By: Ayesha Ahmed

The Prophet and his jihadis offered fajar prayers in early morning darkness outside of Khaybar. Then they attacked the villagers who were just leaving their homes to work in the fields carrying spades and other farming tools.

BLOODSHED AFTER FAJAR PRAYER

Narrated Anas bin Malik: We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, “Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed”

KINANA BEHEADED

Kinana, the injured chief of Khaybar was brought to the prophet.
Mohammed: Kinana, where did you hide the treasure?
Kinana: Treasure? We don’t have any? We are farmers not bandits like you…
Mohammed: Mind your language Kinana, you are talking to a prophet of God..
Kinana: Prophet of God my ass. You are a killer and a rapist….
Mohammed: Zubayr get him away from me and cut off his tongue.

Ishaq:595 “The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue
Zubayr: Rasulullah , .. if we cut off his tongue how will we make him talk..
Mohammed: OK, then torture him and make him talk.

Zubayr collected some dry wood and lighted a fire on Kinana’s chest and moved it around with a rod to give him maximum pain. . Kinana was already badly injured and bleeding. He passed out without talking.

Mohammed: The bastard passed out… Maslamah cut off his head.

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”

ROUNDING UP THE CATURED WOMEN

The most exciting part of a jihad for jihadis was distribution of captured women. First Prophet picked his 20% cut, mostly very young and pretty ones, then one by one names of jihadis were drawn by a lottery and captured women were distributed among them.

All the mujahids started rounding up Khaybar women and bringing them to the holding compound… Bilal entered the Kinana household and grabbed his lovely 17 year old wife Safia and her two younger cousins who were hardly 9 and 10 year old. They were brought to the prophet. On the way they saw the dead bodies of their murdered family members and the headless body of Kinana.
Mohammed was drinking grape wine (it was before prohibition) with Ali, Usman, Omar, Zubayr and Dihya near the decapitated body of Kinana which was lying in a pool of blood . (Grape wine was rare and expensive and only the top brass indulged in it. Common jihadis drank date wine.

Bukharee Volume 7, Book 69, Number 486:
Narrated Anas:

” Before alcoholic drinks were prohibited, we could rarely find wine made from grapes in Medina, for most of our liquors were made from unripe and ripe dates.

Safia went berserk when she saw Prophet celebrating with buddies near her husband’s decapitated body. She attacked him cursing loudly. .
Prophet’s drinking utensil slipped from his hand spilling his favourite wine.

SAFIA GIVEN TO DIHYA

Mohammed: See what you did *****, cant you see I am drinking? Dihya control this She-devil and take her away

Dihya: What do you want me to do with her Rasulullah?

Mohammed: Take her to your tent and enjoy her. She is all yours..

Dihya: Shukran Rasulullah Shukran.
Dihya took the beautiful and shapely teenager to his tent. Safia fought hard and resisted as she was disrobed to be violated. . Soon a crowd gathered to see the commotion in Dihya’s tent. They were awestruck with Safia’s figure and beauty. . Several jihadis ran to the Prophet and praised Safia’s form in front of him.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3329:

Anas, (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Safiyya (Allah be pleased with her) fell to the lot of Dihya in the spoils of war, and they praised her in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: We have not seen the like of her among the captives of war.

Prophet’s 30 man libido kicked in and instantly aroused him .

Mohammed: Ali go right away and retrieve Safia from Dihya.
Ali went right away and found Dihya still trying to subdue Safia. He ordered him to leave her alone, but Dihya ignored the command… Ali then kicked Dihya’s bare bottom with such a violent force with his iron toed sandal that Dihya defecated blood and collapsed over Safia. Ali retrieved Safia and brought her to the prophet. Limping and protesting Dihya also followed them… .
Mohammed threw his robe over Safia to claim her. But Dihya was not prepared to give in.

Bukharee volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:

Dihya: Rasulullah, that is not fair at all. You had given Safia to me.

