October 21, 2002
A reader writes that Islamic teachings are "love ... and ... peace".
The fact is that crowds of Muslims expressed great joy at the murder of thousands of innocent Americans on 9-11.
A Muslim Ayatollah put out a murder contract on Salmon Rushdie for writing a book.
Muslim cleric Shabestari, an Iranian official, called for the murder of Jerry Falwell as a (Muslim) religious duty, for expressing an opinion on TV.
Palestinian Muslim boys exchange "baseball cards" honoring suicide bombers who murder innocent people.
The Islamic religion needs to undergo a thorough reformation to free it from such remnants of seventh century barbarism and bring it in line with the modern values of rationality, freedom, tolerance, and respect for individual rights.
December 6, 2002
A reader states that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism "trace their heritage to Abraham".
The Koran does indeed contain some garbled stories from the Bible. For instance, Adam and Eve (Sura 2: Cow: 31-37), Moses (Cow: 60-61), and Abraham (Cow: 124-133).
This does NOT mean that "Allah is... the same God Christians worship". It means that Mohammad listened to a lot of Jewish and Christian stories and reworked them. "Allah" is not the Jewish-Christian god. "Allah" is the literary creation of Mohammed.
Islam (Mohammedanism) is based on the Koran, the supposed record of the alleged sayings of an ignorant barbarian. The Koran contains many directives to kill unbelievers (Christians, Jews, polytheists, atheists, apostate Muslims, anybody who disagreed with Mohammed). Devout Muslims take these Koran texts as justification for the current atrocities.
Muslims do not condemn the killing of Christians and Americans - they applaud it. Of course, Muslims who openly criticize the 911 atrocity, etc., might get "Rushdied" by the Muslim clergy.
The political goal of Islam is a world of Islamic theocratic tyrannies like the Taliban, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Islam would abolish freedom of religion, freedom of speech, indeed freedom of any kind. Anyone who did not convert to Islam would be murdered. Rationality, individualism, and freedom would be prohibited, because such is the religious duty of the Muslim as directed in the Koran.
To point this out is not mere "misunderstanding". Nor is it "intolerance and bigotry". Americans ignore this threat at their peril. More atrocities are on the way, because "Allah" demands it in the Koran and devout Mohammedans think they have to follow the Koran.
December 31, 2002
Advocates of "peace", as a way to deal with Mohammedan terrorist thugs, are strangely silent about the murder of 3000 peaceful Americans on 911.
They are silent also when radical Mohammedan terrorists continue to murder people in hospitals, churches, synagogues, schools, restaurants, buses, theaters, shopping malls -- wherever innocent "unbelievers" are minding their own business, peacefully.
The Koran teaches these Mohammedan fanatics that it is the will of "Allah" that they should murder unbelievers. These radicals find support in the Mohammedan governments, all of which are dictatorships, mostly Mohammedan theocracies, where individual rights are non-existent.
Mohammedan fanatics proclaim openly that they are at war with us (for the "crime" of being unbelievers in "Allah") and that their aim is to make every country a Mohammedan theocratic state.
The answer is not "peace", unless self-defense is thought to be a sin by the advocates of non-response to evil.
The only way to achieve true peace is to utterly defeat the enemies of rationality, individualism, and freedom.
March 13, 2003
My, oh my! The letters column in the Telegraph of Tuesday, March 11, had nine letters about the impending war with Iraq, and all of them were against it. And a couple more on Wednesday. What a coincidence.
Humanitarian pleadings were marred by a near-total lack of concern for the safety and interests of the American people. And a lack of thought as to the nature of the enemy. Of course, there was some handwringing about the danger of making the Islamist terrorists mad. As if the terrorists were not already completely committed to the goal of murdering all unbelievers for the glory of "Allah".
The letters seemed to totally miss the point that Saddam is a dedicated member of the Arab Socialist Baath party, which has the avowed purpose of permanent, unending revolution to elevate the Arab master race through warfare and killing all inferior races. If this sounds familiar, think Hitler. Think Aryan supermen. Think mystical tribalism. Think pogroms. Think power-mad dictator.
This has been Saddam's stated purpose and mode of operation since he seized power in Iraq by a coup in 1968. He vows to pursue revolution without end, revolution that erases all objective values and even the facts of reality.
To Saddam the Baathist, all principles are relative, and truth is determined by the revolution's needs. If this sounds familiar, think Lenin, think proletarian logic, think Stalin. But don't think of rational discussion or diplomacy.
