The Religion of Peace – Not

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, 2009.

'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? According to the Urban Dictionary it is a Ugandan phrase, translated literally into English as "F**k you, God!"

The "Book of Mormon" — a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint — comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons. This can be said about Christians and Jews. One of the most Anti-Semitic books every published was the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. I have never heard of Jews rioting in the street. Or when a Crucifix is displayed in a bucket of urine at an art exhibit paid for by the National Endowment for the Arts Christians did not riot and kill people. When a statue of Virgin Mary was displayed covered in dung and the popular film the Da Vinci Code suggested Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene and produced a child Catholics did not burn images of Tom Hanks and protest in the street of Hollywood or San Francisco. When Bill Maher constantly mocks Catholics, Jews, and Christians they do fire-bomb the studios of HBO.

This is for two reasons. 1.) American Christians, Jews, and Mormons believe in the First Amendment, and 2.) Christians, Jews, and Mormons are able to ignore these blasphemous attacks, shake their heads in disgust, and walk away believing in their religion and pray for forgiveness for the offenders.

On the other hand those professing to believe in the religion of peace will not tolerate any mocking or disrespect of Islam. They believe that those who mock and disrespect Islam should be killed, their property confiscated, and they should riot in the streets burning flags, attacking embassies, firebombing newspaper offices, and blowing up buildings and school buses. Yes this is truly a religion of peace.

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books) and The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton), (Simon & Schuster). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Daily, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government and Big Journalism, the American Thinker, and other publications.

Pamela Geller received the Annie Taylor Award for Courage in 2010 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. In October 2011, the United States Marine Corps presented her with the flag flown on September 11, 2011 over Camp Leatherneck, "amid the battlefields of Afghanistan during decisive operations against enemy forces in Helmand Province."

In a recent blog she stated:

“This is what voices for freedom have to live with for speaking in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and individual rights.

The media sanctions the motive (blasphemy laws under the sharia) and invariably targets innocent civilians not the violent jihadists. Eric Allen Bell has gone into hiding

Islamic Supremacists Seek to Settle Score by Framing Filmmaker September 20, 2012, FrontPage Magazine.

What if there was one historical figure that just simply could not be lampooned? I’m not talking about a George Orwell book now. I’m talking about reality. What if people in the free world, who had the right to free speech, would not dare lampoon this figure, because so many people on the planet had become brainwashed into thinking he was a “prophet”? Maybe this seems just too mind-numblingly absurd to even entertain, but what if – what if the fear that these people would be offended, and then hurt you, or kill you, kept everyone silent – kept everyone afraid to poke fun at the imaginary holy man and to shudder in fear at the thought of exercising their right to free speech?

Is there even a word for something so absurd, so incredibly ridiculous? In fact there is. It is called being “Sharia-compliant.”

Here are a few reason why Islam should not be considered the Religion of Peace.

The mosque and state are not separate.

To this day, Islamic nations that are deeply rooted in Sharia, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, do not adequately separate the two realms, giving a lot of power to courts and councils to ensure that legislation does not contradict the Quran (never mind whose interpretation).

Jihad may be waged against injustice or an unjust nation, as Islam defines the terms.

Classical texts say Islam is justice, and no Islam is injustice. Therefore, a "just war" can be waged against a nation or people who do not submit to Islam.

Yet we are told in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is based on sharia, that humane rules must be followed (Article Three). Does that article offer hope that modern Islam can move past old Islam? Maybe.

However, the Quran, sacred traditions, classical law, and historical Islam contradict or balance out some elements in Article Three. Would there be a conflict between the old Islam and modern Islam if war broke out? Many Islamic clerics issue fatwas (religious rulings) to wage jihad.

Jihad may be waged to spread Islam and force conversions -- a holy war.

Waging jihad to spread Islam and force conversions is a perfect description of "holy war." See Quran 8:39, 9:5, 9:11-12, 9:14, and 9:29; and then see 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28.

Yet we have been told for many years now that holy wars and forced conversions were never done in Islam. That's a myth imagined by Westerners.

However, read those verses and click on the back-up articles.

Reference: Jihad and Qital, The Mission of Muhammad and the Sword, and The Early Muslim Community and the Sword .

