17 posts tagged “quran”
Here is an understand Islam moment thanks to Robert Spencer and The Middle East Quarterly. The subject is roughly, who does the Holy Land belong to: Jews or Muslims?
JRH 9/16/09
Here is an Islamic education moment from Christopher Logan. Many Muslims claim they respect Jesus to Christians. The implication is that Christians and Muslims revere the same person.
Logan goes out of his to insinuate that Muslims openly deceive Christians. The Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus are about the same as water mixing with oil. However, I think Logan is a bit off base to imply that Muslims as a whole group deceive Christians.
Muslims simply believe the Quran as the divine word of Allah and regard the Bible as writings that have been drifting into error at points that disagree with the Quran. Except for a few similar stories the Quran and the Bible have zero in common as to the message of love viewed through the Christian perspective. Even the similar Quranic stories are obviously skewed alterations from the Biblical account that was written WAY BEFORE Mohammed put it to voice and someone’s memory put it into writing. Even the New Testament had taken its final form before Mohammed was born. Thus the Quranic/Biblical similarities were created by Mohammed to entice Jews and Christians to accept his prophethood as authentic and the express will of God.
Hence I don’t believe Muslims set out to deceive Christians about Jesus in da’wah anymore than Christians will use the same “Jesus” strategy to convince Muslims in evangelism.
However, the Jesus in the Bible is the Prince of Peace and a person of the Godhood. The Jesus of the Quran is a man subservient to Mohammed that apparently will come back to life with Mohammed to terminate Judaism and Christianity by converting them to Islam or dying.
The Quranic Jesus offers Christians death while the Biblical Jesus offers Christians and ALL who believe willingly LIFE. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus have condemned them self without the hand of man killing them.
Here is Christopher Logan’s explanation that the Quranic Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus of Christianity.
JRH 9/6/09
Here is a book review from Gary H. Johnson, Jr. of United Against Islamic Supremacism of the book “Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War” by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy. This is one book everyone should read! It is amazing how little one hears from Western Academics about the Hindu genocide perpetrated by the so-called religion of peace (Mohammedanism) in India.
JRH 7/14/09
*********************
BOOK REVIEW: Defeating Political Islam
By Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
Posted by Dr. Richard Swier
07/07/09 07:09 PM EDT
Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy, author. Steven L. Mitchell, editor.
Moorthy S. Muthuswamy's 2009 release Defeating Political Islam is a necessary primer for those seeking to understand the multiple-front jihads that have plagued India since the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The tragic history of the ongoing Hindu genocide at the hands of political Islam is not yet a primary focus of jihad scholarship in the West. Admirably, Muthuswamy's critique of Islam's recent political and militant advances in Southeast Asia recognizes the inherent weakness of both democracy and diplomacy in confronting a cohesive political ideology that indoctrinates its adherents with a "passion for conquest". Historical context leaps off the page for jilted Western observers struggling to make heads or tails of Lashkar-e-Taiba's November 2008 jihadi massacre in the port city of Mumbai; Muthuswamy sets the violent affair as but one spectacular atrocity in a decades long "Siege of India".
The central thesis of Defeating Political Islam is that the leaders of an "Axis of Jihad" made up of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are actively, consciously, financing political Islam via the local, regional and international propagation of the "Islamic Trilogy". Muthuswamy's polemic is designed to instill a sense of grievance in nations and individuals assailed by the winds of jihadist terrorism; and, unflinchingly holds the Axis nations to account for their "crimes-against-humanity". Steeped in statistical analysis, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War is a deliberate challenge to the widely held notion that Islam is a religion of peace. For the independent terror trackers of this new cold war, Muthuswamy's conclusions will be met with a mixture of criticism and agreement; however, what is undeniable is that his remarkable effort in the path of liberty has left over 600 reference points for those of us who are following in his wake in the as of yet still uncharted frontiers of a dawning intellectual revolution.
________________________
Copyright © 2009 Red County LLC
Ben’s Blog is one of my favorite sources of anti-Islamist information. The thing is “Ben” is probably a pseudonym. I also know that the same person blogs elsewhere as Dajjal. Due to the multiplicity of pseudonyms I suspect Ben/Dajjal also blog under other names or perhaps no names at all.
I can make an educated as to why Ben blogs anonymously. Ben’s knowledge of Islam/Mohammedanism is probably as good as or better than an Islamic theologian. This means Ben is likely more familiar with the tenets of Mohammedanism than is the typical Mohammedan.
Here is the thing that probably drives Leftists and Mohammedans crazy if they read Ben’s insights about Islam and Jihadism. Ben lays out the facts concerning Mohammedanism and makes conclusions that have more than a bit of animus projecting from his writing.
