Category Archives: Muhammed

Exposing The Moderate Muslim Straw Man To History

THIS IS THE PLAINEST EXPLANATION of the Islamic threat I have read. The author's references to past history are accurate and clear. Short, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well respected psychiatrist.

A Holocaust Survivor's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march... It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts—the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on—before it's too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Stalking The Origins Of Jihad

We in America, don't yet feel the crushing impact of Jihad in much of our daily lives, but after removing our rose-colored glasses, a quick glance around the globe, and we can easily ascertain that there are parts of the world being eaten alive by the beast called sharia law (and we know who touts the stuff). So here is another Web site with enough insightful and courageous writing to keep even the most weary of anti-sharia soldiers burning the midnight oil. Basking in the light of truth is such a primer by Civilus Defendus.

And below is an analysis of jihad that bears mentioning, given the customary tactics using various arguments of moral equivalency Western apologists often make for Islam. In his article The Sociology of Jihad, How Rational People Commit Atrocities former FBI agent John Andrews seems to have nailed many of the exceptions that apologists use to defend Islam as the "Religion of Peace" instead of the pernicious totalitarian war ideology that was crafted by its warlord prophet and his immediate successors some 1400 years ago.

True Believers
True Believers

THE SALAFISTS BELIEVE that only Jihad can reestablish a true Muslim state that will abolish all injustice from the earth and bring people out of the servitude to others and into the servitude of God. It is the duty of Islam to destroy all political systems which prevent people from freely choosing it and experiencing universal freedom (56). The sword (Jihad) must clear the way for the preaching and destroy those elements which limit mankind to living in a world of evil and chaos (62). This sword would be carried by a restored Caliphate based on the traditions of the Prophet. The Caliphate would be a leader the masses could trust, understand and follow. He would provide a simple message well suited to Muslims, not well schooled in traditional Muslim teachings. This message is liberating the Umma from its external enemies, the infidels and Jews (al-Zawahiri, 2001: part 11).

It is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of the Salafist. Most of these individuals, approximately 80 percent, went to secular schools as children. Over 60 percent had some form of college, many attending in the West, and most were trained in the sciences, not philosophy or religion. However, a majority considered themselves religious as children; 73 percent were married and most had children. The majority were from overprotected families with doting parents and stable households. They did not suffer from any major mental disorders. If they had antisocial personalities, they would have been weeded out because of their inability to work well in an organization and their lack of dedication, perseverance and ability to sacrifice for the cause. The 9/11 hijackers are perfect examples. They were not hostile, violent or macho throughout their yearlong stay in the U.S. However, when the moment came they killed enthusiastically. They were able to do so because of their social networking and group morality, which was developed over years. These individuals were not predisposed to do harm individually, but did not hesitate to perform monstrous acts collectively (Sageman 2004: 74-82).

This original group joined the Jihad in their mid-twenties in a country where they had not grown up. Although they were, for the most part, religious as children, they became considerably more devout immediately before joining the Jihad (92). The subsequent group of Salafists were second- or third-generation Muslims living in the West. Many of these individuals felt excluded from the society they grew up in, had no discipline in their lives, and pursued petty crimes, drank and took part in drug use. They grew up with little or no religious training (100-101). We will go into greater detail later on this second group, but for now it is important to note a similarity between both groups prior to joining the Jihad. They felt alienated in their current society. This was true for the first group who had immigrated to another country and the second group who felt alienated in the country of their birth. They both sought a cause that would give them emotional relief, social community and spiritual comfort (97). They eventually drifted towards like-minded local individuals.

