the truth about islam and violence

8/4/2019 The Truth About Islam and Violence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-truth-about-islam-and-violence 1/35

MUSLIM HATE IS BASED ON THE QUR'AN

The history of Muslim hate is that of violence.

MUSLIM HATE REQUIRES GUNS AND THE QUR'ANFOR GUIDANCE



DEVOUT MUSLIMS WILL HAPPILY MURDER YOU

FOR THEIR FAITH



9/11 Muslim murderers celebrating the planned murder of thousands of

innocent people.

The Truth about Islam and Violence Jihad .

It was once a word unfamiliar to American ears. But in recent years it has become alltoo familiar. The actions of Muslim militants and terrorists have seared the word intoAmerican consciousness.

Yet even with thousands of innocent civilians killed on American soil by Islamic

terrorists, the full significance of the Muslim concept of jihad has not been graspedby the American public.

In the days after September 11, 2001, American leaders rushed to portray Islam as apeaceful religion that had been "hijacked" by a fanatical band of terrorists. Onehopes that these assurances were merely tactical—that nobody was meant tobelieve them and that they were meant to assure the Muslim world that the inevitableAmerican reprisals were not directed at their religion as a whole.

If the world Muslim community perceived America as attacking Islam in general thenthe duty of every Muslim to fight for his religion—the duty of jihad —would have been

invoked on a broad scale. The war against terrorism, instead of simmering withoccasional flare-ups, like the Cold War, would have boiled over into a global



conflagration, with the Muslim countries of the world—1.2 billion strong—mobilizingagainst America and the West.

Muslim apologists also rushed forward to assure the public that Islam was a peacefulreligion. They disingenuously declared that the word Islam means "peace." And they

tried to portray the terrorists as a fringe group outside the mainstream of Islam.

These were lies.

The usual meaning of Islam in Arabic is not "peace" but "submission." And if theterrorists were so far outside the mainstream, why did Muslims all over the worldburst into joyful, spontaneous celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed intothe World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why are Islamic governments afraid toshow "too much" public support for the war against terrorism? Further, why are allthe governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?

The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. This is not to say that every Muslimis violent at heart. Many are not. Muslims have the same aspirations for livingpeaceful lives that people have the world over. But they also have the same potentialfor violence as others, and Islam as a religion and an ideology seeks to exploit thatpotential.

Though there are millions of Muslims who want peaceful relations with the West,millions who aspire to live in free societies like America, there nevertheless remainsa deep and powerful strain of violence within Islam, and it is important thatAmericans understand it.

They will have to face it in the future. The Muslim Worldview

To understand the connection between Islam and violence, one must understandcertain facets of the Muslim worldview. One of the most important is the fact that,according to the historic Muslim understanding, there is no separation betweenreligion and government—what in Christianity would be called the separation ofchurch and state.

We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalizereligion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We aretalking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that theyhave different spheres of activity.

This idea of a separation between religion and government is not characteristic ofmost peoples in world history. It is a contribution to the world of ideas that was madeby Christians—indeed, by Christ himself. In his book Islam and the West , historianBernard Lewis explains:

"The notion that religion and political authority, church and state, are different and

that they can or should be separated is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its originsmay be traced to the teachings of Christ, notably in the famous passage in Matthew



22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying: ‗Render therefore unto Caesar the thingswhich are Caesar‘s; and unto God the things that are God‘s.‘ This notion wasconfirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shapedand in a sense even imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. Thepersecutions endured by the early Church made it clear that a separation between

the two was possible."

During much of Christian history church and state were united in that each Christianstate had an official church, whether it was the Catholic Church or one of theOrthodox or Protestant churches. In many countries that is still the case.Nevertheless, the awareness remained that the two institutions were distinct and haddifferent functions and different spheres of legitimate authority. They could inprinciple disagree and go their separate ways when necessary.

Most peoples in world history have not shared this understanding. In most societies,religion and government have been inseparably linked. This is true in Muslim society

as well. Lewis explains:

"In pagan Rome, Caesar was God. Christians were taught to differentiate betweenwhat is due to Caesar and what is due to God. For Muslims of the classical age, Godwas Caesar, and the sovereign—caliph or sultan—was merely his vice-regent onearth. This was more than a simple legal fiction. For Muslims the state was God‘sstate, the army God‘s army, and, of course, the enemy was God‘s enemy. Of morepractical importance, the law was God‘s law, and in principle there could be no other.The question of separating church and state did not arise, since there was nochurch, as an autonomous institution, to be separated. Church and state were oneand the same."

This means that, in the historic Muslim understanding, Islamic society is or should bea theocracy—a society in which God himself is the monarch, reigning on earththrough subordinates.

In the earliest days of Islam, the subordinate was the prophet Mohammed, whofounded Islam and conquered the Arabian Peninsula. Thereafter the subordinatewas the caliphs and in the centuries after Mohammed‘s death they expanded Muslimsociety by conquering peoples as far west as Spain and as far east as India. In theprocess, they absorbed half of Christian civilization. Eventually, the power of the

caliphs waned, and new leaders—such as the Ottoman sultans—were thesubordinates. Throughout it all, God himself was regarded as the ruler of Islamiccivilization.

Islam as Ideology That Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for how it regardsitself and for the behavior of Muslims.

First, it means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If thegovernment of the Muslim community simply is God‘s government, then no other

governments can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslimshave typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam —the



"house of Islam" or "house of submission" to God—and the Dar al-Harb , or "house ofwar"—those who are at war with God.

Second, it means that Muslims have believed themselves to have a "manifestdestiny." Since God must win in the end, the Dar al-Harb must be brought under the

control of Muslim government and made part of the Dar al-Islam .

Third, since the Dar al-Harb by its nature is at war with God, it is unlikely that it willsubmit to God without a fight. Individual groups might be convinced to lay down theirarms and join the Muslim community by various forms of pressure—economic ormilitary—that fall short of war. In history some groups have become Muslim in thisway, either fearing Muslim conquest, desiring Muslim military aid against their ownenemies, or aspiring to good trade relations with the Muslim world. But manypeoples would rather fight than switch. This has been particularly true of Christians,who have put up more resistance to the Muslim advance than have pagan andanimistic tribes.

Because of the need to expand God‘s dominion by wars of conquest, Islam‘sideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for God‘s community. This duty isknown as jihad (Arabic, "struggle, fight"). Although it is binding on all Muslims, it hasbeen particularly incumbent on those on the edges of the Muslim world, where therewas room for expansion. Only by continual jihad could the manifest destiny of Islamto bring the world into submission to God be fulfilled.

As eminent French sociologist Jacques Ellul notes, "Jihad is a religious obligation. Itforms part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam‘s normal path toexpansion."

A fourth and final consequence of Islam‘s view of itself as a theocracy is that intheory all Muslims should not only form one religious community but should besubject to one government as well—God‘s government, a kind of Muslim superstate.Yet this has not happened. Muslims have been ruled by different governments sincethe early days of Islam.

Ideology Meets History The fact that Muslims are not united under a single government is due to a variety of

historical factors. As Muslim territory expanded the problems with the idea of unitingall Muslim peoples under a single government became all too obvious. Islam grewfrom a tribal base, and tribal societies are not known for stability. The factions andrivalries that are inherent in such societies manifested as Islam grew and made itdifficult to keep Muslims under a single head.

Another factor that kept a stable Muslim superstate from developing is the fact that—especially in a pre-technological world—local areas have to be governed locally.Large empires have had to cede large amounts of autonomy to local governments,and therein lay the seeds of their eventual dissolution. As local governments grew inpower, they desired more and more autonomy, desiring eventually to throw off the

yoke of their masters and to be truly independent.



As a result, even in the classical period of Islam the Muslim community was dividedpolitically, with rivalries between various parties—for example, between theOttomans and the Persians, who maintained a tense and sometimes violent rivalryfor centuries. The conflicts within the Muslim community helped slow its expansionand helped lead to stagnation and decay.

A threat also was growing in the non-Muslim world.

Europe for centuries had been terrified by the Muslim advance, with continualwarfare on its borders to the west and to the east as Christians struggled at first tocheck the Muslim advance and later to reclaim their homelands.

The fight was not easy for Europe and, for a long time, it did not go well. Lewis notesof medieval Christendom: "Split into squabbling, petty kingdoms, its churches dividedby schism and heresy, with constant quarrels between the churches of Rome andthe East, it was disputed between two emperors and for a while even two popes.

