Si vis pacem parabellum If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong We can thank public education for American gullibility... When did individualism and self reliance come to depend on the government? "A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." Capital punishment means never having to say, "You again?" Liberals Use Guilt As Moral Weapon Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The "Rangel Rule"
The "Rangel Rule" [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican, sent out a press release earlier today about his innovative new bill:
"Rangel Rule"
All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.
Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote “Rangel Rule” on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
BEWARE OBAMA'S TROJAN HORSE
BEWARE OBAMA'S TROJAN HORSE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on January 22, 2009
Now that Obama is the president, fasten your seat belts. During his first year in office, and particularly during his first hundred days, we are about to witness the most prodigious output of legislation since 1981-2 (under Reagan), 1964-5 (under Johnson), and 1933-36 (under Roosevelt). The combination of top heavy Democratic majorities in Congress and a mood of public fear bordering on panic over the financial crisis and the looming depression will speed his legislation through a compliant Senate and House. We will enter his Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements. And Obama will take care to arrange things so that massive and permanent political change accompanies his and protects his legislative achievements in the future. He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won't do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system. But Obama's strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently. The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to "refund" taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits. The huge spending in his stimulus package will create a budget deficit topping one trillion dollars. Ronald Reagan cut taxes to raise the deficit to stop liberals in future years from increasing spending. Obama will raise spending to raise the deficit to stop conservatives in future years from cutting taxes. As he funds every liberal dream - from alternative energy production to infrastructure renovation to more federal revenue sharing - he will force a massive expansion in the size of government for a decade to come. If the proportion of our $14 trillion GDP absorbed by the public sector increases by $1 trillion dollars, it will mean that government's share will rise from its current 33% to about 40%, bringing us close to the United Kingdom's ratio. If Obama adds a major expansion of health care to the mix, the proportion could reach into the mid-forties, French and German territory. And Obama will likely use the Trojan Horse of stimulus to make a down payment on health care reform, expanding public coverage of those now uninsured dramatically. Likely, he will initially use the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as his vehicle. He will ask the same pool of doctors and nurses and the same amount of medical equipment to take on the care of almost 50 million more people, necessitating rationing of medical services. Those too old, too sick, or with bad habits like smoking, may find themselves fenced off from good medical care, even if they can pay for it themselves. While he is making these major changes, Obama will permanently alter our politics by taking three steps designed to alter the political balance:a) He will set illegal immigrants on a path to citizenshipb) He'll pass the card check voting system for unionization, raising the unionized share of our economyc) He will crack down on talk radio through requirements either for equal time or for local ownership and control - or both.Most likely, Obama's inability to tame the depression will erode his popularity during his first two years in office. But, by then, his proposals will be statutes. The fiscal parameters, the middle class' expectations of no taxes and government handouts, and the demographics of our electorate will be changed forever.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on January 22, 2009
Now that Obama is the president, fasten your seat belts. During his first year in office, and particularly during his first hundred days, we are about to witness the most prodigious output of legislation since 1981-2 (under Reagan), 1964-5 (under Johnson), and 1933-36 (under Roosevelt). The combination of top heavy Democratic majorities in Congress and a mood of public fear bordering on panic over the financial crisis and the looming depression will speed his legislation through a compliant Senate and House. We will enter his Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements. And Obama will take care to arrange things so that massive and permanent political change accompanies his and protects his legislative achievements in the future. He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won't do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system. But Obama's strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently. The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to "refund" taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits. The huge spending in his stimulus package will create a budget deficit topping one trillion dollars. Ronald Reagan cut taxes to raise the deficit to stop liberals in future years from increasing spending. Obama will raise spending to raise the deficit to stop conservatives in future years from cutting taxes. As he funds every liberal dream - from alternative energy production to infrastructure renovation to more federal revenue sharing - he will force a massive expansion in the size of government for a decade to come. If the proportion of our $14 trillion GDP absorbed by the public sector increases by $1 trillion dollars, it will mean that government's share will rise from its current 33% to about 40%, bringing us close to the United Kingdom's ratio. If Obama adds a major expansion of health care to the mix, the proportion could reach into the mid-forties, French and German territory. And Obama will likely use the Trojan Horse of stimulus to make a down payment on health care reform, expanding public coverage of those now uninsured dramatically. Likely, he will initially use the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as his vehicle. He will ask the same pool of doctors and nurses and the same amount of medical equipment to take on the care of almost 50 million more people, necessitating rationing of medical services. Those too old, too sick, or with bad habits like smoking, may find themselves fenced off from good medical care, even if they can pay for it themselves. While he is making these major changes, Obama will permanently alter our politics by taking three steps designed to alter the political balance:a) He will set illegal immigrants on a path to citizenshipb) He'll pass the card check voting system for unionization, raising the unionized share of our economyc) He will crack down on talk radio through requirements either for equal time or for local ownership and control - or both.Most likely, Obama's inability to tame the depression will erode his popularity during his first two years in office. But, by then, his proposals will be statutes. The fiscal parameters, the middle class' expectations of no taxes and government handouts, and the demographics of our electorate will be changed forever.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY: HERE COMES SOCIALISM
Published on TheHill.com on January 20, 2009
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.Obama will accomplish his agenda of "reform" under the rubric of "recovery." Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won't do much to shorten the downturn -- although they will make it less painful -- but they will do a great deal to change our nation.In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover's and Roosevelt's missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.Obama's record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit -- indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible -- Obama will do them all rather quickly.But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose "local" control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the "fairness doctrine" on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.Obama will accomplish his agenda of "reform" under the rubric of "recovery." Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won't do much to shorten the downturn -- although they will make it less painful -- but they will do a great deal to change our nation.In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover's and Roosevelt's missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.Obama's record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit -- indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible -- Obama will do them all rather quickly.But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose "local" control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the "fairness doctrine" on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
What Is the Tytler Cycle? Where Is the United States In This Cycle?
Alexander Tytler, a Scottish historian who lived at the same time as the American Founding Fathers, who described a repeating cycle in history. He had found that societies went through this same cycle again and again, and that the cycle lasted roughly 200 years each time. Tytler said the cycle starts out with a society in bondage. Then it goes in this sequence:
Bondage Spiritual Faith Courage Liberty Abundance Selfishness Complacency Apathy Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage Tytler organized these items in a circle:
So to give a little more on the sequence above, a society starts out in bondage, meaning no or very limited freedoms. Now faced with a very difficult situation (bondage), they turn to religion and religious faith. Through this they achieve the courage they need to fight for and win their freedom. Next, through the benefits of freedom, they achieve an abundance in material things.
Now we start into the other side of the circle/cycle. We get selfishness and laziness setting in. Then we get apathy and finally dependence. Then we arrive back up at the top with bondage again.Most of Tytler’s work has been completely lost. I found this cycle to be very interesting in relation to where we are in the United States today. Everyone has said we are somewhere on the left side of the circle. I think we are somewhere between Apathy and Dependence.
Bondage Spiritual Faith Courage Liberty Abundance Selfishness Complacency Apathy Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage Tytler organized these items in a circle:
So to give a little more on the sequence above, a society starts out in bondage, meaning no or very limited freedoms. Now faced with a very difficult situation (bondage), they turn to religion and religious faith. Through this they achieve the courage they need to fight for and win their freedom. Next, through the benefits of freedom, they achieve an abundance in material things.
Now we start into the other side of the circle/cycle. We get selfishness and laziness setting in. Then we get apathy and finally dependence. Then we arrive back up at the top with bondage again.Most of Tytler’s work has been completely lost. I found this cycle to be very interesting in relation to where we are in the United States today. Everyone has said we are somewhere on the left side of the circle. I think we are somewhere between Apathy and Dependence.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Islam's Mohammed: The False Prophet that Deceived the World
Immediately following the 1983 bombing of the U.S Marine barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 US Marines, President Ronald Regan ordered the withdrawal of all US forces from the area. In reflecting back on his decision to do so, that decision would become one of the worst foreign policy errors in US history simply on the basis that it rewarded a victory to Islamic militants for their murderous, inhumane act and since that day, the world has witnessed a steady rise in terror by these militants.1 Their targets are often broad in scope, and although collateral damage frequently kills their own, the focus of their attacks are consistently on non-Islamic peoples - 'infidels,' as defined by the Qur'an.
To better understand the hate fueling modern day Islamicism,2 one must first look back to its roots. From Ishmael, whose birthright was denied, to Esau and Jacob - rivaling twins, the seed of hate was sewn. What evolved thereafter was a bitter, jealousy that has been passed down to every Arab generation since. By the 7th century, this ancient hatred made its way into the heart and mind of a common-criminal named Mohammed - an Arab and descendant of Ishmael, who founded a religion and used it to justify his countless, criminal acts of rape and murder.
Both the western media and the Arab press routinely offer biased, politicized answers to what they believe drives this Islamic hatred for the west. From 'US support for Israel' to 'US secularism,' we've heard them all, and despite attempts to justify their inhumane acts, the truth is, Muslims have been committing terrorist acts for some 1,300 years - long before 'western culturalism' or 'US support for Israel' ever existed. And despite such history, we continue to ignorantly look elsewhere for the reasons.
From the early days of Islam to today's globally televised beheadings, Muslims are simply acting-out what Mohammed believed, and what the Qur'an teaches. And when Qur'anic Law was given the opportunity to govern, its violent, 7th century intolerance was seen through the eyes of Afghanistan's Taliban - a view of converting and uniting the Arab world under Islamic Law by sword first, and everyone else second.
What truly is at the heart of the Islamists hatred today is no different than that which fueled Mohammed's hatred as he wrote the Qur'an. It is the belief and goal of a one-world, global Islamic empire run by Qur'anic Law whereby everyone must, in the end, convert to their fundamentalist ideology or face beheading. The hatred that fuels this theocracy dates back to Ishmael and his son-in-law Esau, and from there, compounded to form the foundations of Islamicism which is the reason why most of the world conflicts today involve Muslims.
The Origins of Hatred
Ishmael and IsaacIn 1910 bc, Abraham's wife, Sarah, frustrated with her inability to have a child and impatient with God's timing, asked Abraham to give her a child through their Egyptian maidservant 'Hagar'.
"Now Sarai, Abrams wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleepwith my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
(Genesis 16:1-2)
Hagar, servant that she was, submitted to being used this way. But her pregnancy gave birth to strong feelings of superiority toward Sarah. During Hagar's pregnancy, friction began to develop between Sarah and Hagar and when Hagar could no longer endure it, she fled into the desert. There God instructed her to return to Sarah, promising, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude" (Genesis 16:10). Into this tense, atmosphere Ishmael was born and for 13 years Abraham thought Ishmael's birth had fulfilled God's promise (Ishmael would become the progenitor of today's Arab world - the Arabs are an Ishmaelite3 race).
When Abraham reached 99 years of age, God appeared to him and announced that his wife Sarah would bear him a son and that they would call him Isaac. And it would be through Isaac that God would establish His covenant (Isaac became the father of the Israelites). Abraham struggled with this because he loved Ishmael dearly and desired that he be his heir and receive the birthright blessings.
"O that Ishmael might live before thee!.."
(Gen 17:18)
But the birthright was denied to Ishmael.
"And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man 100 years old? And will Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee (meaning he was first born)! But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
(Genesis 17:16-19)
After the birth of Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away at Sarah's insistence,
"Cast out this bondwoman and her son," Sarah demanded.
(Gen 21:10)
Sarah was adamant that Ishmael should not inherit along with Isaac. God instructed Abraham to do as Sarah desired, but he reassured Abraham that,
"...also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."
(Gen 21:13)
But God also knew what kind of people Ishmael's descendants would be when He spoke prophetically to Hagar saying,
And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren [literally, "he shall defy all his kinsmen"]."
(Genesis 16:12)
"His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers."
(Genesis 25:18)
And to this day Arab hands have been "...against every man and every man's against..." theirs and "..they lived in hostility toward all their brothers.."
Ishmael was not a spirit of implacable hatred and murder against Isaac, but rather one of envy and rivalry. Ishmael's position in the family had been radically altered by Isaac's birth. This had wounded his proud spirit, and provoked him into a jealousy. And time has not softened this spirit of envy either. Attitudes and historical perspectives are often transmitted from father to son and from generation to generation. The effects of the domestic rivalry in the household of Abraham are still being felt to this day in the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict.
In time, Ishmael became the father of 12 sons (his descendants are called Ishmaelites) whose names are recorded in Genesis 25:13-16. Ishmael also had a daughter named Mahalath (Bashemath), who would later marry his half-brother Isaac's eldest son, Esau4 (Esau's descendants were known as Edomites).
Ishmalites were marauding nomads who traded with Egypt (Jacob's son Joseph would later be sold by his brothers to a passing band of Ishmaelites - Genesis 37:25-28). They led an untamed existence in the deserts south and east of Canaan and were known for their wandering, lawlessness, and freebooting lifestyle. Ishmael died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17) and just as God had promised, his 12 sons grew into "a great nation" with he as clearly the preeminent forefather of the Arab world (The Arab peoples today number over 140 million and are destined to play a significant role in the development of future prophetic events).
