunity presents itself!

Also, who determines whether she was approaching the animal for sex or not?

What ever happened to the "Beyond the shadow of the doubt" court law!!

Ezekiel 23
24 They will come against you with weapons, chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards.
25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire.
26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry.

I'd like the hypocrites of the "answering Islam" team to tell me why is it ok for their bible to cut anyone's nose and ears and leave him alive, and not ok for Islam to order the Muslims to fight, just fight, the hostile enemy?

Using this weasel's (Silas) logic and lies, we can ONLY and ONLY conclude that the Bible too is a false book and the GOD of the Bible does not exist, and the Biblical Prophets are liars. Of course none of this is true as none of his false claims and charges against Islam are also true.

Posted by: u r all retards at November 30, 2004 7:06 PM

Catherine: Great Link. Article goes into "the archive."

DC - Loved the letter, too.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at November 30, 2004 7:09 PM

Posted by: u r all retards at November 30, 2004 06:53 PM

GO GET YOURSELF A DVD CALLED "BURIED IN THE SAND"

Watch it and Why are you defending MONSTERS WHO CUT OFF MENS WOMENS AND CHILDRENS HEADS OFF WITH THEIR HANDS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS??

PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 11:07 a.m. EST
Letter From a Fallujah Marine
Once again the blogger world has stepped up to the plate to do job the mainstream media is supposed to do - but seldom bothers anymore.

While U.S. and Arab media went-pedal-to-the-metal with the NBC video of a Marine in Fallujah committing the "atrocity" of defending himself and his platoon against a wounded terrorist, PowerlineBlog.com has helped put the incident in perspective, by publishing a letter from a brother Marine who describes just what our guys are up against. The moving account is beginning to make the rounds on talk radio, with WABC host Mark Levin sharing it with his audience Thursday night.
We thought it was worth doing the same:
Letter From a Fallujah Marine:
This is one story of many that people normally don't hear, and one that everyone does. This is one most don't hear:
A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!"
He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles.
The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.
The Marines' remains are gathered by teary-eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag.
But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.
This is the story everyone hears:
A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded.
Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.
The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!"
The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead. Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for committing a war crime. Unlawful killing.
And now, another Marine has the possibility of being burned at the stake for protecting the life of his brethren. His family now wrings their hands in grief, tears streaming down their face. Brother, should I have been in your boots, I too would have done the same.
For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families.
For those of you who sit on your couches in front of your television, and choose to condemn this man's actions, I have but one thing to say to you. Get out of your recliner, lace up my boots, pick up a rifle, leave your family behind and join me. See what I've seen, walk where I have walked. To those of you who support us, my sincerest gratitude. You keep us alive.
I am a Marine currently doing his second tour in Iraq. These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent those of the Marine Corps or of the US military, or any other.

YEA YOU MAKE ME SICK!!

PEACE, ISLAM STYLE:
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.’”

Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape.”

Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.”

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”

Qur’an 97:5 “There is peace until the dawning of the day!”

Qur’an 49:9 “If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting, make peace: but if one becomes aggressive, then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies.”

Qur’an 9:7 “How can there be a covenant between Allah and His Messenger and the disbelievers with whom you made a treaty near the sacred Mosque?”

Qur’an 9:8 “How (can there be such a treaty), seeing that they get an advantage, the upper hand over you? They do not pay you respect, or honor you or the ties of kinship or covenant. With (good words from) their mouths they entice you [out negotiate you], but their hearts are averse to you.”

Qur’an 9:12 “If they violate their oaths and break treaties, taunting you for your Religion, then fight these specimens of faithlessness.”

Qur’an 9:8 “How (can there be such a treaty), seeing that they get an advantage, the upper hand over you? They do not pay you respect, or honor you or the ties of kinship or covenant. With (good words from) their mouths they entice you [out negotiate you], but their hearts are averse to you.”

Qur’an 9:12 “If they violate their oaths and break treaties, taunting you for your Religion, then fight these specimens of faithlessness.”