The original group sought out the mosque in the foreign country where people from their homeland were. These prospective converts may initially have had strong reservations about the group's doctrines, but began developing strong ties of friendship with members of the group. There they began to form networks of friendships that solidified over a period of time. Sub groups were formed within the mosque where the intensity of their beliefs spiraled upward in an apparent game of one-upmanship. They found rules and structure that went beyond religion and became psychological and personal (108-109). They became embedded in a socially disembedded network, which, because of its lack of anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between good and evil (151). Instead of a top-down process of recruitment, it became a bottom-up process of young people volunteering to join the organization. They joined as a group, not as individuals. The East African embassy bombings and the Lackawanna Six involved individuals were close friends prior to joining the Jihad. Most of these relationships go back to childhood or are familial in nature, including in-laws and spouses. The crucial element is that social bonds predated formal recruitment into the Jihad. (110-113)

This process is rarely a fully conscious one. These sub-groups do not start out as terrorist groups. They evolve in that direction as their mutual relationships deepen, in a spiral of greater loyalty, mutual devotion, self-sacrifice and intimacy. They begin to believe that their actions are taken on behalf of God. Although outsiders focus on their willingness to kill, the insiders focus on their willingness to die. Their awareness of their own readiness to transcend their own self- interest fosters a special view of themselves and others like them that increases the value of friendship within the group and diminishes outside relationships. These feelings may compete with, and even be stronger than, those of love.

Ziad Jarrah's fiancé testified about her progressive loss of her fiance's love to the Hamburg terrorist cell which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The loss of love to this type of friendship demonstrates its powerful bond. Positive emotions motivate people to carry out horrific acts more easily than negative emotions. Killing in defense of family, friends or country is acceptable and encouraged. Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators carried out their horrendous actions out of in-group love rather than out-of-group hate (155-157). As was previously stated, the Jihad strives in the cause of God to abolish all injustice from the earth in order to bring people to the worship of God alone and to bring them out of servitude to others-to abolish those oppressive political systems, which prevented people from freely choosing Islam.

Islam is one of the most communal of all religions, with many orchestrated, shared rituals. Salafi Islam is very strict in its code of conduct and prescribes dress, diet and conduct. The elegance and simplicity of its interpretations attract many who seek a single solution devoid of ambiguity. Salafi Islam uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. It promotes a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society. The specific uniform consists of beards, shirts falling down to the knees, and baggy pants with a cloth cap. They also carry worry beads. Women cover their hair, avoid bright colors, and, in some instances, wear the burqa, which is head-to-toe covering. They have simple answers to complicated problems, and they divide the world into good Islam and bad non-Islam (116).

There is another subtle factor that makes Islam attractive. Traditional masculine roles are well preserved in Islam. Western men find it difficult to express their "manhood" in increasingly neutered societies. Islam possesses what are seen as masculine virtues from the seventh century when men walked the earth, sword in hand, accepting no insult, and conquering infidel neighbors. In comparison to Christianity, which states "turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you," Islam comports more closely with man's primordial lusts for war, booty and women (Ibrahim, 2006).

People will often seek a new religious or social affiliation after some significant change disrupts their old social networks, e.g., a new country, imprisonment, and alienation from friends and family. There is a period of social isolation in which the existing social and emotional ties are called into question and loosened until finally there is a total negation of everything that existed before (Sageman 2004:116). The religious revivalist organization possesses superior attractiveness over a secular political group. The Salafist emphasizes brotherhood, mutual sharing and spiritual support, which becomes the functional equivalent of an extended family.

New adherents progressively accept the new faith because it makes sense in their new interpretation of the world and their role in it. This learning process involves intense social interaction and introspection. The adherents distance themselves from their original network of friends and family or are rejected by them because of their new, highly visible behavior. The mastering of their friends' beliefs comes after a long period of intense day-to-day interaction with them. In many cases they begin living an isolated lifestyle, which intensifies the social bonds of the members. This leads to a spiral of further isolation from the outside world, the development of a collective identity, and total commitment to the group. Muslims may engage in the Jihad because they share certain norms, values and worldviews which are shaped under the guidance of a Salafi imam preaching the benefits of the global Jihad. Social interactions at these mosques build and reinforce ideological commitments to the Jihad, which these new friends further encourage (117-121).

