Thursday, January 19, 2006

Mohammed--Fiction VS. Fact


Islam Beheaded
By David Wood | January 19, 2006
The Information Superhighway and the Death of Mohammedanism. [1]
Heinrich Heine once wrote a clever poem titled "Marie Antoinette," in which the ghost of everyone's favorite French queen entertains her guests with "strictest etiquette." The irony of the poem is that neither Antoinette nor her guests realize that their heads are missing. They were all beheaded during the French Revolution, but without their heads, they don't have the brains to acknowledge their headlessness.
Islam is currently in a similar situation. Muhammad's empire of faith has managed to thrive in the modern world for one simple reason: Muslims have kept Muhammad's dark past a secret. Indeed, they have gone beyond keeping it a secret; they have somehow convinced themselves (and many others) that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example, perhaps even the greatest moral example of all time. Perpetuating this fraud has been, in my opinion, the most stupendous deception in world history.

True, there are plenty of instances in Muhammad's life that one could view as the deeds of a moral individual, and Muslims are quick to point out his acts of charity and his dedication to prayer. However, in assessing the overall character of a man, we must take into account all of his actions, not just the ones that support our feelings about him. For instance, suppose I become convinced that the greatest person in history was a man named John Gacy. I could point to his charity work at local hospitals, to his activities in the Boy Scouts and the Jaycees[2], to his patient endurance of numerous physical ailments, to his community activities such as neighborhood barbecues and other social gatherings, to his generosity to others, to his dedication to his family, and to his outstanding work ethic, which made him one of the pillars of his local business community. Yet, if I am to make a case for the moral superiority of Mr. Gacy, I must not leave out the fact that he raped, tortured, and murdered more than thirty boys and buried them under his house.[3]

I bring this up because of the peculiar tactic employed by Muslims whenever the character of Muhammad is challenged. When someone argues that Muhammad was a robber or a murderer, Muslims suddenly cry out in one accord, "But he was merciful and kind! He started Islam, and Islam is good! God revealed the Qur'an through him! How dare you say something bad about him!? He was the greatest prophet ever! Stop being so intolerant!" The difficulty here is that, no matter how loudly a Muslim shouts these objections, they have no power to overcome the historical fact that Muhammad was a robber and a murderer. Yet, to a Muslim who already believes that Muhammad was a prophet, the Islamic line of reasoning apparently makes sense. Nevertheless, to anyone who is not a committed Muslim, any claim to moral superiority will be an empirical issue, that is, a matter of examining and weighing the evidence.

Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia
more than thirteen centuries ago. For example, Abul A'la Mawdudi presents the following picture of Muhammad:

He is entirely different from the people among whom he is born and with whom he spends his youth and early manhood. He never tells a lie. The whole nation is unanimous in testifying to his truthfulness. . . . He is the very embodiment of modesty in the midst of a society which is immodest to the core. . . . He helps the orphans and the widows. He is hospitable to travelers. He harms no one . . . [He] is such a lover of peace that his heart melts for the people when they take up arms and cut each other's throats. . . .
In brief, the towering and radiant personality of this man, in the midst of such a corrupted and dark environment, may be likened to a beacon-light brightening a pitch-dark night or to a diamond in a heap of dead stones. . . . [After he begins to deliver the message of Islam the] ignorant nation turns against him. Abuses and stones are showered at his august person. Every conceivable torture and cruelty is perpetrated upon him. . . .
Can anyone ever imagine a higher example of self-sacrifice, brotherliness and kind-heartedness towards his fellow beings than that a man would ruin his happiness for the good of others, while those very people for whose betterment he is striving should stone him, abuse him, banish him, and give him no quarter even in his exile, and that, in spite of this all, he should refuse to stop working for their well being? . . .
When he began preaching his Message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder and was bewitched by his wonderful eloquence and oratory. It was so impressive and captivating that his worst enemies were afraid of hearing it, lest it should penetrate deep into the recesses of their hearts and carry them off their feet making them forsake their old religion and culture. It was so matchless that the whole legion of Arab poets, preachers, and speakers of the highest caliber failed to bring forth its equivalent. . . .
This reserved and quiet man who, for a full forty years, never gave any indication of political interest or activity, suddenly appeared on the stage of the world as such a great political reformer and statesman that without the aid of radio, telephone and press, he brought together the scattered inhabitants of a desert extending across twelve hundred thousand square miles. He joined together a people who were warlike, ignorant, unruly, uncultured, and plunged in self-destructive trivial warfare-under one banner, one law, one religion, one culture, one civilization, and one form of government. . . .
He accomplished this feat not through any lure, oppression or cruelty, but by his captivating manner, his winsome personality, and the conviction of his teaching. With his noble and gentle behavior, he befriended even his enemies. He captured the hearts of the people with his boundless sympathy and human kindness. . . . He did not oppress even his deadly enemies, men who had sworn to kill him . . . He forgave them all when he triumphed over them. He never took revenge on anyone for his personal grievances. He never retaliated against anyone for the wrongs perpetrated on him. . . .
It was he who turned the course of human thought away from superstition, the unnatural and the unexplainable, towards a logical approach illustrating a love for truth and a balanced worldly life. . . . In the cavalcade of world history, the sublime figure of this wonderful person towers so high above all the great men of all times that they appear to be dwarfs when contrasted to him. . . . Can anyone cite another example of a maker of history of such distinction, another revolutionary of such brilliance and splendor?[4]

This is actually a very condensed version of Mawdudi's reverent depiction of his beloved prophet, but it accurately reflects the Islamic conception of Muhammad. The problem, of course, is that this conception is horribly inaccurate. The historical Muhammad (that is, the Muhammad we can know about through history) was psychologically unstable,
brutal towards his enemies, and, according to some, sexually perverted. This isn't to say that Muhammad was all bad. He wasn't, and Mawdudi is correct in maintaining that Muhammad's character played a role in converting people to Islam. Even so, while Muhammad may have had many redeeming features, some of his less admirable characteristics are difficult to ignore. Consider the following facts about the life of Muhammad, which can be gathered from the reports of his earliest followers:

Fact #1: When Muhammad began receiving his revelations, his first impression was that he was possessed by demons. The "angel" who appeared to Muhammad choked him almost to the point of death. Muhammad concluded that he was demon-possessed and quickly became suicidal.[5] This wasn't the first time a person thought that Muhammad was under demonic influence, however. Ibn Ishaq tells us that Muhammad's childhood nurse also believed that he was demon-possessed.[6] Thus, both the woman who raised him and Muhammad himself held (if only for a short time) that he was possessed by demons. Further, throughout his life, Muhammad believed that he was the victim of magic spells cast by his enemies, who were somehow able to torment God's chosen prophet through their incantations:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, "O Aisha, do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other: 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The first one asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Labid bin Al-Asam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.' The first one asked, 'What material did he use?' The other replied, 'A comb and the hair stuck to it.'"[7]

(For more on Muhammad, magic, and demons, see "
The Bewitched Prophet.")

