CIA director John Brennan is at it again—equivocating over the nature of jihad by evoking paradigms familiar to the West.
Last Tuesday, “during an event at the Council of Foreign Relations, Brennan was asked about the ‘war of ideas’ surrounding Islam, which the questioner said many Americans tend to equate with violence.”
The CIA chief responded by saying that al-Qaeda’s ideology is “a perverse and very corrupt interpretation of the Qur’an”; that “al-Qaeda has hijacked” Islam; that “they have really distorted the teachings of Muhammad.”
Even so, “that ideology, that agenda of al-Qaeda,” confirmed Brennan, “has gained resonance and following in many parts of the world.”
So what is the CIA chief’s explanation as to why such a “perverse and very corrupt” understanding of Islam—one that has “distorted the teachings of Muhammad”— resonates among Muslims?
He gives none—other than to say that this ideology is “fed a lot of times by, you know, political repression, by economic, you know, disenfranchisement, by, you know, lack of education and ignorance, so there—there are a number of phenomena right now that I think are fueling the fires of, you know, this ideology.”
Interestingly, if you watch the video clip of Brennan talking, you will note that he only “you knows” in the above quotation (four times) and right before it, when he says that al-Qaeda has “distorted the teachings of Muhammad, you know, for violent purposes.”
The rest of his talk is relatively smooth.
Could Brennan be self-conscious of his own equivocations—hence all these stilted “you knows” in one sentence?
Could he be aware of the Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009? It found that “Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.”
At any rate, this is all déjà vu. Back in May 2010, I closely examined Brennan’s apologetics on jihad in an article that, in light of these recent remarks of his, is just as applicable today as it was nearly four years ago. It follows:
Obama’s Top Counterterror Adviser’s Inability to Think Outside the Box Bodes Disaster
“The greatest hurdle Americans need to get over in order to properly respond to the growing threat of radical Islam is purely intellectual in nature; specifically, it is epistemological, and revolves around the abstract realm of ‘knowledge.’ Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it—without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad. …. [T]he secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-à-vis the ‘other,’ irrespective of grievances…. Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals.”
Such were the words that opened my testimony to Congress. One year later, none other than President Obama’s top counter-terror adviser, John Brennan, has come to personify the approach I warned against, that is, the misguided phenomenon of westernizing Islamic concepts.
A Fox New’s report, titled “Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as ‘Legitimate Tenet of Islam,’” has the details:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.”
In other words, despite the fact that Islamists describe all their goals in “religious terms,” Brennan sees them as naught more than victims of the system. And why is that? Because Brennan believes that “political, economic and social forces”—the three I specifically stressed in my excerpt above—are the only precipitators to violence. So jihadis can openly articulate their violent bloodlust through religious terms all they want, it matters not: Brennan and his ilk have their intellectual blinders shut tight and refuse to venture outside the box.
Next, our counter-terror adviser evokes the perverse logic behind the administration’s recent decision to censor words offensive to Muslims (which I closely explored here):
Nor do we describe our enemy as “jihadists” or “Islamists” because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.
Inasmuch as he is correct in the first clause of that sentence—”jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”—he greatly errs in the latter clause, by projecting his own notions of what constitutes “holy,” “legitimate,” and “innocent” onto Islam. In Islam, such terms are often antithetical to the Judeo-Christian/Western understanding. Indeed, the institution of jihad, according to every authoritative Islamic book on jurisprudence, is nothing less than offensive warfare to spread Sharia, a cause seen as both “legitimate” and “holy” in Islam. Jihadis regularly seek to “purify” themselves and their communities by purging them of “infidels” and their influences. As for “innocence,” by simply being a non-Muslim infidel, one is already guilty in Islam. Brennan understands the definition of jihad; he just has no clue of its application. So he is left fumbling about with a square peg that simply refuses to pass through a round hole.
Fox News continues:
Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network and “its terrorist affiliates.” But Brennan argued that it would be “counterproductive” for the United States to use the term, as it would “play into the false perception” that the “murderers” leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a “holy cause.”
Fine, do define the enemy as members of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network and “its terrorist affiliates,” but do also define the cause that binds these “terrorist affiliates” together in the first place. Of course, one need only read their writings to know that they adhere to one and the same cause: the establishment of a hegemonic caliphate that governs the world according to Sharia. As for Brennan calling the terrorist affiliates “murderers,” would he also be willing to apply that epithet to their prophet Muhammad, who was wont to send assassins to, well, murder his critics, including poets and one old woman whose body was dismembered by her Muslim assailants—assailants who were no less convinced that they were involved in a “holy cause” than were the 9/11 hijackers?