This social jihadism has worked with second- or third-generation Muslims and new immigrants as well. This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that radical Islam was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants and their children would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe's second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. Many of these individuals believe their European society is against them. They are growing up in a world of high unemployment and lack of integration in their homeland. Some begin drinking, doing drugs, becoming members of youth gangs and engaging in crimes with no moral compass or goal in life. They then become introduced to an individual who talks to them about the world, their place in it, and the religion of their ancestors. They are provided with audio and videotapes of preachers who advocate a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasizes the culture's past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

Soon they are meeting with like-minded contemporaries, getting rid of jeans, t-shirts, drugs and alcohol and wearing the white gowns, skullcaps and beards. They become indoctrinated into political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair Umma. There is no separation of church and politics. Life centers on the mosque not just for religious instruction, but for everything. Society should be founded on Islam, and all those who are different are held in contempt. Inside the mosque talk isn't of integration, but rather how to protect oneself from harmful European society. Those members of the mosque who do not agree with this political Islam are shunned or forced out. The group dynamics change alienated young men into terrorists.

Basically, these individuals, with the help of their friends, recruit themselves. They do not necessarily attend terrorist camps or have experience on the battlefields (Johnson and Carreyrou: 2005). Their source of knowledge and indoctrination comes from the Internet. The Internet both appeals to and fosters disembeddedness. On the one hand, it appeals to isolated individuals by easing their loneliness through connections to people sharing some commonality. On the other hand, it leads them to spend more time with this virtual community at the expense of interaction with the immediate social environment. The chat rooms are egalitarian and appeal to those with limited theological background. It is a perfect compliment to the elegant simplicity and clarity of Salafism. The virtual community is not tied to any nation but to the abstract concept of the mythical umma of Salafism. This community is just, egalitarian, full of opportunity, unified in Islam, purged of national peculiarities, and devoid of corruption. It is the ideal world that Jihad strives for (Sageman, 2004: 161-163).

"He is a great guy, one of the nicest people I've ever met. He is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a great family. He is a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you. He was a normal guy always laughing. We went partridge hunting together. He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood."

These are all quotes from people who knew individuals convicted of killing hundreds of people in suicide attacks or conspiring to provide money, recruits and equipment to the international Jihad.

Were they really decent fellows? They would never commit a murder or crime of any kind for personal gain or self-interest. Their ideology convinced them that the murders were committed for a good purpose. They were committed for the sake of a societal vision of building a good and just world. They are not unlike the SS during the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler told a group of SS leaders:

"Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet—apart from a few exceptions which are examples of human weakness—to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written... "

These people are not raving maniacs. We must go beyond calling them terrorists and examine their ideology. They do not perform these acts in a vacuum. They are building a society and will use any means to achieve it. They do so not because they are sociopaths who hate people, but because they are true believers who want to save people. And so we are continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS (Spenser, 2007).

Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. (2001) "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner." Serialized in eleven parts in Al-Sharqal-Awsat (London) December 2.

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2006) "Islam's Appeal or Boys Will Be Boys." www. September 19.
Johnson, Ian and Carreyrou, John. (2005) "In France, Political Islam Preaches Intolerance, Challenge to Secularism." Wall Street Journal, July 11.

Qutb, Sayyid. "Milestones." N.D.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mother Mosque Foundation.
Sageman, Mark. (2004) "Understanding Terror Networks." University of Pennsylvania Press, Philedelphia.

Spenser, Robert. (2007) "Why's a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?". April 18. 8

Mr. Andrews served as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for twenty-three years. He conducted international terrorist investigations for nine years, serving as a national case agent and coordinating with the United States Foreign Intelligence Court in order to initiate extraordinary investigative techniques in complicated terrorist investigations. He operated numerous Middle-Eastern assets. Mr. Andrews currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Florida State University and Troy University conducting seminars on Islamic Fundamentalism and International Terrorism and Conducts police training throughout the United States for Benchmark Professional Seminars and Unitech on Homeland Security and Terrorism.

Reprinted from: The Counter Terrorist-July/August 2008

Every Life On The Planet

Paul Revere

HERE IS A NASTY QUIP FROM a savvy follower of Islam who calls himself Yemenman—in response to a March 2 Jihad Watch article in which Dutch legislator Geert Wilders is quoted as proposing the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe, and instead, proposing a European First Amendment.

