Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

Carter's 'Trust-Islam' Approach will only Exacerbate the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Former President Jimmy Carter's latest foray into the Middle East peace process reveals much about how little a large segment of our society has learned about Islam since 9-11. Mr. Carter also seems determined to continue his proven track record of trusting the worst of America's enemies and double crossing its allies. Since Mr. Carter's Presidency played a significant role in the loss of Iran to Islamic Fundamentalism and his soft stance on the former Soviet Union no doubt played a role in the Soviet Union's decision to invade Afghanistan and the resulting successful Jihad against the Soviet occupation that has so emboldened the Islamic world, one would think that Mr. Carter would have reconsidered his approach to world affairs. This is especially true given that both the Iranian Revolution and Afghanistan Jihad have had a permanent affect on world events that threatens the very survival of human civilization given Iran's quest to obtain nuclear weapons and to annihilate Israel.
Mr. Carter's approach to the Middle East peace process, which no doubt appears absurdly naive to those who have carefully studied Islam, nonetheless reflects how thoroughly certain segments of our society have managed to remain insulated from the reality of Islam. This raises an important question as to why it is that Islam is so well-received in some political, academic and journalistic circles. Are politicians, academics, and media celebrities such as former President Carter simply ignorant about Islam or is there a deeper problem?

The objective evidence shows that there is a deeper problem that goes far beyond simple ignorance. Ignorance is a failure to learn for reasons other than lack of ability to learn. Mr. Carter is a highly intelligent, educated, and experienced man and his approach to all subjects involving Islam has to stem from something far beyond simple ignorance. While it is possible that Mr. Carter is sympathetic to and trusting of Islam and Hamas for other reasons, in all likelihood his behavior probably derives from the same malady that has infected a large segment of Western society. Many have been so inundated by a misleading presentation of Islam that infects most mainstream educational and media sources that despite the fact that they have surely stumbled upon the truth about Islam at some point, they have been preconditioned to ignore or rationalize the truth. As will be shown below, this preconditioned ignorance guarantees that people like Mr. Carter will never help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But first, where does this preconditioning come from?

The simple answer is that academia and the media have created this preconditioning. When journalists want to learn about Islam or write a story about Islam, they tend to search out someone to interview with credentials that lend immediate credibility to the story. It is quite understandable that a reporter would want to interview someone that has the credentials and occupation that will lend immediate credibility and prestige to the story. But these traditional sources have been so compromised that the full truth about Islam is impossible to discover from such sources. For example, a reporter would probably be attracted to Georgetown University and its Islamic Studies or Middle East Studies program. After all, Georgetown University has an internationally renown reputation as an elite center of higher education. One of its Middle East studies professors, John Esposito, is nearly as well known. He is frequently interviewed about Islam and frequently invited to give lectures. It follows that most reporters would be understandably quite eager to interview Mr. Esposito regarding Islam. However, what is less well known is that Georgetown University, like many other American universities, has been completely compromised by donations from Muslim benefactors and the influences of such academic charlatans as Edward Said such that, instead of receiving the type of in-depth understanding and full truth about Islam one would expect from a prestigious university, one receives a slick dose of propaganda and falsehood about the religion that masquerades as scholarship and an elite education. Just how ridiculous it is to expect to learn anything worthwhile about Islam from Mr. Esposito and Georgetown University is well summarized in a September 03, 2002, FrontPageMagazine.com article entitled "Esposito: Apologist for Militant Islam."

Georgetown University is not the only compromised institute of higher learning. Many universities have fallen under the spell of the late Edward Said and his writings. Mr. Said wrote from a Palestinian, anti-Western perspective. He believed that Westerners could never accurately write about the Middle East due to inherent bias. He seemed to ignore that his own inherent bias would seem to be at least as great of a hurdle. In any event, Mr. Said had an approach to analyzing the Middle East that started with the simplistic premise that Western societies were mostly bad and were to blame for everything wrong in the World. Mr. Said's philosophy hit the World stage at a time when multiculturalism and an anti-Western perspective were already in vogue at many universities and, consequently, Mr. Said was hailed as a genius. The opposite is true. Edward Said's writings are so flawed and biased that they are worthless with respect to gaining an accurate understanding of the Middle East or Islam. Of course, no rational Western thinker would ever imagine accepting the views of your average Palestinian as absolute truth to be accepted without critical analysis. However, take that Palestinian and give him the tile of American university professor and associate him with a prestigious institute of higher learning such as Columbia University and, instantly, he gains the type of credibility that allowed Edward Said to exert tremendous influence on numerous Middle Eastern studies programs and the national debate. It was not a positive influence. Edward Said's view of Western culture was obviously shaped and dominated by his early immersion in Islamic culture.