A captive in jihad may be executed, enslaved, ransomed for money, exchanged for other prisoners, or released freely.

Quran 47:4, 33:25-27, and 4:24 say these things (and the last option -- free release — is positive). Yet we are told that in a jihad today, everything must be done humanely and justly.

However, as stated before, the back-up article, this fourth item, and the next four items in this list balance out that claim. One must ask whether there be a conflict between old Islam and modern Islam in the event of a war.

Reference: Jihad and Qital and Slavery

A woman captive of jihad may be forced to have to sex with her captors (now owners).

Quran 4:24 and especially the sacred traditions and classical law allow this. The sacred traditions say that while out on military campaigns under Muhammad's leadership, jihadists used to practice coitus interruptus with their female captives.

Female soldiers fighting terrorists today must be forewarned of the danger.

Reference: Jihad and Qital and Slavery

Property can be destroyed or confiscated during jihad.

Quran 59:2 and 59:5 discuss those rules.  Sacred traditions and classical law expand on the Quranic verses. Modern Islamic law officially improves on the Quran: see Article Three of the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is nonetheless based on sharia but outlaws wanton destruction of property. Once again, would there be any conflict between old Islam and modern Islam in a war today?

Reference: Jihad and Qital and The Quran and the Sword

Jihad may be waged to collect spoils.

Quran 8:1, 8:7, 8:41, and 48:20 show this clearly.  Early Islam followed the old Arab custom of raiding caravans, but as its military grew, the raids were elevated to jihad. The spoils of war were coveted. Which Islam would prevail in a war today — the old one or the modern one?

Reference: Jihad and Qital and The Quran and the Sword

The Quran promises gardens for martyrs dying in jihad.

Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" garden (Quran 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).

In Quran 4:74, 9:111, and 3:140-143, the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.

Reference: Martyrdom and the Sword

A second-class submission tax, called the Jizya, must be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living in Islamic countries.

Quran 9:29 offers three options to Jews and Christians: (1) fight and die, (2) convert to Islam, or (3) keep their religion, but pay a tribute or submission tax, the Jizya, while living under Islam.

In Islamic history, vanquished Jews and Christians became known as dhimmis. This word appears in Quran 9:8 and 9:10, meaning a "treaty" or "oath," but it can also mean those who are "condemned," "reviled," or "reproved" (Quran 17:18, 17:22, 68:49). The word "submission" in Quran 9:29 can also be translated as "humiliation," "utterly humbled," "contemptible," or "vile." It can mean "small" as opposed to "great."

Islamic nations today still seek to impose this second-class religion tax.

Reference: Jihad and Qital and The Quran and the Sword

A male owner may have sex with his slave-women, even prepubescent slave-girls.

See Quran 4:24 and 23:1-7 — but it is classical law that permits sex with prepubescent slave girls and describes them as such. Some Muslim religious leaders and others still advocate this practice, taking the slaves as concubines (though sex with prepubescent slave-girls is another matter).

Reference: Slavery

Apostasy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on anyone who leaves Islam (an apostate).

Normally this is a prescribed punishment, but it is also political, since it is about freedom of religion. Surprisingly the Quran does not cover punishing apostates down here on earth, though in the afterlife they will be punished. Does this mean modern Islam can reform old Islam? Quran 4:88-89, 9:73-74, and 9:123, read in that sequence, might deal with earthly punishments. Mainly, however, the sacred traditions and classical law permit harsh treatment for anyone who leaves Islam.

Islamic courts and laws still impose these punishments today, or religious scholars today argue for the law.

Reference: Freedom of Religion

Blasphemy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on critics of Islam or Muhammad.

These verses should be read in historical sequence, as follows, for they show that as Islam's military power increased, the harsh treatment of mockers and critics also intensified: Quran 3:186, 33:57-61, 9:61-66, 9:73, and 9:123. Sacred traditions, classical laws, and historical Islam are unambiguous about the punishments, recording the people, and often their names, who were assassinated for mocking Muhammad and the Quran.

Islamic nations and pockets of Islam in non-Muslim countries still impose these punishments today.