The relationship between the Ishmaelite Arabs and the Biblical Israelites is thus clear: Ishmael was the elder half-brother of Isaac, son of Abraham, by way of Hagar, who settled in central and northern Arabia. Isaac in turn, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. From Jacob - later renamed Israel - descended the Jews and the other tribes of Israel. The Israelis and the Arabs are cousins!
Esau and JacobIshmael's younger brother Isaac, whom he lost the birthright to, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. And while Esau and Jacob were yet in their mother's womb, "the children struggled together within her" (Genesis 25:22)
God explained that,
"...two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].
(Genesis 25:23)
Esau's name would later be changed to Edom, and Jacob's would be changed to Israel (his descendants, by way of Isaac, would be Israelites). Both brothers were destined to father a great nation.
As firstborn, Esau was the legal inheritor of the birthright, which fell to the eldest son in each generation. But Esau undervalued it and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of red lentil soup (Genesis 25:28-34). Later, Jacob - disguising himself as Esau - tricked his father Isaac (Abraham's son whom God had confirmed His covenant with) into bestowing upon him the blessing confirming the birthright (Genesis 27). By this piece of deception, Jacob earned Esau's implacable anger. Bitterness and vengeance filled Esau's heart.
"And Esau hated Jacob . . ."
(Genesis 27:41)
Forty centuries have not sufficed to wipe out the effects of this deep-seated enmity between Esau and Jacob! The two peoples have continued in their antagonism up to this present day! Historically, the Edomites - especially the Amalekites, the chief tribe of the Edomites - have been bitter foes of Israel.
Significantly, descendants of Esau mingled and intermarried with Ishmaelites and their neighbors. As kinsmen, a close affinity existed between them (In Psalm 83, the descendants of Esau and those of Ishmael are found in alliance against End-Time Israel). Some rabbinical schools in Israel today teach that the Palestinian Arabs - the most ardent adversaries of the Israeli state - are Amalek. There may indeed be some validity to this notion, in view of the prophecy of conflict between Amalek and Israel from generation to generation (Exodus 17:16).
Geopoliticians continually misdiagnose Arab hatred towards Israel and her supporters because they fail to recognize its antiqutal roots. For 16 centuries this bitter hatred was perfected and passed down from Arab generation to Arab generation and by the time of the 7th century, one particular Arab criminal - Mohammed, a self-proclaimed prophet - arrived on the scene fully equipped with a self-defined religion that permitted he and his Arab brothers to commit violent acts of murder and rape in the name of a god.
The Foundations of Islamicism
Mohammed's rise to prophethoodMohammad Ibn Abdallah was born in the year 570 AD to the Quraysh Tribe in the city of Mecca. His father died before he was born and his mother Amina died when he was 6 years old (Mohammed claimed descent from Ishmael's son Kedar). At the age of 25, Mohammed married a 40 year-old wealthy, widow named Khadijah who owned trading caravans. Traveling as a representative of Khadija's various business interests, Mohammed was exposed to many Jews and Christians and became enthralled by their theology, particularly their concept of a single deity. It was at this time he began to envision a single, united Arab state under a single 'god.'
Secular history records that in 610, by which time Mohammed had become the leader of his tribe, he was in a cave meditating and seeking to discover which of the jinni was indeed most powerful and worthy to become the tribal jinni of his family. Mohammed claimed that one of the jinni appeared to him and identified himself as the Angel Gabriel5 and appointed him as 'prophet.' Mohammed immediately began to promote himself as a prophet of god and aggressively began recruiting in and around Mecca while challenging the idol worship of pagan Arab's.6
JihadAs new Islamic recruits began arriving in Mecca, they were without money and resources and realizing this, Mohammed and his recruits began raiding neighboring tribal settlements and passing caravans using the booty to fund his vision of a united, Islamist empire. Caravan raiding was a practice widely practiced by Arab tribes and was used as a means to maintain a balance in power. This is where the Muslim doctrine of 'Jihad' was first instituted.
The HijraAs animosity began to build in Mecca against Mohammed and his teachings, fearing for his life, he and his band of followers fled north to what is today known as Medina. This journey became an annual, religious pilgrimage made by Muslims and is today called the 'hijra.'
In Medina many warring Arab tribes submitted to Mohammed's leadership and self-professed, prophet-hood. Hoping to garner Jewish tribal support for his military campaigns, Mohammed conveniently had yet another vision that his allah7 wanted Muslims to do their praying facing the then Christian city of Jerusalem. But because the Jewish tribes rejected his prophet hood, ridiculed his revelations, and refused to join Islam, Mohammed stopped this practice and reverted back to praying while facing in the direction of Mecca.
In 626 a.d., Mecca amassed 3000 solders to confront 1000 Muslims at the battle of Uhud. The Muslims were defeated by the army from Mecca and retreated to Medina. In 627 a.d., the Meccans, in the hope of ending the caravan raids by the Muslims, assembled 10,000 solders to attack the Muslims in the city of Medina. After a two week siege in the hot sun they were unable to penetrate the fortress like city and returned to Mecca.
The Muslims next began to consolidate their power with the surrounding Arab tribes and begin the slaughter of the non-conformists. One such Medina group that remained was the Jewish tribe - Banu Qurayza. According to Mohammad's sacralized biography by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq,8 Mohammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza,9 - this last thorn in his flesh.
Sewing the Roots of Terror
Banu QurayzaThe Banu Qurayza had been reluctant in helping Mohammed against the Quraysh (Keep in mind that the Quraysh tribe were Mohammed's own people). Conveniently once again, Mohammed claimed that he had divine knowledge about a conspiracy by the Banu-Qurayza to kill him. This became his justification to starve the tribe into surrender by besieging their fortress for twenty-five days. He then sentenced every male member of the tribe to death, enslaved all the women and children, and plundered all of their property.
The prophet had an immense trench dug around the main market of Medina10 and then the men of the Banu Qurayza were rounded up one by one and forced to the edge of the trench on their knees. They were offered a last chance to convert to Islam and if they refused, their heads were cut off.11 As soon as one head would roll off, the corpse would be kicked into the ditch, and so it went. By daybreak hundreds of corpses had been piled up in a heap, tangled cesspool of blood, hair, and shreds of flesh. Despite the horrific end in front of their eyes, none of the Jews chose to convert to Islam and faced death valiantly. The blood of nearly 900 innocent Jews stained Mohammed's hands on that black day.12
Their only crime was that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, of choosing their own God and the religion of their ancestors. Hysterical women and children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands and sons brutally murdered. The majority of them were savagely raped and then bundled off to be sold as 'used goods.' The prophet had the husband of the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr hacked to pieces before her very eyes hours after he had murdered her father.13 After these atrocities he raped the mortified girl and tried to force her to convert to Islam.
Many Muslim revisionist-historians promote the idea that Raihana Bint Amr willingly submitted to Mohammed. According to this logic, it is very natural to imagine that a woman who has just seen her husband, father, brothers, and tribe slaughtered violently before her very eyes, would choose to convert to the religion of the murderer and marry him! Ultimately she refused to convert to Islam as well as marry him so he retained her as a lowly concubine for the rest of his life.14 So much for the 'Apostle of Peace' and his unbounded respect for women. Mohammed was nothing but a serial rapist, who acquired his victims by killing their families first.
Islam's allah has provided yet another timeless Divine revelation which gives his prophet the right to rape and torture women of other religions.
Surat 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."
In short, allah the all merciful is affirming that any non-Muslim woman is fair game to rape provided she is "captured" first - "..lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned..." - how divine!
KhaybarA group of Muslims from the Khazraj tribe decided to prove their loyalty to their prophet by killing off a respectable member of the Jewish community. Abu Rafi was an elderly man who had never done anything against Mohammed or the Muslims. He just happened to be the unfortunate target of Mohammed's plot to terrorize the Jews.15 The Prophet wanted to send out a message to the Jews, which spelt out clearly that Mohammed was in control of their lives. The 'expedition' to kill the poor old helpless man had the specific blessings of the 'merciful' prophet. Several Islamists broke into the old man's house in the middle of the night and slashed him to ribbons as he slept. The cowardly Muslims always assassinated people in this way, while the victim slept, obviously because they had neither the courage nor the strength to fight even a solitary, aged Jewish man while he was awake. After their crime, the Muslims fled back home into the welcoming arms of their expectant prophet.
Banu-L-MustaliqMohammed attacked the Banu-L-Mustaliq tribe slaughtering many of its members in a surprise raid, and driving the rest into the sea. They looted away a booty of 2000 camels, 5000 sheep and 500 women! The 500 women were captured screaming and crying while they watched their husbands and sons being slaughtered. The most beautiful captive was Juwayriyya, daughter of the chief of the Banu-L-Mustaliq. Mohammed snatched her to satisfy his own lusts.16 The captured women were supposed to be returned by the Muslims upon payment of a ransom, but the night after the battle itself, Mohammed and his army raped each and every one of them.17
Any human being with the slightest shred of morality has to be nauseated by this man and the religion he preached. Mohammed, the supreme religious figurehead of Islam, sanctioned rape, pure and simple. Not only did the Muslims commit this horrifying crime, they deceived the tribesmen into paying ransom for their womenfolk, who only paid the money in a desperate attempt to save their women's honor.
As Mecca began to feel the economic impact of its trading losses from continued Islamists attacks, Mohammed's power and influence continued to grow in the north. In 628 a.d. the Meccans signed a 10 year peace agreement named, 'The al-Hudaybiyah,' with Mohammed and his Muslim followers. This treaty allowed Muslims to return to Mecca and worship at the Kaba once a year. Out of fear, the people of Mecca would leave their city when the Muslims would come to worship.
Two years later, in January 630 a.d., Mohammed nullifies the treaty of al-Hudaybiyah and invades Mecca with an army of 10,000 terrorists, conquering it.18 He options the citizenry to convert to Islam or be killed by sword (beheading). From Mecca, the 'Muslims' wage Jihad on the surrounding cities forcing them to accept Islam as their religion and Mohammed as their prophet. Through their policy of 'conversion by the sword' Islam had spread as far as Spain, India, and most of North Africa by 637.
Mohammed made his final Hijra in 632 and died unexpectedly 3 months later in June. His friend and father in law Abu Bakr (Father of Aisha) succeeded him as leader of the Muslims.19
The centuries that followed, from the Iberian Peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of 'enlightened' Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut.
Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal, and murderer whose entire life and teachings were based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage, and death. So how can it be a mystery to anyone that his teachings - the Qur'an - would reap a harvest any different than what the world is experiencing today?
Qur'anic LawMuch contradictory information has been circulated over the media regarding what the Qur'an does or doesn't say. And the spin justifying or defending it has been as confusing and contradictory as the book itself. So, to be objective and factual, let's let the Muslim holy book speak for itself:
The Prophet Mohammed urges Muslims to fight in the cause of allah:
"Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows as if they were solid Structures." (Surat As-Saff 61:4)
"O prophet Mohammed urge the believers (Muslims) to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65)
This Surat clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in Islam. Not only is the all forgiving allah exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!
The Qur'an commands Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians:
"O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51)
It commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians:
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah At-Taubah 9:29)
Jizyah is a special high tax to be paid only by Jews or Christians who do not want to renounce their religion and convert to Islam (this Qur'anic Law is still practiced today in much of the Muslim world).
"Jihad (holy fighting in allah's cause) is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216)
Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself for having started the fighting. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by allah!
"Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe... Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:55-57)
Mohammed is saying that acts of planned terrorism against Jewish tribes are justified by allah, because according to the merciful allah, non-Muslims are the worst of beasts! So, in the world called Islam, it is all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against their injustices, they should retaliate against the protestors with such violence that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent (exactly the reason that motivates them to behead an innocent man on global television). This demonstrates that the Qur'an is nothing but a political manual for controlling people with terror and the enforcers of this Islamic-ideology are immuned from accountability by Qur'anic law and can therefore carry-out judgment to any non-believer using any method of their choice with a Qur'anic preference of beheading.
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:67-68)
These two Surahs are in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle of banu-l-Mustaliq. Allah the merciful is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, allah is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is lawful and good because it was done in service to allah. So murder, rape, plunder, and destruction are all perfectly fine with allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'terrorism.'
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:217)
Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans is the fact that they did not believe in Islam's god.
The Qur'an commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they exterminate all other religions and Islam would be the only religion in the world - the ultimate goal of Islamicism.
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against As-Zatimun (the polytheists and wrong doers)." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193)
This verse is mentioned also in Surat Al-Anfal 8:39. Because of the misunderstanding and ignorance of Christianity, Muslims believe that Christians are polytheists, because they believe in a Triune God. Fundamentalists look at Jews and Christians and all non-Muslims as infidels who must be killed because they have no value as human beings and must be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Fundamentalists divide the world into two camps, Dar Al-Harb (Camp of war) where Jews and Christians exist, and Dar Al-Sallam (Camp of peace) where Muslims live. They believe that Holy war against those who live in the camp of war should continue until they are exterminated.