Fact #2: Muhammad supported his fledgling religion by robbing people. The early Muslims could have maintained Islam through hard work, frugal spending, and the donations of admirers. Yet Muhammad chose robbery as his chief source of income, and greed soon became one of the primary factors in people's rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, "Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?"[8] Given the prospect of untold riches, it's no wonder so many people committed themselves to Islam. Muhammad guaranteed that Allah "will admit the Struggler in His cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."[9] This message must have sounded extraordinary to the poor of Arabia. If they died in the cause of Allah, they would go to Paradise and be rich. If they survived, they would plunder their enemies and be rich. Either way, their situation would be much better upon embracing Islam.

(For more on Muhammad's use of riches to win converts, see "
Don't Lose Your Head!")

Fact #3: Muhammad was often ruthless towards his adversaries. Punishments for taking a stand against Muhammad included torture and death. Both men and women were brutally killed for criticizing Muhammad.[10] Hundreds of Jewish men were beheaded for standing against him, while their wives and children were sold into slavery.[11] Some early Muslims who apostatized were killed after Muhammad gave the command to kill all who turn away from Islam.[12] Modern Muslims often claim that Muhammad only killed when he was attacked by his enemies, but history shows that he murdered numerous people whose only crime was writing poems against him.[13] Given the facts, it's difficult to understand how Muslim writers such as Mawdudi could have the audacity to claim that Muhammad "never took revenge on anyone for his personal grievances."

(For more on Muhammad's brutality, see "
Murdered by Muhammad.")

Fact #4: Muhammad had far more wives than even his own revelations allowed. The Qur'an allows Muslims to have up to four wives: "And if you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you cannot deal justly (with so many), then one only, or (the captives) that your right hands possess."
(4:3). We know that Muhammad had at least thirteen wives during his life, and that he had at least nine wives at one time. Of course, he did receive a Qur'anic revelation telling him that he alone could exceed the four-wife limit: "O Prophet! We have made lawful unto you your wives whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given as spoils of war, . . . a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) believers" (33:50). Nevertheless, since Muhammad was the one receiving revelations that allowed him to transgress rules that applied to everyone else, many people have concluded that he was inventing revelations to justify his hypocritical behavior.

(For more on Muhammad's wives, see "
Why Did Mohammed Get So Many Wives?")

Fact #5: Muhammad consummated a marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muhammad's courtship of Aisha began when she was only six.[14] Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.[15] Fortunately, Muhammad didn't have sex with her until she reached menses at the age of nine. (Most girls do not have their first period by this age, but Aisha had been suffering from some form of intense sickness, which probably induced menses early.) Muhammad apparently took Aisha's first menstruation as a sign that she was an adult ready for sexual relations, and Aisha quickly became his favorite wife. Among her earliest duties as Muhammad's wife was the task of washing semen stains off his clothes: "Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them."[16]

(For more on Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, see "
Was Muhammad a Pedophile?")

Fact #6: Muhammad had a contemptible opinion of women. Muslim apologists often argue that Muhammad raised the status of women, and they are entirely correct in saying this. However, the status to which he raised them is almost as shameful as their status in pre-Islamic Arabia. According to Muhammad, women's minds are so deficient that the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man.[17] Given this lack of intellectual ability, women have to be kept under control by other means. Thus the Qur'an sanctions the beating of women: "As for those [women] from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them (lightly, without visible injury). Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them" (4:34). Notice the parenthetical remarks that the beating should be a light one. These words do not occur in the Arabic; apparently, even Muslim translators have a problem with this verse and do what they can to water it down. Notice also that the beating is done to bring the wives into submission. Muhammad repeatedly warned women about disrespecting their husbands: "The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: 'I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were thankless.'"[18] Hell, then, is composed primarily of ungrateful women (perhaps their husbands hadn't beaten them enough). However, even Heaven is a bleak prospect for women, for, according to Muhammad, women will spend eternity standing in the corners of Paradise, waiting for the men to come and have sex with them.[19]

(For more on Muhammad's opinion of women, see "
Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them!")

Fact #7: Muhammad is unique among prophets in that he is the only one to receive a revelation, proclaim it as part of God's message to man, and later take it back, claiming that it was actually from Satan. According to the earliest extant biography of Muhammad, he eventually became so sad about his countrymen's rejection of his prophethood that he began longing for some verses that would bring them to Islam. He soon received what he was looking for-a revelation saying that the intercession of three other gods was acceptable. Muhammad presented the revelation to the people, and his countrymen were overjoyed to hear that they could continue praying to al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. A mass-conversion to Islam followed, but in time Muhammad received another revelation, which told him that the former verses had been given to him by Satan. God told him not to be too disturbed over the matter, for, according to the new revelation, all prophets occasionally receive ideas from Satan:

The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses, i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions in his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise."[20]

(For more on this, see "
The Bewitched Prophet.")

These are just some of the facts that Muslims have been keeping secret, but they are enough to make any reasonable person doubt the validity of Islam. Muhammad was guilty of countless murders and of torturing his victims. He robbed caravans and participated in the slave-trade. His persecution of the Jews bordered on genocide. His polygamy went beyond that which even his own revelations permitted (though he did receive a revelation saying that this was okay for him). One of his wives was a nine-year-old girl, whose earliest duties in Muhammad's house included the constant task of washing the semen stains off his clothes. At times he believed he was demon-possessed or under the effect of magic. He was known to be suicidal. He admittedly received a message from Satan and delivered it to the people as if it were from God. He declared that women have half the intellectual ability that men have, that it is okay for men to beat their wives, that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, and that, even if a woman somehow makes it to heaven, her eternity will consist of standing in a corner, waiting for men to sexually enjoy her.[21]

These details about Muhammad raise a very important question: What does a prophet have to do before Muslims will be willing to question whether he is truly the greatest moral example in history? Normally, when we say that someone is a moral person, we mean that he doesn't commit acts such as robbery and murder. Yet Muhammad did all these things and much more. It appears, then, that Muslims are using the term "moral" in a very unique way. In this uniquely Muslim sense of the term, the word "moral" is defined as "whatever Muhammad does." Thus, if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral.