Reference: Free Speech

Perhaps, if Obama gets reelected he will offer a proposed Constitutional Amendment that will change the language in the First Amendment to:

“Congress shall make laws respecting all religions, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except Islam; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, except when petitioning against Sharia Law.”

I am sure the liberal press, Obama, and Hilary will support this change 100%

US Mosques are Hot Beds of Jihad

“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” — Barack Obama

What is it that radicalizes Muslims, including American Muslims? Is it American foreign policy? Israeli “occupation” of the ancient Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria? Cartoons depicting the warrior-prophet as a warrior? Korans torched by obscure Florida pastors? The life of Osama bin Laden, or, perhaps, his death? Any of a thousand claimed slights, real or imagined, that purportedly provoke young Muslims to “conflagrate” — if we may borrow from the forgiving rationalizations of Faisal Rauf, would-be imam of the would-be Ground Zero mosque?

Political correctness requires that we cloud this simple truth with a few caveats that, in most any other context, would be regarded as distractions by sensible people. So it is necessary to say that there is more than one interpretation of Islam. We must further note that the fact that Islam itself is the radicalizing catalyst does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims will become radicals. But here is another disquieting truth: Even the terms “radicalization” and “radical Islam” get things exactly backwards. The reality is that the radicals in Islam are the reformers — the Muslims who embrace Western civilization, its veneration of reason in matters of faith, and the pluralistic space it makes for civil society. What we wishfully call “radicalism” is in fact the Islamic mainstream.

These are the principal takeaways from an important study just competed by Israeli academic Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. As detailed in a just-published Middle East Quarterly essay, “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques” The authors’ “Mapping Sharia” project surveyed 100 randomly selected mosques across the United States. Onsite, fully 81 percent of the mosques featured Islamic texts that advocate violence. In nearly 85 percent of the mosques, the leadership (usually an imam or prayer leader) favorably recommended this literature for study by congregants. Moreover, 58 percent of the mosques invited guest lecturers known for promoting violent jihad.

Kedar and Yerushalmi sought to study two intimately related sets of correlations. The first focused on sharia, the Islamic system of law that is based primarily on the Koran and the Sunnah (i.e., the words, deeds, and traditions of Mohammed). The authors homed in on observable sharia-compliant behaviors. These are not actions unique to terrorist groups but conduct reflective of the broad consensus of sharia jurisprudence that cuts across the Sunni/Shiite divide — for example, women wearing the hijab or niqab (respectively, the head covering or full-length covering of the entire female form), the segregation of men from women during communal prayer, and the enforcement by imams of the requirement that male worshippers form up in tight, straight lines during mosque prayer.

The survey probed whether there was a statistically significant correlation between these sharia behaviors and the availability at the mosque of “violence-positive” literature. Significantly, although violence pervades Muslim scripture, the authors did not include scripture (the Koran and the Sunnah) in this violence-positive category. Instead, they confined it to “normative and instructive tracts,” because “a believer is free to understand scripture literally, figuratively, or merely poetically,” unless it has become an Islamic norm or a legal obligation through incorporation in sharia.

Thus the focus on violent-positive tracts, which are interpretive of scripture. They were ranked in accordance with their promotion of violence as “severe,” “moderate,” or “nonexistent.” The “severe” is easy enough to spot: It includes tracts that affirmatively call for brutality against non-Muslims (and deviant Muslims) by such 20th-century ideologues as Muslim Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb and his fellow polemicist Abul Awa Mawdudi. Similarly straightforward is literature that does not approve of, much less incite, violence. Most disheartening is the “moderate” category. These are tracts written by widely respected sharia authorities that, though predominantly concerned with “the more mundane aspects of religious worship and ritual,” express “positive attitudes toward violence” — implicitly endorsing it even if they have not incited it in the manner of Qutb and Mawdudi.

The authors found that 51 percent of the mosques featured severely violence-positive literature; an additional 30 percent distributed moderately violent tracts; and 19 percent offered nonviolent materials. What’s more, there was a strong correlation between sharia-compliant behavior and the presence of severely violent (as well as moderately violent) tracts. And while the mosques that were not as sharia-compliant (e.g., mosques that did not segregate the sexes during prayer or enforce straight prayer lines) featured less in the way of violent materials, the percentages of even these mosques that had violence-positive literature on site was disturbingly high. (See Table 2 of the MEQ essay.)