The Qur'an commands Muslims to terrorize and torture and kill anyone who disobeys allah and the prophet Mohammed:
"(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14)
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33)
The Qur'an commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force.
"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful." (Surat At-Taubah 9:5)
It is hate-filled words such as these that teach Islamists to go kill innocent, non-combatants because they are non-Muslim and won't convert.20 Furthermore, it is worth noting here that the words 'fight' and 'kill' appear more frequently in the Qur'an than the word 'pray.'
Islam is a prison with no way out. Once a person enters that prison, he cannot leave it alive.
"Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the apostates? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Aouliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Mohammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." (Surat An-Nisa 4:88,89)
This verse means that if a person says the Islamic Shahada (creed): "I testify that there is no God but Allah, I testify that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah," he cannot change his mind. If he does change his mind, he will be executed or beheaded as has happened many times in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries.
Although Islamists target non-Muslims for death, collateral damage from their murderous acts often kills fellow Muslims of which they make no apology for. In fact, it is Muslims that terrorists are killing in the largest numbers by far, and it is Muslims whose governments and societies the Islamists want to takeover initially, then from there, launch their aggression in an all-out assault to obtain the final prize of a global, Islamic kingdom governed by Qur'anic law.
As our focus now sharpens, we begin to see the real reasons they hate; an ancient jealousy sewn and passed down over the centuries to a criminal son who was willing to act upon this hatred and write about it claiming it was words given to him by God.
The Real Reason they Hate:We have all heard the plethora of lies spewing from the mouths of Islamic propagandists who are attempting to justify their murderous acts; 'American support for Israel,' 'We hate America and her love of pornography, alcohol, and secularism,' 'Israeli occupation (which ranks atop the biggest lies ever told - see Signs, Signs, Everywhere are Signs and The Arab Jewish Conflict),' 'We will continue our attacks until western foreign policy towards the Middle East is changed.'
We routinely hear the western liberal press and the Arab press promote that Islam has been hijacked and truly is a 'religion of peace.' If this were true, then on what basis do non-Arab Muslims have for hating Israel? We see examples of their hatred every day and it comes from the self-proclaimed moderates just as loud as it does from the Islamists.
Since modern-day Arab's are descendants of Ishmael and Esau - fathers of the Arab peoples - Mohammed and his blood brothers can at least base their hatred on their loss of their ancestral birthright. But what then is the basis for the same level of hatred found also in the non-Arab Muslims - Asians, Blacks, Whites?21 Certainly they have no birth-right arguments! So what then is their source of hatred toward the Israelis if Islam teaches peace? The fact is, they, like the Islamists, learn this hate from the Qur'an because, as explained earlier, it is what Mohammed himself believed, acted out, and taught to his followers.
Even if America abandoned support for Israel altogether, which would make the Arab and Muslim haters rejoice, they would surely not stop hating us nor would they stop their terrorist acts. They would only conclude that their terror worked, and that America will give in when the threats are great enough and the fatalities are too many to tolerate, just as they recognized it did in Spain and the Philippines, and thus, such a move would only accelerate their hatred.
Once the nations of the world have thus succumbed to their terror, it would finally be at this time that the rest of the world realizes the foundations for Muslim hatred towards the rest of the world, is not Jewish based, nor is it foreign policy based, but rather Qur'anic based, and by this time it will be too late. One proof? Most Muslims living in Europe, which long ago abandoned Israel, continue to hate and attack much of Europe. Europe's abandonment of Israel has only convinced them - for good reason - that Europe has lost its moral fiber and is ripe for an Islamic takeover - and they maybe right!
Although Qur'anic law, on a percentage basis, is by far the primary basis for Islamic hatred of the west, other reasons add fuel to the fire:
America alone (and the little America in the Middle East, Israel) prevents the expansion of Islamic rule.
Expansionist totalitarian movements, whether Soviet communism or radical Islam, always hate free societies, and America is the strongest free society.
America is not only strong, it is religious (as opposed to Europe, which is weak and irreligious).
America is not only Christian; it is Judeo-Christian, the two religions the Islamists need to overcome to expand globally.
And let's not overlook the effects secular liberalism has had on Islam's perception of western culture. In Europe, drugs are legal,22 and in America, homosexuality is not perversion, abortion is not murder, and pornography ranks amongst the largest revenue generating industries.23 As the 'Left' in America successfully continue to remove Mosaic and Spiritual Law from our culture, we become less God fearing and more tolerant and embracing of these issues. Radical Islam sees this and it scares them to death. In fact, it is on this one, very small and isolated stage that Evangelical Fundamentalism and Islamicism share common ground. We both hate what left wing ideologies stand for and we both see the moral destruction it leads to and it fuels their fears of global, western culturalsim. However, outside of this stage, Christian Fundamentalism and Radical Islam are polar opposites.
The sad news is that the 'Left' in America today have deceptively become puppets of the Islamists propaganda. Since we know the moral, degenerating effects of Liberalism, it should be our hope to inject Muslim cultures with brainwashed, liberal, colleges students who go into western universities with a sense of morality and come out believing that absolute truth does not exist, mother earth is beautiful and the creator of all things, and diversity and tolerance are the keys to mankind's socioeconomic prosperity.24
It is not education that will make this problem go away - such a farce is only believed and promoted by the left-wing media elitists. Islamists believe they are performing the 'God of Creation's' will and that for their actions they will receive just-rewards so it does not matter what any foreign policy says as any such position will not reduce or eliminate their religious beliefs and duties of martyrdom.
Martyrdom's BountyThe Qur'an declares that Muslims who fight and die in battle are promised forgiveness and a sensual luxurious life in Paradise.
"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)." (Surat Al-Imran 3:157)
"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him." (Surat At-Taubah 9:111)
What can martyrs expect in paradise? The Qur'an describes life in paradise in the following words:
"Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do. They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. And We shall provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire." (Surat At-Tur 52:17-20,22)
"Water flowing constantly and fruit in plenty whose supply is not cut off and reclining on couches raised high, verily we have created them (women) of special creation and made them virgins of equal age" (Surat Al-Waqiah 56:31-37)
"Gardens and vineyards and young full-breasted virgins of equal age and a full cup of wine." (Surat An-Naba 78:32-34)
Some prominent Muslim clerics call the suicide bombers martyrs because, as identified here, the Qur'an states a martyr is guaranteed both total forgiveness of his sins and eternal life in paradise. In this so-called paradise, he can drink wine and be married to as many as 72 beautiful, sensual virgins. What kind of god rewards a man for killing innocent women and children with a herum of females serving as eternal, sexual-slaves?
In the Islamists world women serve as the ultimate reward in heaven, but here on earth, in Muslim nations, they're forced to live as second class citizens. Moreover, if eternal pornography is truly the reward for martyrdom, then how can these fundamentalists denounce the pornography that has run rampant in western cultures when they themselves believe they will be partakers in the same bounty? Furthermore, while they are denouncing pornography and secularism, they clothe their wives in one room from head-to-toe, and they rape other women in the house down the street. And all the while they accuse and attack the west because of our 'lack of morality.'
Many moderate Muslims say the fundamentalists comprise a very small minority (the alleged ratio is 9:1) and that they act out these crimes because they misinterpret the Qur'an by taking it literally. If this is true, then I wonder which Qur'anic verses are to be taken literally and which are not? And based upon what? And if they truly are a small minority, then why does the overwhelming majority of Muslims not stand up to them?
A Minority? They Practice what they PreachIt is commonplace to say everything changed on September 11th 2001, but of course the real changes had taken place long before then. There were hints in the early 1980s when, following the Iranian revolution, the staff of the American Embassy were held hostage for a year. Even at that stage it was clear that all things American excited a peculiar rage amongst Islamists. But as the dust of the Berlin wall settled, it became apparent that far from an aberration, Iran was a trendsetter in the new global, political scenery, as throughout the 1990s Islamicism became an increasingly potent, political force. And with a positive promotion of Islam, Qur'anic law formed one strand of the Islamist agenda, anti-Westernism formed the other. Indeed, it is arguable that anti-Westernism is vital to Islamicism's survival and growth, since without the West to rail against, Islam would have only itself to blame for its own failings.
This anti-Westernism has now grown to the extent that it forms a significant, and by far the most violent, element in the conflicts of the twenty-first century. When Samuel P. Huntington referred to Islam's 'bloody borders' in his 1993 essay titled, "The Clash of Civilizations?," he admits he,
"...made that judgement on the basis of a casual survey of intercivilizational conflicts."25 This is remedied in his greatly-expanded 1997 work, where he quotes evidence that, for example, there were in 1993-94,
"...three times as many intercivilizational conflicts involving Muslims as there were conflicts between all non-Muslim civilizations. The conflicts within Islam also were more numerous than those in any other civilization including tribal conflicts in Africa. In contrast to Islam, the West was involved in only two intracivilizational and two intercivilizational conflicts."26
Of course, it is always easy to point the finger at others, and the finger has duly been pointed at the West, yet the reality remains that the number of violent conflicts between broadly Western states and non-Western non-Muslim states is small to the point of, in some years, non-existence. Similarly, armed clashes between and within Western cultures are now (with significant exceptions) almost unheard of.
It is alleged that Islamicism comprises 10-15% of the entire 1.1 billion Muslim population. Yet there are presently 25 major conflicts in the world today and 20 of them involve Muslims either against other religious/ethnicities, or against each other.27 Furthermore, as of March 2003, the US State Dept lists 33 foreign terrorist groups operating in the world today and 22 of them are Muslim.28 If it is true that only 10-15% of Islam comprises religious fundamentalists, than it must also be true that a significant number of the remaining majority sit silently watching, cheering them on. The rest? They are likely moderate-secularists, who either fear reprisals from the Islamists, or don't care at all.
A Look at Current Muslim Conflicts:Let's first consider what the Islamic "minority" is currently engaged in:
In Afghanistan, Taliban remnants and local tribal leaders continue to wage resistance against the newly elected government there.
In Algeria, Islamists are attempting to overthrow a military-based, secular Muslim government by slaughtering any who oppose and with no regard for life.29
In Bosnia/Herzgovinia, Muslims have been fighting other factions off and on for over 20 years.
In Côte d'Ivoire and Chad, Muslim separatists are fighting the established government.30
In Cyprus, Muslim Turks have been warring off and on with Christian Greeks.
Shortly after Indonesia declared the annexation of East Timor, the Islamic Indonesian army went on a "religious cleansing" spree by slaughtering Christians.31
In India, a Muslim - Hindu conflict has existed off-and-of since the British occupancy ended.
In and out of Israel, Jews have been savagely murdered by cowardly acts of terrorism for the last 40 years.
In Kashmir, where estimates of 30 - 60,000 deaths since 1989 have been reported, Muslims and Hindus have been warring over control of that province and both nations posses nuclear power.
In Kosovo, Muslims and Serbs have continued their bitter, religious hatred of each other.
In Kurdistan, Muslims continue their assault on Christians for governmental control.32
In Macedonia, Muslims had been engaged in a civil war until NATO's intervention brought disarmament.
All over the Middle East there exists daily attacks against all ethnicities by Muslims in the name of Islam.
In Nigeria, a country forever ruled by Muslims dictators, Muslims in the north are fighting a new government transitioning towards democracy.33
In Pakistan, Islamists continue to terrorize more moderate Muslims in an effort to gain control of the government and its nuclear weaponry.
In the Philippines, a small band of radical members of Abu Sayaf have been carrying out terrorist attacks seeking separation.
In Russia, Muslim Chechnyians have been carrying out terrorists attacks seeking separation from Russian control.
In Somalia, rival clans of Muslims are slaughtering each other trying to gain a governmental foot hold.
And in Sudan, the Muslim government supports Arab militias who seek out and rape Christian women while the government forces of Khartoum have killed more than one million Christians.34-38
Recent jihad-inspired decapitations of 'infidels' by Muslims have occurred across the globe - Christians in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria; Hindu priests and 'unveiled' Hindu women in Kashmir; Wall Street Journal reporter, and Jew, Daniel Pearl, American's Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, Jr, and most recently South Korean Kim Sun-il. Based on Mohammed's seeding of Islam, we should not at all be surprised that these contemporary paroxysms of jihad violence are accompanied by these 'ritualized' beheadings. Such gruesome acts are in fact sanctioned by core Islamic sacred texts, and classical Muslim jurisprudence. Empty claims that jihad decapitations are somehow 'alien to true Islam,'39, 40 however well-intentioned, are simply just not true as history will attest.
Welcome, then, to the twenty-first century.
Muslims allege that the West wars on Islam yet the facts reveal that it is Islam that wars with the rest of world. In fact, at the time of this writing, Islam is at war with America, but America is not yet at war with Islam. All of these conflicts offer us a forglimpse of our emerging future where global-relationships are defined by religious, ethnic-alliances and contribute more to conflicts than political foreign policies do.
Conclusion:In Christianity, the saved follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - saved by Grace, through faith. Christians and Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe," while Islamists say, "You will die for what I believe." In Islam, the 'saved' are those who follow the teachings of their leader Mohammed and only because he sewed seeds of violence, is why today's Islamic fruit reaps violence.
