23 Questions RE; Islam

ANY TRUTHFUL PEERSON, BEFORE SPEAKING OR WRITING ABOUT ISLAM, SHOULD BOTH KNOW AND INTEGRATE THE TRUE ANSWERES TO THE QUESTIONS GIVEN BELOW IN ALL OF HIS/HER WORKS.

23 Questions---From The On-Line "American Thinker" Of September 18, 2006

What matters now is not press reports about pieces of a German lecture by Benedict or the Musllim reaction. If we must answer “yes” to all, or any, of the following 23 questions about Islam, are we entitled, nay bound, to be very concerned indeed ?

1. Does Islam claim that every single word in the 6,234 verses of its Quran was not merely divinely inspired, or authorised, but actually dictated, in Arabic, directly by Allah Himself, and revealed over 22 years from 610 CE, and so is uncorrupted and unalterable ? It descended [nuzila] ready-made and complete from heaven.

2. Does Islam hold the “Principle of Abrogation” – Nasikh - [Quran 2:106] whereby later verses always over-ride and replace or cancel the earlier ?

3. Are the 14 later [Medina] chapters and over 1,600 verses in the Quran, from 622 CE to 632 CE, thus supreme and unchallengeable when they contradict the earlier Mecca ones ?

4. Are there some 164 later Medina verses [from 24 Surah, between Surah 2 and 76] favouring violent Jihad, Jihad Bis Saif, by the sword, or Holy War [Qital Fi Sabilillah], not merely Jihad-e-nafs or struggle against desires ? See list, and full texts, on answering-islam.org.uk, including 9:5 “slay the idolaters whereever you find them and take them captive”. And see www.quranbrowser.com/ for 10 different English translations of any verse.

5. Are there many later Medina verses like 5:82 [“the most implacable in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews”] teaching utter hatred for Jews, as 24 Surah and nearly 90 verses translated into English on the Jewishvirtuallibrary web-site, or 20 references in the Fatwa Database from Sheik As-Salam Alaykum on the Islam On-line site, indicate?

6. Does the Quran allow, or even command, the killing of Apostates who leave Islam, like Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali ?

7. Likewise for Blasphemers – like Salman Rushdie?

8. And of Infidels in extending, or restoring, the rule of Islam?

9. And of Gays?

10. Does the Quran provide for hand amputation for thieves, as in 5:38 ?11. For flogging?

12. For public beheading?

13. For beating wives, as in 4:34?

14. And are there many Hadith which show the Prophet ordered stonings [introduced under the Second Caliph, 634-644 CE, ‘Umar, a Companion of the Prophet’]?

15. Does the Quran demand the eventual Global Rule of Islam, with no secular realm, whereas Judaism is about waiting for their Messiah, and Christianity offers salvation to persons everywhere?

16. Does the Quran demand the ultimate enforcement of Sharia Law everywhere, even on us Infidels?

17. Does the Quran permit Freedom of Worship to all faiths?

18. Or Free Speech?

19. Or the Right of Free Organisation?

20. Does it treat women as inferiors not only regarding inheritance, but as witnesses?

21. Does the Quran command Muslims to never surrender any land once held by them, such as Spain, or Western Palestine/Israel?

22. Did their “Prophet” order or lead 74 raids or wars during his Medina decade from 622 CE to his 632 CE death?

23. Were 600-900 male Jewish prisoners beheaded in March 627 CE [see Surah 33:25-26]?

If the clear honest answer is “yes” to all, or even to any, of these 23 questions, how can Islam [as distinct from other Faiths] be compatibile with either the 1945 UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Constitution? And how can we democrats not fear both any such system, and any who seriously adhere to it, and their increasing number in our midst?

We do not [yet] live in Dar al-Islam, the Realm of Submission, which is exactly what the word “Islam” means, that territory where the population have either become ‘submitters’ [muslimun] or else ‘dhimmis’, submitting by paying the Jizya tax, and accepting Muslim Rule. We by contrast, still live in Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War, the territory where all, or most, of the population have not yet submitted, and who must be made to, by force.

Those who argue that Islam was not spread by the Sword because conversion was not encouraged in the early period, totally miss the point that the territory had been captured by force and the population made ‘dhimmis’.

Are we now to condemn “Western Imperialism” but are not allowed to even mention Islamic Imperialism?

Let us have precise answers to such vital questions of principle, not emotive denounciations and abuse. What is the real answer to each of those 23 points ? And what reasonable person or society should tolerate, or surrender under, any “Dont call us violent, or we’ll kill you” threats, from any quarter?

Tom Carew, Dublin, Ireland 9 18 06

The Bill Is Now Due From Muslim Males

About 1400-years ago an Arab (Named Mohammed) founded an ideology now called Islam. As part of that foundation he established a principle that any “insult” to him or Islam or its handbook, the Koran, was worthy of death as a punishment. He also established the revenge reaction to make any attack, justified by the facts/justice/equity or otherwise a sufficient basis for a like OR greater counter-attack.

The latest example of the implementation of those principles is the murder of an Italian Nun and attacks on two Christian church buildings after Pope Benedict-XVI quoted a very long dead Greek ruler as to the fact that Islam had spread itself “by the sword”. (That is as true today in such places as the Sudan as it was in the Middle East of so long ago!)

For the above murder and attacks on Christian places-of-worship and for 1400-years of like crimes THE BILL IS NOW DUE!

Each and every adult Muslim male (Who has not publicly rejected the noted teachings of Mohammed) is a part of Islam and is responsible for those crimes by either his direct action or by indirectly supporting them through financial means or just plain indifference. That bill may AND should be presented to any such adult Muslim male. (Women have little, if any say, is the operations of Islam and are, therefore, excused from paying such debts. Justice prevents the presentation of such charges against children.)

Since Muslims are great believers in collective life and responsibility, they should have no problem in paying the just debts of members of the community of all believers in the ideology of Islam-Especially as the criminals noted above hide themselves among the crowd of such believers and can, by historical and current-events proofs, expect protection from other Muslims.

The charges below do NOT reflect any sense of revenge or retribution. They are just and equitable charges; But, those which DO involve some interest and surcharges based on the crime of supporting Islam and all of its horrid works—In this age and for the last 1400-years..