But this raises another important question. If God's greatest prophet is free to take part in murder, robbery, genocide, and slave-trading, can we really point a finger at people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say that they are evil? They killed many innocents, but so did Muhammad. Saddam tortured countless people, but so did Muhammad. In fact, one could make a case that Osama bin Laden is morally superior to Muhammad, for, while bin Laden killed thousands of people, he didn't sell their wives and children into slavery, or have sex with a little girl, or marry more than a dozen women.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.

On sources used. I have appealed to several sources for early information about the life of Muhammad. The Life of Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq) is the earliest biography of Muhammad. The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Al-Bukhari are considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable sources of information about the life of Muhammad. All Qur'an verses are from The Glorious Qur'an translation.

1 Muslims object to having their religion called "Mohammedanism"; however, by "Mohammedanism" I mean only the Islamic beliefs about Muhammad. Thus, the
term is appropriate in this context.

2 "The Jaycees" is an organization that helps young people develop various
skills for success, in areas such as business development, leadership, and
management. The organization places much emphasis on community service.

3 Before anyone misunderstands me here, I must note that I am not comparing
Muhammad to John Wayne Gacy. My point is that, if I claim that someone is
the greatest moral example ever, I cannot ignore all the details that prove
me wrong. If a husband cheats on his wife on Saturday evenings but remains
faithful to her the rest of the week, no one would claim that he is an
excellent husband because he is faithful to his wife most of the time. A
Saturday evening adulterer is still an adulterer. Similarly, when Muslims
claim that Muhammad was the greatest of prophets, they cannot simply select
the facts that support their view.

4 Abul A'la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North
America, 1986), pp. 52-67.

5 Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (The Life of Muhammad), A. Guillaume, tr.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 106.

6 Ibid., pp. 71-72.

7 Sahih Al Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, tr. (New Delhi: Islamic Book
Service, 2002), Number 5765.

8 Ibn Ishaq, p. 596.

9 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 2787.

10 See, for instance, Ibn Ishaq p. 368 and p. 676.

11 See Ibid., p. 464.

12 See Ibid., pp. 550-551. See also Sahih Al-Bukhari 3017: "[T]he Prophet
said: 'If somebody discards his religion, kill him.'"

13 See, for example, Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-676, where Asma is murdered in her
house for writing a poem against Muhammad. In Ibid., pp. 364-368, Ka'b is
murdered for writing poems against Islam. Ibid., pp. 550-551, states that
Muhammad gave orders to kill (1) al-Hawayrith for insulting him, (2) a woman
named Sara who had once insulted him, and (3) Abdullah's two singing girls
for singing songs about Muhammad. One of the singing girls survived and was
given immunity; the others were killed in obedience to Muhammad's commands.

14 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 3894.

15 Ibid., Number 3895.

16 Ibid., Number 232. See also 229, 230, and 231.

17 See Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 142.

18 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 29.

19 Ibid., Number 4879.

20 Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166.

21 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 4879.
Click Here to support

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Pope On The Koran & Islam per Mr. Pipe

I do not see any effective or noticible changes in Islam as all but a very, very few
Muslims will reject, with such violence as they see as necessary, any hint of changes
the Koran or the legal traditions of Islam or the uses of violence, rape, genocide murder
and such other like practices of that ideology.

By Daniel Pipes | January 17, 2006

Islam and Muslims are expected to be a priority for Pope Benedict XVI, but he has been publicly quite muted on these topics during his first nine months in office. One report, however, provides important clues to his current thinking.

Father Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, recounted on the Hugh Hewitt Show the details of a seminar he attended with the pope in September 2005 on Islam. Participants heard about the ideas of Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani-born liberal theologian (1919-88) who held that if Muslims thoroughly reinterpret the Koran, Islam can modernize. He urged a focus on the principles behind Koranic legislation such as jihad, cutting off thieves’ hands, or permitting polygyny, in order to modify these customs to fit today’s needs. When Muslims do this, he concluded, they can prosper and live harmoniously with non-Muslims.

Pope Benedict reacted strongly to this argument. He has been leading such annual seminars since 1977 but always lets others speak first, waiting until the end to comment. But hearing about Fazlur Rahman’s analysis, Fr. Fessio’s recalled with surprise, the pope could not contain himself:

This is the first time I recall where he made an immediate statement. And I’m still struck by it, how powerful it was…[T]he Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that [analysis] because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Muhammad’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it.

This basic difference, Pope Benedict continued, makes Islam unlike Christianity and Judaism. In the latter two religions, “God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world.” Jews and Christians “can take what’s good” in their traditions and mold it. There is, in other words, “an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.”

Whereas the Bible is, for Benedict, the “word of God that comes through a human community,” he understands the Koran as “something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied.” This immutability has vast consequences: it means “Islam is stuck. It’s stuck with a text that cannot be adapted.”

Fr. Fessio’s striking account prompts two reactions. First, these comments were made at a private seminar with former students, not in public. As “Spengler” of Asia Times points out, even the pope “must whisper” when discussing Islam. It’s a sign of the times.

Second, I must register my respectful disagreement. The Koran indeed can be interpreted. Indeed, Muslims interpret the Koran no less than Jews and Christians interpret the Bible, and those interpretations have changed no less over time. The Koran, like the Bible, has a history.

For one indication of this, note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian, Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for Shari‘a, or Islamic law.

Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha’s ideas accepted, most of Shari‘a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.

Even without accepting a grand schema such as Taha proposed, Muslims are already making small moves in the same direction. Islamic courts in reactionary Iran, for example, have broken with Islamic tradition and now permit women the right to sue for divorce and grant a murdered Christian equal recompense with that of a murdered Muslim.

As this suggests, Islam is not stuck. But huge efforts are needed to get it moving again.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Christianity & Thought---Another "Defense"


ZENIT News Agency, The World Seen from Rome

Reasonable Religion
How Christianity Loomed Behind the Success of the West

WACO, Texas, JAN. 14, 2006 ( The conventional wisdom that
Western success depended on overcoming religious barriers to progress is
\"utter nonsense,\" says the author of a new book. Rodney Stark defends
this thesis in \"The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to
Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success\" (Random House).