How can a religion (seed), conceived (planted) by violence, and preached by a murderer (nourished), have a peaceful (fruitful) future (harvest)? If you mix flour, cocoa, sugar, and oil, you get a chocolate cake. If you mix violence - murder, rape, plunder - with religion, you get Islamists. And if you claim visions from God to justify your violence, you do not come as a prophet of peace, but rather you come to destroy peace - you are a messenger of satan and you have been deceived.
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Galatians 6:7-8)
Today we hear on radio and television many Muslim clerics saying that Islam means peace. But the word Islam means 'submission' and a Muslim is one who is in submission to allah. Their goal, as stated in the Qu'ran, is to bring the entire world into submission to allah under a global, Islamic empire. And they believe before they can achieve this dream they must first destroy America and the western countries.
Nineteen educated Muslims representing a broad demographical base, committed suicide and killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the four planes they flew on that black Tuesday. Those nineteen Muslims did that because of their deep conviction that they will go directly to paradise to enjoy sensual pleasures, and because of their terrible hatred for America; a country populated by a Christian majority.
These men were devout Muslims who were highly intelligent and demonstrated excellent communication skills with children, old men, professors, and people in government. Each of them successfully adapted to Western culture while secretly hating it. Mohammed Atta, in his October 1999 thesis, wrote the following verse from the Qu'ran:41
"My Prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death belong to allah, the Lord of the World's"
The West needs to know that many other Mohammed Atta's may quietly be living amongst us.
Followers of the al-Qaeda ideology have already shown what kind of government and what kind of society they pursue. Afghanistan had the dubious distinction of embodying that fundamentalist fantasy under Taliban rule where Qur'anic Law dictated every aspect of daily life, where thought and expression were strictly controlled, and where infractions against ancient religious codes were punished by beheadings. From Afghanistan we have been warned that the biggest losers from a fundamentalist victory will be non-Muslims and women - everyone else.
The number one enemy of Islamic radicals is modernity. And anything that moves society forward, away from their understanding of what life was like in 7th century Arabia, where Islam was born, is viewed as a threat. That's one reason why Muslims and non-Muslims incorrectly view this as a conflict between East and West. Islamists view the West, led by the United States, as the tip of the modernity spear - and they are probably right. But most people in the Arab world do not want to live by 7th century rules. They may not want all that America stands for, but they do want human rights, economic opportunity, and progress.
The Muslim majorities (some 950 million) - tragically for them and dangerously for us - have failed to speak out against this campaign that is slaughtering their people and keeping desperately needed progress from reaching their lands. As the controversial Muslim writer Irshad Manji says, "the Muslim world has used the West - the so-called oppressive West - as a weapon of mass distraction for a long time."
Muslims have been successfully intimidated. Voices of dissent have been silenced, and people who 'devour' the Western lifestyle in private, publicly speak out against America. And despite efforts to accommodate 'the religion of peace,' Islamists will continue to find reasons to hate and Muslims will continue to be the reason much of the world is at war. It is of great importance for any non-Muslim to know what kind of society he or she will live in if fundamentalist Muslims rule.
It is clearly no secret that God forewarned His people about the violent nature of Ishmael and Esau's descendants. Despite these truths, Satan's ability to deceive will eventually lead Israel to drop her guard and sign a false peace treaty, which will begin the 'Seven Year Tribulation' period - man's final reign on earth. Three and one-half years into this treaty the Muslims will be participants in a confederation invading Israel one last time fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel 35 and God's wrath in judgment against their sword.
References:1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123386,00.html2. The term "'Islamist / Islamicism" distinguishes those groups which are not content to coexist with or within other cultures, but actively seek their elimination en route to create a global, Islamic empire - Islamic fundamentalists.3. Ishmaelites are descendants of Ishmael and Esau. They are the modern day Arab peoples.4. Esau's descendants are often identified as Edomites. God changed Esau's name to Edom after he gave up his inheritance for a bowl of soup.5. Muslims disagree over who visited Mohammed in that cave. Some say "it was an angel while others say it was a jinni named allah."6. Allah is not the 'moon god' Christian groups often confuse him as. 'Allah' translates in Arabic to mean, 'the god,' and refers to a 'supreme god.' Since Islam views 'their god' as the 'supreme god,' Islam's god is thus also identified as 'allah.' However, it is important to note that prior to the arrival of Islam in the 7th century, pagan Arab's worshipped a god of the moon and stars whose name was also 'allah,' but their interpretation of their 'allah' was very different to the interpretation of Mohammed's 'allah.' A good example of this can be found within the English language. In English, the spelling of 'God' with a capital 'G' refers to a 'supreme God,' however, just because many groups spell their god with a capital 'G' does not mean all groups have the same interpretation of 'God' nor do they worship the same god.7. Akhtar Rizvi, S.S., "The Life of Muhammad the Prophet," Darul Tabligh Book of N. America 1971, Last edited 1999, ISBN# 0-9702125-0-X8. Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html9. Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html10. M.A.R. Habib, "Islamic History & Literature," ed. (2003). Camden, NJ: Rutgers University; Hourani, A., "A History of the Arab Peoples," Boston: Warner Books, 1992.11. Hisham, I. "The Prophet's Biography," vol. 2 pages 240 & 241 and, Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html12. Bostom, A., "Mohammed, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS," Front Page Magazine, Dec. 20, 2002, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=519513. Trifkovic, S., "Palestinian Radicalism and Arab Antisemitism," Chronicles Magazine, June 17, 200214. Trifkovic, S., "Palestinian Radicalism and Arab Antisemitism," Chronicles Magazine, June 17, 200215. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes2.html16. McNeill, W. H., and Robinson, M. Waldman, "The Islamic World," (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973; Ishaq, M.I. "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/rape_and_islam.html17. Rodison, M. “Mohammed,” Tauris London Books, 200218. Farah, J. "The Lesson of al-Hudaybiyah,"World Net Daily, May 23, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27712 The treaty was called, "The Treaty of al-Hudaybiyah." In this treaty Mohammed publicly relinquished the claim of being "a Prophet of Allah." In contrast to Jesus Christ and His twelve Disciples, they died because they refused to relinquish anything they said or believed as they knew it to be True. The difference is this: Mohammed was so willing to relinquish his self-proclaimed title because he knew it to be a lie. Had he truly been a prophet of God, he would never have denied this even if it meant death. The following two years he used to secretly build his forces in an effort to invade and conquer. Even when he signed the treaty, he had no intention of honoring it - that's the value of Arab ink.19. Arab tribes today still fight and kill each other over who Mohammed's rightful successor was to be. Al total, there were four contenders: (a) Abu Bakr, his trusted father-in-law, (b) Ali, a cousin and Mohammad's son-in-law and the father of Mohammed's grandsons, (b)Umar and (c) Uthman, both long-time friends and advisers http://www.historymole.com/cgi-bin/main/results.pl?type=theme&theme=Islam20. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=520028§ion=news21. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59055,00.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121040,00.html,22. Stares, Paul B., "Global Habit: The Drug Problem in a Borderless World," Washington: Brookings, 1996.23. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/porn_020325.html24. Shapiro, B. "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth," WND Books, 200425. Huntington, S.P., "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," London: Touchstone Books, 1997.26. Ibid. 2327. http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm28. U.S. State Department: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/9014.htm29. Lemsine, A., "The Suffering of Algeria's Women at the Hands of Islamists," Middle East Times, March 16, 2001. http://www.islamfortoday.com/algeria.htm30. Burns, R., "Chad Defeats Algerian Muslim Extremeists," The Guardian, March 26, 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3906821,00.html31. Moore, A., "Christians terrorized in Muslim Indonesia," World Net Daily, December 8, 2001, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=2559932. Pasko, A. "Israel should Support the Kurds against Syria," March 17, 2004 http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/opinion-israel-support-kurds-syria-mar04.asp33. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/05/001884print.html34. Moore, A., "Sudan jihad forces Islam on Christians," World Net Daily, March 4, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=2667235. McCarthy, S. "Rock blasts UN on Sudan crisis," The Globe and Mail, June 15, 2004, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040615/UNSUDAN15/TPInternational/Africa36. Farah, J., "World ignoring genocide in Sudan," World Net Daily, June 22, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3904437. World Net Daily, "Mideast 'indifferent' to Sudan Massacre," June 30, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3920138. World Net Daily, "More atrocities in Southern Sudan," July 13, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3941639. Evans, M., "Saudi Arabia - Beheading Capital of the World," World Net Daily, June 25, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3913040. Thacktson, Wheeler., "The Baburnama - Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor," Oxford University Press, 199641. The Washington Post, September 22, 2001.
2002 Creation Apologetics, All Rights Reserved, Copyright Protected
To better understand the hate fueling modern day Islamicism,2 one must first look back to its roots. From Ishmael, whose birthright was denied, to Esau and Jacob - rivaling twins, the seed of hate was sewn. What evolved thereafter was a bitter, jealousy that has been passed down to every Arab generation since. By the 7th century, this ancient hatred made its way into the heart and mind of a common-criminal named Mohammed - an Arab and descendant of Ishmael, who founded a religion and used it to justify his countless, criminal acts of rape and murder.
Both the western media and the Arab press routinely offer biased, politicized answers to what they believe drives this Islamic hatred for the west. From 'US support for Israel' to 'US secularism,' we've heard them all, and despite attempts to justify their inhumane acts, the truth is, Muslims have been committing terrorist acts for some 1,300 years - long before 'western culturalism' or 'US support for Israel' ever existed. And despite such history, we continue to ignorantly look elsewhere for the reasons.
From the early days of Islam to today's globally televised beheadings, Muslims are simply acting-out what Mohammed believed, and what the Qur'an teaches. And when Qur'anic Law was given the opportunity to govern, its violent, 7th century intolerance was seen through the eyes of Afghanistan's Taliban - a view of converting and uniting the Arab world under Islamic Law by sword first, and everyone else second.
What truly is at the heart of the Islamists hatred today is no different than that which fueled Mohammed's hatred as he wrote the Qur'an. It is the belief and goal of a one-world, global Islamic empire run by Qur'anic Law whereby everyone must, in the end, convert to their fundamentalist ideology or face beheading. The hatred that fuels this theocracy dates back to Ishmael and his son-in-law Esau, and from there, compounded to form the foundations of Islamicism which is the reason why most of the world conflicts today involve Muslims.
The Origins of Hatred
Ishmael and IsaacIn 1910 bc, Abraham's wife, Sarah, frustrated with her inability to have a child and impatient with God's timing, asked Abraham to give her a child through their Egyptian maidservant 'Hagar'.
"Now Sarai, Abrams wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleepwith my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
(Genesis 16:1-2)
Hagar, servant that she was, submitted to being used this way. But her pregnancy gave birth to strong feelings of superiority toward Sarah. During Hagar's pregnancy, friction began to develop between Sarah and Hagar and when Hagar could no longer endure it, she fled into the desert. There God instructed her to return to Sarah, promising, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude" (Genesis 16:10). Into this tense, atmosphere Ishmael was born and for 13 years Abraham thought Ishmael's birth had fulfilled God's promise (Ishmael would become the progenitor of today's Arab world - the Arabs are an Ishmaelite3 race).
When Abraham reached 99 years of age, God appeared to him and announced that his wife Sarah would bear him a son and that they would call him Isaac. And it would be through Isaac that God would establish His covenant (Isaac became the father of the Israelites). Abraham struggled with this because he loved Ishmael dearly and desired that he be his heir and receive the birthright blessings.
"O that Ishmael might live before thee!.."
(Gen 17:18)
But the birthright was denied to Ishmael.
"And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man 100 years old? And will Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee (meaning he was first born)! But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
(Genesis 17:16-19)
After the birth of Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away at Sarah's insistence,
"Cast out this bondwoman and her son," Sarah demanded.
(Gen 21:10)
Sarah was adamant that Ishmael should not inherit along with Isaac. God instructed Abraham to do as Sarah desired, but he reassured Abraham that,
"...also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."
(Gen 21:13)
But God also knew what kind of people Ishmael's descendants would be when He spoke prophetically to Hagar saying,
And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren [literally, "he shall defy all his kinsmen"]."
(Genesis 16:12)
"His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers."
(Genesis 25:18)
And to this day Arab hands have been "...against every man and every man's against..." theirs and "..they lived in hostility toward all their brothers.."
Ishmael was not a spirit of implacable hatred and murder against Isaac, but rather one of envy and rivalry. Ishmael's position in the family had been radically altered by Isaac's birth. This had wounded his proud spirit, and provoked him into a jealousy. And time has not softened this spirit of envy either. Attitudes and historical perspectives are often transmitted from father to son and from generation to generation. The effects of the domestic rivalry in the household of Abraham are still being felt to this day in the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict.
In time, Ishmael became the father of 12 sons (his descendants are called Ishmaelites) whose names are recorded in Genesis 25:13-16. Ishmael also had a daughter named Mahalath (Bashemath), who would later marry his half-brother Isaac's eldest son, Esau4 (Esau's descendants were known as Edomites).