The Baathist ideology requires continual conflict and bloodshed in the name of the mythical Arab super-race. It contemplates without remorse the mass murder of all inferior (non-Arab) peoples. Saddam has been pursuing this glorious bloody goal for decades. He is unlikely to give up the Baath vision voluntarily in the near future.
To entrust the safety of the American people to the whims or promises of such a monster would be foolhardy. To permit Saddam to pursue his insane ambitions of Baathist revolutionary power in the name of an illusory Arab super-race is truly to court disaster.
April 10, 2003
It is really, really comforting to know that there are people around us who are very willing to spring to the defense of the most depraved and cruel dictators.
These people are totally unable or unwilling to distinguish between totalitarian tyranny and the American ideal of individual liberty as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. These people treat countries like Iraq as morally equivalent to the USA (as does the UN).
They make no distinction between my desire to live and some tyrant's desire to kill me.
This is moral relativism: giving good and evil equal treatment. These people do not acknowledge that it is good to live and evil to be murdered.
In addition, these apologists for terrorism seem to consider the desire to live as a free person to be selfish, therefore immoral; while the desire to murder for the good of the master race (while perhaps lamentable) is surely not selfish, and hence not evil. This is altruism gone wild.
August 6, 2003
These thoughts are prompted by the article by Pastor Mark Belknap in the Gazette for July 23.
Pastor Belknap discusses the alleged religious justification for repressing "Palestinian actions" against the Israelis.
The bulk of his article contrasts Christian end-times theories, without ever examining just what those Palestinian "actions" are.
The issue of postmillenialism versus premillenialism is a subject that is beyond my knowledge and interest. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that things will probably happen one way or the other, sometime.
What about those Palestinian "actions", such as bombing of civilians (by Muslim fanatics, Hamas, not by "Christians")? What about the other acts of Muslim terrorism worldwide, including in the USA? It seems to me that it would be appropriate to make a moral judgement about these.
Could we possibly agree that it is is wrong to kill innocent individuals? Could we agree that forceful retribution is appropriate when dealing with murderers?
Pastor Belknap lists several indicators of a corrupt religion: (1) claims of absolute truth, (2) blind obedience, (3) establishing the ideal time, (4) the end justifies any means, (5) holy war, (6) suicide bombers, (7) labeling "infidels", and (8) labeling "apostates".
He does not apply these indicators to his theological adversaries, nor does he apply them to the violent Muslims. Since we live in a world with Muslim killers, it is fitting that we examine the Muslim religion.
(1) It claims absolute truth. Muslims must accept the Koran in its entirety.
(2) It demands blind obedience to "Allah" (Koran 4:59) and to Mohammed (3:32).
(3) Islam doesn't care much about the "ideal time". Sorry, eschatologists.
(4) Whenever Mohammed wanted to do something, he had another "revelation". For example, he wanted some more wives (33:50-52). He endorsed plunder (48:20-21). "Allah" changed his mind.
(5) Holy war (jihad) is commanded throughout the Koran. Don Richardson lists 109 instances of calls for holy war. (One for every six verses in the Koran.) (e.g. 2:178, 73:20).
(6) Suicide bombers are produced by the Islamic focus on holy war, combined with the promise of delights in paradise to those who die in jihad (4:74, 9:89). Jihad is the only sure way into Muslim heaven.
(7) Infidels are "inmates of the fire" [hell] (2:39 and 782 other verses, one in every 8 verses of the Koran). Mohammed demanded that infidels be killed or enslaved.
(8) An apostate from Islam must be killed (9:12).
So by Pastor Belknap's yardstick, Islam is a "corruption of religion". Or, in Mark Gabriel's phrase, "Killing innocent people in the name of Allah is a continual practice of Islam worldwide." By their deeds ye shall know them.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. Mohammed was just a barbaric cut-throat who conned his ignorant gang of followers into believing that he received revelations from a god, who was probably a recycled version of an old Arab idol.
Mohammed described himself (perhaps unintentionally): "Who is more wicked than the man who... says, 'This was revealed to me', when nothing was revealed to him?" (6:93)
Now the most fanatical of his modern followers are working to turn the world into a Muslim theocracy where there will be no freedom. We must face this fact or suffer more September 11's.
August 12, 2003
Diana West, in her column of August 1, reveals that the Senate has failed to confirm Dr. Daniel Pipes' nomination to the US Institute of Peace. She shows that this is in accordance with the wishes of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Pipes is an authority on Islam. The (CAIR) has long attempted to portray Pipes as a bigoted ignoramus whose opinions are of no value.