After the loss of the Christian shores of the eastern and southern Mediterranean tothe Muslim advance, Christendom seemed even more local, confided in effect to asmall peninsula on the western edge of Asia which became—and was by thisconfinement defined as—Europe. For a time—indeed, for a very long time—itseemed that nothing could prevent the ultimate triumph of Islam and the extension ofthe Islamic faith and Muslim power to Europe."

As chronicler of Muslim expansion Paul Fregosi notes, "‗From the fury of theMohammedan, spare us, O Lord‘ was a prayer heard for centuries in all the churchesof central and southern Europe. Fear of the jihad has not entirely vanished evennow, particularly among peoples who have known Muslim domination." Muslimsconducted raids to capture slaves as far west as England and Ireland. They attackedIceland. And they plunged deep into Europe.

They captured Sicily and invaded the Italian mainland. "Naples, Genoa, Ravenna,Ostia, and even Rome itself were all for a time pillaged or occupied by the Saracens.Human beings became a cheap and abundant commodity. In Rome, in 846 . . . theMuslims even looted the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the pope had to buyoff the invaders with the promised tribute of 25,000 silver coins a year. Pope Leo IVthen ordered the construction of the Leonine Wall around the city to protect St.Peter‘s from further assault."

The threat continued for centuries, with Muslim forces laying siege in 1529 and 1683to Vienna, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, located in the heart of Europe.

But as Islam stagnated, new doors opened to Europe, particularly through thediscovery of the New World and the vast material resources it offered. As Europegrew economically, technologically, and militarily through its colonies and the rise ofglobal trade, the balance of power shifted, and the Islamic world became vulnerable.

Even before the discovery of the New World, Christians in both western and easternEurope had begun to reclaim their conquered homelands from Muslim dominion, and

the tremendous new resources that Europe had at its disposal as a result of the Ageof Exploration only made things worse for Muslim aspirations to world political



supremacy. Their own governmental structures—particularly the Ottoman empire—began to lose power and disintegrate, with Europeans stepping in to take control ascolonialization progressed.

For three centuries the Muslim world lost ground, and by the first half of the twentieth

century almost all of it had been reduced to being colonies or protectorates ofEuropean powers.

Lewis notes, "By 1920 it seemed that the triumph of Europe over Islam was total andfinal. The vast territories and countless millions of the Muslim peoples of Asia andAfrica were firmly under the control of the European empires—some of them under avariety of native princes, most under direct colonial administration. Only a fewremote mountain and desert areas, too poor and too difficult to be worth the troubleof acquiring, retained some measure of sovereign independence."

What was the Muslim reaction to this alarming sequence of developments? Shock and Awe

In the seventeenth century it had begun to sink into Muslim consciousness thatsomething was desperately wrong in the world. Though Muslim society hadpreviously been more advanced economically and in some ways culturally thanEuropean society, it began to dawn on Muslim leaders that the barbarian infidels ofEurope were catching up and in certain ways were ahead of Muslim society.

It is difficult for Westerners to realize just how crushing a realization this was, but it

was devastating given Muslim self-perception.

The triumphal advance of Islam seemed to confirm to Muslim minds that they werethe chosen of God and that civilization itself was identical with Islam, with onlyignorant barbarians and infidels outside its borders.

In What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response , BernardLewis notes that Christian Europe was seen "as an outer darkness of barbarism andunbelief from which there was nothing to learn and little even to be imported, exceptslaves and raw materials. For both the northern [European] and southern [African]barbarians, their best hope was to be incorporated into the empire of the caliphs, and

thus attain the benefits of religion and civilization."

Shock and awe thus were the responses of Muslims as they saw their civilizationcollapsing and their former enemies—Christian Europeans—seizing control of theirhomelands. How could this happen? How could God‘s people suffer such a reversalof fortune? How could their former might be so completely outclassed by theoverwhelming economic and military might of Christendom, whose religion was theironly serious rival for the role of a world faith?

Angry about the present and fearful of the future, Muslims began a process ofintrospection, explains Lewis.

"When things go wrong in a society, in a way and to a degree that can no longer be



denied or concealed, there are various questions that one can ask. A common one,particularly in continental Europe yesterday and today in the Middle East, is: ‗Whodid this to us?‘ The answer to a question thus formulated is usually to place theblame on external or domestic scapegoats—foreigners abroad or minorities at home.The Ottomans, faced with the major crisis in their history, asked a different question:

‗What did we do wrong?‘"

A debate followed, with various Muslims trying to analyze and propose remedies forthe developing situation. "The basic fault, according to most of these memoranda,was falling away from the good old ways, Islamic and Ottoman; the basic remedywas a return to them. This diagnosis and prescription still command wide acceptancein the Middle East."

These twin explanations for the recent misfortune of Islam—that it was caused by afailure to observe Islam in its pure form and by the malicious meddling of foreigners(first Europeans and now Americans)—bode ill for tomorrow.

The Clash of Civilizations European domination of the Muslim world was short-lived, ending in the 1960s withthe close of the de-colonialization that followed World War II. Yet it had an enormouseffect on the Muslim psyche.

This effect was somewhat muffled by the Cold War and the tense balance of powerbetween the Western and Soviet spheres. The new Muslim states—the borders ofwhich had been largely and not always skillfully drawn by the withdrawing colonial

powers—were too weak to be assertive and fell into the orbits of either of the UnitedStates or the Soviet Union. Nationalistic assertiveness was subsumed during thetense, global standoff.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, matterschanged. At first, some hailed the event as "the end of history," but other, wiserobservers pointed to new dangers in the world, including Islamic militancy.

Samuel Huntington, director of Harvard University‘s John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, presciently warned that the end of the Cold War would lead to aperiod he referred to as "the clash of civilizations." A major flash point he envisioned

in this conflict, unsurprisingly, was between Islam and the West.

"After World War II, the West, in turn, began to retreat; the colonial empiresdisappeared; first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifestedthemselves. . . . [The] centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islamis unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabsfeeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. Italso left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West‘s military presence in thePersian Gulf, the West‘s overwhelming military dominance, and their apparentinability to shape their own destiny."

Huntington noted a common consensus that an inevitable clash between Islam andthe West, a clash initiated by the former, was soon to come: "On both sides the



interaction between Islam and the West is seen as a clash of civilizations. TheWest‘s ‗next confrontation,‘ observes M. J. Akbar, an Indian Muslim author, ‗isdefinitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamicnations from the Maghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order willbegin.‘"

That confrontation came with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and theinauguration of the war against terrorism.

What did the terrorists hope for?

They hoped for a conflict with the West that would end the long, dark winter thatIslam has experienced. They hoped that the fortunes of their religion and civilizationwould be reversed. They hoped for a war that would smash the might of the Westand allow a wave Islamic revolutions to sweep away the worldly tyrants ruling Muslimnations. They hoped for a return to purer, stricter Islam, free of Western corruption

and values. They hoped that the blessings of God would descend upon theircivilization, allowing it to return to its rightful place at the head of nations, with aresurgence of Muslim nationalism that would give birth to the Islamic superstate thatlong had eluded them.

And they hoped for a new wave of expansion that would allow Islam to establish itsdestiny of bringing the entire world under Muslim control. In the famous al-Qaeda"dinner conversation" found on videotape in Afghanistan, Osama bin Ladenexpressed the view that the war he initiated would lead to a wave of Muslimexpansion not seen since the religion‘s first century, when it consumed half ofChristian civilization.

These dreams of a renewed, purified Islam, of the overthrow of existing Muslimgovernments, of a triumphant smashing of the West, and of expansion through anew jihad are far from confined to bin Laden and his terrorists. They are the dreamsthat inspire the seething rage of "the Arab street," which so often breaks forth intoviolent demonstrations at political events beyond its control.

Taming the Dragon? Within the Muslim world, government officials have been trying to cling to power in

the face of rising anger on their streets. Trying to buy time, they have funded radicalIslamic schools, media establishments, and even the terrorists themselves, hoping todirect and diffuse ineffectual Muslim rage toward the West as a scapegoat.

The West has responded with the war against terrorism, which Muslim governmentswould like to see succeed in ridding their society of its most radical elements, whichseek their overthrow. Yet they hesitate to support the war too much lest they hastentheir own demise through coup d‘ etats.

Some in the West have suggested trying to cure the economic roots of thedissatisfaction and despair in Muslim society that contribute to radicalism and

terrorism. The problem is not lack of wealth. Many Muslim countries are oil-rich andhave had money in abundance for decades, yet the elites have refused to pursue



policies leading to greater economic prosperity for their populaces. Instead, theyhave enriched themselves and shut their own people out of economic development.