The second, related correlation the study examines is between the presence of violence-positive materials at a given mosque and the recommendation of these materials to worshippers by the mosque’s imam — a direct promotion of violent jihadism. To cut to the chase, if these materials are on site, the imam is nearly always found endorsing them. The more observably sharia-adherent the imam, the more certain this conclusion. For example, 93 percent of imams who sported the traditional full beard were found to recommend violence-positive literature. Nonetheless, more than three-quarters of imams who did not manifest similar indicia of sharia-compliance were still found to endorse the pro-violence literature if it was on site.

Perhaps the most jarring finding in the study involved mosque attendance. As the authors observe, “mosques that contained written materials in the severe category were the best attended, followed by those with only moderate-rated materials, trailed in turn by those lacking such texts.” We are not talking small divergence here: Severe-material mosques were found to have a mean attendance of 118 worshippers at services, while no-violence mosques had 15. The moderate-violence mosques came in around the middle, at 60.

In this aspect of the study may lie whatever modest silver lining there is. The Kedar-Yerushalmi survey examines what goes on in the mosques. It does not account for what happens outside the mosques or for how many American Muslims actually attend mosques with any regularity. That is to say, the fact that only 19 percent of mosques actually reflect what Islamic apologists portray as a vibrant, predominant brand of “moderate Islam” does not necessarily mean that only one in five American Muslims is a moderate.

Thousands of Muslims pray privately, as Islam permits. They visit mosques rarely, if at all, and when they go it is more for social or cultural purposes than for instruction. If they are Westernized, pro-American Muslims, they may resist the mosques precisely to avoid the influence of rabble-rousing clerics who have been recruited or trained by Saudi-backed Muslim Brotherhood elements. The study does not account for these Muslims. Their number would edge up the percentage of Muslim moderates, perhaps considerably.

But that is not the Islam Muslims are getting in American mosques. In sum, the study shows: The more sharia-compliant the mosque and its imam, the more virulently anti-Western is apt to be the Islam being preached there. Nor can it be ignored that this promotion of a pro-violence and anti-Western Islam in more than 80 percent of American mosques is of a piece with polling conducted of Muslims living in Islamic countries. As Messrs. Kedar and Yerushalmi remind us, a 2007 survey conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that substantial majorities in Morocco, Egypt, and Pakistan — and a majority even in reputedly moderate Indonesia — favored the implementation of sharia law and the insulation of their countries from Western values.

As Andrew McCarthy at former federal prosecutor and author of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America” states in his National Review Online article:

“It is time to stop pretending that there is some other cause for this. Many things can prompt a tinderbox to conflagrate, but it has to be tinder in the first place. Islam is the tinder. We can hope that brave Muslim reformers can build on the small but far from invisible havens where a nonviolent, pluralistic Islam has taken root. But to deny an obvious nexus between the mainstream Islam of the mosques, the violent jihadism of the terrorists, and the stealth jihadism of Islamist organizations is to remain willfully blind.”

Publication of the "Sharia and Violence in American Mosques" study provides irrefragable evidence that the overwhelming majority of American mosques -— consistent with mainstream Islamic doctrine and practice since the founding of the Muslim creed — are inculcating jihadism with the goal of implementing Sharia here in America.

During a 1999 State Department presentation entitled "Islamic Extremism: A Viable Threat to U.S. National Security" Sufi Sheikh Kabbani, who heads The Islamic Supreme Council of America, based upon personal visits to mosques across the US, asserted that 80% were run by "militant," i.e. fundamentalist clerics. "The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion," was conducted by Ihsan Bagby an Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky and a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy Understanding-a Muslim organization. Data were gathered during the summer of 2003 and published online in 2004. These portentous findings were described on page 37 of the report:

“Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement, "Shari'ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?"