CAIR attempts to persuade non-Muslims that Islam is peaceful and friendly, but at the same time CAIR promotes Islamic terrorism and works for a Muslim theocratic despotism in the United States.
The Chairman of CAIR, Omar Ahmad, speaking in California in 1998, said, "The Koran... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
It is understandable that CAIR opposes Dr. Pipes and his idea of developing a moderate form of Islam (one NOT devoted to terrorism and tyranny). CAIR doesn't want any moderation at all, and it doesn't want to be exposed as a front for Islamic radicals.
And Pipes has written may articles exposing the real aims of CAIR. See, for instance, www.danielpipes.org/article/394.
As documented by Dr. Pipes, the true purpose of CAIR is to promote Islamic terrorism and to further the goal of an Islamic theocratic despotism in the USA.
Legislators who follow the wishes of CAIR are thus giving aid and comfort to an enemy that intends to destroy the American way of life, thru terror, force, and deception, as directed in the Koran.
It would be a disgrace if the Democratic Party were to become the party of Muslim theocratic terrorism.
"A Vote For Teddy Is A Vote For Osama" is not a slogan that will appeal to the freedom-loving American voter.
September 9, 2003
In a recent newspaper article, Kareem Irfan of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) proposes to teach Muslims to "defend their faith".
ISNA is a Wahhabi front.
Wahhabism is a Muslim sect which is the main source of Islamic extremist violence in the world.
It is the official sect of Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism influences 80% of American mosques.
How does one defend a religion that is directly responsible for worldwide terrorism, and whose sacred book commands the killing of all "infidels" (non-Muslims), and whose stated goal is a worldwide theocratic dictatorship?
How does one defend a religion/sect that promotes terrorism, intolerance, and the divine right of kings/clergymen?
If Islam is a "religion of peace", where are the Muslim publications deploring the Muslim terrorist killing of civilians in the name of "Allah"?
Where are Muslim calls for ending the "permanent" Muslim murder contract (fatwa) on Salman Rushdie for writing a book?
Where are Muslim actions renouncing Wahhabi control and Wahhabi money?
Where are renunciations of the Muslim goal of establishing a Muslim theocratic dictatorship in the US and the world, under Islamic sharia law?
Where are publications renouncing the Koran's command by "Allah" to kill all non-Muslims?
What is needed to make Islam a respectable religion in not more guilt-dodging "defense". What is needed is a thorough cleanup. The following points are suggested:
--Break with Wahhabism and all other terrorists.
--Declare that the Koran verses calling for killing all who do not convert to Islam are NOT the "word of Allah" and are not binding on Muslims.
--Declare that the Koran verses which call for making Islam the only religion are NOT the "word of Allah" and are not binding on Muslims.
--Declare that the belief in Islamic theocratic sharia government, enforced worldwide, is NOT the "word of Allah" and is not binding on Muslims.
--Eliminate from Islam ideas inconsistent with the principles of individualism and individual rights.
--Affirm that there is no place for terrorism in a civilized society, or a civilized religion.
With some such reforms, Islam might become a respectable civilized religion, and then it would be truly "OK to be a Muslim in America".
None of these suggestions for reform affects or changes the "Five Pillars" of Islam: Allah, prayer, charity, Ramadan, and pilgrimage.
September 13, 2003
One reader makes a very important point -- the crucial role of freedom of speech in protecting our other freedoms.
Freedom of speech is essential to the continued existence of our way of life, to the continued existence of civilization.
Perhaps the greatest historical experiment in the effects of the suppression of free speech was what happened in the Muslim world.
Before about 1200 A.D., the Muslim world excelled in all the arts of civilization. Free speech prevailed.
But Muslim clerics saw free speech as a threat to their system in which the Koran was considered to be the full, only, entire, and eternal word of Allah. The Koran was thought to be the only "knowledge" that the faithful needed. Human knowledge was despised and feared.
And so they suppressed free speech. They made it a crime punishable by death to express any idea not already in the Koran.
And for 300 years they prevented the use of the printing press in Muslim countries, in order to prevent the spread of "blasphemous" ideas.
The result was the total stagnation of Muslim society and the destruction of all science and civilized arts. They reverted to barbarism and they remain there today, a thousand years later.
Muslim fanatics want to rule the world for "Allah" and the Koran. They want to destroy free speech and the entire fabric of civilization, including all human knowledge.