It is not just higher institutions of learning that have been compromised by donations from wealthy Muslims and inherently flawed scholarship. The deception runs much deeper, but has its roots in what has happened in the academic world. The deceptive presentation of Islam originating in academia is carried into a host of books and documentaries marketed to the general public. After all, if you are producing a special about Islam for the History Channel or Public Broadcasting Service or publishing a book about Islam, where do you go for information? Academia of course just as journalists do. Even the most cursory review of many of the popular books and documentaries about Islam reveal that Islam is as deceptively portrayed to the general public as Islam is deceptively portrayed to unsuspecting students at elite universities.

Not all of us have the time and money to obtain a thorough brainwashing in Middle Eastern or Islamic studies from the likes of Georgetown University or Columbia University. Some of us rely on self-education via the History Channel, PBS, or books from the local bookstore or library. However, those sources are no less corrupted than the "education" peddled by some of our elite universities. For example, if a person interested in learning more about Islam runs to the local bookstore, he or she might well stumble upon a book entitled "Islam for Dummies." While the name may put off those with sophisticated intellectual pretensions, the book has much to offer. It is well organized and written by a Department of Religion professor named Malcolm Clark who clearly knows the subject matter. After all, he is a professor emeritus at Butler University and it shows in his work. There is a great deal of interesting and helpful information about Islam in "Islam for Dummies." I actually enjoyed reading the book and found it a worthwhile endeavor, but that was only because I already knew the subject matter and knew that while the information that was presented was, for the most part, quite accurate, that there were glaring informational gaps such that if one only relied on "Islam for Dummies" as his or her sole source of information about Islam, he or she would be left with a dangerous misperception of the religion.

Truth involves far more than saying what is true. The common law has recognized for centuries that when one speaks in certain settings that one is expected to give the whole truth. The greatest legal minds for centuries have understood that when one speaks on a subject one should not be allowed to deceive by careful omission of key information. A popular way to phrase the sentiment in California law is as follows: "Where one does speak he [or she] must speak the whole truth to the end that he [or she] does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. One who is asked for or volunteers information must be truthful, and the telling of a half-truth calculated to deceive is fraud." By the foregoing standard, "Islam for Dummies" perpetrates a fraud upon many of its readers.

A dangerous misperception of Islam arises from the book's failure to address any negative information about Muhammad even though most known positive information about Muhammad is discussed as well as his absolute importance to the religion. Islam is a revealed religion that derives exclusively from what Muhammad, Islam's seventh century founder, alleged Allah said were the rules for living and how Muhammad lived his life and instructed others to live. It is impossible to have an accurate understanding about Islam without understanding all that is alleged to have been said and done by Muhammad as described in the earliest biography about him entitled "Sirat Rasul Allah," meaning life of God's Messenger in Arabic. The "Sirat Rasul Allah" reveals character attributes of Muhammad that are quite laudable and the mainstream media and academia are very good at presenting those qualities, but the "Sirat Rasul Allah" also reveals Muhammad as a man that slaughtered captives, robbed caravans, sold women and children into slavery, had sexual relations with captive women, tortured prisoners, married a nine-year-old, forced his adopted son to divorce his wife so Muhammad could have her as a wife (she was purportedly quite beautiful), mandated war against non-Muslims, and who had some of his critics and rivals assassinated. An abridged version of the biography can be found and reviewed for free online at faithfreedom.org, but none of the negative information about Muhammad can be found in "Islam for Dummies."