The animus is definitely not diplomatic yet it is accurate. I think those that might believe Ben goes a bit overboard should realize he is not writing to impress Mohammedans, rather Ben is writing to enlighten non-Mohammedans about very relevant concerns about the Theo-political elements which are intrinsic to Mohammedanism.
I have been called an Islamophobic racist by trying to be diplomatic so I can imagine the flack that Ben receives. This is probably the reason for the anonymity in Ben’s blog posts. Mohammedans do have the reputation to act out in violence to that which is perceived as offensive – real or imagined.
With all this in mind here are a couple of posts of Ben’s insight.
JRH 5/17/09
If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).
The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Cornell University Law School)
There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).
3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.
The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.
This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.
Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.
Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.
The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.
An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.
The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.
Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.
Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.
It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.
Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.
So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.
The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.
Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.
Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.
The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.
Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.
Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.
The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.
…
Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity. (Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)
I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.
So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.
Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.
Europe has picked on the rare devout Christian within the borders of the European Union; however it is few that have the name recognition of Geert Wilders.
If you are a typical Leftie you have probably bought the line that Wilders is a fringe Right Winger that is a bigot. Actually I know little of Wilders’ politics (except he definitely is not a Leftie) or his faith or if he is a practioners of anything theologically Christian. For all I know Wilders may buy into the Secular Humanist values system (which I guess would tarnish his Right Wing standing).
The one thing that Wilders does stand for is the protection of the Western Cultural paradigm that has coalesced over the centuries from Judaism, Christianity, Greek Thought, Roman Thought, Renaissance Thought, and Enlightenment Thought and so on leading to a society of civil rights that is a little constrained in Europe but nearly wide open in America.
I used the word “protection.” The political spectrum from Left to Right should be asking, “Protection from what?”
I am yelling from the rafters of Liberty telling you, “Western Culture needs proactive protection from Islam which is trying to assimilate the West rather than be assimilated by the various nations of the West!”
Admittedly in Europe the faith of Christianity has become an afterthought as a practicing religion of most Europeans. Western evolvement in Europe has been the egalitarian form of Liberty in which every human is entitled to free speech, thought, religion (if so chosen) and ideology as long as said Liberty does not offend or incite violence against individuals or groups of ideologues or people of religion. Being an America I find that sort of Liberty is diluted Liberty when considerations of incitement is above the act of violence. Diluted Liberty is saying the populace cannot be trusted to peacefully write or give a speech to contradict another’s outlook. Diluted Liberty is saying the populace will indulge in uncivilized acts of rage and carnage. Diluted Liberty is saying the government will prevent real freedom of speech because it fears to enforce civilized protections from an uncivilized raging populace.
This diluted Liberty is the very thing that European and International Muslim/Mohammedan organizations are using to shut Wilders’ mouth. For If Wilders’ mouth is not shut, the evidence that Islam/Mohammedanism is a violent religion according to their own writings would enlighten people to the contradiction that is Islam. AND if the West discovers this collectively it will be understood that Islam is doing the inciting against Western Culture whether it be secularist or Christian or Judaic or any other faith or ideology counter to Islam/Mohammedanism.
The point of Wilders could be that Islamic writings – Quran, Hadith, Sunna and Sira – have incited Wilders to educate all that will listen that Islam/Mohammedanism’s very existence is an incitement to submit to Islam or else.
Or else what? Dear God in Heaven look at an honest history book that is absent of politically correct egalitarian freedom and discover how from Mohammed’s conquest of Jewish and Christian Arab tribes in Arabian Medina through conquest of Mecca and beyond, Islam has been a harsh imperialistic Theo-Political movement of conquest, slavery and intolerance. The losers to Islam conquest were either brutally murdered and their women and children turned to slaves (oft times sex slaves) or turned into a sub-human class that exists to pay a humiliating tax for protection from the violence of Islam.
Courtesy of Andrew Bostom, he has posted a very erudite essay from Bat Ye’or as to why the Western World should be standing up for Geert Wilders.
Truly you need to READ IT.
JRH 2/18/09 (Hat Tip: ICJS Research)
If you pay any attention in the blogosphere it is not news that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in his own nation of the Netherlands (i.e. the Dutch boys and girls) for incitement of hatred. The accused crime is producing a movie short called Fitna that compares the present day actions of Islamic terrorists to the very words of the Quran.
It is not surprising to me that the Left of Wilders’ Europe and of America equate this not to Free Speech but to the equivalent to falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The metaphor being if people are trampled to death, the yelling perpetrator is a murderer.