Tabari VIII:165 “There is nothing that you can do to make peace with him.”
Ishaq:544 “Muhammad commanded the people to prepare for the foray [raid, incursion, sortie, attack, or assault]. The Messenger informed his troops that he was going to Mecca. He ordered them to prepare themselves and ready their equipment quickly. He said, ‘O Allah, keep spies and news from the Quraysh until we take them by surprise in their land.’”
Tabari VIII:182 “Allah had enabled Muhammad to take the persons of the Quraysh by force, giving him power over them so they were his booty. Their lives were now his spoil.”

Ishaq:552 “When the populace settled down, Muhammad went to the Ka’aba and compassed it seven times on his camel, touching the Black Stone with a stick. Then he went inside the Temple. There he found a dove made of wood. He broke it in his hands and threw it away.” [The first idol Muhammad broke was the international symbol of peace.]

Tabari IX:58 “When the Messenger reached Tabuk the governor of Aylah [a seaport at the north end of the Gulf of Aqabah] came to him, made a treaty, and agreed to pay the jizyah tax. The people of Jarba and Adhruh also offered to pay him the tax.”

Ishaq:607 “The Byzantines encountered the Messenger’s cavalry which was led by Khalid. Ukaydir was seized and his brother Hassan was killed. Muhammad spared his life and made peace with him on the condition that he pay the zakat tax.”

Tabari IX:79 “In this year the zakat was made obligatory, and the Messenger dispatched his agents to collect it. The verse was revealed: ‘Take the zakat from their wealth to purify them.’”

Ishaq:316 “In peace you are wild asses—rough and coarse. And in war you are like women wearing corsets. But I care not so long as my hand can grasp my trusty blade.”

Qur’an 8:61 “But if the enemy inclines toward peace, do you (also) incline to peace, and trust in Allah. Should they intend to deceive or cheat you, verily Allah suffices: He strengthened you with His aid and with Believers.” [The small print is real important. “Should they intend to deceive or cheat” is an open invitation to invoke 8:57 to 60. The first to interpret this surah said:]

Ishaq:326 “If they ask you for peace on the basis of Islam (submission), make peace on that basis. Be of one mind by His religion.”

Tabari VIII:17 “The Muslims and polytheists stayed in their positions for twenty nights with no fighting except for the shooting of arrows and the siege. When the trial became great for the people, the Messenger sent for the leaders of the Ghatafan [Meccan comrades]. He offered them a third of the date harvest of Medina on condition that they leave. The truce between the sides progressed to the point of drawing up a written document, but there was no witnessing or firm determination to make peace; it was only a matter of maneuvering.”

JOINING WITH THE LIBS TO BEAT THE OTHERS??

Ishaq:454 “Now that Allah has conferred Islam on us, and made us famous, shall we give them our property? By Allah, we will offer them only the sword until Allah judges between us.’ ‘As you wish,’ said Allah’s
Messenger.”

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20041177.txt
NEWS RELEASE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101
Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894
November 22, 2004
Release Number: 04-11-77

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

INSURGENTS FAKING DEAD FIRES ON MARINES

FALLUJAH, Iraq – Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent, who while faking dead, opened fire on the Marines that were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets here at approximately 3:45 p.m. on 21 November.

GUESS YOU MISSED THAT ONE??

LOOK AT YOUR FRIENDS HANDY WORK CUT THE LEGS AND ARMS OFF OF A WOMEN RIGHT BEFORE GUTTING MARGRET HASSIAN??

YEA THESE ARE THE MONSTERS YOU DEFEND ???

YOU MAKE ME SICK !!

YOU DEFEND MONSTER WHO KILL IRAQI CHILDREN IRAQI COPS IRAQI SOLDIERS WHY??

BECAUSE THEY ARE MONSTERS!!

YOU CAN FIGHT THIS OVER THERE OR OVER HERE?

I'M WITH GEN. TOMMY FRANKS AND PICK OVER THERE BUT WILL NOT RUN IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT IT OVER HERE//

YOU ARE NOT WORTH THE SCUM OFF THEIR BOOTS...

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 STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at November 30, 2004 7:13 PM

PLEASE!!! U-r-all-retards, no more cut&pastes! Speak with your own mind, damn you! NO ONE is going to read all that, no matter what it's about!