Mohammed: “I changed my mind. I will give you two of Safia’s young cousins in her place. You will love them, they are both very young and virgins. You can have a great three-some tonight”.

Muslim Book 008, Number 3329:

Dihya: “Rasulullah I don’t enjoy little girls….You can keep them, just return Safia to me

Mohammed: “Dihya don’t be a pest. I will sweeten the pot and throw in five young men .You can have double pleasure tonight, two girls and five men.”..

Dihya: “I don’t do men either, please kindly return my Safia”.

Mohammed: Okay what if I offered five camels instead of men and the two girls, seven heads in all”.

Dihya: Rasulullah I have enough camels from the last jihad. I just need Safia”

Now the Prophet got really ticked off.
..

Mohammed: “Dihya, you stubborn mule, just take what I offered before I change my mind and have your private parts removed instead”
Dihya knew the prophet meant what he said. He took the two young girls and five camels and left in a hurry..

Sahih Muslim, Bk 8 No 3328
“Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her (Safia) in exchange of seven heads”.

PROPHET RAPES SAFIA

Mohammed then hurried to his tent with Safia. There were three girls already in the Prophet’s tent with whom he had a foursome the previous night. Mohammed called out Ali Usman and Umar.

Mohammed: Ali take Raytah, Usman you take Zainab, Umar you like little girls so take this little girl, she is hardly five…

The History of Tabari, vol 8, pge 29-30

From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah.

Safia: Mohammed how can you be so cruel, you made those girls orphans killing their parents, then raped them all night and the next day you passed them on to other men.

Mohammed: Aya 4.20 gives all muslim men that privaledge of changing their women at will..

Safia: And that five year old girl you gave to Umar, how could you have intercourse with her.

Mohammed: Who said I had intercourse with her. I only thighed her. It is my rule never to have sex with girls below the age of 8.

ISLAMIC SUNNA OF THIGHING

“She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY”

When Mohammed made advances towards Safia, she resisted . How could she submit to a man who had had killed her near and dear ones just a few hours back.

Mohammed: What is your problem Safia.

Safia: Mohammed I don’t like those who kill innocent men and rape their women.

Mohammed: What are you talking about, it was not us, but Allah who killed them by our hands. Here is the aya:

008.017
YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah.
Besides kafir are never innocents, they are fair games for us,
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

Once we kill them we are allowed sex with their wives and daughters according to Ayas 4.3,4.24,23.6,33.50 and 70.30. So stop this nonsense and let me have you. I don’t have time to waste. If you resist I will give you back to Dihya and bring in other girls.

Safia realized resistance was futile. She will get raped any ways, either by the prophet or another jihadi. At least the Prophet had a regular supply of slave girls from his 20% cut of booty and many resident wives. She will be hit less for sex less often . With a regular jihadi she will be raped day and night then sold in a slave market to the highest bidder. She gave up the fight and laid motionless while the prophet got his jollies.

In the middle of the night the Prophet noticed a man peeping through a hole in the tent and watching the action. The Prophet grabbed his arrow head and poked the eye of the offender stealthily putting his eye out.

Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 38a:
Narrated Anas: A man peeped into the dwelling place (tent) of the Prophet. The Prophet got up and aimed a sharp-edged arrow head at him to poke him stealthily.

After a few hours of sleep and taajjud prayers, the prophet approached Safia again for more action when he heard some movement near his tent. He figured the Peeping Tom was back for seconds. This time the Prophet was so pissed off he decided to go out and cut off the manhood of the stub-born peeping Tom.. .

Ibn Hisham ,Page 766
“Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. In the early dawn, the Prophet suspected some movement near the tent. It was Abu Ayyub (apparently the earlier peeping Tom was some one eles) He asked him what he was doing near his tent (Abu Ayyub had not gotten any captured woman in this raid, so apparently he was getting his jollies by checking out action in other tents).He replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account and was guarding you” (he didn’t have to keep an eye on them to guard them). The Prophet (either Mo bought the lie or felt pity for the horny man who had put his life on line in the raid yet was without a captured woman and spent the night looking around) prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari.