The problem with the Leftist mindset is this: yelling FIRE falsely is indeed a crime that can evolve into a heinous if death occurs. Yet yelling FIRE when there is a fire and people panic and trampling and deaths occur is not a crime. That is a failure of organization and planning for a potential hazardous situation.
Geert Wilders is yelling FIRE! Islam is not fit for Western Culture. The essence of the Theo-political cult is incitement to violence for everything not submitting to Islamic Supremacism. The societal danger is not in the warning of the danger it is in the NOT preparing for what the danger is able to conflagrate in society.
Now that takes care of the Left.
Here is some Free Speech nonsense from a combination of Left and Right:
“Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.” – Ian Buruma – NYT.
Or this:
“However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech.” – Charles Johnson – LGF.
I found these quotes at Jihad Watch.
Do you see what these guys are saying? Banning the Quran or inhibiting the practice of violent Islam is an infringement of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion; thus defending Wilders’ Free Speech is agreeing to dampen or eradicate the Free Speech and Freedom of Religion of Muslims (or anyone for that matter).
These guys have abandoned the FIRE approach to an obfuscation sure to tip the emotions of Americans centered on the right to freely practice religion or freely not to practice religion.
The Jihad Watch poster to which these quotes were found I believe is Robert Spencer. Spencer does a marvelous job of showing the fallacy of applying freedom of religion to stifle Geert Wilders.
Spencer basically demonstrates that which good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words if the rule of law applies a hate speech or incitement for one person or group of like minded people, the rule of law should also apply to the offended person or group of like minded people.
If Wilders is inciting Muslims, are not Muslims inciting non-Muslims (defined as kafir by Muslim Supremacists) with their Theo-Political writings such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira?
The key word of application for Spencer is CONSISTENCY.
Check out the Jihad Watch post entitled, “Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?”
JRH 2/11/09
If you pay any attention in the blogosphere it is not news that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in his own nation of the Netherlands (i.e. the Dutch boys and girls) for incitement of hatred. The accused crime is producing a movie short called Fitna that compares the present day actions of Islamic terrorists to the very words of the Quran.
It is not surprising to me that the Left of Wilders’ Europe and of America equate this not to Free Speech but to the equivalent to falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The metaphor being if people are trampled to death, the yelling perpetrator is a murderer.
The problem with the Leftist mindset is this: yelling FIRE falsely is indeed a crime that can evolve into a heinous if death occurs. Yet yelling FIRE when there is a fire and people panic and trampling and deaths occur is not a crime. That is a failure of organization and planning for a potential hazardous situation.
Geert Wilders is yelling FIRE! Islam is not fit for Western Culture. The essence of the Theo-political cult is incitement to violence for everything not submitting to Islamic Supremacism. The societal danger is not in the warning of the danger it is in the NOT preparing for what the danger is able to conflagrate in society.
Now that takes care of the Left.
Here is some Free Speech nonsense from a combination of Left and Right:
“Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.” – Ian Buruma – NYT.
Or this:
“However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech.” – Charles Johnson – LGF.
I found these quotes at Jihad Watch.
Do you see what these guys are saying? Banning the Quran or inhibiting the practice of violent Islam is an infringement of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion; thus defending Wilders’ Free Speech is agreeing to dampen or eradicate the Free Speech and Freedom of Religion of Muslims (or anyone for that matter).
These guys have abandoned the FIRE approach to an obfuscation sure to tip the emotions of Americans centered on the right to freely practice religion or freely not to practice religion.
The Jihad Watch poster to which these quotes were found I believe is Robert Spencer. Spencer does a marvelous job of showing the fallacy of applying freedom of religion to stifle Geert Wilders.
Spencer basically demonstrates that which good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words if the rule of law applies a hate speech or incitement for one person or group of like minded people, the rule of law should also apply to the offended person or group of like minded people.
If Wilders is inciting Muslims, are not Muslims inciting non-Muslims (defined as kafir by Muslim Supremacists) with their Theo-Political writings such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira?
The key word of application for Spencer is CONSISTENCY.
Check out the Jihad Watch post entitled, “Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?”
JRH 2/11/09
Have you seen the movie short entitled Fitna? Well if you have not you should. The movie is an expression of Freedom of Speech put together by Geert Wilders.
The Netherlands justice system has decided to prosecute Wilders for this free speech because to criticize the ideology of Islam in a politically correct egalitarian society is a hate crime.
The irony is Wilders uses actual Quranic scriptures and matches them up with present day atrocities committed by Muslims who in reality are merely practicing what there Prophet Mohammed did by example.
Someone in the Dutch legal system has been talked into believing this is offensive to Islam.