BILL OF CHARGES

1.For every Non-Muslim murdered by a Muslim (Acting in the name of Islam), two adult Muslim males are to be killed as quickly as possible.
2.For every Non-Muslim maimed by a Muslim (In the name of Islam), two adult
Muslim males are to suffer the same injuries.
3.For every Non-Muslim place-of-worship attacked by Muslims (In the name of Islam),
two Mosques or like places are to be destroyed.
4.Other and like Islamic crimes are to be punished on a like schedules of repayments.

Anonymous Comments

Those persons who post anonymous comments to my blog entries are moral, intellectual and, most likely, physical cowards---Of the same variety as murder innocent women, children and men by use of rockets launched from civilian homes and towards such places of peaceful assembly as markets and playgrounds.

Letter To The Pope RE: Islam

Pope Benedict-XVI has been attacked for bringing up only one of the "problems" with or "faults" of Islam---Its position that the use of force is allowed to spread its ideology throughout the world. Below, you will find a letter sent to him in defense of his position AND noting that he did not fully support the truth as to the teachings of Mohammed.


2321 South 82nd Street
West Allis
Wisconsin, USA
53219-1735
jamespawlak1@yahoo.com

Dearest Holy Father:

If there is anyone in this world-and-time who can be expected to NOT lie ("Bear false witness") about others it is you. When you, too gently, raised the issue of Islam's well documented history (To this day in such places as the Sudan) of spreading its ideology by war you were only being truthful.

You should have added that Islam is NOT "a religion of peace"; But, is an ideology with basic teachings which support murder, rape, revenge, robbery, genocide and the destruction of real religions and cultures.

Let the Muslims raise up one voice in apologizing for their, well documented, practices of horror and terror which they have AND are inflicting on the world. We Christians have expressed our regrets for the misconduct of those very, VERY, few Crusaders (Who waited through 300-years of Islamic aggression before responding in self-defense) who violated Christian principles in their efforts to destroy that enemy of humanity---Islam.

Respectfully submitted in +,
James Pawlak

The UK Needs An Oliver Cromwell

I have just finished reading Londonistan (1.) and can only conclude that what the United Kingdom needs now is a new style Oliver Cromwell who will (Not necessarily in the order given below; But, on a basis of item #1 and ending with the last item) do the following for the salvation of British (AND Western) civilization.

1.Obtain and take complete control of the armed forces of the UK.
2.Reinstate all of the Highland regiments, paying a bonus for those recruits who speak Gaelic as such are less likely to be contaminated by the horrors of “political correctness”.
3.Form up new regiments from both parts of Ireland as both Irish Catholics and
“Orangemen” are likely to be free of the “European Disease”.
4.Dismiss the Parliament as having sat too long for the good of the People.
5.Declare a “Defense of the State” state-of-emergency allowing the one year suspension of Habeas Corpus and such freedom of the press as still exists in the UK.
6.Declare that Islam is NOT a religion BUT a criminal-terrorist organization and ideology and, after one-week, membership in any Islamic organization would be considered and punished as criminal conspiracy.
7.Seize all collective owned Muslim property (Staring with Mosques) and bank accounts for the national good;
8.Give every foreign born Muslim 72-hours to leave the UK with or without their dependents forfeiting all property held in the UK; AND, dependents leaving with them would forfeit UK citizenship.
9.Give every UK born or naturalized Muslim one-month to declare, before a magistrate under penalty of death or such lesser punishment as a court martial might impose, and while standing on a pig skin, that s/he declares Islam to be a criminal organization OR leave the nation as in #7 above.
10.Impose an economic and military blockade of any EU nations which attempts to stop the above measures.
11.Formally remind the Prince of Wales (Who seems to strangely support the horrors of Islam) that he is not immune to trial and punishment as a traitor, as was a prior “Charles”.
12.After five-years of such rule, leave the Nation for at least five-years..



(1.)Phillips, Melanie
Londonistan
Encounter Books; New York; 2006

Iraq (Now) = Yugoslavia (Then) ?

Yugoslavia and Iraq both were artificial nations invented after World War I.

At that time Yugoslavia had one, usually-mutually, understandable language, two alphabets (Cyrillic and Western), three major religions/ideologies (Latin-Catholic, Orthodox and Islam) [With atheist, secular, Communism added later] and a variety of mutually-hating ethnic minorities. Once the heavy had of Tito (Always strong-minded and sometime bloody handed) was removed by his death, Yugoslavia began to fall, then, fly, apart---At some cost in rape, murder, robbery, genocide and suffering.

Although it once had strong and productive Jewish and Christian minorities, Iraq has now only one predominant ideology (Islam); But, that is divided into two and mutually hating sects (Sunni & Shi'ite) whose members seem more intent on killing each other than those Islam teaches are the enemies of both—Christians and, most specially, Jews.. The invention of Iraq,, to suit the interests of Western powers (Chiefly France and the United Kingdom) forced together Arabs, Kurds and other non-Arabs (Muslims and others). Both Arabic and Kurdish are spoken as very different languages and are written with differing alphabets.

Now that the always heavy and ALWAYS bloody hand of Saddam Hussein has been removed from control in Iraq, can that artificial and created nation survive any better than did Yugoslavia?

A Letter To The Times [Of London, UK]

FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION OF MY BRITISH COUSINS, I HAVE SENT THE LETTER BELOW TO THE TIMES !


2321 South 82 Street 18 August 2006
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884
jamespawlak1@yahoo.com

TO THE EDITORS, THE TIMES:

Although the proposal following my letter is fictional, perhaps it could be used to dispose of those terrorist prisoners now held at Guantanamo Bay and other places. However, I suggest that we give first priority to those in European countries (Especially France) who have been so very, very, critical of our treatment of such prisoners. I specially request that you BOTH endorse this program AND rush to volunteer to be a part of it.

Since the UK already has so many Muslim "true believers", a few more would not make much of a difference in the social quality of Londonstan. You may have to teach them to play cricket so as to blend in better with your home grown terrorists with whom they can exchange technical expertness for information on
targets-of-opportunity.

Please advise both President George W. Bush and me of your willingness to LARK about.