Sixty something Prophet had a gala time with the grieving teenage widow that night. Next day he covered her in a burqa and proclaimed her as one of his wives.

Author: Amil Imani

Last August, President George W. Bush used the term “Islamic Fascism” in a speech. In no time at all, the Bush-bashers, Islamic propaganda organizations and the rabid left unleashed a campaign of assault on the President for insulting the Muslims and sullying the sanctified religion of Islam by linking its name with fascism.

Opportunistic Democrats were just too happy to lead the attack on the President. An aspirant for the presidency, to the left of the left Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Russ Feingold, was so indignant by this “horrific” slander of the President smearing the stainless name of Islam that he found it his solemn duty to write a letter to the President lecturing him on his unacceptable use of the terms.

Did the President indeed slander Islam? Or are people like Feingold Bush-bashers who for their own reasons would never miss an opportunity to berate President Bush as well as those who support him? Let the facts decide.

“Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”

–Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia

Let us examine each characteristic of fascism, one at a time, and see if the President was justified or did he indeed misspeak.

Radical: Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraysh, he was ridiculed as a Crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.

Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom such as Omar, Osman and Abu Bakr, were men of power and influence. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, including the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger Muhammad set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.

As for teachings of Islam, “radical” is the most fitting term. The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s-way or the high way. This radicalism is very much in action today.

Political Ideology: Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam through religious divines controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. T he Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.

In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Shariah. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted.

Authoritarianism: Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.

Nationalism: To Islam there is only one world-wide nation, the Islamic Ummeh. To Islam the earth is Allah’s, political boundaries are arbitrary and there is only one legitimate nation—the nation of Islam. The idea of one world, one nation, is not new with Islam. A number of secular rules, rulers and movements had aimed for the same objective. Alexander the Great, for instance, strived toward this goal, so did Communism, and the World Federalists still hold the vision of world unification.

Militarism: Jihadists are the army of Allah. T he use of violence as instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. “No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor,” “You kill them, you go to paradise, you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.

Anti-anarchism: Islam does not even tolerate the basic rudiments of liberty. Anarchism can be considered as liberty gone amuck. So, Islam is anti-anarchist as a matter of course. Furthermore, the very name of Islam means “submission.” And anarchism is 180 degrees from submission—Islam is the rule of the absolute—anarchism is the rule of no rules.

Anti-communism: Islam is based on the belief in a supreme being, Allah. This fundamental precept makes it incompatible with any materialistic philosophy, including communism. Islam, furthermore, places great importance on the rewards and punishment of the next life and denigrates the value of material existence—ideals disharmonious with the main tenets of materialistic Communism.

Anti-liberalism: Islam contends that it has the perfect divine prescription of life, brought to mankind as its eternal charter. Hence, human interventions and inventions are not only unacceptable; they are detrimental to the implementation of the perfect edicts. Liberal ideas trigger change. To Islam, any change from the perfect design of Allah, necessarily is in error and must not be allowed.

Islam fully meets each of the eight distinctive features of fascism. “If the shoe fits, wear it,” as the saying goes. Islam is fascist. Muslims and their apologists are guilty of denial and dishonesty. They have no ground at all for objecting to the contention that Islam is fascism. President George W. Bush did not misspeak.

If Muslims find fascism repugnant, then they should reconsider being Muslims.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website at
Amil Imani

Author: Amil Imani

The dictionary defines religion as, “The expression of man’s belief and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” By this definition Islam qualifies as religion, so do numberless others. A definition this broad is ambiguous and must be further defined with the specific tenets and practices of the belief.

Simply because someone or some people say that they believe in a superhuman deity and revere him, the belief is accorded the privileged status of religion?

