Posted on 08/16/2005 9:19:20 PM PDT by STARWISE
did you see Harman on TV last night? What a moonbat.
My gosh, I hope he isn't a Southern Baptist!
Check out the book "The Sword of the Prophet". It is a history of Islam. I found it very enlightening.
I totally agree. See review below. Check my tagline for free pdf download of mohammad bio.
THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
by Serge Trifkovic
(Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002)
Reviewed by Paul Eidelberg
In her extraordinary work, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Bat Ye'or avoids discussing Islam per se. She lets Islam's thirteen-century record of plunder, rape, and genocide discredit that religion. One would hardly know of such barbarism reading the doyan of Islamic scholars, Bernard Lewis. Judging from his book What Went Wrong? (2002), nothing is intrinsically wrong with the religion that enthralls 1.2 billion people. And Lewis, unlike John Esposito, is not known as an apologist of Islam.
Enter Serge Trifkovic, a man of extraordinary intellectual courage. His The Sword of the Prophet departs from the moral "neutrality" of academia and, in six lucid and well-documented chapters, provides a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." Citing the Kuran and the voluminous Hadiths—the Traditions of what Muhammad said and did—Dr. Trifkovic exposes Islam's prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. He examines Islam's fatalistic theology; reviews this religion's devastation of other civilizations; warns of the Muslims' insidious penetration of America and Europe; criticizes U.S. appeasement of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic regimes; and goes to the heart of what must be done to prevent Islam's global ascendancy.
Chapter 1, "Muhammad," portrays a simple preacher who became a fanatical warlord in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. After slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape. One Hadith explains:
We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, but at the same time we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl [coitus interruptus]. But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger … and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
To the men of one Jewish tribe, Muhammad offered the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Upon their refusal, up to 900 were decapitated in front of their women and children. "Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high," was Muhammad's comment. The women were subsequently raped. Trifkovic comments: "That Muhammad's actions and words, as immortalized in the Kuran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our time—and punishable by it laws, that range from war crimes and murder to rape and child molestation—almost goes without saying." Trifkovik is aware of the cultural and historical relativism that would prompt Western intellectuals to say, "we must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras." He counters this relativism by pointing out that "even in the context of seventh century Arabia, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu."
Muhammad repeatedly invoked Allah as a deus ex machina, professing revelations to justify the prophet's political and personal needs. "Nowhere was this more obvious than when it came to his exaggerated sensuality." Trifkovic cites Ibn Warraq, author of Why I am Not a Muslim (1995), who asks whether Muhammad was a "known fraud, or did he sincerely believe that all his 'revelations' that constitute the Kuran were direct communications from God?" Warraq does not see how this can possibly matter to our moral judgment of Muhammad's character. "Certain racists sincerely believe that Jews should be exterminated. How does their sincerity affect our moral judgment of their beliefs?"
Trifkovic adds: "On the Prophet's own admission, Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments … and even by the law of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, … is the religion's claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men."
Our author sums up his assessment of Muhammad with the words of Sir William Muir (1819-1905), one of the world's greatest orientalists: "the sword of Muhammad and the Qur'an are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known." No academician today would dare such a judgment. Even the outspoken Daniel Pipes feels compelled to distinguish Islam from "Islamism" and say Islam is compatible with democracy!
Chapter 2, "The Teaching," portrays Allah as very different from the God of the Bible. Allah is absolutely transcendent. He is pure will without personality. Islam offers an "empty and barren concept of deity." (Avraham Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine, regarded Islam's monotheism as barren and devoid of joy and life.) "One consequence of Allah's absolute transcendence and lordship," says Trifkovic, "is the impossibility of free will." Sinners are as predestined as virtuous believers. Whereas sinners will "fill up the burning regions of Hell," the virtuous believers will dwell in Paradise where, according to one Muslim commentator, "The men … have sexual relations not only with the women ... but also with serving boys… In Paradise a believer's penis is eternally erect."