• Apply Islamic Law in Muslim Lands
• Strongly Agree - 59%
• Somewhat Agree - 22%
• (i.e., collectively = 81%)
• Somewhat Disagree - 8%
• Strongly Disagree - 3%
• Don't Know - 8%”

Such data supposedly reflected the Detroit area Muslims views of "Islamic countries," only. But, given the intrinsic, universally supremacist nature of Islam and the global Umma (i.e., as stated in Koran 3:110, and the Orwellian-named Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. (Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.”). Once an area has a Muslim majority it is assumed by Muslims that Islamic Law should prevail-hence the "enclave" phenomenon, even here in the United States.

Publication of the "Sharia and Violence in American Mosques" study provides irrefragable evidence that the overwhelming majority of American mosques -- consistent with mainstream Islamic doctrine and practice since the founding of the Muslim creed -- are inculcating jihadism with the goal of implementing Sharia here in America.

Whittaker Chambers' autobiographical opus "Witness," which chronicles his apostasy from Communism, offers these searing insights that elucidate how American Muslims could rationalize such seditious behaviors -- consistent with Islamic doctrine -- and why this phenomenon remains largely incomprehensible to American non-Muslims, despite its existential threat to them.

What went on in the minds of those Americans that made it possible to betray their country? Did none of them suffer a crisis of conscience? The question presupposes that whoever asks it has still failed to grasp that Communists mean exactly what they have been saying for a hundred years: they regard any government that is not Communist, including their own, merely as the political machine of a class whose power they have organized expressly to overthrow by all means, including violence. Therefore the problem of espionage never presents itself to them as problem of conscience, but a problem of operations.

The failure to understand that fact is part of the total failure of the West to grasp the nature of its enemy, what he wants, what he means to do and how he will go about doing it. It is part of the failure of the West to understand that it is at grips with an enemy having no moral viewpoint in common with itself, that two irreconcilable viewpoints and standards of judgment, two irreconcilable moralities, proceeding from two irreconcilable readings of man's fate and future are involved, and hence their conflict is irrepressible.

The Men of the Religion of Peace

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Immolation of the Quran

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." — Quran (5:51)

The reverend Terry Jones burned some paper in Florida, and people were murdered on the other side of the world. Criticism abounds for the pastor of a small church, who decided he'd had enough of being bullied by a religion that demands obedience not only of its own adherents but of those opposed to it, that demands blood for every occasion, a rage looking for an offense. Was Rev. Jones needlessly provocative? Perhaps. Was what he did foolish? Maybe. Disrespectful? Sure, but then respect should flow two ways, and it clearly does not. How many Bibles have been burned in Islamic countries? The U.S. military actually burned some themselves to make Muslims happy.

In point of fact, Muslims burned churches as well as Bibles in Pakistan, then burned the homes of Christians, and there were no riots or acts of vengeance against Muslims worldwide. Incidents against Muslims have remained quite low in the United States and worldwide since the start of the war. And the matter of proportionality must be raised; cartoons disrespecting Muhammad elicit decapitations and murders from Muslims.

Does anyone remember the desecration of the Church of the Nativity, one of Christendom's holiest sites? During a battle between Israeli IDF and Palestinian guerrillas the beaten Palestinians invaded the church, using it as a sanctuary against the pursuing Israeli military. After a long standoff, the largely Islamic army was removed, leaving behind filth and squalor. Had that been an historic mosque, there would have been rioting worldwide. Oh, and the Palestinians not only defecated in the church, but used Bibles as toilet paper.

Does anyone remember the Taliban vandalizing the sleeping Buddha in Afghanistan? They had been destroying Buddhist shrines throughout that country prior to the U.S. invasion.

So, what is it that Terry Jones did to so enrage the Muslims? He burned a few pieces of paper.

Now, bear in mind, he did not burn the Quran itself; there is no such physical object. He burned a printed copy of the Quran, one likely printed right here in the U.S. The paper was manufactured from trees or other pulp, pressed in a press, the ink made from various chemicals in factories, then a printer ran this paper over typeset to produce a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.

In point of fact, these succession of copies go back to Muhammad's son-in-law Uthman, who had the first definitive printed copy of the Quran produced. It was definitive because oral traditions varied, and Uthman ordered the destruction of any alternate versions by fire.

Sahih Bukhari tells us:

“Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)" Sahih Bukhari."