I don't think this will pass. First of all, in Islam, Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon Him) is very highly regarded. Not like Jesus or Moses are regarded in their respective religions, Muhammad is the red line you non-Muslims cannot cross. How can you regulate the situation, say the Danish cartoon situation, if a billion people are boiling mad? Do you go on TV and say, hey, remember the First Amendment? or would you go around the Arab street telling people, "of course hate speech needs to be protected, otherwise why protect speech at all?" This logic works in a liberal, academic setting, but if people's basest emotion (of raw love to the Prophet) are hurt, then get ready for backlash. Causing anger might be "protected" in your fancy Western notion of freedom, but Islam goes straight to human nature and understands it. That is why hate speech is NOT protected in Islam—it goes against the human nature. Those who do nothing while their beliefs are trampled (or having their icons dipped in urine, for example) have a thin instinct of survival. They won't last another century.

That's why Islam will prevail. It cuts through all bullshit about freedom and goes straight to human nature. That's why Islam conquered the world barely 200 years after Muhammad's departure. People know that Islam is the real thing, not some theoretic framework made up by philosophers.

I hope this convinces you all that any efforts like those mentioned by Goat Wilders above are doomed to fail. You cannot suppress human nature. Islam is the solution. Aslam Taslim!

Putting aside Yemenman's mockery of the free speech and human nature arguments, the one aspect of his discourse that rings true is his supposition that because the Muslims do indeed intently believe, are taught to believe, are beaten into submission to believe that defending the honor of their "prophet" is their number one priority in life, this strength of focus will outweigh and ultimately defeat the soft "turn the other cheek" impulses of the Western Christian and free speech peoples. Given the dhimmi behaviors of our Western governments, one may easily grant Yemenman this point, not as ultimately true in fact, but at least, as an example of rational thought.

End of compassion for the Islamic barbarians.

Enter the Third Wave of Crusaders with superior technology and awakened masses. Now do the math. Much death and destruction, enough to go around to touch the core of every life on the planet.

Bottom line is this. Freedom is not free. Now is the time for all good men and women who value liberty and freedom of speech and reject totalitarian oppression whether it be from Leftists in your own government or Islamic barbarians armed and dangerous on your heels, to throw off the shackles of reluctance and indifference and finally take a stand for our way of life.

The Two Anjem Choudarys

WHAT KIND OF LAWYER IS Anjem Choudary, and what law is he practicing in the UK? Is he a threat to to British sovereignty and Western values, or just a clown with a pseudo-religious set list?

  • He was the chairman of the society of Muslim Lawyers in the UK and that he is routine lecturer at the London school of Shariah law. and is the presiding judge in a sharia court.
  • He calls Christmas the "pathway to hellfire", which is because Mohammed defined the Bible as having been corrupted by Jews.
  • He is against all Christian holidays as well as Valentines day.
  • In 2008 he lead a group Muslims to an area where the liquid bombers lived and then warned of another sept 11th in Britain (no threat there I guess?)
  • He has founded two Islamist organizations which were later designated and banned as terrorist by the British government.
  • He has urged Muslims to not cooperate with the police in fighting terrorism
  • He has called for the assassination of the Pope.
  • Identified as a recruiter of jihadists for military training.
  • Has made open media threats to any British Jews who knowingly support Israel
  • Goes on jihad websites as Abou Luqman.and calls for holy war, and plays recordings by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as Omar Bakri Mohammed
  • Organized protest against the Mohammed Cartoons
  • On 7/7 anniversary Choudary said that Muslims in Britain were "oppressed" and had the right to defend themselves "by whatever means" and should not warn authorities about any planned attacks on Britain
  • Choudary says he condemns the killing of innocent people and the only innocent people are Muslims.
  • Choudary has said many times while calling for a jihad against all non Muslim nations " Muhammad said strike the [infidels] with your wealth, hands and tongue".
  • Choudary has publicly praised the Jihadists for their attack in Mumbai.

And even though there is a never ending list of threats made by this UK Muslim, he does make one thing quite clear that even President George W. Bush and Condeleeza Rice never understood through the entire Presidency. Choudary states again and again that "Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah".