Given its fatalism, Islam is theologically incompatible with democracy, whose cardinal principle is freedom. The root of freedom is man's creation in the image of God—the God of Abraham. Abraham can argue and plead with God, as did Moses, because the God of the Jews is a personal God, immanent as well as transcendent. In contrast, the Muslim prostrates himself before Allah as a slave before a master. Trivkovic rightly states that it is more pertinent to compare Islam with totalitarian communism—despite its atheism—than with Judaism or Christianity. He could have pointed out that human dignity is not a normative principle of Islam if only because Islamic theology cannot abide the Jewish conception of man's creation in the image of God.
Turning to the Kuran, Trifkovic, like other critics, reveals Muhammad's distorted account of the various narratives of the Five Books of Moses. (Muhammad was ignorant of the books of the prophets). Noting that the Kuran underwent revision during Muhammad's tribulations and triumphs in Mecca and Medina, Trifkovic states that Islam's holy book "looks, feels, and sounds like a construct entirely human in origin and intent, clear in its earthly sources of inspiration and the fulfillment of the daily needs, personal and political, of its author."
"Of all major religions known to man," writes Trifkovic, "the teaching of Islam makes it the least amenable to dialogue with other faiths." Nevertheless, he informs us that President George W. Bush has internalized the ecumenical views of his adviser on Islam, Professor David Forte, a conservative Catholic who believes that Christianity and Islam can together foster family values. Forte, who is not an Islamic scholar, contends that Islamic terrorists are heretics or not authentic Muslims. He seems to have reinforced Mr. Bush's naïve belief that all religions are peace-loving, and that a religious person cannot possibly be a terrorist, i.e., evil. Trivkovic comments: "Their faulty understanding of Islamic theology leads them to imagine that 'Allah' is more or less interchangeable with the 'God' of the monotheists." Their ecumenism is intended to counter the globalization of secularism.
Chapter 3,"Jihad Without End," demonstrates that the goal of Islamic jihad is world conquest, and that willingness of Muslims to sacrifice their lives to this end "is neither extreme nor even remarkable from the standpoint of traditional Islam." The notion of "inner" jihad—of one's personal fight against his ego and sinful desires—came into being only after the Islamic Empire had been established. Of its countless jihads against unbelievers, Trifkovic emphasizes Islam's massacres in India, which "are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust, or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks." Regarding the Turks, "being a Greek, Armenian, Serb, or indeed any other Christian in the Ottoman Empire meant living in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, kidnap of one's children, slavery, and genocide."
Trifkovic, a Christian who acknowledges the crimes committed against the Jews during the Crusades, nonetheless emphasizes Islam's crimes against Christian communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He deplores "politically correct" academics: "Thirteen centuries of religious discrimination, causing suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic 'tolerance,' that is hurtful to the few descendants of the victims as it is useless as a means of appeasing latter-day jihadists."
This leads to Chapter 4, "The Fruits," which explodes the myth of Islam's "Golden Age." Our author correctly notes that the medieval philosophers al-Farabi and Avicenna, both Persian, "belong to 'Islam' just as much as Voltaire belongs to 'Christianity.'" (Muhsin Mahdi has shown that Farabi, to avoid being executed, crafted his work on Plato and Aristotle in an esoteric style. On the surface he appears as a devout Muslim; but a close reading reveals him as a disciple of Greek philosophy.) Contrary to its apologists, the Muslim Empire inherited the knowledge and skills of Greece, Persia, and India (including what are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers.) "Whatever flourished," writes Trifkovic, "it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam." Thus, in 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, declaring that the world is flat: anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished."