Respectfully yours,
James Pawlak

Subject: LARK

A lady "peace activist" and ACLU member wrote many letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo
Bay. She received the following reply:

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard
loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept
Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to Place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to
your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant
caretakers.

We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing
these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at
your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code
that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka -- over time.

Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for yo ur letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching. Good luck!

Cordially, your friend,

Don Rumsfeld

Not All "Religions" The Same In Positives

All “religions” or ideologies claiming to be “religions” or those which share the true believers common to many Faiths are NOT the same!

The Aztecs had the “religious” custom of tearing the skin off of young girls and ripping the hearts out of thousands each year as a form of communicating with their gods. [Perhaps, this is why so many of their neighbors joined the Spanish in destroying that “civilization”.]

The worshipers of Ba'al threw their infant children into their god Moloch's furnace to be burnt alive as offerings.

The Thuggee worshipers of the Hindu goddess Kali went about the Indian countryside murdering strangers as an act of worship [And retaining such valuables as they could so acquire as their earthly reward for such “devotions”.]

Even Christianity has its cancerous outgrowths in such movements as: The Spanish Inquisition [Which largely operated in violation of the directives from the Pope}; The English Protestant Church, which may have murdered more Catholics than did the followers of the Pope; Both Catholic and Protestant lunatics who burnt others as “witches”; Those misguided crusaders who killed members of the Orthodox churches because they were not of the Latin Rite AND whose traditional massacre of many in Jerusalem most certainly was not “Christian” in execution---Although customary for the in-taking of cities in that age; And, of course, the followers of Jim Jones who murdered a Congressman and then each other in a cyanide drinking orgy of self-destruction.

We should not forget the Imperial Way of Japan (1934-1945), the Neo-Paganism of Nazi Germany or the Secular/Atheist massacres of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao---All of which yielded millions of deaths and misery beyond comprehension—These to demonstrate that secular ideologies have their “true believers” willing to murder others not of their full “Faith”.

Yet---For the last 1400 years one “religion” (I prefer the term “ideology”) may have caused more deaths and did-and-is providing more misery than any and perhaps all of the above in its worship of the false-gods of murder, revenge, rape, robbery, destruction of real cultures and superior ideologies and just plain genocide. That ideology is, of course, that which claims to be a religion and is named “Islam”--Which will not change until the vast (99%-plus) of Muslims totally and forever reject the horrid teachings of the Koran [Which is unlikely as they believe that document was dictated by the Creator].

Anyone who states “Islam is a religion of peace” is either grossly misinformed OR is a liar of the first magnitude. Anyone who claims “All religions are the same” is equally either grossly ignorant or a gross liar. In both cases history proves them wrong. As to Islam, current events do the same.

Important Source Marerial RE: Real Islam

Corruption of the Faith?
August 15th, 2006

Far too many people in the public eye mischaracterize the acts of terrorists and other villains as inconsistent with “mainstream” Islam, as a “corruption of the faith.” While this belief is comforting, especially to those who know, work with, or must obtain cooperation from non-violent Muslims, it is historically and theologically ignorant.

An August 12 Washington Times editorial endorsed President Bush’s use of the term “Islamic Fascism” to denote the ideology of the jihad terrorists whose plot to slaughter thousands of airline passengers leaving Britain was thankfully disrupted. The editorialists characterized the jihadists ideology more specifically as

…chauvinistic, regarding non-Muslims as a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and infidels. It favors autocracy and severe social and economic restrictions, as did the Taliban. It demands the total subordination of the individual to the group—sometimes manifesting in murderously suicidal deaths like the fiery destruction Britain’s would-be bombers sought. This is not mainstream Islam, of course. It is a corruption of the faith. [emphasis added]

Ignoring the expected outpouring of complaints from apologists for jihad terror who cynically decried (for example here and here), any“Islamic” references, or other less pressing semantic concerns ( “Islamism” versus “Islamic fascism”), the Washington Times editorial, indirectly, raises this critical question: just what comprises “mainstream” Islam (“of course”), as opposed to “corruption of the faith”?

These pressing corollary questions arise as well: What is the origin of “chauvinistic” concepts such as the treatment of non-Muslims as “contemptible dhimmis and infidels” who are rightfully placed under “severe social and economic restrictions”? Is it accurate to maintain that such discriminatory beliefs and practices merely derive from the very recent Taliban movement in (Pakistan and) Afghanistan, are unrelated to “mainstream” Islam, and further, represent a “corruption” of Islam? Is it really out of bounds to even consider that the heinous practice of suicide-homicide bombings may have profound Islamic religious justification?

In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt”—guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples.

Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims-Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists] – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.

It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’ a. The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari’a:

...the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.

The practical consequences of such a discriminatory system were summarized in both A.S. Tritton’s 1930 book The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, and Antoine Fattal’s 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays’ d’Islam, pioneering treatises on the status of the dhimmis:

…[C]aliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for their buildings, and the mob was always ready to pillage churches and monasteries…dhimmis…always lived on sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and the passions of the mob…in later times..[t]hey were much more liable to suffer from the violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was accompanied by an increasing strictness among the educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was accomplished. The world was divided into two classes, Muslims and others, and only Islam counted…Indeed the general feeling was that the leavings of the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis. [Tritton]

If he [the dhimmi] is tolerated, it is for reasons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority…In no way is the dhimmi the equal of the Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal in the Law Courts as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims…No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis… [Fattal]

Thus when the Taliban ordered Afghanistan’s tiny residual Hindu minority (as reported in 2001) to wear yellow badges inscribed with the words “I am a Hindu”, this action was in full accord with Islamic law. And a 1950 report from the American Jewish Committee (p.67) makes clear that in the pre-Taliban modern era discrimination as sanctioned by Islam was typical for Afghanistan’s small Jewish minority community, now (having escaped via India to Israel) extinct:

Scattered among the primitive Muslim population, whose religious observance has remained untouched by any modern influence, the Jews in Afghanistan are still subject to all the forms of discrimination which rigorous adherence to the Koran requires. They have to pay the jizya poll-tax imposed upon infidels, and the payment is accompanied by humiliating ceremonies as laid down in Sura 9:29 of the Koran. Until recently they were not permitted to buy food in the market or send letters abroad. There are no Jews in the Government service or in the police. Though every Jew must report for military service at the age of 20, he is not permitted to carry arms and is not given a uniform, the Jews being employed only in the lowest type of menial work.