"Islam for Dummies" accurately explains that "[b]elievers know the traditional story of the founder [Muhammad] and an outsider who wants to understand the religion will also need to know the founder's story and its importance in the religion." Despite the foregoing accurate statement, "Islam for Dummies" then proceeds to give only half the story of Islam's founder despite expressly recognizing the importance of the full story. "Islam for Dummies" accurately explains that in Islam, Muhammad's life, as commanded in the Quran, is held up as a perfect, beautiful example for living for all time and how, in Islam, Muhammad is viewed as the light of the world and pole of the universe. One would think that explaining some of Muhammad's acts of violence and how some terrorists justify their violence based on Muhammad's example, just as the Qur'an commands, might help readers better understand Islam and Islamic terrorism, but all the author reveals regarding such violence is the following short passage that does not appear until page 269 of a 327 page book: "Still, the obligation of the Muslim state to wage war on non-Muslim states in order to bring them under the rule of God's law led to negative views in many non-Muslim lands toward Islam."

While the foregoing statement is undeniably true, "Islam for Dummies" offers little, if any, proof for the foregoing statement to assist readers in accepting and understanding the very important principle. The book ignores any details about the violent manner by which Islam spread or the millions slaughtered during Islamic conquests. So much of the negative aspects of Islam are ignored that when readers read the above-quoted material, I suspect that few of them would be any more enlightened as to the full truth about Islam than if the phrase had been deleted from the book. Mere conclusions without factual support are usually neither persuasive nor memorable.

It may well be that the author of "Islam for Dummies," Malcolm Clark, originally wrote a much more balanced work and that he never intended to deceive anyone, but the publisher, Wiley Publishing, Inc., deleted anything that he or she thought might offend Muslims. Whatever the cause, books like "Islam for Dummies" do more to foster a false perception of Islam than they do to enlighten the public.

I also picked up a book entitled "The Qur'an; A User's Guide" written by Farid Esack at the bookstore. Mr. Esack is described as a Muslim scholar and a reading of his book reveals that it is an accurate claim. The book does an excellent job of explaining how the Qur'an is believed to have come into existence and the proper way to make sense of and interpret the Qur'an as something that was released in parts over time by Muhammad and which needs to be understood in the context of what was happening in the Muslim community at the time each verse was "revealed." For the most part, while the book is written from a believer's perspective, I found it to be a very accurate presentation of how Muslims perceive the Qur'an and the proper approach as to how it was meant to be interpreted form a procedural perspective. However, there was at least one glaring flaw in the book. There is naturally a section of the book that discusses Muhammad and his life. Such material has obvious relevance in a book about the Qur'an given that it was presented to his followers by Muhammad as alleged revelations he claimed he received from Allah via an angel. But here again, Mr. Esack gives only the candy coated, laudatory parts of Muhammad's history and completely ignores the unsavory aspects of his life that are so important to an understanding of how it is that Islam is inspiring so much terrorism in diverse locations.

For those who like to learn via documentaries on television, the results are no better. PBS aired a show entitled "Islam Empire of Faith" and the History Channel aired "Inside Islam." Both programs are extremely biased and offer a one-sided educational approach very similar to the errors discussed above in Islam for Dummies." It gets even worse, the History Channel also aired a program about the Crusades narrated by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame that has to be the most biased presentation of Islam, Christianity and the Crusades that intellectually disingenuous minds could produce. Islam is presented extremely favorably and Christianity and the Crusaders are ridiculed at every opportunity. The coup de grace to any pretense at objectivity is when the narrator opines that the Crusades were the result of the Pope's desire to extend his power. No other cause is mentioned. It is as if the producer of the show was completely and utterly ignorant of the many centuries of Islamic conquest and brutal Islamic attacks on Europeans that preceded the Crusades.

Based on the foregoing deception advanced by prestigious universities, uch of the media, popular books and documentaries, it is hardly surprising that even highly intelligent intellectuals like former President Carter have been deceived into accepting a less than realistic and, therefore, dangerous misperception of Islam. This false view of Islam is extremely dangerous for many reasons that are far beyond the scope of this essay. But a quick review of how that deception has led former President Carter to dangerously elicit and advance Hamas' claim that it will recognize Israel and agree to a ten-year truce if Israel will withdraw to its 1967 borders is illustrative of just how successfully Islam has been deceptively marketed. Hamas' offer is dangerous and impossible to accept by learned minds for several reasons. Hamas' offer ignores and does not address the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, wrongfully implicitly suggests that the Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing more than a territorial dispute, and advances an offer of a truce that has all the characteristics of a "hudna" or fake truce that has been a staple of Islamic warfare strategy since Muhammad's time.