It should be further noted that this tendency to project one’s own cultural norms and priorities onto others is the height of arrogance and ethnocentrism—precisely what liberals constantly warn against. Yet the irony is that “open-minded” proponents of cultural relativism are also the ones most prone to westernizing Islam. When Brennan insists that jihadis are really not motivated by religion but rather are products of “political, economic and social forces,” is this total dismissal of the “other” and his peculiar motivations (in favor of Western paradigms) not the epitome of cultural arrogance?
REAL ISLAM & JIHAD
The Truth about ISLAM: in its own words
In the words of the prophet Muhammad.
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.”
Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.”
Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”
EARLY HISTORY OF PEACEFUL ISLAM:
Islamic leaders and politicians constantly tell us in English that “Islam is a peaceful religion”, but one can’t help wondering if they would say it quite so often if they were absolutely sure it was true.
Some recorded massacres of Muslim history:
On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughtered its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was apparently incited by Muslim preachers that had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power. Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving
only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.
Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th
century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North
Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or
decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered
hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and
Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.
Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria
(1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Qur’an’s purported prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344). Some escaped, but the Jews of Arabia who remained were pretty
much completely wiped out. Islamic revisionists claim they were killed because
they were literally asking for it, is their apologetic rubbish propaganda.
These Islamic revisionists (Islamaniacs) claim that the Jews demanded it as per
their own law. I mean that’s like the Nazis claiming they were only accommodating the Jews demand to get warm by the ovens. Like Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for others to believe it.
In the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and Dhimmitude were firmly established by the 8th century. Perhaps the pre-eminent Islamic scholar in history, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the
universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody
to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not
have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them,
save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over
other nations.
Between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 (Dhimmi) Christian
Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians.
Contemporary accounts from European diplomats confirm that these brutal
massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal Jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of Dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. Regarding the 1894-96 massacres, the Turkish-speaking interpreter of the British embassy reported:
…[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the “rayah” [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…”
The scholar Bat Yeor confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their “legal status,” which involved a “contract” (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers).
This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…
In the following chronology, note how closely Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims…. Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace, but all historical facts seem to discredit that claim rather convincingly.
Chronology of early Islam
• 570 – Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.
• 577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.
• 595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.
• 605 – Placement of Black Stone in Ka’aba.
• 610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
• 613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
• 615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraysh.
• 619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha
• 620 – Institution of five daily prayers .
• 622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.
• 623 – Battle of Waddan
• 623 – Battle of Safwan
• 623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir
• 624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.
• 624 – Zakat becomes mandatory
• 624 – Battle of Badr
• 624 – Battle of Bani Salim
• 624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr
• 624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’
• 624 – Battle of Sawiq
• 624 – Battle of Ghatfan
• 624 – Battle of Bahran
• 625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.
• 625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
• 625 – Battle of Banu Nadir
• 625 – Battle of Dhatul-Riqa
• 626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra
• 626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
• 626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
• 627 – Battle of the Trench
• 627 – Battle of Ahzab
• 627 – Battle of Bani Qurayza
• 627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan
• 627 – Battle of Ghaiba
• 627 – Battle of Khaibar
• 628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish. (The 628 Al-Hudaybiyya agreement, between the Prophet and the Meccan tribe of Quraish, was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months, Muhammad’s army then conquered Mecca)
• 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.
• 630 – Battle of Hunain.
• 630 – Battle of Tabuk
• 632 – Muhammad dies. The reign of the Caliphs begins.
• 632 – Abu-Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
• 633 – Battle at Oman
• 633 – Battle at Hadramaut.
• 633 – Battle of Kazima
• 633 – Battle of Walaja
• 633 – Battle of Ulleis
• 633 – Battle of Anbar
• 634 – Battle of Basra,
• 634 – Battle of Damascus
• 634 – Battle of Ajnadin.
• 634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
• 634 – Battle of Namaraq
• 634 – Battle of Saqatia.
• 635 – Battle of Bridge.
• 635 – Battle of Buwaib.
• 635 – Conquest of Damascus.
• 635 – Battle of Fahl.
• 636 – Battle of Yermuk.
• 636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.
• 636 – Conquest of Madain.
• 637 – Battle of Jalula.
• 638 – Battle of Yarmouk.
• 638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
• 638 – Conquest of Jazirah.
• 639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
• 641 – Battle of Nihawand
• 642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia
• 643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan
• 644 – Conquest of Fars
• 644 – Conquest of Kharan.
• 644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
• 647 – Conquest of Cypress island.
• 644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
• 648 – Byzantine campaign begins.
• 651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.
• 654 – Islam spreads into North Africa
• 656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
• 658 – Battle of Nahrawan.
• 659 – Conquest of Egypt
• 661 – Ali is murdered.
• 662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.