Professor Franz Rosenthal, the great American scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:

While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act….On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term. [Emphasis added.] 1

These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003).

Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death…In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise…While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah

For the past decade, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as

…the highest form of Jihad operations…the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all…every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land

On July 25, 2005, historian David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Following repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech. Littman was simply trying to support the argument that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims and should be treated as apostates. But as he noted, just before the 7/7/05 London bombings a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqu, dated July 6, 2005:

It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.

This unfortunate communiqué clearly provides immutable protection to authentic Islamic advocates of homicide bombing—like the “esteemed” clerics Yusuf Qaradawi and Al-Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi.

Given the vitality of destructive but sacralized Islamic doctrines (such as dhimmitude, and jihad martyrdom) that date from the religion’s formative years, editorialists, policymakers, and theologians must avoid glib formulations and start addressing the uncomfortable realities of mainstream Islam

Note

1 Franz. Rosenthal. “On Suicide in Islam.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1946, Vol. 66, pp. 243, 256

Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad and a frequent contributor to The American Thinker.

Major Lie About Muslims And Following Logic

There are too many persons who claim that there was no declaration of war on the USA before the "9/11" attacks OR on the United Kingdom or Spain before the bombings there.

THAT IS A LIE!!!

Mohammed proclaimed, via the "Koran" and his collected sayings in the "Hadith" (As confirmed by Muslim "jurists") that there is a perpetual state of war between all Muslims and all other peoples until all either convert to Islam or submit to the slave like status commonly called "dhimitude". Since no Muslim will openly declare that commandment to be illicit, as Islam requires its followers to believe that the "Koran" is the unchangeable word of the Creator, then we may assume that we are in a declared state-of-war with all Muslims.

Even if only 10% of the followers of that ideology are willing to actively participate in (Or support those who do) in military attacks against us, that is still 100,000,000 such enemies who are dedicated to destroy us and our civilization (Or, what is left of it).

Since those jihadists are firmly dedicated to killing or otherwise destroying us, we should have no guilt or trepidation or fault in killing them first---AND THOSE WHO SHELTER THEM. It is sad, but those jihadists use non-combatants as human shields and, since those non-fighters either are willing to be so used or fail to effectively resist such abuse, they are liable to suffer "collateral damage" when such terrorists are attacked.

MECCA DELANDA EST
DEUS VULT

Limits Of Christian Peace #2

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE:

REVISITED


by James Pawlak






7 January 2004
1st Revision: 2 August 2004
2nd Revision: 28 November 2005


Benedictus dominus deus meus qui docet manus meas ad proelium.


“IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD”--INTRODUCTION:: This work was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux one of the few declared “Doctors of the Church” in the year of our Lord, 1129 and was addressed to the first Master General of the Military Order of Templars. Although almost 1,000-years old, this document can still speak to us at a time when the Churches and Peoples of God are under external and internal attack by those who would destroy them and leave only a desolation of moral and intellectual emptiness as is the apparent goal of the Evil One.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS AUTHORITY: Saint Bernard was born in 1070 and died in August, 1153. As a “Doctor of the Church” his writings have great weight in the definitions of what is the correct view of the Church and its teachings. It applies to all Christians in all subsequent times, especially those under attack by the followers of that false pseudo-prophet Mohamed.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE-THEN: This work addressed the spiritual direction of what was then a new order of knights, the Templars, who were pristine in their commitment to the Church and their willingness to physically protect it in the Holy Land. If that Order became corrupt at a later date (The downfall of the Templars may have been caused by the greed of a French king and jealousy within the Church), that does not detract from the teachings of St. Bernard and the value of such knighthood in 1129AD; And for all who are, formally or informally, knights who protect us from evil, even to this time..

This direction was specially needed after the misbehavior of some crusaders in both Constantinople and in the Holy Land.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE—NOW AND IN THE FUTURE: At the very least and at this time the Church is being attacked by external enemies, generally “muslims”, in the Sudan, the Philippines and in other places. Many of those who support the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are attacking (Directly or by giving active support to those who do) all civilization every where, even in “islamic” nations. This is not a new conflict as those who follow the teachings of that false and pernicious prophet Mohamed have, for more than 1400-years, have continued their adherence to the Koran's commands for aggressive war (Jihad) against all others and, thereby, work the evil of retail murder, genocide, rape, pillage, the destruction of cultures and the social, political, legal and economic subjugation of those not “muslims” and of all women.
It seems reasonable that we need a new military order of knights who will have that same commitment as did the early Templars and will follow the teachings of St. Bernard as to the proper way in which to be knights and to “fight the good fight”. Why? Because, with the exception of too few in the USA and even fewer in other places, no one in this world is willing to declare the truth about the danger of “islam” (Perhaps motivated to silence by Arab controlled oil or pathological pacifism or “political correctness” or (Like France} a large and aggressive “muslim” community or a hate of the Churches' moral teachings (Which teachings confront their self-centered, fragile and meaningless senses-of-self-worth).

Therefore, we now require some organized force or agreeable class of unorganized persons who will defend the Churches of God and civilization from such attacks as now exist and have existed for almost 1500-years.

What then did Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, write about the proper way of being a Christian knight?

SAINT BERNARD'S STATEMENTS: I have reviewed the translation of De Laude Novae Militae available to me, edited out those parts which were specific to only the time in which they were wrote, made slightly free with the translation (To suit modern usage) and am left with the following, given as if there were such a new military order in this time and already at work in this world, especially the Middle East.

“It seems that a New Knighthood has recently appeared on the earth, and precisely in that part of it, the Orient (nb The Middle East), in which He visited
from on high in the flesh. As He then troubled the princes of darkness in the
strength of His Mighty Hand,so there he now wipes out their followers, the
children of disbelief, scattering them by the hands of His mighty ones. ... This
is, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It
ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a
spiritual army of evil ....