The chapter concludes with these words of Alexis de Tocqueville:
I studied the Kuran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
Islamic decadence is rooted in its impersonal and empty monotheism. In contrast, Hebraic monotheism, as may be seen in the Biblical account of creation, seeks to probe the unity underlying the totality of existence—of man and the universe. Moreover, the creativity for which Jews are famous, especially in the sciences, is rooted in the Genesis conception of man's creation in God's image—the divine source of human creativity as well as the intellectual basis of Jewish faith. (In this latter respect, Judaism also differs from Christianity,)
Returning to Trivkovic, Chapter 5, "Western Appeasement," focuses on Washington's appeasement of Muslims in Bosnia, which has become a safe haven and transit for Arab terrorists. Israeli intelligence conveyed to the American State Department that "about 6,000 fighters in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia are ready to do Bin Laden's bidding, and that a nucleus of Bin Laden followers in the Balkans could balloon into an army of about 40,000 men." Also, some 2,000 to 10,000 Muslim migrants are arriving in Bosnia every month.
Trivkovic reveals how the State Department, while accusing Russian forces in Muslim Chechnya of "human rights" violations, exempts from human rights requirements such predominantly Muslim countries as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. (This hypocrisy is even more obscene in Washington's appeasement of the Arab Palestinians.) But our author's most dire warnings concern Washington's appeasement of Saudi Arabia. This totalitarian regime, linked to American corporations willing to sacrifice their country's interests to Mammon¸ is the financier of global terrorism.
Chapter 6, "Jihad's Fifth Column," surveys the incredibly rapid growth of the Muslim population in the West. Thanks to Saudi Arabia, thousands of mosques have sprung up throughout the U.S. and Europe. Their predominant message? Islam is the wave of the future. Despite Islam's openly declared objectives, the West refrains from restricting Muslim immigration and from enforcing the laws against Muslims who exploit democratic values to advance Islam's totalitarian ends.
Allied with these Muslims are postmodern liberals. These liberals are motivated by a hatred of Western civilization, primarily its biblical roots. Their pro-Muslim attitude—most pronounced in their support of the Palestinians—evinces an anti-Jewish animus. Academia is the seedbed of this unholy alliance of believers and atheists.
"Islam," Trivkovic concludes, "is a collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to compromise with such madness is to become part of the madness oneself." But what most threatens the West, says our author, is not Islam so much as the West's own "loss of Faith, and … the arrogant doctrine—rampant in 'the West' for three centuries now—that man can solve the dilemma of his existence by his unaided intellect alone. If that loss is not reversed, the game is over anyway—proving that where God retreats, Allah advances."
"The Sword of the Prophet" is indispensable reading.
Thuggery and buggery..and in the midst, TROP!
Malcolm X converted in prison in the fifties.....nuff said.
Yep and fully funded by our tax dollars. Is this a great country or what?
You gotta love it. We want to stop the bad guys and the law is on their side. Something wrong with this picture.
By now, the enemy (Muslim Extremists, Hispanic Radical Groups and Mexican Criminal Gangs have completed or are near completion of their preparation for their offensive against us on our own soil. They have used civil liberty attorneys and judges to make it a crime to focus on the obvious and restrict the necessary.
In addition to Radical Muslims, Hispanic groups such as La Raza (The Race), MEChA (A hispanic separatist organization of college students) and others have likened themselves to and openly support the Palestinian Terrorists in their fight with Israel. The recent capitulation of Israel by giving territory to Palestinian terrorists has emboldened these Hispanics in their effort to realize their ambition of Reconqista (reconquering) Aztlan (the southwestern US, aka the lost provinces of Mexico).
It's a documented fact that Mexico is being used as a staging area for mideast terrorists to enter the US. They are assimilating themselves and acting as Mexicans to cross the border and mix into our communities. Mexican radical groups including criminal gangs are aiding in this effort because it means a lot of money and meet their goal of reconquista.
Having experience with military history and operational planning (as well as common sense) tells me that the initial fear of terrorist cell development is nothing compared to the monster we are now facing. (Thank you Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, etc. and the wimpy conservatives in our government).
From what has been released to the media, there have been more than enough OTM's (other than Mexicans) crossing our southern and northern borders to position several battalions of enemy infantry within the borders of our country. We are not prepared for anything like this (giving them drivers licenses, social services and protection under the law - wow what great logistical support!). Local police forces would be unable to defend us in the event of large, planned and coordinated attacks on our infrastructure.