Ishmalites were marauding nomads who traded with Egypt (Jacob's son Joseph would later be sold by his brothers to a passing band of Ishmaelites - Genesis 37:25-28). They led an untamed existence in the deserts south and east of Canaan and were known for their wandering, lawlessness, and freebooting lifestyle. Ishmael died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17) and just as God had promised, his 12 sons grew into "a great nation" with he as clearly the preeminent forefather of the Arab world (The Arab peoples today number over 140 million and are destined to play a significant role in the development of future prophetic events).
The relationship between the Ishmaelite Arabs and the Biblical Israelites is thus clear: Ishmael was the elder half-brother of Isaac, son of Abraham, by way of Hagar, who settled in central and northern Arabia. Isaac in turn, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. From Jacob - later renamed Israel - descended the Jews and the other tribes of Israel. The Israelis and the Arabs are cousins!
Esau and JacobIshmael's younger brother Isaac, whom he lost the birthright to, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. And while Esau and Jacob were yet in their mother's womb, "the children struggled together within her" (Genesis 25:22)
God explained that,
"...two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].
(Genesis 25:23)
Esau's name would later be changed to Edom, and Jacob's would be changed to Israel (his descendants, by way of Isaac, would be Israelites). Both brothers were destined to father a great nation.
As firstborn, Esau was the legal inheritor of the birthright, which fell to the eldest son in each generation. But Esau undervalued it and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of red lentil soup (Genesis 25:28-34). Later, Jacob - disguising himself as Esau - tricked his father Isaac (Abraham's son whom God had confirmed His covenant with) into bestowing upon him the blessing confirming the birthright (Genesis 27). By this piece of deception, Jacob earned Esau's implacable anger. Bitterness and vengeance filled Esau's heart.
"And Esau hated Jacob . . ."
(Genesis 27:41)
Forty centuries have not sufficed to wipe out the effects of this deep-seated enmity between Esau and Jacob! The two peoples have continued in their antagonism up to this present day! Historically, the Edomites - especially the Amalekites, the chief tribe of the Edomites - have been bitter foes of Israel.
Significantly, descendants of Esau mingled and intermarried with Ishmaelites and their neighbors. As kinsmen, a close affinity existed between them (In Psalm 83, the descendants of Esau and those of Ishmael are found in alliance against End-Time Israel). Some rabbinical schools in Israel today teach that the Palestinian Arabs - the most ardent adversaries of the Israeli state - are Amalek. There may indeed be some validity to this notion, in view of the prophecy of conflict between Amalek and Israel from generation to generation (Exodus 17:16).
Geopoliticians continually misdiagnose Arab hatred towards Israel and her supporters because they fail to recognize its antiqutal roots. For 16 centuries this bitter hatred was perfected and passed down from Arab generation to Arab generation and by the time of the 7th century, one particular Arab criminal - Mohammed, a self-proclaimed prophet - arrived on the scene fully equipped with a self-defined religion that permitted he and his Arab brothers to commit violent acts of murder and rape in the name of a god.
The Foundations of Islamicism
Mohammed's rise to prophethoodMohammad Ibn Abdallah was born in the year 570 AD to the Quraysh Tribe in the city of Mecca. His father died before he was born and his mother Amina died when he was 6 years old (Mohammed claimed descent from Ishmael's son Kedar). At the age of 25, Mohammed married a 40 year-old wealthy, widow named Khadijah who owned trading caravans. Traveling as a representative of Khadija's various business interests, Mohammed was exposed to many Jews and Christians and became enthralled by their theology, particularly their concept of a single deity. It was at this time he began to envision a single, united Arab state under a single 'god.'
Secular history records that in 610, by which time Mohammed had become the leader of his tribe, he was in a cave meditating and seeking to discover which of the jinni was indeed most powerful and worthy to become the tribal jinni of his family. Mohammed claimed that one of the jinni appeared to him and identified himself as the Angel Gabriel5 and appointed him as 'prophet.' Mohammed immediately began to promote himself as a prophet of god and aggressively began recruiting in and around Mecca while challenging the idol worship of pagan Arab's.6
JihadAs new Islamic recruits began arriving in Mecca, they were without money and resources and realizing this, Mohammed and his recruits began raiding neighboring tribal settlements and passing caravans using the booty to fund his vision of a united, Islamist empire. Caravan raiding was a practice widely practiced by Arab tribes and was used as a means to maintain a balance in power. This is where the Muslim doctrine of 'Jihad' was first instituted.
The HijraAs animosity began to build in Mecca against Mohammed and his teachings, fearing for his life, he and his band of followers fled north to what is today known as Medina. This journey became an annual, religious pilgrimage made by Muslims and is today called the 'hijra.'
In Medina many warring Arab tribes submitted to Mohammed's leadership and self-professed, prophet-hood. Hoping to garner Jewish tribal support for his military campaigns, Mohammed conveniently had yet another vision that his allah7 wanted Muslims to do their praying facing the then Christian city of Jerusalem. But because the Jewish tribes rejected his prophet hood, ridiculed his revelations, and refused to join Islam, Mohammed stopped this practice and reverted back to praying while facing in the direction of Mecca.
In 626 a.d., Mecca amassed 3000 solders to confront 1000 Muslims at the battle of Uhud. The Muslims were defeated by the army from Mecca and retreated to Medina. In 627 a.d., the Meccans, in the hope of ending the caravan raids by the Muslims, assembled 10,000 solders to attack the Muslims in the city of Medina. After a two week siege in the hot sun they were unable to penetrate the fortress like city and returned to Mecca.
The Muslims next began to consolidate their power with the surrounding Arab tribes and begin the slaughter of the non-conformists. One such Medina group that remained was the Jewish tribe - Banu Qurayza. According to Mohammad's sacralized biography by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq,8 Mohammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza,9 - this last thorn in his flesh.
Sewing the Roots of Terror
Banu QurayzaThe Banu Qurayza had been reluctant in helping Mohammed against the Quraysh (Keep in mind that the Quraysh tribe were Mohammed's own people). Conveniently once again, Mohammed claimed that he had divine knowledge about a conspiracy by the Banu-Qurayza to kill him. This became his justification to starve the tribe into surrender by besieging their fortress for twenty-five days. He then sentenced every male member of the tribe to death, enslaved all the women and children, and plundered all of their property.
The prophet had an immense trench dug around the main market of Medina10 and then the men of the Banu Qurayza were rounded up one by one and forced to the edge of the trench on their knees. They were offered a last chance to convert to Islam and if they refused, their heads were cut off.11 As soon as one head would roll off, the corpse would be kicked into the ditch, and so it went. By daybreak hundreds of corpses had been piled up in a heap, tangled cesspool of blood, hair, and shreds of flesh. Despite the horrific end in front of their eyes, none of the Jews chose to convert to Islam and faced death valiantly. The blood of nearly 900 innocent Jews stained Mohammed's hands on that black day.12
Their only crime was that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, of choosing their own God and the religion of their ancestors. Hysterical women and children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands and sons brutally murdered. The majority of them were savagely raped and then bundled off to be sold as 'used goods.' The prophet had the husband of the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr hacked to pieces before her very eyes hours after he had murdered her father.13 After these atrocities he raped the mortified girl and tried to force her to convert to Islam.
Many Muslim revisionist-historians promote the idea that Raihana Bint Amr willingly submitted to Mohammed. According to this logic, it is very natural to imagine that a woman who has just seen her husband, father, brothers, and tribe slaughtered violently before her very eyes, would choose to convert to the religion of the murderer and marry him! Ultimately she refused to convert to Islam as well as marry him so he retained her as a lowly concubine for the rest of his life.14 So much for the 'Apostle of Peace' and his unbounded respect for women. Mohammed was nothing but a serial rapist, who acquired his victims by killing their families first.
Islam's allah has provided yet another timeless Divine revelation which gives his prophet the right to rape and torture women of other religions.
Surat 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."
In short, allah the all merciful is affirming that any non-Muslim woman is fair game to rape provided she is "captured" first - "..lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned..." - how divine!
KhaybarA group of Muslims from the Khazraj tribe decided to prove their loyalty to their prophet by killing off a respectable member of the Jewish community. Abu Rafi was an elderly man who had never done anything against Mohammed or the Muslims. He just happened to be the unfortunate target of Mohammed's plot to terrorize the Jews.15 The Prophet wanted to send out a message to the Jews, which spelt out clearly that Mohammed was in control of their lives. The 'expedition' to kill the poor old helpless man had the specific blessings of the 'merciful' prophet. Several Islamists broke into the old man's house in the middle of the night and slashed him to ribbons as he slept. The cowardly Muslims always assassinated people in this way, while the victim slept, obviously because they had neither the courage nor the strength to fight even a solitary, aged Jewish man while he was awake. After their crime, the Muslims fled back home into the welcoming arms of their expectant prophet.
Banu-L-MustaliqMohammed attacked the Banu-L-Mustaliq tribe slaughtering many of its members in a surprise raid, and driving the rest into the sea. They looted away a booty of 2000 camels, 5000 sheep and 500 women! The 500 women were captured screaming and crying while they watched their husbands and sons being slaughtered. The most beautiful captive was Juwayriyya, daughter of the chief of the Banu-L-Mustaliq. Mohammed snatched her to satisfy his own lusts.16 The captured women were supposed to be returned by the Muslims upon payment of a ransom, but the night after the battle itself, Mohammed and his army raped each and every one of them.17
Any human being with the slightest shred of morality has to be nauseated by this man and the religion he preached. Mohammed, the supreme religious figurehead of Islam, sanctioned rape, pure and simple. Not only did the Muslims commit this horrifying crime, they deceived the tribesmen into paying ransom for their womenfolk, who only paid the money in a desperate attempt to save their women's honor.
As Mecca began to feel the economic impact of its trading losses from continued Islamists attacks, Mohammed's power and influence continued to grow in the north. In 628 a.d. the Meccans signed a 10 year peace agreement named, 'The al-Hudaybiyah,' with Mohammed and his Muslim followers. This treaty allowed Muslims to return to Mecca and worship at the Kaba once a year. Out of fear, the people of Mecca would leave their city when the Muslims would come to worship.
Two years later, in January 630 a.d., Mohammed nullifies the treaty of al-Hudaybiyah and invades Mecca with an army of 10,000 terrorists, conquering it.18 He options the citizenry to convert to Islam or be killed by sword (beheading). From Mecca, the 'Muslims' wage Jihad on the surrounding cities forcing them to accept Islam as their religion and Mohammed as their prophet. Through their policy of 'conversion by the sword' Islam had spread as far as Spain, India, and most of North Africa by 637.
Mohammed made his final Hijra in 632 and died unexpectedly 3 months later in June. His friend and father in law Abu Bakr (Father of Aisha) succeeded him as leader of the Muslims.19
The centuries that followed, from the Iberian Peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of 'enlightened' Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut.
Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal, and murderer whose entire life and teachings were based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage, and death. So how can it be a mystery to anyone that his teachings - the Qur'an - would reap a harvest any different than what the world is experiencing today?
Qur'anic LawMuch contradictory information has been circulated over the media regarding what the Qur'an does or doesn't say. And the spin justifying or defending it has been as confusing and contradictory as the book itself. So, to be objective and factual, let's let the Muslim holy book speak for itself:
The Prophet Mohammed urges Muslims to fight in the cause of allah:
"Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows as if they were solid Structures." (Surat As-Saff 61:4)
"O prophet Mohammed urge the believers (Muslims) to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65)
This Surat clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in Islam. Not only is the all forgiving allah exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!
The Qur'an commands Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians:
"O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51)
It commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians:
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah At-Taubah 9:29)
Jizyah is a special high tax to be paid only by Jews or Christians who do not want to renounce their religion and convert to Islam (this Qur'anic Law is still practiced today in much of the Muslim world).
"Jihad (holy fighting in allah's cause) is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216)
Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself for having started the fighting. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by allah!
"Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe... Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:55-57)
Mohammed is saying that acts of planned terrorism against Jewish tribes are justified by allah, because according to the merciful allah, non-Muslims are the worst of beasts! So, in the world called Islam, it is all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against their injustices, they should retaliate against the protestors with such violence that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent (exactly the reason that motivates them to behead an innocent man on global television). This demonstrates that the Qur'an is nothing but a political manual for controlling people with terror and the enforcers of this Islamic-ideology are immuned from accountability by Qur'anic law and can therefore carry-out judgment to any non-believer using any method of their choice with a Qur'anic preference of beheading.
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:67-68)
These two Surahs are in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle of banu-l-Mustaliq. Allah the merciful is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, allah is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is lawful and good because it was done in service to allah. So murder, rape, plunder, and destruction are all perfectly fine with allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'terrorism.'
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:217)
Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans is the fact that they did not believe in Islam's god.
The Qur'an commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they exterminate all other religions and Islam would be the only religion in the world - the ultimate goal of Islamicism.