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of
Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ; And in every peril repeat,“Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.” What a glory to return from in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete! If you live and conquer in the Lord; But, glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either.
If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they blessed who die
for the Lord! ....

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his
heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue
of his fight can never be evil; And, likewise, the results can never be considered
good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be
killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you
succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man,
you live a murderer. Not it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious
or vanquished. What an unhappy victory---To have conquered a man while yielding to vice and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and
pride have gotten the better of you. ...

But, the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing
neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death, since to
inflict death or the die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to
glory. In the first case, one gains for Christ, and in the second, on gains
Christ Himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended
Him, and yet more freely gives Himself for the consolation of the fallen knight.

The knights of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more
confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes and serves himself when he
falls. Neither does he bear his sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the
punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he
is not a mankiller; But, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender
of Christians. ... When he inflicts death it is for Christ's profit and when he
suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of
the pagan (nb At that time, “muslims” were considered pagans), because
Christ is glorified ....

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is
any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful,
but only that it now seems better to destroy them than evil should come to their just and that the righteous be tempted into wrongdoing (i.e. Converting to
“islam” for economic or social or status reasons OR by force?).

What then? If it is never permissible for a Christian to strike with the sword, why
did the Savior's precursor (nb St. John the Baptist) bid the soldiers to be content with their pay, and not forbid them to follow their calling? ...

Thus when the transgressors of divine law have been expelled, the righteous
nation that keeps the truth may enter in security. Certainly it is proper that
nations who love war should be scattered, and those who trouble us should be
cut off and that all the workers of iniquity should be dispersed .... Let both
swords (Emphasis added; Probably a reference to: Luke 22: 35-38) of the faithful fall upon the necks of the foe, in order to destroy every high thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, which is the Christian faith ....”

FURTHER COMMENTS: The language of this document is, by modern standards, very elaborate and convoluted. Much of this document applies only to the time in which it was written and to the Jerusalem and Templars of that time.

However, much of the teaching applies to all ages and to the use of military force by Christians. If the Christian warrior avoids pride, vengeance and other like weaknesses and battles only for justice, for the punishment of evildoers and for the protection of innocents (e.g. Christians in “islamic” nations), then killing incidental to such noble activities is not sinful and is not murder.

The calm, without-hate, professional and focused waging of war by the forces of the USA, Poland, the UK and a few other nations in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to generally meet the standards set by this noted Doctor of the Church. The reflective person might compare such knightly waging of war with the emotional, hateful, vengeful and assassin-like behaviors of such organizations as Hitler's SS {Einsatzgruppen}, Serbian genocidists, Latin American death squads, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, Black September, the insane persons who follow Osama bin Laden, those who directed the Iraq-Iran war of a few years ago and too many others to name.

If the modern, Christian, knight now serves under the flag of a secular nation, it does not matter. If such a knight serves privately, it does not matter. What does matter is service up to the standards set by St. Bernard and what is in the mind and heart of every such knightly person.

I note that those who, in Iraq, did not come up to these standards are being punished.

Although St. Bernard questions the propriety of killing to defend ones self, the Catechism Of The Catholic Church declares the ultimate right to self-defense and the duty to defend others to be proper and does not put excessive limits on the use of force to do so; And, by extension and so as to not make that teaching meaningless, on the access to effective and individual weapons when the civil authorities cannot provide effective and immediate protection.

Of course, such a knighthood as is described above cannot flourish in an unjust society (This lack may have been at the base of the failure of the Templars and of the Crusades of ancient times). Therefore, our posited and new knighthood must look to their own society as to instilling justice and morality. By preference, this should be done by the persuasion of others to just and moral ways OR by prayer OR by political and economic actions. Lacking success by those means, other methods may be required.


CREDITS: The translation, of De Laude Novae Militae, used can be found at the “ORB Online Encyclopedia”. No copyright notices was seen at that site. In any case, this essay is a “fair use” of that material.
This essay is not copyrighted and way be used as the reader sees fit.


HABEMUS GLADII DUO
MECCA DELENDA EST
DEUS VULT

The Limits Of Christian Peace #1

This from the "Captainsquartersblog". (The reader is also referred to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his "De Laude Novae Militae", which will be addressed today in another blog entry, as to when and how Christians should "use the sword".


July 05, 2006
The Vatican Discards Appeasement Policy Towards Muslim Nations

The Vatican has begun to dismantle the policy of appeasing Muslim governments that oppress Christian minorities, an approach that reached its zenith when Pope John Paul the Great kissed the Qu'ran. The Vatican will instead insist on protecting Christian minorities in the ummah as Islamists increasingly targets them for abuse and worse:

'Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves." Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus' admonition to his followers to "turn the other cheek," De Paolis noted that "The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century...and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights."

De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed.

The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund's Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.

These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to flee their ancestral lands for the West's more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are in a free-fall. Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.

The instruction of turning the other cheek has long been prone to misinterpretation. Nothing in Christianity requires its adherents to blithely sentence themselves or their brethren to abuse or death, nor did Christ teach that in his instruction. Jesus taught us patience, and not to blindly return every provocation with violence. He taught peace as the first resort, but even Jesus did not use that as an exclusive strategy. The Bible shows Jesus violently ejecting the moneychangers from the temple, for instance, hardly a turn-the-other-cheek moment. He also told his apostles, "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). The Old Testament, of course, has a number of passages where God directs His people to commit total war on other populations.

St. Thomas Aquinas developed a formal Just War Doctrine, which recognizes that Christians must love peace but not shrink from confronting evil. That doctrine has grown in use over the centuries in Western thought to become a moral imperative. World leaders have often referred to its teachings, even those who aren't Catholic and lead secular nations. The one "nation" that has rejected the concept in its entirety recently has been the Vatican, ironically.

This change has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The Jerusalem Post notes that Catholic dissatisfaction with the lack of reciprocity offered by Islamists started during John Paul's pontificate. The Mohammed cartoon crisis accelerated this epiphany. At first, they scolded the Dutch newspapers and took the position that criticism of the Prophet should not have been tolerated -- and then watched as Muslims killed Christians in retaliation. That finally convinced the Church that offering appeasement did nothing to protect fellow Christians, and that the Church needed to act in defense of the faithful instead of offering apologetics for Islamists.