It is generally assumed that religion addresses issues of importance to daily life as well as matters that transcend it. Religion is thought to exercise a civilizing influence by ordering the social life, promoting spirituality, as well as advancing an array of human virtues. Zoroaster, for instance, based his faith on the triad of goodly thoughts, goodly speech and goodly deeds: Moses framed the fundamentals of his faith in the Ten Commandments; and Jesus placed love at the core of his religion.

Many people adhere to religion for providing them with comfort and a compass in life. It is these assumed benevolent features of religion that confer it special status. Yet concern with religion overreaching has led societies to enact safeguards against that possibility. Some, for instance, feared that Christ was a rebellious Jew aiming to challenge the ruling Romans. Perhaps to assuage this fear, Christ emphatically proclaimed, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” To this day, there are those who still believe that the Christ was a mere social revolutionary.

In the case of Islam there is no ambiguity at all. The mosque and the state were one and the same from the very start. During his lifetime, Muhammad embodied in his person all three branches of worldly secular governance—the legislative, the judiciary and the executive—as well as the religious domain. As a messenger of Allah, he transmitted Allah’s laws, adjudicated according to those laws and implemented Allah’s design. He also prescribed a set of religious instructions for the spiritual life of the faithful.

After Muhammad, the Islamic rule was continued by Caliphs and Imams. To this day, wherever it is able, Islam governs as the state, either directly as is the case in Saudi Arabia, or indirectly as practiced in places such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When religion crosses the line that separates it from the state, serious problems present themselves. In the case of Islam, the rule of the people, by the people, for the people is supplanted by the rule of Allah, by the faithful to Allah, for the pleasure of Allah.

Other problems arise. Liberty, deeply cherished by democracies, is replaced by submission—unquestioning obedience and adherence to the dictates and precepts of the all-knowing and all-wise Allah. It is this total form of submission that, among other things, prompted the Muslims to systematically burn libraries of the lands they invaded. They justified their action by contending that the Quran, the comprehensive unerring book of Allah, contained all perfect knowledge that humanity needs. To this day, in places where Islam rules many books are banned, newspapers and magazines are systematically either censored or shut down, and other non-print media are methodically blocked.

The contempt for free inquiry is encapsulated in the statement of Muhammad, “Al-elmo noghtatan katharoho al-jaheloon”—Knowledge is only one dot, expanded by the ignorant.

Once liberty is surrendered for submission, a host of serious consequences present themselves. The individual becomes little more than a passive obedient vessel of Allah and his perspective of himself and life is drastically changes. Once he submits to the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-alls, then he is absolved of the responsibility of having to chart his own way in life.

There is considerable allure in submission to a powerful that is willing and able to take care of the person. It is not a bad arrangement. The problem is that all past claimants have invariably been proven as either fraud or failures in honoring their part of the bargain. Islam is no exception. A cursory glance is enough to show the condition of Muhammad’s flock. In spite of huge material wealth, Muslims in the oil-rich countries are imprisoned in the paralyzing mentality of submission and all the terrible ancillaries that go with it.

There is no reason to believe that Muslims have inferior intelligence. Their inferior existence is strictly a function of the primitive doctrine of Islam: a doctrine of nihilism, ignorance, and violence that denigrates this life and fixes the starry eye of the faithful on the next life. A case in point is the Islamic madressehs in places like Pakistan. Never mind the girls. Girls are not in the calculus—women are incidental in Islam. Consider the boys. Millions of young boys are enrolled in madressehs—religious boarding schools—learning very little beside memorizing and reciting the Quran. This is a case of total submission: Islam at its best, as championed by the oil-money-flushed Saudi patrons of the Wahabi sect.