The belief that the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict is simply a land dispute is nothing more than the result of Western ignorance about Islam and Islamic culture. The real root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict lies within Islamic doctrine and history and the resulting Islamic anti-Semitism with its origins dating back to the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Several verses from the Qur'an assign negative attributes to Jews. (See chapter 2, verses 61, 65; chapter 3, verse 71; chapter 4, verse 46; chapter 5, verses 60-65, 78-82; and chapter 7, verse 166.)

The Qur'ran and hadiths contain a few favorable verses about Jews, but overall Islamic doctrine and Islamic history and culture results in fervent anti-Semitism by fundamentalist Muslims. This fervent anti-Semitism is described in "Islam and the Jews" written by Mark Gabriel. Dr. Gabriel was born in Egypt and once taught at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. His story of how difficult it was for him to shed the anti-Semitism inculcated into him during his upbringing in Egypt brings to life just how deeply ingrained and fervent anti-Semitism is in the Islamic world.

Islamic anti-Semitism is so palpable that its ubiquitous presence in the Arab world has become common knowledge among Middle Eastern scholars. In 1986, Bernard Lewis, one of the most well-known and respected scholars of Middle East studies, noted: "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish, and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time -- almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany." (Darfur, Arab Genocide and The New York Times - Kenneth Levin, May 19, 2006, FrontPageMagazine.com.)

Palestinian religious leaders such as HajI Amin Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and uncle of Yassir Arafat, were virulently anti-Semitic and played a major role in fomenting Arab violence against and hatred of Jews long before Israel became an independent nation. The fanatical hatred of Jews by Haj Amin Hussein and his position of leadership virtually assured that Palestinian Arabs would reject any and all compromises and assured that peace would be a transitory concept in the Holy Land for the foreseeable future. Haj Amin Hussein's fanatical anti-Semitism fell on fertile ground. The type of institutionalized discrimination mandated by the Pact of Omar (sometimes spelled Umar) applied to Jews throughout the Islamic world to one degree or the other over the centuries inevitably led to deeply ingrained feelings of a natural right to Muslim authority over any Jews living in the Middle East or North Africa. Muslims also developed an abiding belief in the supremacy of Islam as a result of its early conquests and centuries-long status as a dominant religious and political force in the Middle East and beyond. Muslims perceived the fight over Palestine as a continuation of the conflict between Islam and the West that began when the early Muslim community attacked the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century.

The relative decline of Islam as a dominant military and political force has ultimately engendered in the Islamic world a deep-seated desire to regain Islam's past glory. It follows that the presence of Israel, a Jewish state and democracy, in the heart of the Islamic world is very difficult for Muslims to accept. It is very difficult for Muslims to reconcile Israel's presence and its regional military supremacy with the prevalent Muslim view that, as alleged recipients of Allah's final revelation, that no Muslim should be subject to the political supremacy of a Jewish state. It followed that, regardless of the small size of Israel and the vastly larger land mass of the surrounding Arab lands, from the Muslim perspective, Israel's existence was a cancer in the heart of the Islamic world that needed to be excised. Accordingly, the territorial aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a symptom of the conflict which exacerbates the conflict but it is not the cause of the conflict. The Holy Land was more than capable of accommodating twentieth century population levels of both Arabs and Jews. That Arabs so violently objected to Jewish immigration but made no objections to Arab immigration reveals that Islamic driven racial and religious bigotry was at the heart of the conflict.