Reciprocity will apparently become the first principle in dealing with Muslims. Where Muslims offer the same protections to Christians that the West offers to Muslims, then the Church will preach tolerance and understanding. Where reciprocity fails to occur, the Church will start becoming more activist in speaking out against abuses. It's about time.
Posted by Captain Ed at July 5, 2006 08:07 PM

Academic Freedom & Its Limits

INTRODUCTION

“Academic Freedom” (AF) appears to be, in the USA, a special case of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press as contained in the Bill Of Rights. Within public and most private colleges and universities it, as best applied, protects faculty (Or, at least tenured teachers) from punishment or retribution for what they say or write---Without regard to the arrogance, foolishness, “craziness” of such words or the extent to which they irritate others.

There are the academic world's own limits to AF, some of which are the products of the anti-free-speech movements, often based of “victimology”, which have appeared in recent years on some campuses. (For an excellent analysis of this issue, please see Professor Donald Alexander Downs' Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus (1).

Certainly, universities and colleges accept, if not encourage, varieties of speech and writing that private and public employers in other sectors would not allow and would be likely to punish by various means up to and including termination-of-employment or even civil or criminal prosecution.

There are other limits to AF and issues as to applying that special case freedom to students AND as to the duties of university administrators and the general public or the government, especially the courts, as to AF. There are also the question as to just how much (Public) universities should be involved in actions against alleged violators of AF and other claimed “rights” to an extent which goes beyond those allowed or required of the general public.

GENERAL LIMITS TO AF FOR TEACHERS

AF for teachers does have some more limits, which include:
1.Not allowing civil or criminal punishment for accepting pay as a teacher and failing to teacher what is included in published course descriptions or other documents available
to the student, that being a form of fraud;
2.Not allowing civil or criminal punishment for accepting pay and teaching materials outside of or beyond professional competence or education (eg An art teacher instructing medical students in eye surgery, a political scientist attempting to teach forensic architecture or metallurgy, a teacher of philosophy attempting to instruct students in military science or “ag-science”), that being a form of gross fraud;
3. Not allowing the taking of overt actions, directly or through others, to limit the AF of others (Teachers, students, guest speakers a U-events);


4.Not allowing the active solicitation to or participation in actual criminal activity (eg Arson, Battery, Disorderly Conduct, Theft, “Violation Of Civil Rights” as defined by statute); And,
5.Having any expectation of avoiding “hurt feelings”, on any basis, as teachers are expected to be strong individuals free from such alleged injury (Or, “If you can not stand the heat, get out of the academic kitchen!”).

AF FOR STUDENTS (?) AND ITS LIMITS

Within public and most private academic settings, there is a general and growing acceptance of AF for students inside the class room, if not outside of it and still on campus. What are the AF “rights” of students?
1.To be free of unqualified teachers who inflict ignorance on others.
2.To be able to, respectfully, disagree with teachers and other students in or out of class as to the materials presented in class or being considered or debated otherwise at their schools---Even if such disagreement is that of a “minority of one”--Without retribution by teachers, students or others.

The limits on students AF is much like that of teachers (Noted above); But, without the expectation of competency or education beyond what is expected as a prerequisite for entry into any given class. Certainly, students' AF does NOT include any right to solicit or otherwise participate in any criminal activities or suppression of others' AF as individuals or organized/impromptu groups or mobs. It does not (Or should not?) create any expectations, in those adult students, of any “freedom from hurt feelings”. [eg A student who behaves in a discourteous manner or asks an off-subject question in a class has a reasonable expectation of being “called on that”---Without regards to that students “feelings”.]

A SHORT STEP BACK INTO HISTORY

It is worth a few words as to the “why” of AF and the greater expectations (Sometimes very unreasonable) of students and teachers for certain “rights” or privileges beyond that given to or expected by citizens outside of the academic world.

All of these date back to medieval times when universities had special charters allowing very much independence from the civil courts and having their own courts and laws and immunity from the civil or criminal actions to which non-academics were subject. As such universities were, in fact, the creation of the Catholic-Christian Church, some of hat may be due to the great privileges given any literate person to about 1800 on the assumption that most such persons were bound to be clerics.

However, civil law and literacy grew to today's level where no such special powers or rights are recognized by law in most places in the world.



Therefore, it is reasonable to ask if colleges and universities (And their students and teachers) should have in this age legal powers, protections and rights beyond what is given to the general mass of the People by democratically passed laws—As long as the right of qualified teachers and civilized students to search out truth and new knowledge is seen as a ongoing and very important societal need if both democracy and civilization.

This will be addressed below in more detail.

DUTIES/POWERS OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS

To what extent should the administrators of (At least public) universities and colleges go beyond the normal range of the public law to protect all within their jurisdictions? There are certainly many (Perhaps, too many) laws on the books to punish, by civil or criminal actions, such acts as sexual assault, other physical assaults, robbery, theft, false imprisonment, riot, arson slander, perjury and false swearing, defamation-of-character, disorderly conduct, something called “hate crimes”, etc.

Certainly, as the administrators of a facility such administrators have a legal duty to protect those on their property as would the owner of a factory or office building or hotel. Violations of those general duties would and should leave such administrators open to civil or even criminal prosecution---Within the same laws as govern others. Of all those legal duties, the first is to insure that all violations-of-law are reported to the appropriate civil authorities---Something which school administrators, from graded schools to universities have historically been reluctant to do and therefore make themselves liable. The civil authorities have, I am sorry to say, tended to let them “get away” with such omissions.

I doubt that any school, in today's litigious society and very large jury awards, can afford to omit that particular duty. (eg If I were a student or teacher or guest speaker at a university where the authorities did not prevent individuals or a mob from attacking or limiting my exercise of my free speech rights or, at the least, actively seek out and file criminal charges against those that did so, I would bring a civil and, perhaps, criminal action against those administrators, as individuals, and the school as a corporation. This could make me and some attorneys very rich.)