Many in the West have proposed trying to spread freedom and democracy in theMuslim world, thinking that greater political involvement and opportunity would help

dry up the roots of terrorism.

While democracies generally have done better helping secure economicdevelopment for their populations, it is unclear how freedom and democracy couldbe brought to the Muslim world. It would mean effective regime change in thecountries in question, and it is unlikely that many countries would change their ownregimes voluntarily, though some might be pressured into making reforms in thisdirection. To introduce any form of truly representative government in manycountries would require armed intervention, as it did in Afghanistan.

There is then the question of how democracy could be sustained in the Muslim

world. Muslims have no historical experience of Western freedom and democracy.Middle Eastern society is still largely dominated by tribalism, which has a tendency tosubvert the democratic process, with one tribe coming into power and then brutallysuppressing its rivals.

The only halfway democratic Muslim country is Turkey, which actually is a countrywhere the military holds power but does not govern. It allows political parties to viefor and exercise governance within Turkey, but only on condition that they do nottransgress limits set by the military.

If genuine democracy were achievable, what would the results be? Given the currentstate of the Arab street, the results would not be pretty. In his analysis, SamuelHuntington argued:

"Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels ofeconomic and social development where autocratic forms of government becomeinappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openingsin Arab political systems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of theseopenings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Westerndemocracy strengthens anti-Western political forces."

The introduction of freedom and democracy to the Muslim world is thus fraught withproblems and, in any event, is not a solution to problems in the short term.

One thing that can be done in the short term—as illustrated by the interventions inAfghanistan and Iraq—is the use of military force. Could this help? It certainly hasdealt a tremendous blow to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, even though thatorganization is not yet out of business.

Some have argued that the use of military force will inflame Muslim hatreds andproduce a new crop of terrorists. Undoubtedly some Muslims will become terroristson the pretext that the West has used force. But then some Muslims would become

terrorists if the West didn‘t use force. Indeed, to a significant degree the al-Qaedaterrorists of September 11 were the product of the view that the United States was a



faltering, weak superpower that could be defeated just as the Soviet Union had beenhumiliated in Afghanistan.

Muslims respect strength. They cheer whoever displays it. Regardless of how manytimes their towns change hands during an armed conflict, the populace will turn out

to cheer their newest liberators, whether they are genuinely on a mission of liberationor not.

Due to its effectiveness in dealing at least temporarily with problems in the Muslimworld, the use of military force in finding a long-term solution is likely to be essential.It certainly must be wielded with discretion and in keeping with the Church‘s just war doctrine, but its use is likely unavoidable. It also is certainly not sufficient. Militaryforce will have to be used in conjunction with other initiatives, including diplomaticand economic ones.

But is a solution achievable?

Paradise and Power Can the historic connection between Islam and violence be broken?

Some would argue that it can. After all, our own forebears in Christendom were moreviolent than we are. Europe was riven by conflict between petty kingdoms forcenturies, but eventually a society developed from it that is stable and not atconstant war with either itself or its neighbors. Perhaps Muslim society could be ledor forced down the same path.

Perhaps. But the proposition is not quick, easy, or certain.

The development of a stable Europe took centuries of bloody conflict that finally woreout the resolve of Europeans to keep killing each other and prompted them to try adifferent path. This was not achieved until, in the first half of the twentieth century,Europe underwent two massive convulsions of violence, the First and Second WorldWars. Key to both of these was the intervention of the United States, which at theend of the Second World War pacified Europe and refused to let its states continueto pursue their bitter, historic rivalries in ways that could destabilize Europe and leadto another war.

Post-war Europe also was united by an outside threat: Soviet Communism, whichdominated Eastern Europe. It was the continued presence of U.S. forces in WesternEurope during the Cold War that helped protect it from Soviet invasion while new,more healthy political and economic ties were developing between its states as theysought to form a united front against the Soviet threat.

The sequence of events that led to the current state of affairs in Europe is uniqueand may not be repeatable. Trying to force the Muslim world down the same path isan uncertain proposition, and, even if it could succeed, it might well require the samedramatic military interventions and conflicts as the pacification of Europe. It might

require world wars and cold wars.



And then there is a factor that makes the pacification of Islam less likely than thepacification of Europe.

The Roots of Muslim Violence It is simplistic to characterize any of the major religions as being strictly "of violence"or "of peace." As Solomon pointed out, "For everything there is a season; a time tokill, and a time to heal; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Eccles. 3:1, 3, 8).That‘s the way life works in a fallen world, and every religion capable of serving asthe basis of a culture has recognized both the need for peace and the need for theuse of force in certain circumstances.

Sects that are totally pacifistic have to rely on the good graces of others who arewilling to use force to protect them, while sects that are totally given over to violencedo not survive long since they kill themselves off or are broken up by their neighborsas a matter of self-protection. For a religion to serve as the basis of a culture, it mustseek to preserve peace but also be willing to use force. All major religions tendtoward this mean.

Yet some religions are far more prone to violence than others. Among the majorreligions, Islam is by far the most violent. This may be seen by comparing it to thereligions most closely related to it, Judaism and Christianity.

Though belief in the true God goes back to the dawn of mankind, Judaism in itstraditional form was founded by Moses, who, if evaluated politically, could beconsidered a warlord, leading the tribes of Israel toward the Promised Land and the

conquest that would follow. The Old Testament contains numerous commands touse violence to protect and promote the nation of Israel. This potential for violence isreigned in, though, by the fact that Judaism is a religion for just one ethnic groupconfined to one territory.

Christianity, by contrast, is a universal religion, meant for all peoples in all countries.It has much greater breadth, and much lower intrinsic potential for violence. Itsfounder—Christ—was a martyr, who refused to fight to save his life. Though the NewTestament acknowledges that the Old Testament revelation is from God, it does notcontain new commands to use violence, as Christianity was not to be allied from itsbirth to a state in the way Judaism was.

The fact that in Christianity church and state are distinct means that as a religionChristianity has less potential for violence since it is not called upon to use force inthe way a state is. This, coupled with Jesus‘ own example and his "love thy enemy"teachings (e.g., Matt. 5:44), gives Christianity less innate potential for violence.

In contrast, Islam‘s founder was a warlord who rose from nowhere and who by hisdeath was the undisputed master of Arabia Peninsula. The holy book he producedis filled with commands to use violence in the service of its religion andnation. This potential for violence is similar to that possessed by Judaism except it isimmensely augmented by the fact that Islam views itself, like Christianity, as a

universal religion meant for all peoples in all countries. It also makes no distinctionbetween church and state and is thus a political as well as religious ideology.



As a result, Islam has been willing to employ violence on a massive scale, asillustrated by the first century of its existence, when the Islamic Empire explodedoutward and conquered much of the known world.

The attitude of Islam toward using violence against non-Muslims is clear. Regardingpagans, the Quran says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them,besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take toprayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving andmerciful" (Surah 9:5). This amounts to giving pagans a convert-or-die choice.

Regarding violence against Jews and Christians, the Quran says, "Fight againstthose to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day,who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do notembrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued"(Surah 9:29). In other words, violence is to be used against Jews and

Christians unless they are willing to pay a special tax and live in subjection toMuslims as second-class citizens. For them the choice is convert, die, or live insubjection.

The Quran also has stern words for Muslims who would be slow and reluctantto attack unbelievers: "Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‗Mar ch in thecause of God,‘ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life inpreference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish yousternly, and will replace you by other men" (Surah 9:38-39).

And, of course, there is the promise of reward in the afterlife for waging jihad in thisone: "Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from awoeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God‘s causewith your wealth and with your persons. . . . He will forgive you your sins and admityou to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansionsin the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph" (Surah 61:10-12).

It must be pointed out that there are people of peace and people of violence in allreligions. There are violent Christians. There are peace-loving Muslims. Changinghistorical circumstances do much to bring out tendencies toward violence and peaceamong the followers of different religions. Yet, even when these qualifications are

made, it is clear that Islam as a religion and an ideology has by far the greatesttendency to violence.