Free speech is indeed our most important freedom.
September 30, 2003
Halima Khan thinks Muslims can be true Americans.
I agree, provided they renounce the Koran-based teachings that all non-Muslims must be killed, and that Islam is the only religion to be tolerated, and that Muslim theocratic despotism must replace the constitutional government of the US.
Khan tries to address the first point by denying that the Koran teaches that all non-Muslims must be killed.
On the second point, Khan refers to Sura 109:6. "To you your god, and to me mine." This was written while Mohammed was trying to compromise with the idolaters in Mecca . When this failed and he went to Medina, he changed his tune (nasikh, cancelled such verses).
Khan does not say anything at all about the third point: Muslim theocratic despotism "government". Nor does he address any of my six suggested points for the reform of Islam. Presumably, then, he does not think Islam should be reformed.
He suggests that critics of Mohammedanism should "read more in the Koran". Good idea, indeed. Here are a few quotes bearing on the above points:
[2:193] Fight against them [unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme....
[4:47] You to whom the Scriptures were given! Believe in that which we have revealed, confirming your own scriptures, before we obliterate your faces and turn them backward....
[8:12-13] ....I [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers! This was because they defied Allah and his apostle....
[8:40] Make war on them [unbelievers] until idolatry shall cease and Allah's religion shall reign supreme....
[9:5] ...slay the idolaters wherever you find them....
[9:73] Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them....
[9:123] Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you....
For suicide bombers: [4:74] Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah.... On him we shall bestow a rich recompense.... [9:89] Allah has prepared for them gardens watered by running streams, in which they shall abide forever.... [44:54] ...and we shall wed them to dark-eyed houris....
Now, what verse in the Koran assures present-day non-Muslims that Muslims are forbidden to use violence (like 9-11) against us?
Terrorist Islam is Islam. The Koran tells me so.
October 15, 2003
I am happy that Marcia Coan has found some friendly, peaceful Muslims who are willing to disregard the Koran's clear contrary instruction: [5:51] Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends.... [5:57] Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels....
I do not "hate" the friendly, peaceful kind of Muslim. And I have nothing against the head-in-the-sky Sufi mystics.
But I do oppose the kind of Muslim who believes that the Koran commands him to kill all non-Muslims. I do loathe the kind of Muslims who will blow up skyscrapers, school buses, restaurants, theaters, dance halls, hotels, and churches, killing innocent people for the glory of "Allah".
Just today a Koran-crazed terrorist from the Islamic jihad murdered 19 people, including women and children, in a restaurant. Not at all friendly and peaceful, but very Islamic.
The Koran commands and glorifies such activity.
That is why there is rejoicing among believers whenever an atrocity is perpetrated by Muslim terrorists.
Believers justify the atrocities of the jihad (holy war) fighters by reference to the Koran.
The Koran is a textbook for terrorism, and the justification for it. It teaches that the killing of non-Muslims is the will of "Allah" for believers. This is known as "fighting for Allah". If the Muslim dies doing this, he thinks he will go straight to Paradise, a place he cannot be sure of by any other means. This is the kind of barbarian garbage that is being taught to young boys in Muslim schools worldwide.
Ms. Coan claims that I an quoting Koran verses out of context. I do not quote the Koran out of context. Those verses were merely a small sample of the kind of barbaric incitements to murder that permeate the Koran.
The Koran commands believers to fight against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion, and Islamic law rules supreme. There is no freedom of religion in any Islamic country today, and no freedom of speech. Islamic countries are all theocratic despotisms, ruled by barbaric Islamic law.
The program of political Islam is to kill or enslave all non-Muslims and to replace all governments with Muslim theocratic totalitarian despotisms. Political Islam is the enemy of everything American.
Political Islam is being promoted in the United States by the Wahhabi Muslims who control three-fourths of the mosques in the country.
November 13, 2003
An Afghan draft constitution has been released.
If you want to know what a theocracy looks like, study this document. The Preamble begins, "We the people... believing in the Sacred religion of Islam." Article 1 declares, "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic."
Article 2 states, "The religion of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to perform their religious ceremonies within the limits of the provisions of law."
Religious freedom? But wait. What about that hedge phrase: "within the limits of the provisions of law"? The "law" is, of course, meant to be Islamic law, as set forth in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sharia.
The Koran is the supposed revelation of "Allah" to Mohammed, a seventh-century Arab merchant. The Hadith is a collection of the supposed words and deeds of Mohammed. The Sharia is Islamic law as concocted by Muslim theologians or lawyers, supposedly based on the Koran and the Hadith, and dating from about 900 A.D.