Thanks to Mackie for this comprehensive laundry list of Mr. Choudary's views and actions as he continues his agitation against the British crown and its citizenry who refuse to ignore or accept his treason and charlatanry. Here we have proof yet again that the moniker of "Religion of Peace" is misplaced on Islam—which when translated from the Arabic means "submission" in every sense of the word.

Islam Distorts Concept Of Honor

Modest Islam (Enslavement?)

BRAVE AND MARVELOUS EX-MUSLIM WAFA SULTAN is pounding at the gates of hell again, and few are they who can muster the resolve to take note. Here she is:

"If Islam really treated women with honor, we would see the positive consequences of that honor over the course of the past 14 centuries. Islam did not treat women with honor. On the contrary, it has distorted the concept of honor.

"My brother Rashid, I can call this pen a knife for 14 centuries, but it will never become a knife. It will remain a pen. Islam has turned these concepts upside-down, and has forced its followers to see things as their opposites—to view killing and beheading as an act of tolerance, to view taking a woman captive as an act of compassion, to view the plundering of spoils of war as their right, and to view masturbation against a little girl's thighs as marriage.

"Thus, it has destroyed the intellectual structure of the Arabic-speaking nation, and has produced people who cannot distinguish between things and their opposites—people with distorted thinking and warped mentality, as infertile as barren land, which cannot yield a thing.

"The best proof of this is the reality of Islam. When the Prophet Muhammad married the child 'Aisha, this was not an act of honor toward her childhood. When Muhammad married Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son, after seeing her naked and desiring her, this was not an act of honor toward married women. When Muhammad married the Jewish woman Safiya, upon his return from a raid in which he killed her father, brother, and husband, this was not an act of honor toward her. The same goes for all his marriages."

"Accusing women of being 'lacking in brains' is not an act of honor toward her. Human beings—whether male or female—are the property of their Creator. No human being has the right to own another. The subjugation of women reduces them to a level lower than beasts—not to mention the laws of inheritance, testimony in court, the beating of a wife who refuses to go to bed with her husband, and 'honor' crimes.

"Muhammad said in a hadith: 'Three things spoil one's prayer: a woman, a black dog, and a donkey.' Do they ever give this any thought? Do they realize that Allah chose the female body for his greatest invention—creation itself? Wouldn't it be moral to bestow upon the female body a certain holiness, instead of viewing it as impure?" [...]

"In my opinion, in the Arab countries in particular, you cannot say that the status of women has nothing to do with Islam. You cannot deny that there is a connection between the two. Islam is an all-embracing faith, which intervenes in the smallest details of a person's life—beginning with the way he should enter the toilet, and ending with—excuse my language—the way he should wipe his behind.

"Since Islam is an Arab religion, it has succeeded in erasing the culture, customs, and traditions of the Arabic-speaking peoples, more than in Islamic nations that are not Arabic speaking. Therefore, in the Arab world in particular, the status of women is an inevitable outcome of the Islamic teachings." [...]

"I firmly believe that the Islamic faith was created to serve Muhammad, and to legitimize his desires and urges. As evidence, we have 'Aisha's words: 'I see that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desires.' These words, which she said with innocence and spontaneity, embody the goal for which the Islamic faith was formed.

"Islam allowed men to marry infants in order to justify Muhammad's marriage to 'Aisha. Islam forbade adoption in order to justify Muhammad's marriage to the wife of his adopted son—a thing forbidden by the pre-Islamic moral values of the Arabs. Islam permitted taking women captive and violating their honor in order to justify Muhammad's marriage to Safiya, after killing her husband, her father, and her brother that same night. Can you imagine any woman on the face of this earth witnessing with her own eyes the killing of her husband, her father, and her brother, and accepting the religion of their killer on the spot, and sleeping with him? Can the human mind possibly accept such a story?" [...]

Read it all.

Gladstone Knew It Also

Choice Goat For Slaughter
Choice Goat For Slaughter For Eid...

SIR ILLIAM E. GLADSTONE was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur'an an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: "So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."