There are, indeed, many Muslims who desire peace, but, their views often do notcount for much in Muslim society. Author Serge Trifkovic notes: "Some critics mayobject that this account of Islam in the modern world does not pay much attention toIslamic moderation, to the everyday wish of everyday Muslims for a quiet life. This isnot because such moderates are rare, but because they are rarely important.Religions, like political ideologies, are pushed along by money, power, and tiny vocalminorities. Within Islam, the money and the power are all pushing the wrong way. Soare the most active minorities. The urgent need is to recognize this. Our problem is

not prejudice about Islam, but folly in the face of its violence and cruelty. And in anycase, the willingness of moderates to be what are objectively bad Muslims , because



By Ali Sina

www.faithfreedom.org "Islam is a religion of peace". This is what our politically correct politicians keep

telling us. But what is politically correct is not necessarily correct. The truth is thatIslam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of hate, of terror and of war.

A thorough study of the Quran and Hadith reveal an Islam that is not beingpresented honestly by the Muslim propagandists and is not known to the majority ofthe people of the world including Muslim themselves. Islam, as it is taught in theQuran (Koran) and lived by Muhammad, as is reported in the Hadith (Biography andsayings of the Prophet) is a religion of Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty, Absurdities, discrimination, Contradictions, and blind faith. Islam advocates killing the non-Muslims and abuses the human rights of minorities and women. Islam expandedmostly by Jihad (holy war) and forced its way by killing the non-believers. In Islam

apostasy is the biggest crime punishable by death. Muhammad was a terroristhimself therefore terrorism cannot be separated from the true Islam. Islam meanssubmission and it demands from its followers to submit their wills and thoughts toMuhammad and his imaginary Allah. Allah is a deity that despises reason,democracy, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

I reject Islam a) because of Muhammad‘s lack of moral and ethical fortitude and b)because of the absurdities in the Quran.

a) Muhammad lived a less than holy life. His lust for sex, his affairs with his maids and slave girls, his pedophilic relationship at age 54 with Aisha, a 9-year-old child,his killing sprees, his massacre and the genocide of the Jews, his slave making andtrading, his assassination of his opponents, his raids and lootings of the merchantcaravans and unarmed villagers, his burning of trees, his destroying the water wells,his cursing and invoking evil on his enemies, his revenge on his captured prisoners of war, his torturing of his captives to for greed and his hallucinations such asbelieving of having sex with his wives when he actually did not, disqualify him as asane person let alone a messenger of God

b) An unbiased study of the Quran shows that far from being a ―miracle‖, that book isa hoax. The Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical

mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. Could possiblythe author of this Universe be as ignorant as it appears to be in the Quran?

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murderthem and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65 ), striveagainst them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong tohell (66:9) and strike off their heads; then after making a ―wide slaughter amongthem, carefully tie up the remaining captives‖ for ransom ;47:4).

This is how the pagans are to be treated. As for the Christians and the Jews, theorder is to subdue them and impose on them a penalty tax, after humiliating them

(9:29) and if they resist, kill them.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/by_name.html



http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.084




http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029


















http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/zeinab.htm



http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/mariyah.htm



http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm



http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm



http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/assassinations.htm



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/039.sbt.html#003.039.519
































































The Quran is alien to freedom of belief and recognizes no other religion but Islam(3:85). It condemns those who do not believe to hellfire (5:10), calls them najis (filthy,untouchable, impure) (9:28), orders the Muslims to fight them until no other religionexcept Islam is left (2:193), slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of theunbelievers and to expel them from the land with disgrace.

It stresses that the disbelievers shall have a great punishment in the world hereafter(5:34) and figuratively depicts a horrendous chastisement for them stating that theywill go to hell to drink boiling water (14:17), that they will be engulfed in smoke andflames like the wall and the roof of a tent and if they implore relief they will begranted water like melting brass that will scald their faces, (18:29) and that"garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling waterwhereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will bepunished with hooked iron rods‖ (22:19).

It also prohibits Muslims to associate with their own brothers and fathers if they are

non-believers (9:23), (3:28).

As for the women the book of Allah is emphatic that they are inferior to men and ifthey disobey their husbands the latter have the right to beat them (4:34). Theirpunishment for disobeying their husbands does not end there, because after they diethey will go to hell (66:10). The Quran emphasizes the superiority of men byconfirming that men have an advantage over the women (2:228). It not only denieswomen's equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbecilesand decrees that their testimony is not admissible in the court of law unless it isaccompanied with the testimony of a man (2:282). This means that a woman who israped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammadallowed the Muslim men to marry up to four wives (although he himself had a scoreof them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (womencaptured in wars), as many as they can capture or afford to buy (4:3), even if thewoman is married before being captured (4:24).

The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Jawairiyah, Rayhanah and Safiyah were beautiful young girls who werecaptured when he raided the tribes of Banu al-Mustaliq, Qurayza and Nadir. Theprophet slew their husbands, fathers and their male relatives and let his men rapethem while he kept the prettiest for himself and raped her in the same day while they

were still in the shock of the loss of their loved ones.

This book scrutinizes Islam with Rational Thinking. It rejects time-honored beliefsthat cannot stand the probing of reason. It asks questions and encouragesindependent thinking. It promotes unity of humankind, equality between men andwomen, abolition of prejudices and freedom from dogmatism and blind faith.

In a world that has become technologically so advanced that even some poornations that cannot feed themselves boast having nuclear and biological weapons,small misunderstandings can have catastrophic results. Religion has always been amajor source of misunderstandings among mankind. For religion, many people are

ready to die, kill and destroy everything. Islam encourages that aggressive spiritexplicitly. Only a Muslim can believe that he would go to paradise if he kills other



















http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispTargam.asp?nType=1&nSeg=0&l=eng&nSora=18&nAya=29&t=eng

































http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Juwairiyah.htm






http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_quraiza.htm



http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_nadir.htm




























human beings. Only a Muslim has no regard for lives that he destroys because theirfaith is not right.

In the last few decades, and thanks to the newfound wealth of the oil rich Islamiccountries and massive immigration to the West, Islamic fundamentalism has been on

the rise and the dormant spirit of Jihadism has been rekindled once again. Thisfervor has been translated into terrorism, revolutions, and upheavals, and worldpeace has been put in jeopardy. Millions of lives are now in danger.

Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do notbefriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite theirheads (47:4).

Let us pause for a moment and take a second look at Islam. Can these really be thewords of God? Was Muhammad really a messenger of God or was he a crazy man,like Hitler, who used the religious sentiment of the gullible to conquer, to dominate

and to have an endless supply for his narcissistic cravings?

Islam is a cult created by a psychopath. It cannot be reformed. It must be eradicated.Islam must be eradicated not because the Quran says Earth is flat or the shootingstars are missiles that Allah fires at the Jinns who climb the heaven to eavesdrop onthe conversation of the exalted assembly. These stupid tales could even amuse us.Islam must go because it teaches hate, it orders killing of non-Muslims, it denigrateswomen and it violates the human rights. Islam must go not because it is false butbecause it is destructive, because it is dangerous; a threat to peace and security ofhumankind. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Islamiccountries, Islam has become a serious and a real threat to the survival of ourcivilization. In order for you to appreciate the evilness of Islam, let us choose a few verses of theQuran and switch the words "Muslim" and "non-Muslims" and see how they look:

We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads andstrike off every fingertip of them. 8:12 Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65, Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,

Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame.9:14, O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if theylove Islam.9:23, O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28, O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmnessin you. 9:123, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. 47:4, Can these satanic verses be from God?

We don't have to face another world war. We can stop this madness by eradicatingIslam. We can love each other like members of one family and celebrate our













http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Jinns_that_haunted_mo.htm










































diversity. We can build a better world for our children. We can sing the songs of unitytogether. We can make this world a paradise but we have to remove the falsedoctrines that divide mankind into ―us‖ versus ―them‖ and believers versusdisbelievers first.

You and I are humans. We are part of the Humanity. We are members of one family:the family of Humankind. God created us all because he loved us all. Do not destroywhat God has made. Muhammad was insane. Like Hitler he was a brilliant andmanipulative psychopath. Please read the Quran and the original history ofMuhammad. Not the history written by today's unscrupulous apologists of Islam butthe history written by the early historians. Read the book of Al Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq andAl Tabari's. Read the Hadith and see for yourself that what I say is the truth. We area billion or more people, following an insane man. This is a colossal tragedy. Nowonder Islamic world is sunk in utter misery, abundant poverty and abject ignorance.Our forefathers were forced to convert to Islam and our fathers did not have thechance to question it. But now we have that chance. Isn't it time that we look into our

faith to at least know what is it that we believe in?