So, the first Quran burner was Uthman, who sought to rid the world of "heretical" alternate texts. Interesting; someone should tell the editors at Time Magazine about that; Chuck Todd argued while guest-hosting MSNBC's Hardball that the Quran is the exact word of Allah, while the Bible was simply written by men.

Here is an explanation of the motivations for writing the Quran down. It was as much political as spiritual.

“When Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur’an had not been recorded and collected into a book. Instead, Muslims memorized large portions of the Qur'an. This was especially true of people who knew Muhammad in person. The Qur’an means to recite. It is possible that some of the verses had been recorded on bones, rocks, or hides before Muhammad died. Regardless, it didn’t take long for the early Muslims to decide that they needed to have the Qur’an collected into a book.”

“The original Qur’an was completed by 634 CE. It is important to understand that a political process is what produced the Qur’an. In 633 CE, a military battle caused 700 Muslims to be killed. A close friend of Muhammad (named Salim) that could recite a large portion of the Qur’an was killed. What would happen if all the close followers of Muhammad were killed? Early Muslims wanted to maintain the purity of the Qur’an as Muhammad had spoken it.”

“So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it).However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").”

So, it is acceptable to destroy a Quran by burning if alternate methods are not available. It is recommended that a damaged or unusable Quran be buried or sunk in water first, but burning is an acceptable substitute. Would Rev. Jones have been on safe ground had he tossed his copy in the Okefenokee swamp or buried it in a shallow grave?

The reality is that this is a tactic being employed by the Muslims in their Jihad. The point is to make us change our behavior to accommodate their rules, aka Sharia. (It is not necessary for one to be Muslim to be under Sharia; imposition of Sharia on non-believers is a duty of all good Muslims.) The purpose is to wear down any resistance to their demands. Keep infidels walking on eggshells, fearful of the maniacal response to any provocation, and eventually the infidels will change their laws to be Sharia-compliant. The actual act is not the issue here so much as the perception. Islam cannot allow infidels to get too uppity. The Muslim has the right to rule, they believe.

Chuck Todd unknowingly exposes the problem, and why it will be extremely difficult to reform Islam. Muslims believe that the Quran is dictated word for word by Allah to Muhammad, and so each and every statement must be literally interpreted. Couple that with the fact that Muhammad is "the seal of the Prophets" meaning the last prophet — thus ending divine commandments and statutes. Nothing can change in Islam, because the word of Allah is complete and total, ending with Muhammad. Thus Islam remains stuck in the 7th century, with the cruelties, the intolerance, the militarism, the faults and foibles of 7th century warriors enshrined forever in the Islamic psyche. One cannot find anything new in Islam, because it was all written down in the very beginning. It is a law without means of amendment.

And since Islam has no formal hierarchy to deal with questions, one's interpretation is as good as another's. It's often asked "where are the moderate Muslims, why aren't they condemning the bad ones?" But this misses the point; they cannot condemn brother Muslims, because they have no outside authority to judge matters. The best that can be done is an appeal to parts of the Quran — and most of the kinder, gentler verses have been abrogated by the more warlike later parts. Abrogation says that whatever was said last abrogates what was said before. Moderate Muslims are on shaky ground if they dispute the radicals with the Quran.

As a result, any group can initiate Jihad, and anyone who manages to gain the reverence of the masses can issue a Fatwa. And, of course, lying is permissible in the interests of advancing Sharia (El Taqiyya), so those who are ignorant can be whipped into a frenzy by half-truths or out-and-out lies. What right do moderates have to say otherwise?

Ultimately the issue goes back to the oldest of principles; are we going to allow ourselves to be bullied into submission? For 600 years Islam acted as the aggressor, and Christendom retreated in the wake of the onslaught. It was only after the Turks massacred 3,000 pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem that Christendom finally resisted — and the Crusades began a process which eventually stopped the military expansion of Islam cold. Contrary to media spin, the Crusades were not a war of Christian aggression against Islam.

“Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.”

“With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.”

“That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.”

“Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.”

Liberals believe that Islam, being the enemy of Christianity and Western Civilization, is an ally that will be satisfied once the "injustice" of Western dominance is ended, but they are horrendously ignorant of the dragon they are unchaining. They will be devoured along with the rest of our civilization if we continue down the path of Sharia. Pastor Terry may well have done us a favor by illustrating the rigidity and barbarity of some in the Islamic world, and how the better-natured Muslims are powerless to stop them.