Sadly enough, instead of Muslims marching out of the suffocating swamps of submission to the meadow of liberty, Allah’s faithful aim to drag the rest of humanity into the deadly Islamic quagmire. Islam may have been an improvement to the life of the savages that roamed the Arabian desserts some 1400 years ago. The 21st century world is not willing to surrender to the clearly failed and failing Islamic experiment, simply because of the claim that it is the one and only true religion of Allah.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website at Amil Imani

Author: Amil Imani

Why confront Islamism? Because if we don’t it will continue to get more extreme. This is not Islamophobia, as many Muslims and their apologists protest. A phobia is a baseless irrational fear. Detestation of Islamism, the violent form of Islam, is based on irrefutable facts and it is not only rational, it is ethically imperative.

It is a virtue to take action to oppose the hateful, vice to ignore it. It is a virtue to hate tyranny, misogyny, discriminations of all sorts, oppression, and all manners of violations of the legitimate rights of the individual and peoples.

Islamism is a mutation of Islam into a terrible menace. It is religious fascism, a destroyer of liberty and much of what free people cherish. Therefore, it must be confronted.

Islamism, Islamofascism, radical Islam and political Islam, are different terms for essentially the same thing: a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny of Islam itself.

It is a systemic problem of Islam that inevitably gives rise to Islamism. The three scriptures of Islam, the Quran, Islam’s holy book; the Hadith, sayings of Muhammad as recorded by his contemporaries; and the Suna, the life examples of Muhammad himself, together form the body of Islamic beliefs. They provide an array of frequently confusing, multiple-meaning and even outright contradictory dogma that enable anyone to pick and choose certain teachings of Islam and justify anything they do on the basis of the scripture.

The Quran enjoys a sanctified standing, since Muslims believe it is written by Allah himself. Allah handed down the Quran to Archangel Gabriel, chapter by chapter, to deliver to Muhammad over the course of some 22 years. Muhammad could neither read nor write. So Gabriel had to whisper the chapters to him and Muhammad in turn would reveal them to any literate person who happened to be around to write them down on anything he could find. To Muslims, every word of the Quran is a literal perfect immutable eternal word of Allah himself. Therefore, no man or divine is ever to revise, much less dispute, the Quran.

The hodgepodge of Islamic scripture is the medium for generating all kinds of mutations, some of which such as Islamism are extremely dangerous. A segment of any society, at any time, is staffed by people who feel disaffected, alienated, and disenfranchised. It is from the ranks of this population that Islamists heavily recruit.

Islamism’s rallying cry is also of particular attraction to the young since it is rabidly anti-establishment. The young lack a major stake in society but brim with action-inclined vitality. They are among the most willing recruits to anti-establishment causes. Older leaders frequently take advantage of the young’s proclivity to act and enlist them as foot-soldiers in their cause. The Hitler’s youth, the Soviet Union’s young Communists, and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Basij (young Islamic storm troopers) are some examples of the young’s enlistment by tyrannical systems.

Furthermore, there is excitement in action, any action. The greater the risk, the greater is the excitement and this feature is highly attractive to a significant segment of the population. That’s why it is said that war is exciting, while peace is boring. The validation of this dictum is seen daily, for instance, in numberless arenas where battles rage between combatants, be they cocks, dogs, or human. Throngs of spectators pay by time and money to participate vicariously in the socially-approved brutalities.

In any physical contest, the more violent side usually prevails. The Islamists use ruthless force to eliminate the opposition or to intimidate them to join its ranks.

Islamism is rapidly advancing on two fronts. In every Islamic country, it is cowing the non-radicals while recruiting more and more radicals into its own ranks. In non-Muslim lands, flush with Petrodollars, Islamism is establishing itself as a formidable force by enlisting the disaffected and attracting the delusional liberals with its promises. For the faithful, there is the added incentive of Allah’s heaven and its irresistible attractions.

There are those who claim that the majority of Muslims in the world are moderate and non-violent. It may be so. Yet, the silence of this majority is deafening, although, they do speak up from time-to-time by, for instance, claiming that the 9/11 slaughter was the work of the Jews, even when Osama himself proudly admits the dastardly act.