This site reveals the bitter truth about Islam. It proves that it is not a religion of God.If you disagree with me, prove me wrong and I promise to remove this site. Ichallenge the apologists of Islam to prove me wrong or stop misleading the worldwith half truths and misinformation. But if no one can disprove me, as many Muslimshave tried and failed, then I invite you to learn about the dark side of the Quran andthe Hadith by reading the articles written by numerous authors (mostly ex-Muslims)and transcripts of debates that I have had with Muslim apologists who have tried toexplain away the absurdities of Islam. I invite you to read the facts that I have quotedfrom the Quran and the Hadith that lead me to my conclusions. Above all, I invite youto put yourself in the position of the victims of Islam to appreciate the evilness of thisso called religion. I want you to ask yourself whether you would like to be treated bynon-Muslims as Islam and Muslims have treated and continue to treat the non-Muslims wherever they are the majority. Finally, I invite you to reject Islam and joinus, the apostates, to save the world from ―Islamic doom."

Let us save the world from its certain destruction. We don't have to face anotherworld war. We can stop this madness now. We can love each other like members ofone family and celebrate our diversity like flowers of one garden. We can build abetter world for our children. We can sing the songs of joy together. We can make a

difference. Let not a psychopath liar fool you. Do not become an instrument of hate.Muhammad lied. This site is the proof.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/



http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates.htm




http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles.htm














Website documenting Islamic hate faces death threats Radicals send photo of headless body: 'We will kill you. Like this' December 25, 2009 By Bob UnruhWorldNetDaily

A recent e-mail to a website launched after the 9/11 terror attacks to document theinstances of Islamic violence said simply: "We will kill you. Like this ... "

The message included a photograph of a man who had been beheaded, his bodyresting chest down on grass and his lifeless head placed in the middle of his ownback. Another photograph showed a bloody knife.

But the operator of The Religion of Peace website says those types of threats don'tbother him much.

"I don't think anyone who is serious about killing me is going to announce it inadvance," the operator, who uses the pseudonym Glen Reinsford, told WND. "Still,one more reason to stay anonymous."

Reinsford's website intends to demonstrate extreme violence is an integral part offundamental Islam, not merely a means by which only radicals try to achieve "out-of-the-mainstream goals."

Its list of "offerings" from the "Religion of Peace" for a single day this week: In Iraq, abomb was placed near an ancient Christian church and two were killed; threeinnocents were cut down by a Taliban bomb in Afghanistan, and in Baghdad Sunnibombers murdered five Shia pilgrims. The site features a significant statistic: "Islamic Terrorists Have Carried Out morethan 14,569 Deadly Terror Attacks since 9/11."

It also keeps readers updated on other statistics. For the week of Dec. 12-18, therewere 42 jihad attacks, 182 people killed and 362 people critically injured. For the

month of November, there were 139 attacks in 14 different nations involving fivereligions, with 529 fatalities and 1,075 critically injured.

Get the "Obsession" DVD that draws back the veil on radical Islam

The list is divided by years. Its many stark descriptions include a report from Nov. 24in Afghanistan: "Four children are blown to bits when Islamic fundamentalists set offa roadside bomb next to a family vehicle."

Reinsford explained in his "About" page, his alarm came about because of theintegration of Islam and violence, typified by the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000

innocent bystanders.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/



http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=29&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=153&ITEM_ID=2151









"In fact, some Muslims actually celebrated the attacks, and not just overseas, buteven in the offices of the U.S. State Department," he wrote. "There were a fewpassionless, self-serving denunciations, to be sure, but Muslims save their realoutrage for times when a Western leader makes a public statement against veils andheadscarves, or someone draws a Muhammad cartoon.

"By and large, most could hardly care less about the thousands of people who losetheir lives in the name of this religion each year. It was not for three years, in fact,that there was even a fatwa issued against these attacks. To this day, major Muslim-American groups are reluctant to denounce Osama Bin Laden by name," he said.

Islam, he noted, has been called a "religion of peace" by many, including PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who said, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam … Islamis peace."

But Reinsford believes Islam inspires not only "an enormous amount of violence, but

an astonishing level of indifference and self-centeredness as well." "We watched in the months following 9/11, as Muslim-American groups began to actas hindrances in the war on terror and the efforts of Americans to defendthemselves. We saw them ignore nearly every act of daily Islamic terror and insteadpublicize obscure issues and personal slights against Muslims and 'insults to Islam'that are absolutely trivial by comparison.

"Finally, we came to realize that this extraordinary arrogance and self-absorption onthe part of the Muslim community, along with an inability to empathize with peoplewho are not like them or engage in the sort of self-critique that leads to moralprogress is in no way incidental to the religion.

"There is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam," Reinsford wrote.

He said the site originally was begun "in the naïve hope" that Muslims just didn'trealize the extent of the violence done in the name of Islam.

"Perhaps," he wrote, "if they understood, then they might be motivated to turn thecritical eye inward and resolve those far more important issues that leave so manylives in agony and force the consumption of so many billions of dollars in security

resources."

However, "we never once heard" from a Muslim condemning the violence.

So the mission was refined to "present the truth about Islam and how it is sotragically different from other religions, including its incompatibility with secularismand Western liberal values," he said.

"The ridiculous level of violence committed in the name of this religion is staggering,despite the many billions of dollars that are spent each year to prevent attacks," hesaid. "Muslim apologists are constantly telling Westerners that the solution to the

violence is greater understanding and tolerance for Islam. But isn't it the killers and



their supporters who need lessons in tolerance and understanding … not their victims?"

The website notes the horrific toll from Islamic attacks, with more victims each yearthan there were in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

"Islamic terrorists murder more people very day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last50 years."

In the e-mail interview, Reinsford told WND his is a one-man operation that costsseveral thousands dollars a year to keep online. The website came about to make apoint about the extent of violence; not necessarily a reaction to the terrorism "butrather to the apathy on the part of Muslims."

"While I would say that most Muslims probably don't agree with Islamic terror, thethings that do seem to genuinely upset them instead (such as cartoons and hijab

bans) seem relatively trivial to me. Early on I realized that there is something aboutIslam that really skews priorities."

His work essentially is to simply list the incidents of violence.

"The data for the list of attacks is compiled daily from Internet news sources. I try tostick with the more reliable reports – and I do strive for accuracy, although I'm surethe list is far from perfect," he told WND.

"For one thing, there is an awful lot that is missed, usually because it isn't reported.The genocide in Darfur is probably the best example. I don't have very many victimslisted even though there have been plenty."

"Those committing the violence do so explicitly in the name of Islam, whichWesterners should find alarming given the rising assertiveness on the part of agrowing Muslim minority within our own borders," he said.

The sword and whip mentality in Islam also causes him concern.

"How can we expect Islam to be of benefit to the West when it can't even producecountries that attract Muslims?" he wondered.

His website notes attacks have been documented in Iraq, India, Sudan, Algeria,Afghanistan, New York, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, Chechnya, the Philippines,Indonesia, Nigeria, England, Thailand, Spain, Egypt, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia,Pennsylvania, Denmark, Germany, Canada and a long list of additional nationstotaling more than 60.

In a previous interview with Chadd de las Casas at Associated Content, Reinsfordsaid he was prompted to start the work, which he does on a volunteer basis, after aIslamic attack on a Hindu temple in India about a year after 9/11.



http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/364400/interview_glen_reinsford_owner_of_the.html






The massacre generally was ignored by the Western media, "and it occurred to mehow common Islamic terror is that such a brutal incident should receive only passingattention," he said.

He also credits the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic advocacy

group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding case. He saidhe was "repulsed by their lack of moral perspective."

The website also honors a "Dhimwit" of the month, which for November was Gen.George Casey for emphasizing the military's "diversity" after a Muslim activist, NidalHasan, allegedly shot and killed 13 adults and an unborn baby at Fort Hood inTexas.

An earlier honoree was President Obama, for "reaching out" to the Taliban and Iranas well as a variety of other acts.

Reinsford said his work is based in factual reporting, and he tries to avoideditorializing.

"Not all of Islam is bad, and certainly not all Muslims (or even a majority, for thatmatter) are bad people. Don't put the agenda before the truth, and always be willingto recognize when your own worldview needs to be adjusted," he said.

But he said, "No other religion inspires the sort of terrorism that the 'religion of peace'produces.

"We hope that this list offers a dose of perspective against so-called 'Islamophobia'and other Muslim complaints that are petty by comparison. As the site Bare NakedIslam puts it, 'It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you.'"