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against As-Zatimun (the polytheists and wrong doers)." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193)
This verse is mentioned also in Surat Al-Anfal 8:39. Because of the misunderstanding and ignorance of Christianity, Muslims believe that Christians are polytheists, because they believe in a Triune God. Fundamentalists look at Jews and Christians and all non-Muslims as infidels who must be killed because they have no value as human beings and must be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Fundamentalists divide the world into two camps, Dar Al-Harb (Camp of war) where Jews and Christians exist, and Dar Al-Sallam (Camp of peace) where Muslims live. They believe that Holy war against those who live in the camp of war should continue until they are exterminated.
The Qur'an commands Muslims to terrorize and torture and kill anyone who disobeys allah and the prophet Mohammed:
"(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14)
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33)
The Qur'an commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force.
"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful." (Surat At-Taubah 9:5)
It is hate-filled words such as these that teach Islamists to go kill innocent, non-combatants because they are non-Muslim and won't convert.20 Furthermore, it is worth noting here that the words 'fight' and 'kill' appear more frequently in the Qur'an than the word 'pray.'
Islam is a prison with no way out. Once a person enters that prison, he cannot leave it alive.
"Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the apostates? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Aouliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Mohammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." (Surat An-Nisa 4:88,89)
This verse means that if a person says the Islamic Shahada (creed): "I testify that there is no God but Allah, I testify that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah," he cannot change his mind. If he does change his mind, he will be executed or beheaded as has happened many times in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries.
Although Islamists target non-Muslims for death, collateral damage from their murderous acts often kills fellow Muslims of which they make no apology for. In fact, it is Muslims that terrorists are killing in the largest numbers by far, and it is Muslims whose governments and societies the Islamists want to takeover initially, then from there, launch their aggression in an all-out assault to obtain the final prize of a global, Islamic kingdom governed by Qur'anic law.
As our focus now sharpens, we begin to see the real reasons they hate; an ancient jealousy sewn and passed down over the centuries to a criminal son who was willing to act upon this hatred and write about it claiming it was words given to him by God.
The Real Reason they Hate:We have all heard the plethora of lies spewing from the mouths of Islamic propagandists who are attempting to justify their murderous acts; 'American support for Israel,' 'We hate America and her love of pornography, alcohol, and secularism,' 'Israeli occupation (which ranks atop the biggest lies ever told - see Signs, Signs, Everywhere are Signs and The Arab Jewish Conflict),' 'We will continue our attacks until western foreign policy towards the Middle East is changed.'
We routinely hear the western liberal press and the Arab press promote that Islam has been hijacked and truly is a 'religion of peace.' If this were true, then on what basis do non-Arab Muslims have for hating Israel? We see examples of their hatred every day and it comes from the self-proclaimed moderates just as loud as it does from the Islamists.
Since modern-day Arab's are descendants of Ishmael and Esau - fathers of the Arab peoples - Mohammed and his blood brothers can at least base their hatred on their loss of their ancestral birthright. But what then is the basis for the same level of hatred found also in the non-Arab Muslims - Asians, Blacks, Whites?21 Certainly they have no birth-right arguments! So what then is their source of hatred toward the Israelis if Islam teaches peace? The fact is, they, like the Islamists, learn this hate from the Qur'an because, as explained earlier, it is what Mohammed himself believed, acted out, and taught to his followers.
Even if America abandoned support for Israel altogether, which would make the Arab and Muslim haters rejoice, they would surely not stop hating us nor would they stop their terrorist acts. They would only conclude that their terror worked, and that America will give in when the threats are great enough and the fatalities are too many to tolerate, just as they recognized it did in Spain and the Philippines, and thus, such a move would only accelerate their hatred.
Once the nations of the world have thus succumbed to their terror, it would finally be at this time that the rest of the world realizes the foundations for Muslim hatred towards the rest of the world, is not Jewish based, nor is it foreign policy based, but rather Qur'anic based, and by this time it will be too late. One proof? Most Muslims living in Europe, which long ago abandoned Israel, continue to hate and attack much of Europe. Europe's abandonment of Israel has only convinced them - for good reason - that Europe has lost its moral fiber and is ripe for an Islamic takeover - and they maybe right!
Although Qur'anic law, on a percentage basis, is by far the primary basis for Islamic hatred of the west, other reasons add fuel to the fire:
America alone (and the little America in the Middle East, Israel) prevents the expansion of Islamic rule.
Expansionist totalitarian movements, whether Soviet communism or radical Islam, always hate free societies, and America is the strongest free society.
America is not only strong, it is religious (as opposed to Europe, which is weak and irreligious).
America is not only Christian; it is Judeo-Christian, the two religions the Islamists need to overcome to expand globally.
And let's not overlook the effects secular liberalism has had on Islam's perception of western culture. In Europe, drugs are legal,22 and in America, homosexuality is not perversion, abortion is not murder, and pornography ranks amongst the largest revenue generating industries.23 As the 'Left' in America successfully continue to remove Mosaic and Spiritual Law from our culture, we become less God fearing and more tolerant and embracing of these issues. Radical Islam sees this and it scares them to death. In fact, it is on this one, very small and isolated stage that Evangelical Fundamentalism and Islamicism share common ground. We both hate what left wing ideologies stand for and we both see the moral destruction it leads to and it fuels their fears of global, western culturalsim. However, outside of this stage, Christian Fundamentalism and Radical Islam are polar opposites.
The sad news is that the 'Left' in America today have deceptively become puppets of the Islamists propaganda. Since we know the moral, degenerating effects of Liberalism, it should be our hope to inject Muslim cultures with brainwashed, liberal, colleges students who go into western universities with a sense of morality and come out believing that absolute truth does not exist, mother earth is beautiful and the creator of all things, and diversity and tolerance are the keys to mankind's socioeconomic prosperity.24
It is not education that will make this problem go away - such a farce is only believed and promoted by the left-wing media elitists. Islamists believe they are performing the 'God of Creation's' will and that for their actions they will receive just-rewards so it does not matter what any foreign policy says as any such position will not reduce or eliminate their religious beliefs and duties of martyrdom.
Martyrdom's BountyThe Qur'an declares that Muslims who fight and die in battle are promised forgiveness and a sensual luxurious life in Paradise.
"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)." (Surat Al-Imran 3:157)
"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him." (Surat At-Taubah 9:111)
What can martyrs expect in paradise? The Qur'an describes life in paradise in the following words:
"Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do. They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. And We shall provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire." (Surat At-Tur 52:17-20,22)
"Water flowing constantly and fruit in plenty whose supply is not cut off and reclining on couches raised high, verily we have created them (women) of special creation and made them virgins of equal age" (Surat Al-Waqiah 56:31-37)
"Gardens and vineyards and young full-breasted virgins of equal age and a full cup of wine." (Surat An-Naba 78:32-34)
Some prominent Muslim clerics call the suicide bombers martyrs because, as identified here, the Qur'an states a martyr is guaranteed both total forgiveness of his sins and eternal life in paradise. In this so-called paradise, he can drink wine and be married to as many as 72 beautiful, sensual virgins. What kind of god rewards a man for killing innocent women and children with a herum of females serving as eternal, sexual-slaves?
In the Islamists world women serve as the ultimate reward in heaven, but here on earth, in Muslim nations, they're forced to live as second class citizens. Moreover, if eternal pornography is truly the reward for martyrdom, then how can these fundamentalists denounce the pornography that has run rampant in western cultures when they themselves believe they will be partakers in the same bounty? Furthermore, while they are denouncing pornography and secularism, they clothe their wives in one room from head-to-toe, and they rape other women in the house down the street. And all the while they accuse and attack the west because of our 'lack of morality.'
Many moderate Muslims say the fundamentalists comprise a very small minority (the alleged ratio is 9:1) and that they act out these crimes because they misinterpret the Qur'an by taking it literally. If this is true, then I wonder which Qur'anic verses are to be taken literally and which are not? And based upon what? And if they truly are a small minority, then why does the overwhelming majority of Muslims not stand up to them?
A Minority? They Practice what they PreachIt is commonplace to say everything changed on September 11th 2001, but of course the real changes had taken place long before then. There were hints in the early 1980s when, following the Iranian revolution, the staff of the American Embassy were held hostage for a year. Even at that stage it was clear that all things American excited a peculiar rage amongst Islamists. But as the dust of the Berlin wall settled, it became apparent that far from an aberration, Iran was a trendsetter in the new global, political scenery, as throughout the 1990s Islamicism became an increasingly potent, political force. And with a positive promotion of Islam, Qur'anic law formed one strand of the Islamist agenda, anti-Westernism formed the other. Indeed, it is arguable that anti-Westernism is vital to Islamicism's survival and growth, since without the West to rail against, Islam would have only itself to blame for its own failings.
This anti-Westernism has now grown to the extent that it forms a significant, and by far the most violent, element in the conflicts of the twenty-first century. When Samuel P. Huntington referred to Islam's 'bloody borders' in his 1993 essay titled, "The Clash of Civilizations?," he admits he,
"...made that judgement on the basis of a casual survey of intercivilizational conflicts."25 This is remedied in his greatly-expanded 1997 work, where he quotes evidence that, for example, there were in 1993-94,
"...three times as many intercivilizational conflicts involving Muslims as there were conflicts between all non-Muslim civilizations. The conflicts within Islam also were more numerous than those in any other civilization including tribal conflicts in Africa. In contrast to Islam, the West was involved in only two intracivilizational and two intercivilizational conflicts."26
Of course, it is always easy to point the finger at others, and the finger has duly been pointed at the West, yet the reality remains that the number of violent conflicts between broadly Western states and non-Western non-Muslim states is small to the point of, in some years, non-existence. Similarly, armed clashes between and within Western cultures are now (with significant exceptions) almost unheard of.
It is alleged that Islamicism comprises 10-15% of the entire 1.1 billion Muslim population. Yet there are presently 25 major conflicts in the world today and 20 of them involve Muslims either against other religious/ethnicities, or against each other.27 Furthermore, as of March 2003, the US State Dept lists 33 foreign terrorist groups operating in the world today and 22 of them are Muslim.28 If it is true that only 10-15% of Islam comprises religious fundamentalists, than it must also be true that a significant number of the remaining majority sit silently watching, cheering them on. The rest? They are likely moderate-secularists, who either fear reprisals from the Islamists, or don't care at all.
A Look at Current Muslim Conflicts:Let's first consider what the Islamic "minority" is currently engaged in:
In Afghanistan, Taliban remnants and local tribal leaders continue to wage resistance against the newly elected government there.
In Algeria, Islamists are attempting to overthrow a military-based, secular Muslim government by slaughtering any who oppose and with no regard for life.29
In Bosnia/Herzgovinia, Muslims have been fighting other factions off and on for over 20 years.
In Côte d'Ivoire and Chad, Muslim separatists are fighting the established government.30
In Cyprus, Muslim Turks have been warring off and on with Christian Greeks.
Shortly after Indonesia declared the annexation of East Timor, the Islamic Indonesian army went on a "religious cleansing" spree by slaughtering Christians.31
In India, a Muslim - Hindu conflict has existed off-and-of since the British occupancy ended.
In and out of Israel, Jews have been savagely murdered by cowardly acts of terrorism for the last 40 years.
In Kashmir, where estimates of 30 - 60,000 deaths since 1989 have been reported, Muslims and Hindus have been warring over control of that province and both nations posses nuclear power.
In Kosovo, Muslims and Serbs have continued their bitter, religious hatred of each other.
In Kurdistan, Muslims continue their assault on Christians for governmental control.32
In Macedonia, Muslims had been engaged in a civil war until NATO's intervention brought disarmament.
All over the Middle East there exists daily attacks against all ethnicities by Muslims in the name of Islam.
In Nigeria, a country forever ruled by Muslims dictators, Muslims in the north are fighting a new government transitioning towards democracy.33
In Pakistan, Islamists continue to terrorize more moderate Muslims in an effort to gain control of the government and its nuclear weaponry.
In the Philippines, a small band of radical members of Abu Sayaf have been carrying out terrorist attacks seeking separation.
In Russia, Muslim Chechnyians have been carrying out terrorists attacks seeking separation from Russian control.
In Somalia, rival clans of Muslims are slaughtering each other trying to gain a governmental foot hold.
And in Sudan, the Muslim government supports Arab militias who seek out and rape Christian women while the government forces of Khartoum have killed more than one million Christians.34-38
Recent jihad-inspired decapitations of 'infidels' by Muslims have occurred across the globe - Christians in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria; Hindu priests and 'unveiled' Hindu women in Kashmir; Wall Street Journal reporter, and Jew, Daniel Pearl, American's Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, Jr, and most recently South Korean Kim Sun-il. Based on Mohammed's seeding of Islam, we should not at all be surprised that these contemporary paroxysms of jihad violence are accompanied by these 'ritualized' beheadings. Such gruesome acts are in fact sanctioned by core Islamic sacred texts, and classical Muslim jurisprudence. Empty claims that jihad decapitations are somehow 'alien to true Islam,'39, 40 however well-intentioned, are simply just not true as history will attest.
Welcome, then, to the twenty-first century.
Muslims allege that the West wars on Islam yet the facts reveal that it is Islam that wars with the rest of world. In fact, at the time of this writing, Islam is at war with America, but America is not yet at war with Islam. All of these conflicts offer us a forglimpse of our emerging future where global-relationships are defined by religious, ethnic-alliances and contribute more to conflicts than political foreign policies do.