As with any bully, accommodation invites attack. This was proven when Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement emboldened Hitler, it has been proven on every schoolyard throughout history, and it is being proven today. Bullies must be resisted, not coddled. Too bad Lindsey Graham and much of the mainstream media don't understand that.

In the end we will be immolated if we do not wake up.

Enter Lindsey Graham — Once Again

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. — George Washington

South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham appears to be coming out of the failed John McCain election closet to launch himself back onto the national political stage. Graham appeared on Sunday morning's CBS Face the Nation in an interview with Bob Schieffer, condemning the burning of the Islamic holy book, the Quran.

Shirt tailing on the announcement by Gen. David Petraeus that Quran burning poses a security threat in Afghanistan, Graham expresses his intention to work closely (across the aisle) with Senators Kerry and Reid and others to condemn the burning of Qurans. Picking up where Petraeus left off in condemning Florida Pastor Terry Jones for burning a Quran earlier this week, Graham said:

“Yeah, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.” In essence Senator Graham is accusing Pastor Terry Jones of giving aid and comfort to the enemy — treason.

As an American in the United States of America, you are allowed to do many things. You can burn the flag. You can burn the Bible. You can produce obscene art and sometimes even get government money to finance it.

You can make movies and TV shows that ridicule Christianity, traditional morality, and that take the Lord's name in vain.

If anybody objects to this, you can just accuse him of trying to impose his values on others. Then start talking about the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes, you can do all those things, and more. But can you burn a Quran?

Yes, but maybe not for long.

Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center, in Gainesville, Florida, became the target of world condemnation last year when he announced he would burn a copy of the Quran in protest.

President Obama didn't want him to do it. Neither did General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Actress/Activist Angelina Jolie spoke out against it. I'm still waiting for Angelina to speak out against anti-Christianity in Hollywood.

As a result of his plan to burn a Quran in the U.S.A., Terry Jones received death threats. His website was shut down. The mortgage on his church's property was called in and — what a coincidence — the church's property insurance was cancelled. The city of Gainesville threatened to charge the church for protection. And who knows what else happened behind the scenes? All this happened to a private group which wanted to burn a privately-owned book on private property. What if the powers that be decide your private activity is objectionable? In the end, Jones decided not to burn the Quran.

That was seven months ago. But now, he and his group have finally burned a Quran. What they did was hold an American-style trial of the Quran, conducted in English and Arabic. The Quran was defended by an imam from Texas. And several former Muslim converts to Christianity were included.

If you'd like to really see where Jones and his group are coming from, you ought to check out his website, assuming it is still online. Click here; and you can also click here to read Jones's Ten Reasons to Burn the Quran.

The ten Reasons Terry Jones gave for burning the Quran are as follows:

One: The Quran teaches that Jesus Christ, the Crucified, Risen Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords was NOT the Son of God, nor was he crucified. This teaching removes the possibility of salvation and eternal life in heaven for all Islam's believers. They face eternal damnation in hell if they do not repent.

Two: The Quran is not what Islam claims it to be. It does not have an eternal origin. It is not recorded in heaven. The Almighty God, Creator of the World, is NOT it's source. It is not holy. Its writings are human in origin, a concoction of old and new teachings.

Three: The Quran's teaching includes Arabian idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals. These are demonic, an ongoing satanic stronghold under which Muslims and the world suffer.

Four: The earliest writings that are known to exist about the Prophet Mohammad were recorded 120 years after his death. All of the Islamic writings (the Quran and the Hadith, the biographies, the traditions and histories) are confused, contradictory and inconsistent. We have no conclusive account about what he said or did. Yet Muslims follow the destructive teachings of Islam without question.

Five: Mohammad's life and message cannot be respected. The first Meccan period of his leadership seems to have been religiously motivated and a search for the truth. But in the second Medina period he was openly corrupt, power hungry, and obsessed with selfish pleasures. These are characteristics that God hates. They also led to political assassinations and massacres which continue to be carried out on a regular basis by his followers today.