Conquering Islam…On the March Again War on Terror/Lt. Col. Michael Burkert, US Army (ret.) January 17, 2006 - Conquering Islam is once again marching forward. Islam, alwaysat war with all others since the days of Mohammed, the self-proclaimed prophet or―messenger‖ of Allah, is now emboldened on all fronts. Billions of dollars in oil moneyhas enabled this hideous and sinister cult-based ―religion‖ to continue its sweep of illusionary greatness throughout most parts of the world.

For centuries, Islam was spread at the edge of a scimitar; a large curved swordfavored by Muslim warriors. As Muslim armies rode hard and fast over the MiddleEast, North Africa, Asia, and Europe, they spread slaughter, slavery, cruelty by way

of the most unspeakable tortures, wherever they rode. All in the name of Allah!



At one point during the 17th century, the Muslim conquerors were at the gates ofVienna. They had come a great distance from their Middle Eastern origins. PrimarilyTurkish armies stormed European lands, and overran such Balkan nations asmodern day Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Bosnia, Romania and Hungary. We all knowof the stories of ―Count Dracula‖ said to be a vampire.

The origins of this story however, have nothing to do with biting anybody, or drinkinghuman blood. The original ―Dracula‖ was a Romanian Prince named Vlad Dracul.History also records his name as ―Vlad the Impaler.‖ Before you cringe and think hownasty this guy was, you have to understand that Vlad was in actuality fighting againstbarbarous and brutal Muslims. The Turks, at the urging of the Mullahs and Imamsand other Islamic ―holy men,‖ imposed the most barbarous tortures and horribleexecutions on Christian Romania. The tortures and cruelties are beyond ourimagination! In the name of Allah, there was no slack cut for any Christian or Jew inold Romania.

Vlad quickly learned that the only way to combat the barbarous and bloodthirstyMuslim conquerors was to be more cruel and vicious than they were! He used thevery texts of the Koran to fight the hated Islamic invaders. By using instructions hefound in the Koran, he defeated the Islamic menace! Using Islamic methods ofcruelty, Romanians were able to force the beaten Islamic armies out of their country.

They saved themselves from ensuing centuries of illiteracy, squalor and Islamicidiocy. To this day, Vlad Dracul is a national hero in Romania. I saw for myself, hisportrait adorning the ceilings at both the National Opera Houses in Bucharest as wellas in Timisoara, the two most significant cities in Romania.

Since September 11, 2001, the American people have been subjected to manyspeeches and statements from our congress, which proclaimed that we are not atwar with Islam. The President himself made repeated statements in the early days ofthe war. The bizarre reality of this issue is that Islam is at war with us. So how do youdefeat an enemy that you don‘t dare identify, or define?

How do we combat an enemy where vilification by our society and our military isforbidden? Due to the fact that ―Political Correctness‖ has run amok in our nation andwithin our armed forces, we have become a nation where our army conducts―touchy-feely‖ training sessions. Our army leadership emphasizes ―consideration of

others,‖ or COO training as it‘s known among the soldiers. Sensitivity training for theacceptance of homosexuals or whatever the ―multicultural‖ group of the day is hasmade it impossible to define our enemies. Our senior Army leadership today is moreconcerned with observing the ―human rights‖ of our enemies, than doing everythingnecessary to win against Islam! This is sadly, a result of the politicization of themilitary during the Clinton Administration, and a very partisan, anti-military big media.

Millions of Middle Eastern peoples have moved to the United States, most in just thepast decade. They have proven to be the most violent of any ethnic minority to evermigrate to our shores. As Muslims in our country gain the upper hand, and they will,look for sexual assaults to rise astronomically. In Islam, it‘s expected for Muslim men

to rape infidel women. Mohammed himself set the example.



In Islam, it‘s not a sin to murder an unbeliever. Actually, according to the Koran, it‘s aduty. An unbeliever is any person who doesn‘t embrace the religion of Mohammed.It‘s no sin to steal from, enslave or humiliate a ―kafir,‖ or unbeliever. This accountsfor the Islamic Intifada that has only now begun in Europe. It accounts for the recentterrorizing of train passengers in France. It explains the sexual assaults, the robbery

and beating of Infidels on a French train near Nice, just weeks ago. Sexual assaulton Infidel women is a prime tool of terrorism in the west. Look for more of this form of―conquering Islam‖ to spread in our cities and towns.

Islamic immigrants to our nation have perpetrated countless acts of senselessviolence. Muslims, ―in the name of Allah‖ have carried out bombings, shootings,arsons, and rapes, batteries and other acts of violence. Muslim immigrants andconverts have perpetrated treason and murder in our armed forces. More so thanyou know and more so than has been reported by big media.

Already, millions of Middle Eastern people, mostly Muslims, have immigrated to the

hated lands of the United States, The Great Satan. They hate and despise us, yetstill they come. Why do you suppose that they come to the land of the Great Satan?Is it to breathe the sweet air of freedom that our ancestors so yearned for?

There is a more sinister and diabolical reason that the Saudi ―Wahhabis‖ are forkingover MILLIONS of dollars to relocate Muslims to the United States. In Islam, there isno such thing as freedom. Islam regulates every aspect of a Muslims life. Islamcompletely negates individualism. Islam is mutually exclusive of free will. Islamcannot join the modern world. Islam and democracy will never peacefully co-exist.

World War III actually began on September 11, 2001. Already, Islamo-Facsists haveattacked peaceful nations in North America, Europe, Austral-Asia, the Philippines,and the Middle East. Soon, no nation in the world will be safe from Islamic attacks.France, due to her program of appeasement, and safe haven policy for terrorists gota pass for awhile. No longer. The French in their arrogant smugness thought theywere immune to the Islamics. They thought they had made an accommodation withthe Islamics. How stupid are the French!

Giving Islamics a pass may work for a short time, yet look how France is faring now.Look at the Intifada that French arrogance and stupidity has allowed to manifestitself. The Islamics gave the French a pass for only so long.

Islam is dedicated to the complete destruction of the Infidel World. In this regard, thewestern world is its‘ own worst enemy. The Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs have aneasy sell. It‘s not difficult to persuade a desperately poor, uneducated anddisaffected young Muslim that the infidel world is sick. While Islam has always fed onhuman failure and continues to do so today, it‘s not difficult to convince any believingMuslim that that the non-Islamic World is despicable and rotten.

Millions of corpses in tens of hundreds of thousands of graves throughout CentralAsia, the Middle East, and Europe are silent testimony to the deadly nature of Islam.Islam has no room for unbelievers. An unbeliever is to be converted if possible, even

by the threat of death. If it‘s convenient, and an infidel can be used for any purpose,then he‘s to be enslaved, tortured and humilitated.



Before the war with Islam is finished, millions of people may well die early deaths.The continued struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq has degenerated into a campaign ofmurder, confusion and destruction. Civil war can still break out in Iraq.

The Islamics are bent on imposing their brutal and inhuman cult on the entire world.As long as they have a means of carrying out their plans, they won‘t quit. The vastamounts of oil-money guaranteed them by a desperate for energy western world is aready-made recipient for continued violence. Yet our congress refuses to allowtapping of KNOWN energy sources in the US, because of environmental wackoism!

The Vietnam War taught our enemies and potential enemies much about thecharacter of our United States. One lesson well understood is that as long as bigmedia is biased against anything American, whether it be the economy, our militaryor American culture, there will be no unity or bond between Americans. The nationalmotto, E Pluribus Unum, or ―out of many, one,‖ has become an international joke.

The ―progressive liberal agenda, that of tearing down everything that America is allabout, and establishing ―Multi-Culturalism,‖ plays directly into the hands of our enemies. The most powerful enemy today, is Islam. The followers of this insidiouscult want to destroy our country. They want to destroy democracy and capitalism.They want to destroy Israel and everything else that‘s good in the world. They maywell succeed, but only if we allow them to do so. We have a president today that isnot going to allow an Islamic victory. Looking forward to the 2008 elections and thepossibility of a Hillary victory is sobering. Time will tell.

Because They Hate By Brigitte GabrielFrontPageMagazine.com

February 20, 2006

[Editor's Note: Below are selected excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel's speechdelivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18,2006]. We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merelycold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces.The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset andintention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance anddenial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims inthe name of Allah.



I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under therubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted―Allah Akbar!‖ My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word "infidel."