Stark, a professor of social sciences at Baylor University, maintains
that, in contrast to other beliefs that emphasize mystery and intuition,
Christian theology privileges reason. This factor -- not geography, a
more productive agricultural system, or the Protestant Reformation -- is
behind the rise of the West, he argues.

The author observes that this view contrasts with the position of many
20th-century Western intellectuals. They maintained that the West
surged ahead of other cultures precisely to the degree that it overcame
religious barriers to progress. What credit they do give to religion was
limited to acknowledging Protestantism\'s contribution, as if the
previous 15 centuries of Christianity were of little import, says Stark.

In a chapter on the union between reason and theology in Christianity,
Stark lays out why he disagrees with these intellectuals. The rise of
the West, he contends, was based on four primary victories of reason:

-- Faith in progress within Christian theology;

-- The transmission of this faith in progress into technical and
organization innovations, many of them fostered by monasteries;

-- Reason informed political theory and practice, allowing personal

-- Reason was applied to commerce, resulting in the development of

A gift of God

From the first centuries of Christianity the Fathers of the Church
taught that reason was a gift from God and the means for increasing
understanding of Scripture and Revelation. Eastern religions, by contrast,
lacked the figure of a conscious, all-powerful God who could be the object
of theological reflection.

Judaism and Islam did have the concept of a God sufficient to sustain
theology. But within these religions the tendency was toward a
constructionist approach that conceived scripture as something to be understood
and applied, not as the basis for further inquiry.

Christianity sees God as a rational being and the universe as created
by him. Thus, a rational structure awaits human comprehension. And
rising to the challenge have been theologians in the Catholic Church, who
over the centuries engaged in careful reasoning that led to the
development of Christian doctrine. Leading thinkers such as Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas, Stark explains, celebrated the use of reason as a means to
gain insight into divine intentions.

So when the scientific revolution of the 16th century came along, it
was not a sudden eruption of secular thinking. Rather, it stemmed from
centuries of systematic progress by medieval Scholastic thinkers, and it
was sustained by the 12th-century Christian invention, the

Medieval progress

Stark dedicates a chapter to exploding the idea of the \"Dark Ages.\"
Long before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment came about, European
science and technology had long surpassed the rest of the world. The
idea that medieval times were a period of stagnation \"is a hoax
originated by antireligious, and bitterly anti-Catholic, eighteenth-century
intellectuals,\" writes Stark.

It was in these centuries that water and wind power were extensively
developed, allowing for enormous advances in the manufacture of goods.
And notable advances in agricultural technology increased yields that
enabled the feeding of towns and cities.

Far from opposing such technical advances, Christianity welcomed and
promoted them. By contrast, both the Ottoman Empire and China opposed the
construction of mechanical clocks, for example.

Nor did economic activity have to wait for Protestantism in order to
flourish, Stark contends. The monastic orders created a sort of
proto-capitalism. Spurred by increases in productivity due to technological
advances, the monasteries led the trend away from a subsistence economy,
toward a system of specialization and trade. In turn, this facilitated
the rise of a cash economy, as opposed to barter, and the creation of
credit and moneylending.

Monasteries also developed a work ethic and an appreciation for the
value of economic endeavor -- long before the advent of Protestantism.

Moreover, Christian (i.e., Catholic) theologians refined ideas in
relation to the charging of interest and the just prices of goods --
elements essential to the development of capitalism. Stark also devotes ample
space to outlining the development of capitalism in the Italian
city-states, which spurred flourishing economies centuries before the

Freedom and equality

While the conditions for developing capitalism have existed in a number
of countries, sometimes the essential element of freedom was missing,
thus impeding economic progress. Freedom, Stark argues, is a victory of
reason and one supported by Christian theologians who had long
theorized about the nature of equality and individual rights. In fact, the work
of later secular political theorists, such as John Locke, often rested
on ideas developed by Church scholars.

Christianity in general teaches the value of the individual and
emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility in moral decisions.
Linked to this is the concept of free will. This was a radical change from
the past, evident, for example, in literature. Stark suggests comparing
the Greek tragedies, where the characters are captives of fate, with
Shakespeare, where the protagonists are clearly responsible for their

Stark further argues that the birth of democracy in Western Europe owes
its origins, not to a recovered Greek philosophy, but to Christian
ideals. The classical world provided examples of democracy, but these were
not rooted in assumptions of the equality of all citizens. The ideals
taught in the New Testament, however, laid the basis for affirming the
fundamental equality of all persons.

Property rights, another vital precondition for capitalism, also owe
their origins to Christianity. Both the Bible and major theologians
defend private property. Aquinas argued that owning property is inherent in
human nature.

Christian teaching also greatly contributed to the concept of the
separation of church and state, and to the limitation of a sovereign\'s
powers over citizens. These two factors enabled the West to avoid the
dead-end of a political system that leads to the arbitrary and unlimited use
of political authority, which hinders the development of a modern

Reason and faith

Stark does not lay claim to any great originality in his ideas. He
points out that eminent historians such as Henri Pirenne and Fernand
Braudel long ago established that historical facts contradict the notion that
the Protestant work ethic was the force behind capitalism.

Then, in 1925, noted philosopher and mathematician Alfred North
Whitehead declared that science arose in Europe because of the faith in the
possibility of science, in turn derived from medieval theology. Yet these
truths have been obscured by popular myths, says Stark.

In concluding, Stark asks if Christianity is irrelevant to modernity,
now that science and capitalism are so firmly established. But, he
hastens to inquire, If Christianity were irrelevant how can we explain its
rapid expansion in many countries?

Stark observes that in Africa Christian groups are booming, and in many
parts of the world Protestant churches are converting large numbers of
people, or perhaps more accurately, Christianizing many who previously
had not practiced their nominal religion. Christianity has also grown
in China, despite government opposition.

\"For many non-Europeans, becoming a Christian is intrinsic to becoming
modern,\" Stark affirms. Reason and faith, it seems, are not destined
to be opposed, a truth that awaits rediscovery by many in the West.


Thursday, January 12, 2006

Islamic "Justice" VS. Women---Again


Iran to hang teenage girl attacked by rapists

Saturday, 7th January 2006

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

Last week, a court in the city of Rasht, northern Iran, sentenced Delara Darabi to death by hanging charged with murder when she was 17 years old. Darabi has denied the charges.