This very same Muslim majority pours into the streets of the West on a moment’s notice to protest against the slightest perceived affront to its sanctities, but they never march to condemn the violent acts of the Islamists- or speak up against them. This sort of majority behavior makes it complicit with the Islamists.

In spite of all this, Islam’s apologists and lobbyists want us to accept the notion that the present Islamic radicalism is an aberration that given time will dissipate as have all radical movements of the past. These folk fail to tell us about the radical movements that inflicted horrors on humanity before they expired. Here are a few instances of the bloody acts of radicalism from Wikipedia:

• Japan 1910-45. Imperial Japanese killed 25,000,000 Chinese and enslaved millions of Koreans.
• Soviet Union 1918-89. Communists killed 20,000,000 of their own citizens.
• Germany 1940-45. Nazis killed 11,000,000 Jews, Romas, homosexuals, Slavs, the mentally ill and Communists.
• China 1950-80. Communists killed 65,000,000 fellow Chinese.
• Bangladesh 1971. Muslims killed 1,500,000 Hindus.
• Cambodia 1975-79. Communist Cambodians killed 1,700,000 Cambodians.
• Afghanistan 1979-89. Soviet Communists killed unspecified number of Afghans.
• Sudan 1983-2007. Arab/Muslims killed over 2,000,000 Africans.

Also, Iraq’s socio-fascist Baathist government slaughtered several hundred thousands Kurds and Shiites during Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. And let us not forget the genocidal mullahs presently ruling Iran. These Islamofascists executed, without the least due process, tens of thousands of the opposition in order to consolidate their Islamist tyranny. The mullahs’ present project is the subjugation of the region and, down the road, the world itself.

Islamism threatens to set a new record for brutality, contrary to the contention that there is no reason to worry about it. Jihadist Wahabism’s tentacles are reaching out from its cradle in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Arab Emirates. The Petrodollar flush Sunni zealots are liberally financing mosques, madresehs (Islamic indoctrination schools), Islamic centers at universities, front organizations and lobbyists to promote the Wahabi virulent Islamism in every part of the world.

Murderous Shiism, led by Iran’s racing to arm itself with the ultimate weapon, is busily doing whatever it can to ensnare the world into Islam’s nation, the Ummeh. The purported peaceful Muslim majorities are nowhere to be seen. They are either complicit with the Islamists or on the retreat from Southeast Asia to the Americas, from Australia, to Europe.

Islamism is a pincers, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. The two jaws aim to crush the life of all non-believers. It is imperative that people who value liberty rise up and act to defeat Islamism. Here are some specific suggestions:

• The Hate Crime Laws should be vigorously enforced and strengthened.
• Any mosque, Islamic center or front organization that condones or promotes hate or violence must be shut down.
• Islamic studies centers at universities must be scrutinized to guard against mercenary academes who deceptively preach the gospel of Islamism.
• Lobbyists and front organizations serving Islamism must be investigated as to their sources of funds.
• Laws should be enacted to protect all media and individuals against lawsuits, so that they can report the truth without risking ruinous litigations.
• Imams, mullahs and others who promote Islamic hate doctrine should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
• Racial, sexist and all other forms of discriminatory hate teachings should be banned.
• Local Muslims should review Islamic literature, including the Quran, and should mark them with an asterisk, disavowing teachings of hate and violence or purge them entirely.

It is urgent that we confront Islamism. All free people, Muslim or not, must demand that their governments, at all levels, abandon the practice of political correctness and act to safeguard liberty against the truly deadly assault of Islamism on the rest of the World.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at
Amil Imani

Is America a Bully?

Author: Amil Imani

I admit that America is not perfect. Tyrants and populists such as Castro and Chavez in the neighborhood and Iran’s Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong-II on the other side of the world call America the Big Bad Bully. In a way, to be name-called by “world leaders” like these fellows is a Compliment. But, when those who owe their very life to the American “Bully” vilify America and Americans, a response is definitely in order, since remaining silent is often taken as conceding to the accusations. Consider for a moment this patronizing and insulting piece by B. R., published in a London tabloid.