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where Ilived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eatinggrass to live. At the age of 13 I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night,waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed byMuslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We wereArab Christians living in Lebanon. As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up onSeptember 12, 2001, and asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" Thepsychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we doto offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the

Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate usbecause we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: "infidels." Under the banner of Islam "la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None isgod except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewishchildren in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyriansin Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. WeMiddle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying theprice for indifference and shortsightedness. Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn't buy protection. It earns onedisrespect and loathing in the enemy's eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which theWest is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around ourankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise. America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up andidentify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the onlyextreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates.Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction tothe cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burningembassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be

prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the realface of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas ofhate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate,bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that isawakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel anddominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West. America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweightignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body,and if they don't take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knockingsoon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry

of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they



will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on theworld.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerfulideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a

mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamasofficial in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending herthree sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is anideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors andlawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society isever capable of giving them. The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror.Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonouschants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people.The radical Islamists‘ deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage

crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almostunprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizensworldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, andthen rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional,indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified andglorified in the name of Islam.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the Americanpeople understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there arethose who say that we must ―engage‖ our terrorist enemies, that we must ―addresstheir grievances‖. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is ourfreedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of lawcomes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instillin our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as humanbeings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity.Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice wepractice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Theirgrievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are. Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatredwherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and

strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms wecherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization. If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against theterrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standardswe should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for ourdelusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and takeaction. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America‘slearning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. Thelonger we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.



ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM ACCORDING TO W INSTON S.

CHURCHILL I I I RALEIGH — Winston S. Churchill III maintains that Islamic fundamentalism is asdestructive as the malevolent "isms" of the 20th century: Nazism, Communism and

Facism. In a speech on Feb. 10 at the John Locke Foundation's anniversary dinner,the grandson of Winston Churchill urged the West to stay the course in the fightagainst extremist Islam.

Here is the text of his speech:

It is both an honor and a pleasure to be your guest here tonight and to have theprivilege of addressing the John Locke Foundation. First and foremost, may Icongratulate you for honouring the memory of John Locke, who was very muchinvolved in the establishment of the Governments of the Carolinas and who, mostimportant of all, was one of the great philosophers of the English-speaking world.

Locke‘s message — the vital importance of resisting authoritarianism — is asrelevant to the strife-torn times of the world in which we live, as it was in the strife-torn times of the 17th Century. Authoritarianism constantly rears its ugly head, evenwithin our own societies on both sides of the Atlantic, in so many guises anddisguises, and in every field, be it religion, government or the military.

At its most extreme, authoritarianism is exemplified by the isms of the 20th Century— Communism, Fascism and Nazism. The Fascists and Nazis were responsible forthe deaths of more than 30 million human beings, while more than 50 million areestimated to have been murdered by Stalin and the Russian Communists, while

Mao-Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communists are believed to have accounted forsome 80 million. But today a new challenge — another ism — confronts us, and that is the challengeof Islamic fundamentalism. Extremist Islam has declared war on the rest of the world,as evidenced by their ruthless attacks across the globe — overwhelmingly targetedat innocent civilians. Beside the outrage of 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, in Bali, inLondon and, most recently, in Jordan come to mind.

Those who have declared jihad against the West, and Western values, such asfreedom of speech, are doing all in their power to mobilize against us the large

Muslim communities living in our midst. In North America, there are an estimated sixmillion Muslims in the USA, plus a further three-quarter million in Canada; while inthe European Union, they number an estimated 20 million, including nearly 2 millionin Britain. Unlike most other categories of migrant, the Muslims are reluctant toassimilate and, all too often, wish to pursue their own agenda.

Unbelievably, Washington is urging Europe to admit Turkey to the EU. Were that tohappen, the Muslim population of Europe would skyrocket to 100 million — an act, inmy view, of consummate folly. Already Judeo-Christian Europe is under siege from atidal wave of Islamic immigration. The admission of Turkey would hasten its demise.While I have a great regard for the Turks, the only democracy in the Muslim worldand stalwart members of NATO, I am firmly opposed to their admission to the EU. I



would accord them most-favoured nation status, but not the right to settle in WesternEurope and become EU citizens.

The scale of the problem confronting Europe today is epitomized by France, whichhas a Muslim community of some 6 million, or 10 percent of its population. But, if you

take the population aged 20 and below, the figure rockets to 30 percent, such is thebirthrate of the immigrant communities. In other words, within one further generation,France will be a Muslim country — a truly horrifying prospect. At the same time it is vital that, in our pursuit of the men and women of terror — wedo all we can, not to alienate these large Muslim communities already establishedamong us. For, without the active support of the Muslim communities, we shall neverexcise this deadly cancer in our midst.

Intriguingly, the dangers of extremist Islam were foreseen by Winston Churchill all of85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most recent

book NEVER GIVE IN! The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches .

Churchill is, of course, well-known for his gift of prescience and, specifically, forbeing the first to warn of the menace of Hitler and Nazism as early as 1932, and ofthe Soviet threat in his famous Iron Curtain speech in 1946 in Fulton, Mo. But howmany know that he also warned the world of the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism?I certainly did not!

On 14 June 1921, hard on the heels of the Cairo Conference, at which he hadpresided over the re-shaping of the Middle East, including the creation of modernday Iraq, he warned the House of Commons: A large number of [Saudi Arabia’s King] Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars.

The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply

appearing in the streets.

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well- armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina… In Churchill‘s day, of course, the viciousness and cruelty of the Wahabis wasconfined to the Saudi Arabia peninsula, and their atrocities were directed exclusively

against their fellow Muslims, whom they held to be heretics for not adhering to theWahabi creed — but not anymore.



Today the combination of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and the supine weakness ofthe Saudi royal family which — as the price for not having their own behaviorsubjected to scrutiny and public criticism by these austere, extremist clerics — hasbank-rolled the Wahabi fundamentalist movement, and given these fanatical zealotsa global reach to their vicious creed of hatred and extremism.

The consequence has been that the Wahabis have been able to export theirexceptionally intolerant brand of Islamic fundamentalism from Mauritania andMorocco on Africa‘s Atlantic shores, through more than two dozen countr iesincluding Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, to as farafield as the Philippines and East Timor in the Pacific. This is the stark challenge thattoday confronts the Western world and I fear it will be with us, not just for a matter ofyears, but perhaps even for generations.

Just in the past two weeks the temperature in the Middle East has risen markedlywith three significant developments. First, we have seen the wild and furious

reaction, whipped up by firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world, to thepublication some five months ago in a Danish newspaper of a cartoon depicting theprophet with a smoking bomb in his turban, as tattered suicide bombers were beinggreeted at the Muslim pearly gates by a gate-keeper shooing them away andshouting: ―Get lost! We‘ve run out of Virgins!‖ The fury that this mild piece of satireengendered, epitomizes the clash of civilizations that is the key factor confronting ustoday.

Secondly, the stunning election victory in the Palestinian elections of Hamas — aterrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel — provided a rude shockto those in Washington who naively imagined that democracy would provide theanswer to the problems of the Middle East. For many within the Beltway, freeelections have been an article of faith, even though it was in a free election that Hitlerfirst came to power, before establishing his Nazi dictatorship.

Such is the anger of the Moslem world against the West, inflamed by extremistclerics and fanned by the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia television networks, that trulydemocratic and free elections would result in the election of fundamentalistgovernments throughout the Muslim world. It is a frightening fact, that in 50 Muslimcountries countless millions of Muslims tell pollsters that they regard Osama BinLaden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as more trustworthy than President Bush. The third and by far the most serious development, is the decision of the Iraniangovernment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to remove the U.N. seals from itsnuclear research facilities. He it is who not only denies the Holocaust everhappened, but who declares that Israel is a ―tumor‖ that should be ―wiped off themap‖! Some Western analysts state that the Iranian president doesn‘t really meanwhat he says. There were, of course, many who said just that of Hitler‘s Mein Kampf ,and we saw the result.

Having reported events — including two wars — in the Middle East over the past 45years, I think I know the Israelis well enough to say that Israel is not about to wait to

find out whether or not the Iranian president means what he says. In 1981 Israel tookdecisive steps to take out Saddam Hussein‘s Osirak nuclear facility with a long-range



air strike. I do not see how she can fail to do the same in the case of the evengreater threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran.

This time it will not be so easy, as the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear facilitiesacross 16 sites and built them deep underground, making them far more difficult to

attack. But with 500 ‗bunker -busting‘ bombs from the U.S. and precision-guidancetechnology they will certainly make a mess of the place. The whole Muslim world willbe enflamed with outrage and Iran‘s reaction may well be to deploy 100,000 guerrillafighters to Iraq to fight the Americans and British — not a happy thought.