In August 2004, Iran’s Islamic penal system sentenced a 16-year-old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, to death after a sham trial, in which she was accused of committing “acts incompatible with chastity”.

The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage and efforts by her family to retain one were to no avail. Atefeh personally defended herself and told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims. She was eventually hanged in public in the northern town of Neka.


BEST QUOTE: "Statistics, like prisoners in a Communist or Islamic jail, will tell you anything you wish---If you torture them enough".

RANKING: The following assending order should be kept in mind:
1. Harmless errors;
2. "White lies" which injure noone and may prevent harm.
3. Lies.
4. Very big lies.
5. Malicious lies.
6. Salesmen's, unwritten, statements or promises.
7. Politician's statements.
8 Editorials and some "reporting" by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington
Post, CNN
and like agencies.
9. Politicians' promises.
10. Statistics.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Catholic Church & Civilization: A Book Review

Woods, Thomas E. Jr. PHD
How The Catholic Church BUILT Western Civilization
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, DC, USA; 2005
ISBN 0-89526-038-7

This most excellent work presents an insistent and compelling defense of the arguments that: Western and Christian civilization is the only source of scientific and other forms of creativity in our world and its history; The monks, administration and schools and universities of the Catholic Church preserved the best of Greek and Roman thought AND developed them beyond their original static nature to an extent never equaled or even approached by other cultures or traditions of learning; The Church itself (In its support of the scientific method, use of Church resources, the scientific learning and contributions of its clergy, its support and honoring of such as Galileo, whose “fall out” with some Church authorities was only a small part of his support by most of them,) was basic, instrumental and not to be equaled by any other organization in founding and maintaining the very superior science of the West; And, that international law, the development of the arts (As opposed to mere crafts), economics and true charity all have their roots and development well established in the history and teachings of the Catholic Church and its leaders, clergy and members.

Although my book budget usually requires me to await my public library's acquisition of books, I did rush out and buy this volume—And, was glad that I did so! I suggest that you do the same.

Friday, January 06, 2006

The True Face Of Islam




















This paper is intended to present some points-of-view, as to “islam”; Viewpoints which have been ignored or kept out of the public's eye---Especially by the “politically correct” conflict avoiders who control what “truths” are made known to the readers of newspapers, text books and magazines, as well as the speeches and acts of oil-driven politicians and diplomats as well as pathologically pacifist religious leaders---All of whom wish to condemn us to repeat history by ignoring the bitter lessons of the past.

Although “islam” will be the core of this paper, Christianity, crusades, crusaders, true civilization and like subjects will also be noted.


For those who wish to “cross check” the contents and positions of this paper, I suggest the study of at least three of the following works, given in no special order of preference.

  1. Norval, Morgan; The Fifteen Century War: Islam's Violent Heritage; McKenna Publishing Group; Indian Wells, California; ISBN 0-9713659-5-4; 2002;

  2. Catholic Answers; Endless Jihad; The Truth About Islam And Violence; Available from Catholic Answers; 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, California;

  3. Islam And The Church: Fourteen Centuries Of Jihad; Available, without cost, at <>;

  4. Bat Ye'or; Islam And Dhimmitude; ISBN 0838639437;

  5. Bethke, Jean; Just War Against Terror; Eishtain, Basic Books; 2003;

  6. Bat Ye'or; “Jihad and Human Rights Today: And Active Ideology Incompatible With Universal Standards Of Freedom And Equality”, National Review; 11-11-02

  7. Spencer, Robert; Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens American and
    the West
    ; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, D.C.; 2003; This work is of special interest as it notes not only the history of “islamic” violence; But, specially lists the many places where such organized, anti-Christian and anti-Civilization violence is still or very recently been in place, such as: Algeria; Ambon; Chechnya; Egypt; Kashmir; Mindanao; And, The Sudan; And,

  8. Ali, Daniel & Spencer, Robert; Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics; Ascension Press, West Chester (Pennsylvania), 2003; (Although written for Catholics, any Christian or other civilized reader can benefit from the calm, honest and logical presentation of this book).

  9. Trifkovic, Serge
    The Sword Of The Prophet: Islam---history, theology, impact on the world
    Regina Orthodox Press; Boston, MA, USA; 2002\

  10. Webster, Alexander Ph.D. & Cole, Darell, Ph.D.
    The Virtue Of War: East and Western
    (This is only indirectly related to Islam; But, considers when crusades are allowed)

  1. Spencer, Robert
    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)
    Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, DC, USA; 2005
    (If you have to read only one book on Islam---THIS IS IT !)


Within this text I have used quotation marks and lower case letters to denote such words as “islam” and “muslim” to stress the point that “islam” means surrender to the will of God (Allah)---But only as “muslims” choose to interpret it, which includes the premise that Allah commands that “islam” either converts the whole world or subjugates all peoples to it. I refuse to allow the enemies of Christianity and all true civilizations to have even that advantage-of-terminology.


Certainly not! I am too old and tired to hate. As a Christian, I am commanded to love. Also, I have found that hate dulls the mind and, in terms of any conflict, gives enemies an advantage.

HOWEVER, the command to love does not require me to lie about enemies or to minimize their danger to myself or others. Most importantly, it does not require me to allow enemies to hurt me or my family or my neighbors or my nation or my civilization.

I will “turn the cheek” as to insults or even such gross insults as a slap to the face. I will not allow any enemies to kill or severely injure me or mine!


Islam” is not really a religion. It is an older, larger and much more dangerous criminal organization than the Mafia or Cosa Nostra or any of the Columbian or Mexican drug cartels or the Jamaican “posses” or any of the Chinese Triads or any like associations, past or present.

What evidence do we have to support that position? There is a stated plan, in the Koran and the Hadith (The sayings of Mohamed) commanding or supporting the use of force in the taking of others' property, the sexual use (Rape) of female captives, the theft of entire nations and destruction of cultures---And, the murder of anyone who opposes “islam” or leaves “islam” or , by extension, “insults” the Koran or Mohamed. That pattern of criminal behaviors is well documented in the 1400-plus history of “islam”.

The critic may state that “muslims” have rites and religious practices. My response is that the Mafia and Triads also have those and that does not make them less criminal.