What then should universities and their administrators do to protect students, teachers, other staff, guests, themselves and their schools? I suggest the following steps.
1.Make it very well known that any on campus violation of the criminal laws will be prosecuted by the very active efforts of the school and its administrators;
2.Take such “PR” efforts as will cause the local District/States/US Attorney to very
actively make public her/his intent to cooperate with such efforts and to execute such cooperation in a very public and, even, ferocious manner;
3.Ask for such changes in the law or public policy as will allow the school's security staff to be made “Special Deputy Sheriffs”--With jurisdiction limited to the property of the school; And,



4.Even, to have the local Chief Judge appoint some person as a “Special Prosecutor” for on-campus crimes (Including the making of false accusations against others).
5.Insist that the police (Or, if necessary, the National Guard) take every means necessary to immediately suppress any mob terrorism actions such as “take overs” of class rooms or other university areas. Negotiations with such terrorists is a waste of time and would be a matter of misconduct by university administrators.

Other steps which might be taken might be:
1.The video taping of the audiences at all public speeches by guest speakers or in other places where there is a reasonable expectation of disorderly or other criminal conduct (eg Overlooking newspaper distribution boxes in the event of such publications making “politically incorrect” statements);
2.The use of modern face-identification technology to ID persons who appear to have violated the law or to exclude previously banned persons from campus locations; And,
3.Use of restraining orders, where the law allows, to prevent any person who represents a clear-and-present danger to the safety or rights of others from all or selected on-campus locations

I think the above and possibly other like steps would combine the best of the ancient special case of universities with the need to comply with the laws that more democratically govern all People in the same, more public, jurisdiction---This to eliminate the need or justification for any in-house “prosecution” of offenses by universities and colleges. (Confinement in a jail or prison would make it impossible for a student or teacher to continue in the academic world and would make termination of such status automatic and self-inflicted. Personnel records and transcripts could and should record such actions.)

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO KEEP THE “FEELINGS” OF ADULT FACULTY AND STUDENTS FROM BEING (ALLEGDEDLY) HURT BY THE WORDS OF OTHERS AS LONG AS SUCH WORDS DO NOT VIOLATE CRIMNINAL STATUTES---AND THAT THEY WILL BRING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST ANYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT THEY HAVE FAILED IN SOME DUTY THEREBY.

CONCLUSION

By all of the above and proposed steps, much of the controversy and wasted efforts (To poof up the academic world to some sort of society with laws beyond that set by the People through their democratic processes) of universities and their “people” could be eliminated and personal time and energy better expended on the seeking of rational and verifiable truths.

Perhaps, it well past the time for universities to join the larger democracy around them and not to believe or practice undemocratic and self-seeking qualities or conditions not allowed to or expected by the People.

(1)Downs, Donald Alexander
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campuses
The Independent Institute (Oakland, CA) and Cambridge University Press
2005, ISBN 0-521-83987-4
[A most excellent book which I highly recommend !]

(2)Comments or reactions to this paper should be sent to me, under the topic of
“Academic Freedom”, to jamespawlak1 "at" hotmail "dot" com

The Most Needed US Supreme Court Decision

The most needed US Supreme Court decision is NOT one overturning Roe Vs. Wade OR the McCain-Feingold anti-free-speech Law OR confirming that the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual citizen OR declaring that "affirmative action" is unlawful racial discrimination OR any of the like and chiefly domestic issues.

What is most needed for the defense of the USA and real civilization is a final and declarative decision that Islam, as it is now and has been for 1400-years, is a terrorist movement no better than and, in fact, worse than the Nazi movement and the KKK or like operations, Islam should be limited, restricted and punished as those other terror-based organizations or movements have been. Such civil or criminal sanctions should apply to both individuals and organizations supporting the hateful practices of Islam and even those who preach its horrid teachings as such are direct calls for action and NOT covered by Free Speech protections.

The pseudo-religious veneer of Islam is no more a protection against such actions as the Neo-Paganism of the Nazi movement, the warped and false Christianity of the KKK, the ceremonies of the Chinese gangster triads and of the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.

Both the hateful teachings of Islam and its anti-human practices are written in the blood of its victims for 1400-years and to this day in far too many places to list here in full but including the massacre of the Armenians by the Muslim Turks, the events of "9/11" (Celebrated by many Muslims by their dancing in the streets), The Sudan, Killing women and children in such other places as London, Spain, the Philippines.

The eveidence for such a ruling is there. All that is needed is a case-at-law and the willingness of the Justices to be honest rather than "polically correct".

Senior Bureaucrats As Toxins

How many of the below described senior bureaucrats do you know in your organization or other, private or public, bureaucracies?

"There is a remarkably distinctive smell emitted by fearful bureaucrats. It is acrid, rank and seems to cling to the clothing and the hair. Acting like a pheromone, it drives senior management to form small defensive herds from which to scream homicidally at middle management that they must not tell junior staff who can fix the problem what is going on because everything, including what has just been reported on the radio, is secret." (1).

During my 34-plus years in a State bureaucracy I saw this all too often--Especially as the civil service became more-and-more political and less and less committed to "service" by public servants. This disease or toxicity appears to be specially rampant in universities and is inversely proportional to the relationship between the effective Public (NOT political) control of any bureaucracy and directly proportional to the tenure of the senior bureaucrats and the amount of discretionary money involved in their programs.

(1) Macinnis, Peter
Poisons: From Hemloc to Botox and the Killer Bean of Calabar
Arcade Publishing, New York, 2004
ISBN 1-55970-761-5

Letters RE: Islam

THE TWO LETTERS BELOW WERE SENT BY ME, IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, TO EDITORS AND OTHERS.

2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884

Sir:

I found the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's July 22nd, front-page and very large photo story as to Muslims praying for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians recently killed or in danger overseas of great interest. Strangely enough, nothing was written about their prayers for those in Israel, The Sudan, The Philippines and other places killed by Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps, their prayers were those parts of the Koran which encourage, if not require, the killing of Jews and those which declare perpetual war against all Non-Muslims.

Sincerely yours,
James Pawlak



2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884

TO THE EDITORS:

Lebanon's "right" to be an independent state is dependent on its execution of
its DUTY to control and suppress banditry and terrorism within its own borders.
As it has very grossly failed of that duty, it has no "right" to complain when the much abused State of Israel undertakes that duty as a matter of self defense.

Respectfully submitted,
James Pawlak

PS---I am NOT a Jew.