But even before these developments, siren voices could already be heard on CapitolHill, raising the cry: ―Bring the Boys home.‖ I tell you: Nothing could be moredisastrous than if, at this juncture, the United States were to cut and run. It would, ata stroke, undermine those forces of moderation we are seeking to establish inpower, betray our troops as they fight a difficult, but necessary, battle, and breakfaith with those of our soldiers who have sacrificed their lives to establish a free Iraq.

Gravest of all, we should be handing a victory of gigantic proportions to our swornenemies. Let no one imagine that by pulling out of Iraq, the threat will simplyevaporate. On the contrary, it will redouble, it will come closer to home and ourenemies will have established in Iraq the very base that, by our defeat of the Taliban,we have denied them in Afghanistan. We shall see a desperately weakened UnitedStates, with its armed forces undermined and demoralized, increasingly at the mercyof our terrorist enemies.

Precipitate withdrawal is the counsel of defeatism and cowardice, which, if it holdssway, will immeasurably increase the dangers that today confront, not just America,but the entire Western world. It is something for which we shall pay a terrible price inthe years ahead. When great nations go to war — and they should do so only as alast resort — they must expect to suffer grievous losses and must commit to war withan unconquerable resolve to secure victory.

In Iraq the United States has lost some 2,200 men and women, Britain just over 100.Compare that to the first day of the Battle of the Somme — 1 July 1916 — when theBritish Army in a single day, nay, before breakfast, lost 55,000 men killed, woundedor missing in action. Did we talk of quitting? What has happened to the mighty United States? Is it going soft? Are the electedrepresentatives of the American people ready to surrender to those who threatentheir homeland — indeed their civilian population — with death and destruction? Ipray that they are not, and I call to mind the words of my grandfather, addressing theCanadian Parliament on New Year's Day 1941, in which — referring to the Britishnation dwelling around the globe, but it applies equally to our American cousinstoday — when he declared: We are a tough and hardy people! We have not travelled across the centuries,across the oceans, across the mountains & across the prairies, because we're made of sugar candy! In conclusion, I would remind you — and especially the legislators on Capitol Hill —



of Winston Churchill‘s words to the House of Commons on becoming prime minister in May 1940, which applies every bit as much to the situation that confronts us today. You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs,victory in spite of all terror. However long or hard the road may be; for without victory

there is no survival. Provided we have the courage to stay the course, I am convinced that we can, in theend, prevail. Any alternative is too terrible to contemplate. There are no quick, easysolutions; on the contrary it will be a long, hard slog. But more leadership is neededfrom on high and, above all, more guts and determination if we are to see thisthrough to victory.

Let us fight the good fight — and let us fight it together! How pleased my grandfatherwould be to know that — 40 years on from his death — the Anglo-American allianceis still strong and that British and American soldiers stand shoulder-to-shoulder in

Iraq and in Afghanistan, confronting the peril of the hour! Long may we standtogether! God bless America!

RALLYING FOR JIHAD By Ariel Cohen

August 18, 2006

Three pro-terror demonstrations held last Saturday -- at the White House inWashington, D.C., in San Francisco and Los Angeles -- provided a rare insight intothe global networks that support jihadi Islamic fascists.Only a few thousand showed up, according to D.C. police. After all, it is hard to bringout the masses when your poster boy is Sheik Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah. SheikNasrallah and his puppetmaster, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,repeatedly call for "Death to Israel, Death to America." Hezbollah is responsible forthe deaths, kidnapping and torture of hundreds of Americans.On the same day, pro-Hezbollah, anti-U.S. and anti-Israel demonstrations took place

in the streets of Mombasa, Kenya; Madrid, Spain; Damascus, Syria; Islamist-controlled Mogadishu, Somalia; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Karachi, Pakistan; and Jakarta,Indonesia, to name just a few.The U.S. demonstrations were organized by ANSWER -- which stands for Act Nowto Stop War and End Racism -- a coalition of leftists, "antiwar" and Hamas -- andHezbollah-supporting Arab Muslim organizations, including the National Council ofArab Americans (NCA), the Muslim American Society and the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.There are important lessons to be learned from the ANSWER demonstrations. Withsecurity services worldwide working to wrap up the aborted London attacks,policymakers need to recognize the public dimension of the terror war -- the

battlefront of symbols, images and ideas and their influence on diplomacy andwarfare. So far, jihadi supporters seem to have the upper hand.



During the Cold War, Soviet-funded front organizations tried to disarm the West,whether by supporting the North Vietnamese or trying to prevent deployment of U.S.Pershing missiles in Europe. Today's jihadi supporters work to delegitimize any effortto protect against terrorist networks. Tracking the leadership and funding of suchnetworks is a counterterrorist policy imperative.

There is a lesson to be learned about moderate and radical Muslims. No doubt, thetip that led to the bust-up of the most recent terror attempt in London demonstratesthe importance of high quality intelligence-gathering, for which it is vital to keep goodrelations in the Muslim community. It is crucial to boost moderate Muslims and learnto distinguish between terrorist organizers, their unwitting prey within the Muslimcommunity, and alternative, moderate Muslim leaders that seek to practice andteach Islam as a religion rather than a tool for promoting hatred.At the same time, it is crucial to recognize that some in the Muslim community andamong leftist organizations such as ANSWER operate a global network that not onlyprovides public support to the likes of Hezbollah but may provide a recruitment poolfor suspected terrorists such as those apprehended in Great Britain and Michigan.

It is also important to understand precisely what causes ANSWER serves. Theorganizer of Saturday's outrage was Brian Beker, leader of the Liberation andSocialism Party, which recently split from the (Stalinist) World Workers' Party.ANSWER supports and promotes jihadi terrorism and seeks to help defeat the U.S.efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its leaders also refuse to acknowledge Hamas andHezbollah terrorism and advocacy of the destruction of the State of Israel.As police in Britain, Italy, and Ohio were busy arresting suspected airliner bombers,money launderers, and untraceable detonator/cell phone providers, the ANSWERdemonstrations demanded the U.S. lay off terrorists, close Guantanamo, and keepthe country's borders open.A recent ANSWER demonstration in San Francisco featured chants of "Palestine willbe free from the river to the sea" and "Palestine is our country, the Jews are ourdogs." An ANSWER spokesman refused to condemn such hate speech, according toa report by Mark Matthews of San Francisco's ABC7.A key player in organizing this past weekend's hate fest was Ramsey Clark, formerattorney general under President Lyndon B. Johnson, who never met a dictator hedidn't like. Mr. Clark justified the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's hostage taking in theU.S. Embassy in Tehran and hobnobbed with Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. He is alsoconnected with Lyndon LaRouche. According to Wikipedia, Mr. LaRouche's criticshave characterized him as a fascistic, homophobic, anti-Jewish cult leader.For more than 12 years, Mr. Clark has been connected to the Workers World Party

(WWP), which splintered from the Trotskyite movement in the 1950s and becameOrthodox Stalinist. The WWP supported China's repression of Tibet, the TiananmenSquare massacre and the communist coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.Mr. Clark represented Radovan Karadzic, an indicted Bosnian Serb war criminal andmet with former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic when he was a wanted man inBelgrade, calling him "brave, objective and moral." In 1990, Mr. Clark led a WWPeffort to prevent former President George H.W. Bush from going after Saddam. Hehas since never ceased advocating for the mustachioed dictator.Other ANSWER members include extreme old and "new left" activists, fromStalinists to Maoists, and such "blasts from the past" as the RevolutionaryCommunist Party (RCP) and the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. ANSWER's "big

tent" also includes pro-Saddam mouthpieces; Palestinian propagandists; NorthKorean front organizations; and 1960s "flower children" who never grew up.



ANSWER founders also include the National Lawyers league, founded by theCommunist Party USA (CPUSA); the Nicaragua Network and the NicaraguaSolidarity Committee, a leading pro-Sandinista organization. ANSWER's connectionsto North Korea are also quite pronounced, as the coalition includes the Pyongyang-inspired Korea Truth Commission and the Congress for Korean Reunification,

among others.In the past, such people were called a Fifth Column, after the pro-fascist forces inRepublican Madrid during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. Today's Fifth Columnglorifies the global jihad against the West. ANSWER and its co-sponsors hide behindslogans decrying civilian losses in Lebanon, while ignoring the murder of Americansoldiers and Israeli civilians (many of them Arab Israelis) committed by Hamas andHezbollah.

Ariel Cohen is senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

the truth about islam and violence

Documents