Six: Islamic Law is totalitarian in nature. There is no separation of church and state. It is irrational. It is supposedly immutable and cannot be changed. It must be accepted without criticism. It has many similarities to Nazism, Communism and Fascism. It is not compatible with Western Civilization.

Seven: Islam is not compatible with democracy and human rights. The notion of a moral individual capable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them does not exist in Islam. The attitude towards women in Islam as inferior possessions of men has led to countless cases of mistreatment and abuse for which Muslim men receive little or no punishment. This is a direct fruit of the teachings of the Quran.

Eight: A Muslim does not have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.

Nine: Islamic teaching and culture consistently perpetuate an irrational fear and loathing of the West.

Ten: Islam is a weapon of Arab imperialism and Islamic colonialism. Where Islam has or gains political power, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims suffer persecution and discrimination. This includes murders, rape, imprisonment and the destruction of churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship.

Nowhere in Jones’ list of reason does he express intent to cause violence as has been reported in the press. After reading Jones’ list, even if you disagree with what Jones has done, you will know what you are talking about.

Anyway, after the Quran was condemned, it was burned. So the "world" exploded in hysterical condemnation. In Afghanistan, especially, rioters felt duty-bound to prove that Jones was wrong to call their religion a violent one. So they went on a rampage, killed people and burned Obama in effigy.

President Obama, rather than defend American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, put the rioters on the same level as Pastor Jones: Obama said; "The desecration of any holy text, including the Quran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

Just as last September, General Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, got involved. Last September he had complained that burning the Quran in Florida could put the troops in Afghanistan in danger.

Earth to Petraeus. Your troops are already in danger. They're at war.

This time, Petraeus said the burning "was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible,"

Excuse me, but is it really appropriate for a general to be making pronouncements over U.S. domestic policy? Is it a general's prerogative to tell American civilians what they can or cannot do? Why does Petraeus condemn the burning of one Quran? The U.S. Army has confiscated and burned Bibles in Afghanistan. Where was the outcry over that?

As if all this weren't quite bad enough, several members of Congress have implied they might do something about the Quran burning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat) promised to look into it. Even worse, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had this chilling threat for citizens who don't get in line: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

This reminds me of why we have a First Amendment. Contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment was not written to give us freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Read what the First Amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you notice that? The First Amendment was specifically written to prevent Congress from taking away our rights! And when you have senators like Reid and Graham, you can see why!

As someone once quipped, "no man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Or his right to burn the Koran.

Graham and others may be willing to restrict our speech, despite the fact that that First Amendment is specifically written prohibits the Congress from doing so.

Conservative commentator Ann Barnhardt gives a blow-by-blow analysis of Graham's speech, highlighting the fact that if John McCain had been elected president, McCain's "Best Buddy" Graham most likely would have been the U.S. attorney general, raising a red flag of danger based on Graham's statement in which he clearly favors restricting Americans' freedom of speech. Barnhardt said,

“Hold people accountable? For what? For exercising their constitutionally protected and divinely ordained right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion?”

Yes, we know that as Americans are waking up to the threat of radical Islam knocking on our back door, the issue of Quran burning is a hot one, and likely to grow a lot more volatile before things cool down. But as we face the next presidential election, might we ask, also, what exactly is the real reason for McCain's shotgun rider Lindsay Graham to be jumping back into the bonfire of the national political arena?

Watch Barnhardt's commentary below: The video is in two parts due to the size requirements of YouTube. The first part is a direct reply to Lindsey Graham and the second an expose of the violence in the Quran. You don’t have to agree with Ms. Barnhardt, but you should listen to what she has to say. We are headed down a path towards Sharia Law in the same drip by drip manner the Fabians brought socialism to England. It’s the boiling frog syndrome and the water is getting hotter. Feel it yet?

Ann Barnhardt’s reply to Lindsey Graham

Ann Barnhardt’s commentary on the Quran

The havoc carried out by Muslim berserkers proves Pastor Jones's point about Islam being a violent religion. In effect, they are saying "Islam is not a violent religion. And if you say it is, we'll kill you!"

An interview with Barnhardt can be found here.