“Were I a Kerry voter, though, I’d feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-lothin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport ownin’ red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land ‘free and strong.’”

And this “tribute” comes to us courtesy of our trans-Atlantic “friends.” If this is what our “friends” say about us, then it is understandable that a whole slew of our ill-wishers trip over one another to vilify us. Many French, for one, never seem to miss an opportunity to berate and betray us. The Russians are just too happy to do all they can to pain us, in a perverse way of trying to cover their own misery. And of course the Islamists and the mullahs portray America as a brain-dead Great Satan tool of Zionism.

To make matters worse, a vociferous clique of local leftists with a suicide wish are doing all they can to take the country with them to the grave they so earnestly seek. These self-appointed squatters of the higher-ground, on both sides of the Atlantic, are riding so high on their high horse that they are blind to the realities down on earth.

It is a fact that the spiteful Europeans are mired up to their eyeballs in problems that hold every promise of spelling their doom before very long. Instead of focusing on solving their own problems, many Europeans place them at America’s doorstep. These “wise” Europeans find it their high calling to lecture and deride us at every opportunity.

To understand what is going on, we need to take a quick look at some of the quirks of the human mind. Venting, blaming, and loathing provide mental relief, at a price. Venting can be a relatively harmless way of expressing frustration, a get-it-off-your-chest exercise, the kind of thing people do with friends, at a bar or on a psychotherapist’s couch, for instance.

Yet, when it comes to blaming and loathing, the picture changes considerably. It is common for people to blame themselves, deservedly or not, for their problems. It is also not uncommon for people to actually loath themselves. In extreme cases, the self-loather may destroy his own life. Therefore, loathing is a dangerous energy that must find expression. It is by far safer for the person to discharge his loathing venom on others, particularly at others who are not likely to retaliate.

America has become a safe and convenient target for both the calculating as well as the mindless loather.

Why America? Because America is big enough, powerful enough, successful enough to be envied by every large and small, also-ran and failed individual and nation.

If you are a mercenary journalist who is paid by the word to boost circulation, you had better pick on somebody big enough for your story to fly. You can’t pick on Bangladesh or Haiti. People would laugh you out of town if you do, long before the publisher gets around to firing you.

Another reason is that saying and writing nice things is not provocative, gets no one’s attention and is unlikely to get published. If you want to be heard, you need to say nasty things, as nasty as you can and preferably against the biggest target that you can attack and get away with it.

Furthermore, by being venomous you become the voice for the frustrated, resentful and envious. A few words to our European friends are in order.

Your leftist gadflies deride America’s way of life while extolling the virtues of your present political and social model. They claim that your model is the wave of the glorious future and it will be adopted by the rest of the world. Strangely enough, ordinary Europeans don’t seem to think so. Demographic trends show that most Europeans don’t even believe in the European ideal in sufficient numbers to want to pass it on to the next generation. According to the European Commission, the average birth rate for the European Union as a whole is now 1.4 children per woman, which is well below the 2.1 replacement rate. According to Germany’s Federal Statistics Office, more people died in that country in 2005 than were born.

Not only is Europe declining in number, it is aging as well. According to the US Census Bureau, Europe in 2000 had the highest percentage of people aged 65 and older in the world, and this figure is set to double by 2050. Who is going to work and pay for all the entitlement programs you have become accustomed to?

Economists forecast that European budget deficits will skyrocket as governments strain to reconcile declining tax bases with millions of elderly people who force up spending on pensions, health care, and other services.

Politically, Europe is not much better off. Der Spiegel, a leftist German magazine, recently made the following observation:

“Europe has become a continent of political crises with governments in Italy, France, Britain and Poland all suffering from paralysis or a lack of voter approval. Is the continent about to abandon its integration project and return to the old era of national rivalry?”