Mr. Spencer, it's clearly time for a limit. If someone REALLY REALLY wants us to read a 20-page essay, let them provide the link, instead of inconsiderately forcing us to scroll all the way through it.

DC... SOOOO sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not 264 anymore, I am no down to a svelt 244. And losing more all the time. It's hard to eat right and excercise when you're in college and working full-time... but I guess you wouldn't know that.

At least I don't have to color in my facial hair to look like a man!

And that flopping sound I hear in a strong wind? That's not my gut, but it is something just below it. (Wait a minute... that doesn't sound quite right. I mean something in the front, not the ass... and it doesn't exactly flop... and ... uh--nevermind. Doh!)

Still not over election night? Oh, contraire my friends. I am one happy liberal leftist loser loner. You see, I am a straight, white man that can act like a christian...and a genuine Florida cracker to boot. I already have it made. I am solidly middle-class, and have no fear whatsoever of having my job outsourced or handed to an immigrant. Bring on the depression! That'll make prices go down. Also, I can't be drafted. I'm too old, and already gave Uncle Sam my four years. Both my kids are girls, and they won't be drafted. I can assure you with absolute certainty that they will both be college-educated. Besides, if you don't get "Arnold's Law" passed, there's no way in hell any GOPer is going to beat Hillary in 2008. (Arnold won't get the nomination anyway; he's pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control. Just like Rudy Guiliani.)

By the way, Mr. Bulging Biceps (more like "flattened against my chest")... I was a sheetmetal worker for twelve years. You're not the only "tough-looking" guy out there.

I'm "sorry he didn't look more like Liberace"? Oh, that's nice. Call me a sissy, that always works.

Well, if Mr. Spencer gives the okay, I will send a picture of myself. I know all of you are just waiting....and I won't take a crayon to fill in my beard, unlike a certain effete little wanna-be with sparse, ultra-whispy facial hair. (Haha! That makes me think of Arafat... talk about a feminine beard... in the Marines we called that "A Football Game": eleven hairs on each side. It's also funny because he's STILL DEAD!)

Hey, I told you from the get-go. I liked the article, but that picture shouldn't be there. No, I didn't expect a suit and tie, but I also didn't expect a puffed-up, pretend biker pose.

DC... I think that we are trying to awaken people here with a call to reason that refutes the bullshit claims of Muslim apologists. We're not going to attract anyone with that kind of posturing, except trolls and empty head like u-r-all-retards.

BTW, u-r-all-retards, you may be right about the bible calling for violence, but where are the practitioners of such violence to be found today? Where in the world are people threatened with execution (and executed) for blaspheming the Judiac or Christian gods? Where are Christians (or anyone for that matter, excluding Muslims) beating women--even unto death--in public for "breaking God's Law"? Sure, christians hate sodomy, like they hate everything that feels good, but they aren't killing people that do it.

The Ten Commandments also give the punishments for "breaking God's Law" but there is no real popular movement afoot ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD to make that part of the big fairy tale into law, not even SERIOUSLY Christain places like Italy, Ireland, Idaho, and Texas.

U-r-all, Christianity has undergone The Reformation, The Enlightenment, and The Renaissance. Until Islam experiences something similar, you can't make a logical claim that Christianity is "just as bad" or even "anywhere near as bad" as Islam. And Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus aren't even that close.

Alright if Spencer gives the okay I'll send you a picture of my beautiful mug, the one that made the Muslims cross the street at USF (former and future home of Sami Al-Arian) to avoid me.

Posted by: kj at November 30, 2004 7:48 PM

Posted by: u r all retards at November 30, 2004 07:00 PM

THE DIFFERENCE IS THE MUSLUMS ARE STILL DOING THESE THINGS??

AND THE IRAQIS WANT FREEDOM

THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT WHEN saddam[yellow coward found in a hole don't shoot i'm a coward]KILLED 300,000 IRAQIS HEY WANT THEIR FREEDOM AND ARE FIGHTING ALONG THE SIDE OF THE USA AND FRIENDS TO KILL THE MONSTERS WHO ARE KI