Separation of church and state is nonexistent in Islam, and in the Afghan draft constitution.
What about the law referred to in Article 2, which supposedly recognizes religious "freedom"? The Koran commands that all non-Muslims be killed, enslaved, banished, converted, or taxed for the privilege of being non-Muslims (K 9:5, 9:123, etc.) Muslims who renounce Islam are to be killed (K 9:73-74, etc.; Bukhari hadith 9:84:64).
What about freedom of speech?
The draft reads at Art.34: "Freedom of expression is inviolable. Every Afghan has the right to express his thought through speech, writing, or illustration or other means, by observing the provisions stated in this Constitution."
Again a hedge clause! What "provisions" of law limit free speech? Well, Art.3 reads: "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam." And Muslim law requires that a blasphemer of "Allah", or one who questions the Koran, or one who disparages Mohammed is to be killed.
Freedom of speech in Afghanistan means "observance" of Islam. Actual free speech, discussion, or criticism is forbidden.
The same is true of science (Art.47.2), media (Art.34,3-4), politics (Art.35.2.1), etc.
The right of the individual to freedom of action is non-existent in Islam and will be nonexistent in Afghanistan under the proposed constitution.
December 1, 2003
Halima Khan thinks it is OK for the US to issue a postage stamp commemorating the Muslims. She can't understand why anyone should object.
This in spite of the well-known fact that the Muslim god "Allah", in his own words, in his sacred book, the Koran, repeats dozens of times that it is the religious duty of all Muslims to kill all unbelievers and all who renounce Islam.
No doubt many American Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding. But if they don't know what's wrong with their religion, then they are part of the problem.
Ms. Khan misses the point, which is twofold: (1) Islam's sacred book commands killing of all unbelievers; and (2) every word of the Koran is supposed to be believed by Muslims, or else they are apostates and subject to death.
Under these beliefs, there can be no freedom of religion, or freedom of any kind.
Some Muslim clerics teach these beliefs in the US. Some Muslim organizations collect money for the terrorists who carry out these beliefs.
If Ms. Khan wants to be trusted and respected, she and her peace-loving Muslims should renounce their god's incessant calls for religious war (jihad), abandon the notion that every word of the Koran is the word of "Allah", and admit that the individual has a right to freedom of action and freedom of religion.
Then Islam will be worthy of a commemorative postage stamp.
December 12, 2003
One reader tells the story of how a humorless Muslim group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) objected to a comic strip "B.C." cartoon by Johnny Hart (Nov. 10), saying it "defamed" Islam.
The cartoon character slammed an outhouse door containing the traditional cut-out crescent moon, thereby arousing the ire of CAIR, who also objected to the fact that the word "slam" appeared in the cartoon, charging that "slam" really meant "Islam". Another insult (obviously!!).
Oh, please! After 9/11, is a mere comic strip going to harm the tarnished image of Mohammedanism? Is this bizarre buffoonery, or is the CAIR serious in its politically correct whining?
Perhaps this is a foretaste of what life would be like under Muslim sharia law: a humorless despotism where it is a crime to laugh.
Mohammed hated the poets of his day because they saw the humor of his attempts to construct a religion out of random bits of Jewish, Christian, and pagan ideas.
Maybe the CAIR got its idiotic notion that "slam" means "Islam" from the fact that the Koran as it was first written down was just consonants without vowels. The vowels were added centuries later, by guesswork. This generated various meanings at the whim of the editors. Nobody now knows what the Koran originally said.
However, the English language does contain vowels, and the word "slam" does NOT mean "Islam" (or even "salami"). It means "to close forcibly" (period).
Maybe CAIR is sensitive about the crescent because of the fact that a popular pagan god in pre-Muslim Arabia was the moon god, who was depicted with the symbol of the crescent moon engraved on the idol. The title of the moon god was Al-Ilah, meaning the chief among all gods. This was commonly shortened to "Allah".
CAIR is a front for Muslim terrorists like Hamas, Wahhabi, etc. Maybe CAIR should clean up its bloody Muslim theology before complaining about other people's outhouses.
I look forward to the next politically correct cartoon. It will show an outhouse. The man coming out says to the man going in, "Don't slam the door. You might disturb a sleeping Mohammedan camel."
CAIR should stick to what it knows best (covering for Muslim terrorists) and leave the humor to the cartoonists.