Conclusion:In Christianity, the saved follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - saved by Grace, through faith. Christians and Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe," while Islamists say, "You will die for what I believe." In Islam, the 'saved' are those who follow the teachings of their leader Mohammed and only because he sewed seeds of violence, is why today's Islamic fruit reaps violence.
How can a religion (seed), conceived (planted) by violence, and preached by a murderer (nourished), have a peaceful (fruitful) future (harvest)? If you mix flour, cocoa, sugar, and oil, you get a chocolate cake. If you mix violence - murder, rape, plunder - with religion, you get Islamists. And if you claim visions from God to justify your violence, you do not come as a prophet of peace, but rather you come to destroy peace - you are a messenger of satan and you have been deceived.
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Galatians 6:7-8)
Today we hear on radio and television many Muslim clerics saying that Islam means peace. But the word Islam means 'submission' and a Muslim is one who is in submission to allah. Their goal, as stated in the Qu'ran, is to bring the entire world into submission to allah under a global, Islamic empire. And they believe before they can achieve this dream they must first destroy America and the western countries.
Nineteen educated Muslims representing a broad demographical base, committed suicide and killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the four planes they flew on that black Tuesday. Those nineteen Muslims did that because of their deep conviction that they will go directly to paradise to enjoy sensual pleasures, and because of their terrible hatred for America; a country populated by a Christian majority.
These men were devout Muslims who were highly intelligent and demonstrated excellent communication skills with children, old men, professors, and people in government. Each of them successfully adapted to Western culture while secretly hating it. Mohammed Atta, in his October 1999 thesis, wrote the following verse from the Qu'ran:41
"My Prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death belong to allah, the Lord of the World's"
The West needs to know that many other Mohammed Atta's may quietly be living amongst us.
Followers of the al-Qaeda ideology have already shown what kind of government and what kind of society they pursue. Afghanistan had the dubious distinction of embodying that fundamentalist fantasy under Taliban rule where Qur'anic Law dictated every aspect of daily life, where thought and expression were strictly controlled, and where infractions against ancient religious codes were punished by beheadings. From Afghanistan we have been warned that the biggest losers from a fundamentalist victory will be non-Muslims and women - everyone else.
The number one enemy of Islamic radicals is modernity. And anything that moves society forward, away from their understanding of what life was like in 7th century Arabia, where Islam was born, is viewed as a threat. That's one reason why Muslims and non-Muslims incorrectly view this as a conflict between East and West. Islamists view the West, led by the United States, as the tip of the modernity spear - and they are probably right. But most people in the Arab world do not want to live by 7th century rules. They may not want all that America stands for, but they do want human rights, economic opportunity, and progress.
The Muslim majorities (some 950 million) - tragically for them and dangerously for us - have failed to speak out against this campaign that is slaughtering their people and keeping desperately needed progress from reaching their lands. As the controversial Muslim writer Irshad Manji says, "the Muslim world has used the West - the so-called oppressive West - as a weapon of mass distraction for a long time."
Muslims have been successfully intimidated. Voices of dissent have been silenced, and people who 'devour' the Western lifestyle in private, publicly speak out against America. And despite efforts to accommodate 'the religion of peace,' Islamists will continue to find reasons to hate and Muslims will continue to be the reason much of the world is at war. It is of great importance for any non-Muslim to know what kind of society he or she will live in if fundamentalist Muslims rule.
It is clearly no secret that God forewarned His people about the violent nature of Ishmael and Esau's descendants. Despite these truths, Satan's ability to deceive will eventually lead Israel to drop her guard and sign a false peace treaty, which will begin the 'Seven Year Tribulation' period - man's final reign on earth. Three and one-half years into this treaty the Muslims will be participants in a confederation invading Israel one last time fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel 35 and God's wrath in judgment against their sword.
References:1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123386,00.html2. The term "'Islamist / Islamicism" distinguishes those groups which are not content to coexist with or within other cultures, but actively seek their elimination en route to create a global, Islamic empire - Islamic fundamentalists.3. Ishmaelites are descendants of Ishmael and Esau. They are the modern day Arab peoples.4. Esau's descendants are often identified as Edomites. God changed Esau's name to Edom after he gave up his inheritance for a bowl of soup.5. Muslims disagree over who visited Mohammed in that cave. Some say "it was an angel while others say it was a jinni named allah."6. Allah is not the 'moon god' Christian groups often confuse him as. 'Allah' translates in Arabic to mean, 'the god,' and refers to a 'supreme god.' Since Islam views 'their god' as the 'supreme god,' Islam's god is thus also identified as 'allah.' However, it is important to note that prior to the arrival of Islam in the 7th century, pagan Arab's worshipped a god of the moon and stars whose name was also 'allah,' but their interpretation of their 'allah' was very different to the interpretation of Mohammed's 'allah.' A good example of this can be found within the English language. In English, the spelling of 'God' with a capital 'G' refers to a 'supreme God,' however, just because many groups spell their god with a capital 'G' does not mean all groups have the same interpretation of 'God' nor do they worship the same god.7. Akhtar Rizvi, S.S., "The Life of Muhammad the Prophet," Darul Tabligh Book of N. America 1971, Last edited 1999, ISBN# 0-9702125-0-X8. Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html9. Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html10. M.A.R. Habib, "Islamic History & Literature," ed. (2003). Camden, NJ: Rutgers University; Hourani, A., "A History of the Arab Peoples," Boston: Warner Books, 1992.11. Hisham, I. "The Prophet's Biography," vol. 2 pages 240 & 241 and, Ishaq, M.I., "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html12. Bostom, A., "Mohammed, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS," Front Page Magazine, Dec. 20, 2002, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=519513. Trifkovic, S., "Palestinian Radicalism and Arab Antisemitism," Chronicles Magazine, June 17, 200214. Trifkovic, S., "Palestinian Radicalism and Arab Antisemitism," Chronicles Magazine, June 17, 200215. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes2.html16. McNeill, W. H., and Robinson, M. Waldman, "The Islamic World," (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973; Ishaq, M.I. "The Biography of Mohammed," http://www.hraic.org/rape_and_islam.html17. Rodison, M. “Mohammed,” Tauris London Books, 200218. Farah, J. "The Lesson of al-Hudaybiyah,"World Net Daily, May 23, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27712 The treaty was called, "The Treaty of al-Hudaybiyah." In this treaty Mohammed publicly relinquished the claim of being "a Prophet of Allah." In contrast to Jesus Christ and His twelve Disciples, they died because they refused to relinquish anything they said or believed as they knew it to be True. The difference is this: Mohammed was so willing to relinquish his self-proclaimed title because he knew it to be a lie. Had he truly been a prophet of God, he would never have denied this even if it meant death. The following two years he used to secretly build his forces in an effort to invade and conquer. Even when he signed the treaty, he had no intention of honoring it - that's the value of Arab ink.19. Arab tribes today still fight and kill each other over who Mohammed's rightful successor was to be. Al total, there were four contenders: (a) Abu Bakr, his trusted father-in-law, (b) Ali, a cousin and Mohammad's son-in-law and the father of Mohammed's grandsons, (b)Umar and (c) Uthman, both long-time friends and advisers http://www.historymole.com/cgi-bin/main/results.pl?type=theme&theme=Islam20. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=520028§ion=news21. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59055,00.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121040,00.html,22. Stares, Paul B., "Global Habit: The Drug Problem in a Borderless World," Washington: Brookings, 1996.23. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/porn_020325.html24. Shapiro, B. "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth," WND Books, 200425. Huntington, S.P., "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," London: Touchstone Books, 1997.26. Ibid. 2327. http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm28. U.S. State Department: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/9014.htm29. Lemsine, A., "The Suffering of Algeria's Women at the Hands of Islamists," Middle East Times, March 16, 2001. http://www.islamfortoday.com/algeria.htm30. Burns, R., "Chad Defeats Algerian Muslim Extremeists," The Guardian, March 26, 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3906821,00.html31. Moore, A., "Christians terrorized in Muslim Indonesia," World Net Daily, December 8, 2001, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=2559932. Pasko, A. "Israel should Support the Kurds against Syria," March 17, 2004 http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/opinion-israel-support-kurds-syria-mar04.asp33. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/05/001884print.html34. Moore, A., "Sudan jihad forces Islam on Christians," World Net Daily, March 4, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=2667235. McCarthy, S. "Rock blasts UN on Sudan crisis," The Globe and Mail, June 15, 2004, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040615/UNSUDAN15/TPInternational/Africa36. Farah, J., "World ignoring genocide in Sudan," World Net Daily, June 22, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3904437. World Net Daily, "Mideast 'indifferent' to Sudan Massacre," June 30, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3920138. World Net Daily, "More atrocities in Southern Sudan," July 13, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3941639. Evans, M., "Saudi Arabia - Beheading Capital of the World," World Net Daily, June 25, 2004, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3913040. Thacktson, Wheeler., "The Baburnama - Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor," Oxford University Press, 199641. The Washington Post, September 22, 2001.
2002 Creation Apologetics, All Rights Reserved, Copyright Protected
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obama prayer leader from group US linked to Hamas
Obama prayer leader from group US linked to Hamas By MATT APUZZOAssociated PressJanuary 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.
Mattson has been the guest of honor at State Department dinners and has met with senior Pentagon officials during the Bush administration. She also spoke at a prayer service at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Mattson, who was elected president of the society in 2006, is a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn.
But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Plainfield, Ind.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had "a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking" the group to Hamas and other radical groups.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.
"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.
The existence of the court documents was first reported by Politico.
The Islamic Society of North America, which describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization," is fighting its inclusion on a list of coconspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation. In court documents, Mattson's group says it does not condone terrorism.
The court documents represent a complicated picture of the group.
Law enforcement agencies have used the organization's annual convention as part of its outreach to the Muslim community. The group has provided religious training to the FBI, according to court documents. Karen Hughes, a former Bush confidant and under secretary of state, called Mattson "a wonderful leader and role model for many, many people."
All this was going on while officials in the law enforcement and intelligence community apparently had evidence that the Islamic Society of North America had ties to terrorists and to the Holy Land Foundation. That foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted at a retrial in November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.
Mark Pelavin, director of inter-religious affairs for the Union for Reform Judaism -- another organization participating in the prayer service -- called Mattson "a really important voice denouncing terrorism."
"Clearly, Dr. Mattson has been welcome throughout the government," he said. "I haven't found anyone anywhere who's found anything Dr. Mattson has said that's anything other than clearly denouncing terrorism in quite explicit Islamic terms."
Pelavin's group has a partnership with the Islamic Society to encourage members of mosques and synagogues to build ties nationwide.
Attorneys for Mattson's group wrote in court documents that it is not a subject or target of the Holy Land investigation. The group has worked with the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, according to court documents.
According to e-mails filed in the court case, one of the prosecutors seemed willing to ask the judge to remove the group from the list.
"I am sorry for the problems for your clients," Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks wrote in July 2007. "I hope to get something to you or file something with the court as soon as possible."
The Islamic Society helps certify Muslim chaplains for federal prisons. Mattson leads a program at the Hartford Seminary that trains Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.
Mattson was one of about three dozen leaders, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett, who developed a report released last fall on how the U.S. can fight extremism in the Muslim world.
------
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.
Mattson has been the guest of honor at State Department dinners and has met with senior Pentagon officials during the Bush administration. She also spoke at a prayer service at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Mattson, who was elected president of the society in 2006, is a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn.
But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Plainfield, Ind.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had "a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking" the group to Hamas and other radical groups.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.
"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.
The existence of the court documents was first reported by Politico.
The Islamic Society of North America, which describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization," is fighting its inclusion on a list of coconspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation. In court documents, Mattson's group says it does not condone terrorism.
The court documents represent a complicated picture of the group.
Law enforcement agencies have used the organization's annual convention as part of its outreach to the Muslim community. The group has provided religious training to the FBI, according to court documents. Karen Hughes, a former Bush confidant and under secretary of state, called Mattson "a wonderful leader and role model for many, many people."
All this was going on while officials in the law enforcement and intelligence community apparently had evidence that the Islamic Society of North America had ties to terrorists and to the Holy Land Foundation. That foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted at a retrial in November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.
Mark Pelavin, director of inter-religious affairs for the Union for Reform Judaism -- another organization participating in the prayer service -- called Mattson "a really important voice denouncing terrorism."
"Clearly, Dr. Mattson has been welcome throughout the government," he said. "I haven't found anyone anywhere who's found anything Dr. Mattson has said that's anything other than clearly denouncing terrorism in quite explicit Islamic terms."
Pelavin's group has a partnership with the Islamic Society to encourage members of mosques and synagogues to build ties nationwide.
Attorneys for Mattson's group wrote in court documents that it is not a subject or target of the Holy Land investigation. The group has worked with the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, according to court documents.
According to e-mails filed in the court case, one of the prosecutors seemed willing to ask the judge to remove the group from the list.