[As a related issue, property does represent human life. That is, property represents that part of any person's life expended in earning any property. The use of force or other unlawful means to deprive someone of what is lawfully theirs means that a part of their life has been taken from them. In effect: “Every theft is a little murder”. (This quote is from a work of fiction, the title of which I cannot remember.)]

Such thefts and other criminal assaults, as noted above in the history of “islam” and anywhere more generally, may be resisted with such force (Including deadly force) as is necessary to prevent such crimes or even to recover unlawfully seized property. (Please see The Catholic Encyclopedia at <> .)

The crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking are condemned by the Church, which crimes are common in Jihad and other forms of “islamic” violence---Even to this day in such places as The Sudan. As kidnapped persons or hostages have a high probability of being murdered or tortured or maimed or raped, such crimes may be morally resisted by such (Even deadly) force needed to stop such crimes.

From a civil and criminal law point-of-view, in the United States of America, “islam” meets all of the standards for prosecution, as a “criminal organization”, under the RICO statutes. Any “muslim” who commits any criminal action, in the name of “islam”, can be considered to be continuing a 1400-plus year pattern of criminal conspiracy and activity and punished accordingly, in addition to any penalties imposed for the underlying crimes.

Any citizen or resident of the USA wronged by such actions can and should sue and ask for triple damages. Such actions could also be brought against anyone (e.g. Immans who preach in favor of jihad and the mosques to which they belong or at which they spew out their incitement to criminal activities; Certain “islamic” governments which allow such actions and support them).


On July 4, 2002, Mr. Mohamed Hassan Hadayet, an Egyptian national and loyal follower of Mohamed and the Koran left his apartment and went to the Los Angeles airport were he used two handguns to murder two innocent bystanders. An El Al Airlines security guard killed Mr. Hadayet before he could use his four additional magazines of ammunition to murder others.

At that time and thereafter, the investigating officials declared themselves “clueless” as to why Mr. Hadayet committed those murders. This, even though that “islamic” criminal left, posted on his apartment's door, a note which read: “Read the Koran”! (Where such officials really “clueless” or were they: Ignorant of what is in the Koran; Or, driven by “political correctness”; Or, directed by oil motivated politicians?)

Today's educated person should read the Koran and carefully note (After filtering out the “smokescreen” of God-praising statements) that the Koran is a clear work of hate literature, a plan for world conquest and an instruction book on providing a religious cover for theft, rape and murder.

In nations where such literature in not protected by “free speech laws”, the Koran could be banned (As are certain Nazi writings are in Germany).

Mr. Hadayet provided a very clear example of the effects of the Koran on individual “muslims”, who are not a part of any organized terrorist group and why the Koran is, by itself, dangerous to civilization and humanity.


It strongly appears that “muslims” consider the Koran the absolute and unchangeable word of God and consider any criticism of it, in whole or in part, as an “attack against islam” and an offense worthy of the death penalty.

Please see the CONCLUSIONS section of this paper for further comments on this issue.


THE NUREMBERG STANDARDS: At the end of World War II a considerable number of Nazis were brought to trial at Nuremberg and other places and charged with various “war crimes”, of which the following are paraphrased examples:

      1. They conspired, by a common plan, to seize unlimited power and to commit
        further crimes;

      2. They broke international treaties and waged aggressive war resulting in a world war;

      3. They initiated a horrible blood bath and ordered or permitted mass murder, tortures, slave labor and economic exploitation; And,

      4. They committed crimes against humanity by persecuting political opponents, racial and religious minorities and made themselves responsible for the murder and destruction of whole groups of populations (Underlining mine).

CONSPIRACY: The plan for world domination, conquest, etc. , as set down by Mohamed for all “muslims” and for all time, is contained within the Koran and the Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohamed) for anyone to read. This is roughly equivalent to Hitler's Mein Kampf and the other writings and speeches of that monster as the plan for Nazi conquest of the world.

The plan for unlimited political power is noted, below, in the NO SEPERATION... section of this paper; But, is clearly that only a “muslim” government and ruler, loyal to the teachings of Mohamed, are valid. The plans for other crimes deal with the forced taking of property, women and the subjection or murder of all who do not hold to that position are also contained in the noted “islamic” works and further “islamic” interpretations of them.

WAGING AGGRESSIVE WAR: Ever since Mohammed's forces left Arabia (Where they fought a civil war) such armies began and continued to this day aggressive war after aggressive war against both Christian and other nations in the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Asia. Some naval intrusions went as far as Ireland. These wars continue today in such places as the Sudan where the “islamic” forces of the North wage Jihad against the Christians and others in the South of that land---With attendant murder, rape and pillage, the common sign of such “islamic” wars of aggression. Of late, such “islamic” campaigns have been against the Peoples of the Philippines, the Christian minorities in all “islamic” countries and in the United States.

[It is not necessary to have any central “muslim” government waging war (i.e. Jihad) against others as the Koran sets the demands for such actions, for every “believer”, and justifies any means for them. We may, therefore, reasonable predict that, as long as any person (Such as the above-noted Mr. Hadayet) believes that the commands of the Koran are binding for all time, Jihad (As individual or collective acts of aggression and violence) may occur at any time and any place.]

The enslavement, by “islamic” forces, began with “islam's” initial departure from Arabia and has continued, to this day, in all “islamic” campaigns against others. Much of this enslavement has and is that resulting in the sexual abuse of captives or in making “child soldiers” out of very young, male, captives. The “muslim” turks imposed a tax of boys, from non-”muslim” communities, to serve as troops (Janissaries).

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: No “political opposition” is allowed in truly “islamic”nations was or is allowed as such is not in agreement with the Koran. (Please see “NO SEPERATION ...” below.) Christians and Jews were allowed to physically survive and maintain a severely edited form of their cultures if, and only if, they put themselves in a state of dhimmitude or submission to the local “islamic” ruler. Pagans were given the one time choice of convert or die. Under both conditions, “islam” destroyed whole cultures or, cancer like, converted them to something else.

WAR CRIMINAL STATUS: If Mohamed had been alive in 1945 and in the custody of the four Western powers, he would have qualified for trial as a war criminal. The same potential and status applies to all “muslim” rulers and leaders who followed the Koran in attacking other lands and peoples.


At this place it is proper to discuss the western concept of “truce” vs. the Arabic concept of “Hudna”; Both referring to the temporary stopping of overt, physical conflict.