Terrrorist Prisoners--NOT

New York Post

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

By RALPH PETERS

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today.

Christianity, Guns & The UN

There are altogether too many persons in the Holy See and the rest of the Catholic Church (And other Churches) who have climbed on the United Nations' bandwagon riding towards total gun control in this world. Those persons and that movement should be suppressed for the following reasons.

1.The United Nations is dominated by Islamic, Secular Humanist and other anti-Church nations who do all in their power to reduce Christianity to a state of impotence or seek to totally destroy it.
This is specially true for those nations with a Muslim majority as the vast part of the followers of that ideology believe that Allah has declared that there is a perpetual state-of-war between them and all others and that any means necessary to make unbelievers submit to Islam are justified and required. This includes the requirement that all Muslim males either be on military jihad or actively support those who are. The most recent sites of such conflicts are Nigeria, The Sudan, the Southern Philippines, India and, of course, the terrorist attacks against Israel, the United Kingdom, Spain and the USA.
In such places as Nigeria and The Sudan the question is not control of weapons,
but the lack of such means for self-protection by non-Muslims against unjust war acts by those already heavily armed by governments (Which support gun control).
Secular Humanist (ie Atheist) orientated nations are less overt about the
suppression of rights, preferring bureaucratic sanctions (Backed up by armed police)
to direct conflict and, therefore, may be more dangerous for that reason.
It seems very strange that the Church would ally itself with the very corrupt
UN in this and many other matters!

2.Many of the nations most in favor of stricter gun controls are those where human
rights (Including the right to worship according to personal beliefs OR to worship
in any manner OR that of other free speech) are most suppressed. I do not believe that it is consistent with Christianity's interest in the welfare of the People of God to support such governments' as so suppress those rights in this or other like matters.

3.All people have a natural law right to protect themselves, their families, their
neighbors and the products of their labors from unjust aggression. That right becomes meaningless unless they have ready access to the means to do so. As the police (If not the unjust aggressors or their allies) are seldom on-site to provide that protection, the maintenance of that natural-law right requires that the common people have ready access to modern weapons and ammunition without the control of such governments or ideologies as would violate their basic rights.

Wrong Premise, Wrong Conclusions RE: Islam

The Governments of the USA and all Western nations AND most reporters, editors, teachers and Christian ministers-of-religion (As well as those they mislead) are placing all of us and our civilization (Or, such of it as is left) in great danger by thinking based on the false premise that the conflict in the Middle East and South Asia is a matter of various nations (eg Pakistan, Israel, India, Lebanon, Syria, Iran) contending with each other.

That is as false and dangerous a premise as basing a medical drug-administration logical argument on such a premises as “There are no medical differences between men and women, between old people and children”.

The proper premise is that: : The basis for all the conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia (And, throughout the world) is the conflict between Islam and all other ideologies. If, and only if, we accept this premise as basic, valid and true, then we will have some chance of resolving the noted problems and protecting our nation and the world from the majority view of Muslims which supports all of the teachings of the Koran and other Islamic works. [Those teachings requiring Muslims to: Either participate in active military jihad or actively support those who are so occupied; Murder any Muslim who leaves that ideology or any person who “insults” the Koran or Mohammed; Not voluntarily submit to any legal system other than Sharia or any ruler other than a Muslim; Give non-Muslims and a only limited legal, social and personal privileges and no rights; Allow (Muslim) women only a very inferior place in the world; And, all of the other horrors inflicted on the world by Islam and still with us today.]

THEREFORE, if you have some teaching/leadership/journalistic/religious position of authority, you are committing a crime or a sin against your followers or students if you argue AND act from any other premise in this 1400-year old war between Islam and the rest of the world.

Islam---So Full Of Hate

What religion or political movement or ideology is so full of hate as is Islam? Not even the hateful Nazi movement, with its Brown Shirt VS. Black Shirt and bloody conflict, ate up itself so much with internal disputes. Even the Thirty Years War between various Christian groups or the Crusaders' errors in persecuting the Eastern Churches have lasted as many centuries of murderous hate as expressed by the many killings of Muslims by Muslims since Mohammed claimed that his pronouncements came directly from Allah---Including those conveniently abrogated by subsequent rulings.

Even the Slavic pogroms and Nazi holocaust against Jews have come to an end with the growing understanding of the Jews as the spiritual ancestors of Christianity and what is truly good in the West. Yet, Islam continues to preach destruction of the Jews, jihads against Christians and others----While still engaged in an almost sexual frenzy of Muslim murdering Muslim. Even our home-grown “skin head” and like movements are small in nature and short-lived---Even though they keep popping up like a rash or teen age pimples, disfiguring and embarrassing but not dangerous to the vast majority of people.

Even the ACLU (American Christian Loathing Union) and other secular groups, who wish to destroy Christianity “for the greater glory of atheism”, do not hate themselves so much as does one branch of Islam detest all others.

Why?

Perhaps, we should look to the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (The purported sayings of Mohammed) AND to the various interpretations of them as contained in the Sharia (The Islamic codes of law) for some basis for that essential hate-in-Islam.

What other major ideology teaches that the response to an insult is to kill and not to “turn the other cheek”? What other current “faith” of today requires, as a matter-of-law, that those who leave it be executed? What other form of government, unlike those on a Sharia foundation, seek to suppress others on the basis of gender (By means of sexual mutilation and other horrid practices) or religion (Being a Jew or Christian or pagan or even some other form of Muslim)? What other ideology maintains that slavery is a normal, expected and divinely approved state in this world?

What other way-of-thinking always degenerates to the position that music, art, invention, democracy, and literature (Other than the Koran and derived works) are evil and condemned by our Creator? What other culture has given so little, if any, of those best of human efforts to the world as has Islam?

[I suspect that if Israel and Jews did not exist, Muslims would commit more of their energies to murdering each other as a natural result of the underlying hate-filled nature of their way-of-thinking. I suspect if Islam ruled the whole world (As is its expressed goal), its followers would degenerate into a world destroying orgy of mutual/self-destruction.]

To paraphrase others, “There may be tolerant, peaceful and loving Muslims; But, Islam is intolerant, war-like and hate-filled”.