"I am sorry for the problems for your clients," Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks wrote in July 2007. "I hope to get something to you or file something with the court as soon as possible."
The Islamic Society helps certify Muslim chaplains for federal prisons. Mattson leads a program at the Hartford Seminary that trains Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.
Mattson was one of about three dozen leaders, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett, who developed a report released last fall on how the U.S. can fight extremism in the Muslim world.
------
Obama Has Little In Common With Lincoln
Parker: Obama Has Little In Common With LincolnBy Star ParkerJanuary 19, 2009
It's ironic that Barack Obama chooses to infuse these opening days of his presidency with the imagery of Abraham Lincoln.
I don't think there could be two more different men. Understanding why may help us think about what to expect in the days ahead.
Beyond his trademark "change we can believe in," Obama's defining theme has been unity and inclusiveness. "... There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America ... We worship an awesome God in the Blue States ... and have gay friends in the Red States."
Obama, of course, does not suggest that we don't have differences. His point is that those differences are not critically important and they're getting in our way. Let's put differences aside, get practical, and solve our problems.
The inaugural ceremonies have pastors for everyone. A white evangelical that opposes same sex marriage, a white homosexual, a left wing black male and a left wing black female.
His economic stimulus plan has large government expenditures to please Democrats and tax benefits to please Republicans.
Lincoln, too, sought unity. But Lincoln's notion of where national unity would lie was far different from Obama's.
He prophetically stated the challenge after accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1858.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the House to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
As historian Harry Jaffa points out, " For Lincoln, as for Jefferson and for all genuine supporters of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the distinction between right and wrong is antecedent to any form of government and is independent of any man's or any majority's will."
Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised. He knew that we couldn't ignore our key differences. Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices.
He knew that even though there were competing religious claims on the issue of slavery -- some found biblical sanction in it -- we would still have to choose and decide who we are.
As Americans killed each other, he observed: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God ... The prayers of both could not be answered ..."
We have many Americans today who read the same Bible but see the truths that define this country very differently. And, of course, we have Americans who do not see the Bible as relevant to those truths at all and those who would claim that there are no truths.
As Lincoln observed, the prayers of all cannot be answered. Unless we're resigned to meaninglessness, we must believe that our future will reflect today's choices.
On the hardest moral dilemma of his day, Abraham Lincoln stepped up to the plate and took a stand. He did not say that it was above his pay grade. And this is what makes Abraham Lincoln very different from Barack Obama.
Each time has its challenges. Americans feel betrayed by what they see as unethical behavior in American business and in Washington. Yet few seem to appreciate that moral problems lie at the root of our faltering economy.
Sanctity of life and sanctity of property are cut from the same cloth of eternal law.
In the view of many, including me, it's this law that defines our free country.
Our new president, who sanctions both abortion and massive government intrusion into our economic lives, sees things very differently.
So let's not pretend these fundamental differences don't matter. How we choose will define our future. As Lincoln said, the nation "will become all one thing, or all the other."
---
Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). Contact her at parker@urbancure.org.
--------------------
It's ironic that Barack Obama chooses to infuse these opening days of his presidency with the imagery of Abraham Lincoln.
I don't think there could be two more different men. Understanding why may help us think about what to expect in the days ahead.
Beyond his trademark "change we can believe in," Obama's defining theme has been unity and inclusiveness. "... There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America ... We worship an awesome God in the Blue States ... and have gay friends in the Red States."
Obama, of course, does not suggest that we don't have differences. His point is that those differences are not critically important and they're getting in our way. Let's put differences aside, get practical, and solve our problems.
The inaugural ceremonies have pastors for everyone. A white evangelical that opposes same sex marriage, a white homosexual, a left wing black male and a left wing black female.
His economic stimulus plan has large government expenditures to please Democrats and tax benefits to please Republicans.
Lincoln, too, sought unity. But Lincoln's notion of where national unity would lie was far different from Obama's.
He prophetically stated the challenge after accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1858.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the House to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
As historian Harry Jaffa points out, " For Lincoln, as for Jefferson and for all genuine supporters of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the distinction between right and wrong is antecedent to any form of government and is independent of any man's or any majority's will."
Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised. He knew that we couldn't ignore our key differences. Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices.
He knew that even though there were competing religious claims on the issue of slavery -- some found biblical sanction in it -- we would still have to choose and decide who we are.
As Americans killed each other, he observed: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God ... The prayers of both could not be answered ..."
We have many Americans today who read the same Bible but see the truths that define this country very differently. And, of course, we have Americans who do not see the Bible as relevant to those truths at all and those who would claim that there are no truths.
As Lincoln observed, the prayers of all cannot be answered. Unless we're resigned to meaninglessness, we must believe that our future will reflect today's choices.
On the hardest moral dilemma of his day, Abraham Lincoln stepped up to the plate and took a stand. He did not say that it was above his pay grade. And this is what makes Abraham Lincoln very different from Barack Obama.
Each time has its challenges. Americans feel betrayed by what they see as unethical behavior in American business and in Washington. Yet few seem to appreciate that moral problems lie at the root of our faltering economy.
Sanctity of life and sanctity of property are cut from the same cloth of eternal law.
In the view of many, including me, it's this law that defines our free country.
Our new president, who sanctions both abortion and massive government intrusion into our economic lives, sees things very differently.
So let's not pretend these fundamental differences don't matter. How we choose will define our future. As Lincoln said, the nation "will become all one thing, or all the other."
---
Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). Contact her at parker@urbancure.org.
--------------------
How allies of George Soros helped bring down Wachovia Bank
How allies of George Soros helped bring down Wachovia Bank ByEd Lasky
Wachovia Bank, a major institution, has seen its stock plummet and its continued viability called into question, as the nation's financial crisis muddles forward. [Update: shortly after publication of this article, Citigroup agreed to purchase Wachovia's banking operations in a deal facilitated by the FDIC.]
Largely ignored in this crisis is the key role played by Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), one of the largest savings and loans in the nation. Wachovia purchased GDW for $24 billion dollars in 2006. This was one of the worst merger and acquisition deals of all time for the buyer, and remarkably excellent timing on the part of the seller. In essence, Wachovia bought a financial time bomb ticking away, one that exploded this year, bringing down yet another former financial titan and further wrecking Wall Street. [Update: see this commentary from Bllomberg on the role of GDW in the fall of Wachovia.]
How did this transpire and who are the Sandlers?
Herbert and Marion Sandler, a New York lawyer and Wall Street analyst respectively, bought a small California thrift in 1963 and built it into GDW -- one of the largest thrifts in the nation. The company's business was built on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs. These were mortgages offered at low "teaser" rates that ratcheted upward as interest rates increased. They were often sold aggressively to unsophisticated home buyers who did not comprehend the vast financial risks they were taking, or who assumed that housing prices would rise high enough to provide a profit to them when they sold their houses. They were targets for lenders peddling mortgages that should have been stamped with a skull and crossbones, for these were among the most seductive and dangerous types of mortgage.
This book of business is the core reason for Wachovia's current difficulties
The Sandlers knew their business far better than any other person could. Not only were they the founders and major owners, they famously ran the company as a husband and wife team for all these years.
So why did they happen to cash out at precisely the right time? Did they see the handwriting on the wall, realizing the massive risks inherent in the mortgages they originated throughout one of the most overheated real estate markets in the nation's history? They are not talking, but when smart people cash in some of their chips, it's rarely a good time to bet against them. Nevertheless, Wachovia bet 24 billion dollars and lost big time.
The collapse was primarily caused by the GDW purchase, which became an albatross around Wachovia's neck soon after the purchase. "Wachovia found itself in ARM's Way" was the headline of a recent Wall Street Journalarticle. A huge percentage of these Wachovia ARMs were made to deep subprime borrowers with very poor credit scores. Most of these were "inherited from its ill-timed acquisition of Golden West" at the end of the housing boom in 2006.
The Sandlers have started to invest their billions of dollars politically, in the manner of George Soros, sugar daddy of many far-left wing groups and an early and prominent supporter of Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Soros has developed an empire of so-called 527 groups, putatively independent political activists groups that have influence within the Democratic Party. These 527 groups include the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, Human Rights Watch, Media Matters and a slew of other like-minded groups .
This set of political organizations also includes the International Crisis Group, whose foreign policy staff is likely to contain the embryonic future of the State Department in an Obama Administration . Eli Pariser, who heads MoveOn.Org, boasts about his group's role in the Democratic Party:
"Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we are going to take it back."
They have already done so, in large measure.
The top four donors to these 527 groups in the last Presidential election cycle (2004) were Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler . Collectively they gave 78 million dollarsto left-leaning 527 groups. That was just in 2004. They have become much more ambitious over the last few years.
Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form a core group of billionaire activists and Democrat partisans who have formed a group called The Democracy Alliance. They realized that they could magnify their power by working in unison and tapping other wealthy donors to further their agenda (the superb Boston Globe article "Follow the money" is a good primer on how money and 527 groups have come together to have a huge impact on politics in America).
The Democracy Alliance is a major avenue to help them achieve their goals. The roster of its growing membership consists of a list of billionaires and mere multi-millionaires who collectively hope to give upwards of 500 million dollars each year to further promote a left-wing agenda. A partial roster of the Democracy Alliance membership can be found here.
Half a billion dollars a year can purchase a great deal of influence.
The Sandlers certainly know quite a bit about leverage from their savings and loan days.
Among the beneficiaries of their largesse: Air America, ACORN (a group that has very close and long lasting ties to Barack Obama and has a long history of engaging in voter fraud. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (basically a private detective group focused on the private faults and foibles of Republicans), Media Matters, a media watchdog group that engages in harsh partisan attacks against media figures and articles it considers supportive of Republicans). The list goes on and on.
They are not merely out to elect Democrats, but to also permanently realign U.S. politics and shift our society and culture in a far-left wing direction.
One of the steps the Sandlers have taken on their own is to start ProPublica with a 10 million dollar donation, a sum which they promise to replenish annually. This is an outfit that will engage in investigative journalism and will provide its "findings" to larger media outlets for greater impact at no cost. American Thinker was among the first outlets to express wariness over ProPublica and the approach it would take given the ideology of its founding couple. Even Jane Mayer of the New Yorkerdescribed the Sandlers as hard-core partisans. Other publications shared our concern about ProPublica. Investor's Business Dailycommented in an editorial:
Could a couple of left-wing billionaires really be sincere about creating a "nonpartisan," "non-ideological" center for investigative reporting? Or is the pair just paying more to drive the media agenda further left?
One problem: The Sandlers fund both leftist causes and the Democratic Party. In fact, they rank in the top tier of donors. In 2004 they gave MoveOn.org $2.5 million, or as much money as their philanthropic ally, George Soros.
Along with Soros and billionaire Peter Lewis, the Sandlers fund some of the most important players of what is now known as the "progressive" left. In 2003, the three together funded about a third of the Center for American Progress think tank, which has close staff ties to Hillary Clinton.
Now if this enterprise were called a "progressive" nonprofit, as other projects are, it wouldn't be news. But given the chairmanship of Herbert Sandler, and Steiger's claim that ProPublica will be run according to the "strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness," there's reason to wonder if this isn't a new bid to drive the political agenda leftward under media disguise.
"We will look hard at the critical functions of business and government, the two biggest centers of power, in areas ranging from product safety to securities fraud, from flaws in our system of criminal justice to practices that undermine fair elections," its Web site says.
I would be very surprised indeed if the malfeasance of ACORN will ever be investigated by Publica, for its undermining of fair elections.
Unsurprisingly, though, ProPublica has already shown that agenda-driven journalism is its founding principle. One of its first pieces of "investigative journalism" was an attack on the oil and gas industry for developing the Marcellus Shale (a vast natural gas reservoir located in northeast America). ProPublica reported that developing this domestic energy source would damage the environment and advocated that these resources not be developed.
Maybe the Sandlers are helping their political ally George Soros, a hedge fund manager who runs an offshore fund whose investors may well include some of the world's wealthiest and most anti-American petrocats. Shielded from scrutiny by offshore operations, the names of Soros's investors are a closely-guarded secret. But perhaps more than a few of them would look askance at expedited development of our own energy resources. We would be less dependent on petrodollar rich abroad, and the price of oil and gas would weaken, should domestic energy resources like the Marcellus Shale be developed.
While the Sandlers personally made 2.4 billion dollars on the 24 billion dollar sale of Golden West Financial to Wachovia, the employees (including their own former employees) and shareholders of Wachovia, including those who have invested their retirement money and children's college funds in Wachovia stock and bonds, are not doing nearly so well. Communities where Wachovia has branches that may be closed as a cost-saving measure will also suffer. But worst hurt of all will be the homeowners who were sold mortgages that they should have never been offered, by a lender far more sophisticated than they were.
And here I thought that Democrat partisans were supposed to protect the little people.
So far as I know, the Sandlers have not offered to reinvest any of their gains into Wachovia to help it recover. It appears to be far more fun taking those ill-begotten billions and use them to fund an ever-expanding "left-wing conspiracy." Keep an eye on the Sandlers if Barack Obama becomes President. As I wrote, they know about leverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)