The victorious Hugh Fitzgerald puts it this way: "The Qur'an remains the same. And the Hadith collections by the most authoritative muhaddithin, and the ranking of "authenticity" that they assign to each Hadith in their collections, remain the same. And the details of the life of Muhammad—including the decapitation of the 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the pleasure taken in the killings of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the raid for women and loot on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis (who had not "rejected" Muhammad because they hardly knew he and his followers existed, but were attacked nonetheless), the marriage to little Aisha when she was nine, the deception—"war is deceit"—recommended by this, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) to his followers, so well practiced in his "truce treaty" with the Meccans made in 628 A.D. at Al-Hudaibiyyah—all this remains part of the biography of that Perfect Man."

Thus, Gladstone is added to the list of antiquities, of men of conscience and common decency with names like Jefferson, Adams, Schopenhauer, Churchill, who have investigated the written testimony of Islam, and found it abominable and permanently contrary to the dictates of human dignity.

Nineteenth century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer did not mince words in opining on the pernicious nature of Islam:

"Consider, for example, the Koran. This wretched book was sufficient to found a religion of the world, to satisfy the metaphysical need of innumerable millions of men for twelve hundred years, to become the foundation of their morality, and of no small contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and most extended conquests. We find in it the saddest and the poorest form of Theism. Much may be lost through the translations ; but I have not been able to discover one single valuable thought in it."

...while the ruthless Adolph Hitler, in all his bloody wisdom, had this to say:

“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

And this from Teddy Roosevelt:

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.

"Fighting is in our blood..."

Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.

Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.

The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.

There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.

And just for kicks, shall we revisit Sir Winston Churchill's verdict on the eery similarity between the Nazis and the Muslims:

"In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British "stiff upper lip," to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies."

Historical Underpinning Of Koran

Book of Submission

SEPTEMBER 26 marked the 20th anniversary of Viking Penguin's publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. While generally well-received by the critics, its treatment of Islamic themes in a series of narrative subplots was quickly deemed blasphemous and Viking Penguin's refusal to heed demands for its withdrawal led to an international furor, culminating in an Iranian fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death. His crime? Responsibility for a book which was "compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the prophet and the Koran" and "dared to insult the Islamic sanctities."

That Rushdie was forced to spend 10 years in hiding (and still lives under threat of execution) on the grounds that The Satanic Verses, a work of fiction, represented a "total distortion of the historical facts" about Islam is deeply ironic, given that a genuine critico-historical assault on "Islamic sanctities" had been under way for more than a decade with no repercussions.

Spearheaded by scholars at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), it focused largely on the Koran, which these so-called new historians of Islam subjected to modern historical and philological analysis. Their findings flatly contradict the Islamic account of its origins.

According to this account, the Koran represents the uncorrupted word of God, "constant, immaculate, unalterable and inimitable." It was transmitted to man through Muhammad, a prosperous Meccan merchant who received it via the angel Gabriel as a series of verse revelations between 610 and his death in 632. Uneducated and illiterate, Muhammad committed these revelations to memory before reciting them to his followers, who memorized them verbatim in turn. The killing of hundreds of these "memorizers" in the battle of Yamama in 633 alerted his successor as Muslim leader, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, to the danger that the revelations could be lost. He therefore gathered all available sources into a loose compilation called the suhuf which was then used by the third caliph, Uthman, to produce in the mid-650s a standardized text of the Koran. Copies were sent to Islamic communities with orders that all other versions be destroyed. Muslims believe this Uthmanic recension is the Koran as we have it today.

But according to the New Historians, there is no evidence that the Koran was compiled by Muhammad or canonized under Uthman; in fact, there is no proof it existed in any form before the end of the seventh century, and the first signs of a standardized codex date from the early 800s, 150 years after Uthman's death. In his 1977 survey Qur'anic Studies, the late professor of Semitic studies at SOAS, John Wansbrough, applied to the Koran "the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism" developed in the 19th century by German biblical scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher and Julius Wellhausen - i.e., treating it as a literary construct and comparing it to contemporary devotional works.

Read it all.