So let us consider why this would be offensive to Muslims.
Are Muslims embarrassed about their Prophet who disseminated the word that became the Quran? That cannot be for then that would deny there faith.
Are Muslims offended because fellow Muslims deemed radical by the West are practicing the example of Mohammed by killing innocent men, women and children kafir (unbelievers) in an effort to strike fear and terror to convert Kafir to Islam or merely to kill kafir? If Muslims are offended by the murder of kafir a huge majority are not denouncing the terror.
Are Muslims offended because Fitna demonstrates Islam to be an archaic religion based on violent conquest that is evil by today’s standards? I am certain people who feel they have attained inner peace and fulfillment are extremely adverse to the concept their faith is violent; nonetheless to be a true follower of Islam is to believe the Prophet Mohammed and the Quran are infallible. That center piece of Mohammedan faith renders the practicing of peace Islam as a denial to the example of Mohammed and the Quran (not to mention the Hadith, the Sunna and so on).
Now let us consider why Secularists, atheists and people practicing a different religion other than Islam should be offended Islam.
Should kafir (unbelievers of Islam) be offended at Muslims who practice a faith that brings inner peace and fulfillment to their lives? That should ring a definite NO.
Should the kafir be offended about the way women are treated in Islam (believing and non-believing)? This is a definite YES. Islamic women at best are treated as inferior to their husbands or father. Islamic women at worst are treated as chattel or sex slaves diminishing their human rights and denigrating their humanity. It should be amazing to the kafir that a majority of Muslim women are in total acceptance of the Quranic position of women. They buy into the lie that the burka syndrome places women on a pedestal of purity and respect while being in denial of the position women lead in a Quranic-Sharia Law society. Honor killings have been on the rise in Western societies because younger Muslim women are assimilating some of the ways of Western liberty.
Should the kafir be offended that Sharia Law in general represents everything that is NOT Western Liberty and Civil Rights (especially in America).
Should the kafir in the West be offended that Muslim adherents are explosively demanding that special privileges be given them even though the same privileges are denied other religions in the West that are still the majority? YES ABSOLUTELY!
I could go on and on as to ascertain that the kafir should be offended by Mohammedanism but honestly I grow weary of researching the infamy of Islam.
In lieu of my unwillingness to carry on, you kafir must read Caroline B. Glick’s essay on supporting Geert Wilders and Freedom of Speech – Western Style.
JRH 1/27/09
I am a huge supporter of Israel. I am one of the guys that have accused pro-Arab American and European politicians of anti-Semitism. Because of this I have began to receive comments on various social blogs telling me they are incredulous that I would make such an accusation.
The incredulity is based on a very valid thought: How can criticism of Israel be racist or anti-Semitic?
Of course a legitimate disagreement with Israel is not anti-Semitic; however when one agrees with anti-Semitic (to the extreme) murdering Islamic terrorists, it is anti-Semitic at the very least by extension. Remember both Hamas and the PA teaches hatred of Jews to Arabs called Palestinians from primary school to graduation. The heritage of the Islamic Arab created as Palestinians is a 2nd and 3rd generation in racist education toward Jews. It is ingrained in their brutal culture.
Also I have been accused as being a bigot because I am a determined anti-Islamic writer. I know it sounds lame when I profess that I am not an Arab race hater or a hater of those that practice Islam nonetheless it is a true axiom.
The way in which Islam/Mohammedanism is developed as a Theo-political ideology makes the cult/religion in essence a racist-violent-supremacist way of living.
That sounds harsh and contradictory does it not?
Here is the thing as Bill Warner explains in a December 24 post at Political Islam, if a Muslim follows the dictates of the Quran, Hadith, Sunna and Sira and whatever else tradition that emulates Mohammed, then that Muslim is practicing their faith as a true Muslim. That practice according to all those developed documents is a compendium of violence against non-Muslims (kafirs) and toward Muslims who abandon Islam/Mohammedanism. Those Muslims (which are sensible) that practice the portions of the Quran and traditions which are indeed peaceful, drawing near to their Allah or introspective are NOT following the letter of what most Muslims consider the pure divine will of Allah.
My endeavor toward Islam/Mohammedanism is to find information on the true nature of the Theo-political cult and expose it to the light of scrutiny. Unfortunately Muslims (the exact practitioners and the deluded inexact practitioners) find what I write to be offensive; thus the accusation of racism toward me.
On that December 24 post by Bill Warner he writes about the huge lack of understanding by America’s own so-called experts that are Muslim apologists because they base their expertise on what they are told or on who they know. It is an excellent post and you need to read it!
JRH 1/3/08