Within the Western “truce” the has always been the implication that such will lead to a long term peace, often based on negotiations and an expectation that the spirit of “truce” will be more important than the letter of a truce agreement. In Western tradition, any truce violations will be considered in proportion to their seriousness, with a reluctance to totally cancel the “truce” for minor reasons.

Within (At least, Arab) “islam”, the term “hudna” implies only a period for regeneration of powers so that the stalled conflict may be again pursued with renewed vigor. Any, no matter how slight, violation of “hudna” is considered sufficient to allow resumption of hostilities at the convenience of the aggressor'. Mohamed himself, in his feud with the Quraysh clan set the pattern of this use of “hudna” as a tactical ploy. (See, “Hudna With Hammas”, in Honest Reporting.)


It is important to here note that, in the ideal “islamic” state, there is no separation between religious and civil authority. In such a state the law is only “islamic” law, the ruler is appointed by Allah, there is no room for public debate or democracy or the rights of religious minorities and no room for any other “perversions” as the political or social equality of women.

Within the “islamic” mind, the only proper ruler must be a declared “muslim”. The most psychotic, sociopathic, sadistic, unjust, greedy and murderous ruler (Does that remind you of someone?) must be a declared “muslim”and is to be preferred to any “non-muslim” ruler, no matter how just, reasonable, fair, generous and merciful that “unbeliever” may be.


The Koran views slavery as a “permanent fact of human existence” and “explicitly guarantees Muslims the right to own slaves” (See “Islam's Wretched Record On Slavery”; Front Page Magazine; 11-10-02; By Mr. Serge Trifkovich), In that article Mr. Trifkovich gives further evidence of he horrors of slavery in general, but especially as to the length of such slavery by “muslims”, the working-to-death or castration of most such slaves. (Unlike the USA or Brazil or other places where the descendants of slaves are form a great part of the populations, the lack of such descendants in Arab nations, along with the record of Arab enslavement of Blacks, support the fact that such slaves were not allowed to breed, it being “more economical” to enslave work ready adults.)


There are those, both “muslim” and others, who maintain that “islam” is a religion of peace (And of justice). Such persons should be made to clearly, on a “yes or no” basis, respond to the following questions, before a video camera, with the knowledge that their responses (And name, home address and work address) will be broadcast to the “muslim” and other publics.

  1. Are you a believing “muslim”

  2. Do you believe that the Koran contains only the words of Allah (God)?

  3. Do you believe that Mohamed was the last true prophet of Allah (God)?

  4. Do you believe that the Hadith contains the saying of that Mohamed and are true and valid instructions to his followers?

  5. Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and Hadith which allow or command the killing of any person who elects to no longer be a “muslim” OR those which allow or command the killing of any person who “insults” Mohamed or the Koran?

  6. Do you condemn those parts of those works which allow or command the waging of aggressive military or physical jihad (War) against those who do not follow the teachings of Mohamed?

  7. Do you condemn those parts of those works which allow the enslavement of others or the sexual use of female captives?

  8. Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and the Hadith which deny equal legal, political, taxation and social rights to those who are not “muslims” and all women?

  9. Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and the Hadith which insult other religious beliefs?

Any person who cannot respond, under the conditions noted above, with a “clear and convincing YES” to questions five through nine above must, therefore, deny that “islam” is a “religion of peace” and, for that matter, a “religion of justice”.


WHO IS A CRUSADER? A crusader is any person who defends, by physical force if necessary, the Christian Churches (And, their daughter, true civilization) from evil assaults which are in violation of essential individual and collective rights to life, limb, bodily safety and such property as is earned by physical or mental labor---As well as such less tangible rights as “freedom of religion”. “freedom (Not license) of speech”, “freedom of such political choices as do not detract from basic human rights”, etc,. Crusaders are permitted to use such force as is necessary to do so and to punish such violators where the usual civil authorities cannot or will not do so.

WHAT ARE CRUSADES: In the area of the civilization vs. “islam” the early crusades were efforts to regain lands and peoples unlawfully taken by “islamic” aggressive wars and criminal activities. For reasons noted below, those first crusades were not successful.

Later crusades were successful in: The retaking of Spain and Portugal from the Moors; The liberation of Greece; The freeing of most of the Balkans and Hungary; The French turning back of a Moorish invasion (When the French still recognized the danger of such intrusions and had the courage to resist them); The resistance to “islamic” invasions in Italy and Sicily; The destruction of major “islamic” naval force in the Mediterranean at the battle of Lepento; And, the turning back of Turkish-”islamic” invasions by Poles, Lithuanians and Germans in Eastern Europe and at the gates of Vienna.

In much more recent times, the “Crusade In Europe” defended civilization (Jewish, Christian and other) from the horrors of Nazi rule in an extended conflict (Where Arab religious leaders took the part of the Nazi forces).

CRUSADERS' ERRORS: There is little doubt that some medieval crusaders lost sight of the noble basis for their vocation and let greed, land-hunger and other like faults diminish them and their place in the world and in history. However, in our Christian and Western-Civilization (Present and with 20/20 hindsight) we can look back on such errors, know them to be wrong or shameful and apologize for our errors.

In Iraq, we did not wait long to begin the punishment of the few there who violated the purity of our crusade by abusing prisoners.

Muslims” do not, for the most part, make any apologies for the excesses of persons on jihad. Some, in fact, celebrate the killing of innocent men, women and children (Note the dancing in the streets of “muslim” cities upon those horrid little people hearing the news of the 9-11 mass murders).

IN SHORT: The word “crusade” is not a dirty word; And, crusaders are “the good guys”!


SOME VERY POOR GOSPEL EXAMPLES: Some pacifists, often Christian, use Christ's command to Saint Peter (?) to “put up his sword” and, to all his followers, to “turn the other cheek upon receiving a slap to the face”, to justify their positions of non-resistance to evil, general pacifism and trying to “talk out problems” with “muslims”, Nazis and others who have a commitment to evil, aggressive war and other like violations of human rights. They also claim that the relevant command is: “Thou shall not kill”. Those are all very incorrect and misleading examples.

First, Christ's commandment to Peter was case-specific as, according to Christian belief, Christ's arrest, persecution, crucifixion, death and resurrection were all necessary for the salvation of humanity. These were no more general instructions to His followers than the, from the cross, instructions to Saint John and Mary.