• 666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims
• 677 – Siege of Constantinople
• 687 – Battle of Kufa
• 691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
• 700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.
• 700 – Military campaigns in North Africa
• 702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira
• 711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar
• 711 – Conquest of Spain
• 713 – Conquest of Multan
• 716 – Invasion of Constantinople
• 732 – Battle of Tours in France.
• 740 – Battle of the Nobles.
• 741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
• 744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.
• 746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha
• 748 – Battle of Rayy.
• 749 – Battle of lsfahan
• 749 – Battle of Nihawand
• 750 – Battle of Zab
• 772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa
• 777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain
It hurts to listen to John Brennan answer questions. He has a talent for stringing together cliches that talk around a question, but never really answer it. And he goes on and on in his non answers, so as to punish the questioner for asking.
Maybe he is a warrior behind closed doors and the bureaucrat image he projects is a mask he wears in public. Or maybe he’s just a bureaucrat.
The link for “one old woman whose body was dismembered by her Muslim assailants” should be to a “.net” domain. Here is the correct link:
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa#cite_note-0
But arn”t spys taught to lie? & isn’t he “chief” spy? so deception is his job. right?
Brennan is not a spy. He couldn’t find his hands at the ends of his arms. He’s an Obama lackey like Hagel, Kerry and all the rest.
“It should be further noted that this tendency to project one’s own
cultural norms and priorities onto others is the height of arrogance and
ethnocentrism—precisely what liberals constantly warn against. Yet the
irony is that “open-minded” proponents of cultural relativism are also
the ones most prone to westernizing Islam. When Brennan insists that
jihadis are really not motivated by religion but rather are
products of “political, economic and social forces,” is this total
dismissal of the “other” and his peculiar motivations (in favor of
Western paradigms) not the epitome of cultural arrogance?”
Brilliant, powerful, perceptive statement, Raymond. Wow, you nailed it.
Welcome to today’s USA. In the USA of the 1830’s, however, a very observant John Quincy Adams, wasn’t apologizing for anyone’s bad behavior, nor was he walking on the eggshells of “pc”, nor was he so arrogant as to assume that Islamic worldview was the same as Western, Judeo-Christian worldview.
The following article is a must read for so many different reasons:
John Quincy Adams on Islam
by
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our
nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism,
pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket
American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about
the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life.
The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They
were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the
international circumstances that could potentially impact America
adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the
anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.
Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United
States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding
era (born in 1767), not
only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy
was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies
of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an
early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling
nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became
Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his
father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in
1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to
the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to
Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to
England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S.
Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as
the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the
U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John
Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish
Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat
that Islam has posed throughout world history:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the
lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent
genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent
spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven,
and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the
earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the
doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the
audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.
Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of
immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by
adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the
gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human
felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex,
and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and
exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of
mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between
these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of
twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor
can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been
permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the
merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish
motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good
will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and
every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious
dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so
many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over
the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt,
1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in
contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he
further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine,
including the degrading practice of polygamy.
A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature
of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance
Islam:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that
Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives,
by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and
delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet,
may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to
propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it
can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed
alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated
the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing
atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that
one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.
It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no
denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this
doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and
however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy
has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly
inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations.
It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of
slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified
acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its
performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts
of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of
their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state
paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of
its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to
any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and
teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders
would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be
catastrophic.
REFERENCES
Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture
War” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the
following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be
designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press
Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached
to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that
accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of
the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g.,
photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced
exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written
material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as
long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in
a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not
be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8)
articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites
pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and
that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location
from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
Wow. Thank you. Churchill had them nailed too. Too bad 9/11 has been lost on America’s appeasers. Liberals of course.
All Americans need to actually read the Koran, and study the life of Muhammad. The phrases like “Kill the Infidel” (that’s you and me) are not fictitious, they are REAL. And another interesting study would be the vicious terrorist attacks on America during the last 25 years – nearly ALL conducted by Muslim men, under the age of 40. The violence against non-Muslim people world-wide has a clear pattern, which is not just a suggestion by Islamic leaders; It is a command, required by Allah. No, the title of
“Moderate Muslim” is a farce. Those Muslims who do not plan and conduct the slaughter of non-Muslims may not be involved in the violence, but they are supportive and also contribute to the financing of the terrorism. Here’s a thought too: How many of the Mullahs, and “spiritual leaders” have you seen or heard on television condemning the violence and killing??? They don’t !! And in fact, they speak out to encourage it, and it is taught to little children when they first learn to speak: Little suicide bombers, in training. NO, the “Moderate Muslim” does not exist, or if he does, he is violating the teaching of the Koran.