Based on the foregoing, Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders will not help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such a withdrawal would, however, help Hamas realize its dream of exterminating Israel as it would make Israel much more vulnerable during future conflicts. Obviously, the Arab-Israeli conflict pre-dates the 1967 Six-Day War and surrendering territory gained by Israel in 1967 will not address the root cause of the conflict that led to the very conflict and the 1967 war that resulted in the territorial gains that Mr. Carter would have Israel surrender in exchange for a worthless truce. All that would be accomplished is to place the parties back in their pre-1967 war circumstances, but that is unreasonable given that it will not result in a lasting peace. Israel's boundaries as originally set by the United Nations were meant to be peaceful boundaries that the Palestinian Arabs accepted in exchange for their own recognized homeland. The boundaries were never meant to be defensible boundaries for Israel that can withstand a revived, long-term Islamic Jihad. It is, therefore, cruel and dangerous to try and force such boundaries on Israel.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is, in reality, an Islamic-Israeli conflict and post-Islamic Revolution Iran is now Israel's most dangerous enemy. If Israel is to have any chance of long-term survival short of a miracle, Israel cannot give up territory that is necessary to its defense.

With respect to Hamas' offer of a ten-year truce, it is a worthless deception. A very important "hudna" or truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was negotiated by Muhammad himself during Islam's rise to absolute power on the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century that illustrates what Muslims really mean by an offer of a truce. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was negotiated by Muhammad with his former Quraysh tribe - Islam's chief rival at the time. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was supposed to last ten-years, but prematurely ended after two years when Muhammad and a large Islamic army threatened Mecca with conquest causing the Quraysh to surrender and convert en masse to Islam. It has been Islamic law ever since that a "hudna" or truce with non-Muslims may be agreed upon for no more than ten years if it will advance Islam. It is well understood that, as practiced by Islam's founder and Prophet, Muhammad, such a truce can be disregarded if the Muslim community becomes strong enough such that a truce is no longer necessary.

As can be seen, Hamas' offer of a ten-year truce should be an obvious red flag to those that understand Islam and its history that Hamas' offer is nothing more than a ploy to advance Islam and that the truce, if honored at all, will be disregarded once it is in Hamas' interests to do so.

While Mr. Carter is no doubt well-meaning, he is acting like one of Vladimir Lenin's infamous "Useful Idiots." All Mr. Carter has done is to offer his prestige to a ruthless terrorist group that will never make true peace with Israel. If Israel were to accept Hamas' offer, it would only strengthen Hamas, weaken Israel, and make Israel more vulnerable to future Islamic aggression that will occur regardless of anything Israel agrees to short of complete capitulation to Islam.

Mr. Carter should make a fool of himself by trusting these virulent and treacherous Islamists. Every concession to them will only strengthen their confidence and resolve for destroying the Israeli state.

If you like this essay: Stumble it   Stumble Upon Toolbar digg it reddit


Name:     closed
Comment:

.

Comments Notes: Keep comments short. Our system cannot separate paragraphs. Comments must be relevant to the topic of the article. We did not regulate the comments but if irrelevant comments, materials, adds of other websites etc. are being uploaded, we will have to regulate the comments and even ban the IP addresses of such nuisance posters.


Name: manny
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 04:05:35 -0700

Comment

I have always believed is the religion of murder and allah is the devil, muhammed a false prophet, author of terrorism and the founder of the world's largest cult, islam. Islam has always been a false, satanic religion. I always knew that the crusades was the result of the evil genocide of muslims. just reading the koran shows how demented everything in that book is. Islam has always been a threat to the world. It was never ever peaceful.


Name: alhamdullillaahhh good article
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 04:08:34 -0700

Comment

alhamdullillaahhh...good article


Name: balam
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 06:49:44 -0700

Comment

I enjoyed the article written by this intelligent and knowledgeable person.I hold him in highert esteem than the self deluded ex-president.I hope the Americans would be more judicious in future in ellecting their leader.Carter is Anti-semetic in his writing and his words and actions.He is self deluded and look for some lime light which he does not deserve. He has already done enough damage to the name of Presidency of that great nation. He is anti-semetic.Christ was also Semetic,so claiming to be a Christian,he is in fact Anti-christ.


Name: Allat
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 08:10:43 -0700

Comment

Did anyone read the article in yesterday's Front Page mag?

this article is a keeper. To remind ourselves of the stats.