It is imperative that everyday normal citizens be prepared to defend themselves, their families and communities. The bureaucrats and politicians are too fearful of the civil liberty movement (ACLU, Southern Poverty Law, Liberal Media, etc) and will not be able to undo the enemy preparations which are already four years in the making.
Additionally, there is increased intelligence verifying that Muslim Extremists have been actively running recruitment, training and operational planning from within, yes within, the US prison system. Their converts are already hateful of our society and are ripe to the extreme validation of their use of violence through the Muslim faith. This includes blacks as well as Hispanics. Additionally, it is a known fact that established gang leaders have been able to run their operations and even order murders and have prostitutes "visit" while imprisoned. Now, with the recent terrorist recruitment, training and operational planning that actually happened within the Folsom prison walls in California (leader of the cell has been serving a life sentence and did it all from prison), there is further confirmation as to the extent of their abilities and complexity of their operations. Note, recent litigation by Muslims has forced the California State Prisons to remove the grooming restrictions. This is not only a serious health hazard, but also a major security problem. It is very easy to hide weapons in hair and beards.
Let's put it this way, prisons are not now and have never been secure. They are the perfect breeding ground for domestic terrorists. Guards (whom we trust) and visitors regularly bring drugs, documents (travelers checks), materials (tobacco is now $1200 a can in the California prison system, which banned it in June) and communication devices to inmates. No, it's not a joke. The ACLU, the Prison Unions and others have made it virtually impossible to stop communication or impede traffic of contraband in our prisons.
Solutions:
Governors can circumvent these idiotic Civil Liberty laws and rights that are threatening our national security by declaring a state of emergency in the prison systems and imposing martial law provisions, allowing for the unannounced search, seizure, detention, interrogation and prosecution of any individual who wants to visit or report for work in a prison. (Did you know that current liberal law in California strictly prohibits the unannounced presence of drug dogs at prison visitors centers? Unless a visitor is pre-informed of the dogs, prior to their arrival at the visitors center, whatever drug (or other contraband) that is found on them cannot be confiscated, they cannot be detained, cannot be pursued or reported to outside law enforcement for pursuit!) Needless to say, there are many guards who are no better than the inmates. They must also be subject to search when entering or leaving the facilities.
The President (who appears by his lack of action to be in bed with Mexico) can do the same and secure the Federal System.
Additionally, the governors of border states can declare a state of emergency and impose martial law within border counties (i.e. restrict the martial law zone to within 10 miles of the border) and deploy national guard troops who can then search, seize, detain, interrogate and if need be shoot to kill. This is the only way to suspend these idiotic laws and "rights" that are aiding the enemy. It can be justified to defend the citizens of the states affected. (Be sure they send the bill to the feds).
Face it. The enemy is here; they're trained, armed and ready. Their numbers are growing daily. It's too late to stop them. We the people will be paying the price with our lives and will be tasked with cleaning up the mess after the next phase of the enemy's operations begin.
I don't know if we will ever have leaders who will be strong enough to ignore politics and get the job done. So, stock up on supplies. The last thing the enemy will expect is for ordinary people to come to the aid of the police and military. I've already checked and it is permissible to return fire and use deadly force if it is being used against you or another party. If it is clearly an act of war, being conducted by foreign nationals screaming "Allah Akbar" at the top of their lungs, then we have the right to "gain and maintain contact with the enemy and destroy them" using any means at our disposal. I pray I'm wrong, I really do.
Here's what we can all do:
*Report anything at all unusual to local law enforcement as well as Homeland Security.
*Racially profile and be politically incorrect.
*Be wary of businesses owned by middle easterners (they deal in cash transactions and can launder money for funding of their operations)
*Be wary of local law enforcement members or organizations who may be on the take and report them to homeland security. (If your neighborhood is flooded with drug activity and the police just let things happen and do nothing, there's something wrong.)
*Pass this on so more people can be aware and prepare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.