Secondly, the “blow to the face” noted by Christ was, in his time and more recently, a “deadly insult” which was normally expected to result in a very physical response. (From the point of view of history, it has not been so many years in Western lands, including the USA, when such a blow would have resulted in the concerned “gentlemen” facing each other, at ten paces, with pistols in their hands.) Even today, such a gross insult will, in many places, result in a violent, even homicidal, response. However, Christ recognized that an insult is not enough to warrant violence. Christ did not command his followers to allow themselves to be murdered or raped or forcibly converted to some other religion. In fact, if you wish to read Christ's last general commands or “marching orders” to his followers, who were about to go forth into a hostile world, read: Luke 22; Verses 35 through 38. In those final, general, orders, Christ commands that his followers obtains swords (The ultimate weapon of self-defense, the AK-47, of that time) even if they have to sell their clothes to do so.

Lastly, I have had it from two Rabbis and from Christian scholars, that the commandment should be translated as: “Thou shall not murder”. Killing, incidental to self-defense and the defense of other humans, of civilization and of the Faith, is not forbidden. Hate is forbidden.

SELF-DEFENSE PROPER: In fact, we have a right and duty to protect ourselves and others (Family, friends, neighbors, our fellow citizens, any innocent stranger, etc.) from criminal aggression of an individual or national or international (e,g, From jihadists) nature. [As a side issue, we have the natural right to have the means (Weapons) to do so when civil authorities fail to provide clear, present and immediate prevention of such aggression.]

THE SOLDIER'S ROLE: Those pathological pacifists who throw Bible verses about, in defense of their positions on resisting evil, should remember who it was that Christ praised as having “...greater faith than anyone in Israel”. That person was a Centurion, a man-of-war used to both commanding and being commanded and, most certainly, no stranger to killing in the line of duty. They should also remember St. John The Baptist's advise to soldiers, not being to quit their profession but to not extort from others.

SPECIFICALLY AS TO “ISLAM”: That pseudo-religion, “islam” has clearly demonstrated its aggressive use of force, for the last 1400-plus years to commit the various crimes noted above.
Therefore, we are lawfully and morally allowed and required to use such force as is necessary to both protect ourselves and those we are duty-bound to protect and are allowed, by the same standards, to use such force as is necessary to regain what was lost to such illicit action.

Such protection may include the use of “preemptive strikes” to prevent such attacks when there is reasonable expectation that such actions would be of a preventative nature. That is, it is not necessary to allow someone threatening you with a drawn sword at your neck before cutting that aggressor down.

Since all “believing muslims” (i.e. Those who will not deny the evil parts of the Koran) may be expected, at some time or another in any place in the world, to become involved in jihad attacks against innocent persons, it is reasonable to take such measures as are morally allowable to prevent such attacks.

PIRATES, BANDITS AND JIHADISTS: International law has, for some hundreds of years, allowed any party to kill, without any great “due process of law”, any pirate or bandit caught in the act and under arms. I see no reason not to apply the same principle to “islamic” jihadists and all other terrorists---Especially those found with weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, biological and nerve-gases) or after some sort of public announcement in any given area, armed with crew-served weapons, high-explosives, ground-to-air missiles, rocket propelled grenades and the like.

Most certainly, I see no justification to extend, to such terrorists, any rights under the “Geneva Convention” or any like “rules of war”!

A “MUSLIM” MINORITY VIEW: There is a very small group of persons,

self-identified as “Muslims” who hold very different views of “Islam” in the modern world. Please go to <> for further details.


PAST, PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE: Unless certain and unexpected changes are made among the great majority of “muslims” (Please see below), I see no end to the 1400-plus year cycle of jihad, hudna and resurgent jihad rising out of any “islamic” community, at any time and at any place in the world. This is most likely where “muslims” form a large part of the population (e.g. The Sudan).

JIHAD BY INFLITRATION: It appears that we are in a period when overt military jihad is again active. But, this is less of a danger to Western Civilization than the infiltration of Western nations by ever larger “muslim” populations who (Unlike the immigrants who settled the USA and those, in other nations such as France which became integrated with the laws, mores and customs of their adopting nations) consider themselves above the laws of such host nations and have shown little, if any, willingness to integrate. ( Even the Jews, with their separateness of religion, have become “good Americans” or “good Frenchmen”.) For the most part, “muslims” will not and, if faithful to the Koran, can not do so. In the United Kingdom, “muslims” are now demanding that their laws take precedent over the Common Law. In France (Where they form a very strong minority of at least 5,000,000), they do not join in in becoming French and so consider themselves apart from and above the law that they have done such acts of resistance as burning down a court house in which one of their community was found guilty of a very serious, assaultive, crime and sentenced to prison.

In the USA it appears that “muslims” (Perhaps due to Arab control of major oil resources) have inflicted an unhealthy influence on the national government.

What is to be done? I suggest the Spanish-1492 solution of expelling all “muslims” who cannot or will not fully and very publicly commit themselves to the supremacy of the laws of their host nations and who will not likewise deny the evil parts of the Koran and Hadith. Such as cannot or will not do so have obtained citizenship by fraud and have no rights to such membership in the community of any civilized land.

THE ONLY ROUTE TO PEACE: There is really only one route to peace between the followers of Mohamed and the rest of the world. That is for each and every “muslim” and every community of such persons to: Publicly, strongly and permanently denounce, reject and deny those parts of the Koran and Hadith which allow, recommend or command aggressive war, the sexual or other enslavement of others, the limiting of rights (Political, economic and social) to non-”muslims” and all women, the murder of anyone who voluntarily leaves “islam” or criticizes Mohamed or the Koran and the forced taking, in the name of “islam” of the property (Physical, cultural and intellectual) of others; And, renouncing all claims on lands once under “islamic” rule, but since retaken by other peoples.[Of course and under present conditions, any person who did so would be liable for “execution” and any community which did so would likely be exterminated.]

RESPONCES TO TERRORISTS: All terrorist individuals and groups should be crushed in the most effective, calm, and efficient manner possible (Without falling into the error of hatefulness) for the common good of all humanity.

The age of compromise ended with the failure of Chamberlain to find “peace with honor” in his dealings with Hitler and his Nazi terrorists and the negotiations with Imperial Japan up to December 7, 1941.

Unless “muslims” take the route to peace noted above, I see little in the future but the ongoing cycle of jihad, hudna and more jihad along with an ongoing and, possibly always ongoing, need to crush such outbreaks.