Name: pmk
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 16:09:34 -0700

Comment

No one has less of an excuse for his ignorance of Islam than Jimmy Carter. A fundamentalist Christian, he saw the Shah of Iran replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Indeed, he pushed the process along. The Islamic Revolution was the first time anyone got to see what the Islamic jihad was all about. Carter was in the White House. He saw what was being done. He saw American citizens held against all rules of international law. He saw subsequent administrations attempt to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians and get intifadas for their trouble. The men who signed the Camp David Accords were assassinated. But that's okay since Jimmy Carter got his peace prize (what a joke the Nobel "Peace Prize" has become!) The Carter Center is there for JC to continue to educate himself. He hasn't. He's as ignorant of Islam today as he was when he pushed the Shah to allow Khomeini to return from exile. As reprehensible as Carter is, nothing excuses our current and most recent president. Both men saw the World Trade Center attacked in their first year in the White House. Both continue to placate the Saudis. All Saudis should have been sent home the day the skies opened up after 9/11. America should be closed to all Muslims. It's not pretty. It's not politically correct. The fact remains Islam is not a religion. It's a system of government. It seeks to replace ours with itself. We are letting it. We are the dopes. Carter's visit to Hamas did nothing to "exacerbate" the conflict. It merely illustrated it. We would be wise to see what is being done by Hamas and Hezbollah and Tehran and take them at their word when they say they want to destroy us. They're not playing around. It's time we stopped fiddling. Rome (America) is burning.


Name: Bill
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 18:50:36 -0700

Comment

Excellent analysis and quick summary of the foolishness Mr. Carter still exhibits, even after all these years of failure, new ways to make a fool of himself. Thank you for investing the time and effort to publish this information. Too often, Anti American efforts to twist the truth actually convince the clueless to come to pathetic, uniformed conclusions. You're a breath of fresh air.


Name:
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 22:12:38 -0700

Comment

Carter is a senile old ass, gibbering incoherently- but what about Bush and the other PC politicians bending their arse to please muslims at any cost! All for oil! Truth is out and more people know that islam is an immoral and criminal cult and not to be called "religion". Yet these hypocritical western politicians put on a facade of ignorance!


Name: Allat
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 08:08:48 -0700

Comment

"..but what about Bush and the other PC politicians...???"__My very words. THAT'S why I keep saying that WE, The People are on our own. The Elite of this country, and indeed, i.e. IN DEED,in word and deed, of the other countries have betrayed us- an out and out example is the pResident of France!....What we have to do, OURSELVES is look for a way to defend ourselves, in LAW.For instance, the islamics present our own laws of Freedom to win their case.___________ The 1st Amendment, "Freedom of Religion. Look at that! A quick glance will will them their case to practice their religion, to build mosques and have the call to prayer - because, THEY say, " if other religion, they can also." But if you look at Local Ordinances, you'll see that there is such a thing as Qis a guaranteed right.s aLaws of Under the Law..."The Quiet Laws"- because in order to live together in residential areas, one must have zones that the "natives" - Us have a right to quiet and to be relaxed and to sleep well---in order to do a good days work the next day---to contribute- to be beneficial to the society we live in.- N.B. these are some of the words that can be used in Courts.)._______ The islamics claim that they have a right to practice their religion, same as others, but if you look carefully, you'll note that Jews practice quietly, they have no noises outside the synagogues/temples. _____AND the xtians have bells ONLY - O-N-E day - UNO - a week - (I'll take the sweet sounds of bells any day, than the harsh, desert blarings of "H -A-R-ABIC ) sounding calls, 5 times a day, 7 days a week, 364 days a year. ______I've noticed that the bells in my 'hood, are rung very softly - the residents would complain otherwise. Another observance that can be made to Courts, is that, for ex. a Jewish Temple was just built 2 years ago, right in the same block as the Catholic chapel/school/day care center, and church property itself..In other words, the two religions live peacefully, side by side...Before the synagogue was built, the church parish, allowed the rabbi to have Jewish services right there in the chapel. I thought that odd at the time?_____Would islamics do the same?______You see, this is a little ref. that could be presented in Courts, that may make a difference in the case. _______But the wordings and meanings of words and phrases are NOT in plain English, but are twisted in order to confound the "common" people.____________ We must start studying the law ourselves, because the loyalty of the "attorneys" are only for the Courtrooms and Judges. The Judges and "attorneys" are bound together -and the Judges loyalty is only for the State. BOTH of them WORK FOR THE STATE!...........There many examples of this on the NET. There are websites that help you decipher Legal language. I have a list of websites one can go to.________Whatever it is, it seems we are loosing cases in Court because the "attorneys" don't seem to be interested that much - they get their money in one way or the other - __________it is WE, that are interested._________We, ourselves, are the ONES that have to do something to stop this trend.____________And it MUST be within the law of the country.....AND it MUST be NOW. Look at the case of Lionheart in Engl.----What disinterested "attorney" did he use?


Name: Allat
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 08:26:30 -0700

Comment

Another example of how the Laws are being put through against We, The People-------"A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" by any State Department official.???fr. Jihad Watch...........You know PEople, this has become a matter of live or death for us - what else can I call it! The State together with the ayrab rules in arabia, mean business............It's this another publication that WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED AGAINST US? -------------The only thing is..........the average JOE/JANE doesn't get it!______________What we must do then, is to find other words, other phrases, language to circumvent the Official bans...on certain words.__________NOBODY is going to help us!________Do you see any Stete Dept or University Depts. out to help us?___We MUST do it ourselves.


Name: Allat
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 08:35:27 -0700

Comment

I may be posting too much now, but I just have to say one last thing. It just doesn't make sense to me --I'm hitting my head against the wall, trying to jiggle my brain in order to make sense of this:________We, the U.S. are in a war with islamics in the Mideast --using valuable resources, and sending out our precious kid soldiers, while on the other hand allowing islamic immigrants in, and not only that, but the State is bending over to give them all citizenship rights! Since when, are aliens, non-citizens given the Rights of a CITIZEN! Even in Rome, and Ancient Greece, this was NOT done!............-This is another example that the State has abandoned us to the wolves.....No insult to the wolves meant.


Name: Andrew Stunich
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 10:16:09 -0700

Comment

It is interesting to note that one day after this article was published and several months after I first published an essay arguing that Muslim anti-Semitism was a driving factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, CNS news has published a story with a reference to supporting research showing that I am correct. The web address for the CNS news article.


Name: moderationist
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 19:56:28 -0700

Comment

Appease violence, always always leads to escalating violence


Name:
Date: Thursday April 24, 2008
Time: 01:14:46 -0700

Comment

a fine article - BUT once more I see this strange term MODERATE applied to moslems! does anyone mind a MODERATE burglar? how about a MODERATE paedophile? or being deceived by a MODERATE liar? and, of course, we don't mind being killed by a MODERATE murderer? the word is just part of the smokescreen used by MODERATE PC idiots to obscure the danger of any level of islam.


Name: moderatiionist
Date: Thursday April 24, 2008
Time: 02:53:51 -0700

Comment

Neville-Chamberlain-do-nothing appeasers always get more killed than those who stand up to evil.


Name: Andrew Stunich
Date: Thursday April 24, 2008
Time: 15:14:27 -0700

Comment

To the poster who timed in at 13:12:55 -0700: Your understanding of Christianity as as poor as your understanding of the Qur'an. Jesus very much claimed to be the Messiah, the son of man, and made other statement regarding his "father's house," etc. that clearly show that he claimed to be what Christians believe him to be.


Name: Ari Ben Canaan
Date: Thursday May 01, 2008
Time: 02:29:25 -0700

Comment

Quran is the most tolerant....bkah blah blah.... hey, listen up carefully.... do you actually believe in a book which guides us on how to live our lives - a book that fails to tell us where we came from? can i just pin you down a little here? What exactly IS a god? You don't know. What is it made of? You don't know. Where is it? You don't know. You learnt about it from a stone age book that claims truth for itself. And at your parents' knee. Is that where your outrageous certainty comes from? about whats right n wrong? donkey, wake up.


Name: al-Manat
Date: Saturday May 03, 2008
Time: 08:47:32 -0700

Comment

I'm impressed. I did not know you all were out there stemming the tide of the western propoganda that coddles the ruthless cult.


Name: Eurekan
Date: Friday June 20, 2008
Time: 18:47:22 -0700

Comment

"He has studied the Middle East for the last twenty-seven years" He may have "studied, but he hasn't learned much.

Except for all the good information in his essays. I changed my mind after actually reading them.


 
Hit Counter