Question: Weren’t these “sister-marryin’”, “gun-totin,’” “red-necks” Americans who, not too long ago, left their “sisters-wives” behind, picked up their guns and came over and saved you from the Nazis? Weren’t there tens of thousands of these same fellows who never made it back home? Did these “foreigner-despisin’” Americans, by tens of thousands, leave their limbs in the trenches of Europe out of contempt for foreigners?

The people you call “moronic muppets” must have earned this designation not only for not demanding war reparations, but for generously giving Europe billions of dollars to help it get back on its feet. In your ethos, generosity of heart is considered moronic?

No sooner were the Nazis defeated, than the Soviets Communists annexed some of the continent and prepared to swallow the rest. Again, it was this “military-lovin’” American nation that paid the lion’s share of the bill to defend you against the Soviets’ menace while you greedily made money and provided a comfortable life for yourselves under the shield of the American forces.

Sadly enough, dear Europeans, you are victims of your own delusions. America is not the Big Bad Bully. The really Terrible Bully is Islamism, and it’s right in your midst eroding your social and political fabric bit-by-bit. You don’t need to fantasize about your future. Your future is already playing out in the Islamic lands.

Dear gadfly European, to check out your future, you only need to visit the Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, which is one of the most civilized countries that fell to the sword of the Islamists. While you are there, see for yourself how Iran is quivering under the stone-age rules of Sharia. Attend a public hanging, not an uncommon event.

The man’s crime, you may ask?

Homosexuality, you are told.

Try hoisting a poster demanding gay rights and see what happens. If you do, you run the risk of being hanged right there and then as another homosexual. The seriously “gay-lothin’” are the Islamists. They are the very same people who are busily laying the groundwork to perform similar barbaric spectacles in your cities and towns before very long. That’s your future as more and more Islamists invade your countries and supplant human rights with Islamic Sharia.

Although I wish you the best of luck, I fear that this time around America can’t help you. You are on your own. Say whatever you like about America, while your voice is not yet stilled. Regrettably, your slurs about America seem like the last words of an ungrateful doomed people.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at Amil Imani

Quran: The Paradox Within

By: Khalil Fariel

This is the Book (the quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (pious) [Quran. Chapter 2 Verse 2]

Starting off with verses of Quran, I have a definite contention here that is challenging the authenticity of Quran as god’s uncorrupted book.

Quran being an almighty god’s book and nothing more or less than it is the common Muslim belief, so anything added in it from an outside source will be disproving its authenticity as god’s unalterable writ. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam; was getting revelations from his lord and what Quran about is the sum total of words he obtained through divine route.

Belief goes thus and my contention is against it. There are later additions in Quran that can not be attributed to Muhammad, who is said to have been at the receiving end of revelations. I will prove it from within the perimeters of Quran alone not sourcing anything extraneous.

Before embarking the topic, it is necessary to have a precise understanding of what made Quran we have today a possibility or reality. In absence of such awareness, it is going to be tough to grasp how the verses above and necessarily many other verses of Quran are way erroneous and self refuting. So, let us get into the making of Quran first in brief.

How does or how can one view Quran as of a liberal perspective? Theologically speaking, Quran is the holy book of Muslims to which they attribute divinity. It was not made or slowed down in a single night. As of the fundamental outlook of Muslims, Quran was revealed to Muhammad by god via Gabriel as revelations stage by stage. It took 23 or more years for god of Islam to complete the process of revealing his words. So to be succinct, I would say the context of Quran is the last 23 or more years of Muhammad’s life. It never was a book that one could or did write within a single night.

Moreover, there was not a Quran (as we have today) at the time of Islam’s prophet. Or it was not possible to codify alleged words of an “almighty” into one single book during the time of Muhammad for the reason god continued revealing verses after verses. Muslims argue, the words of god as they are revealed to the prophet had been written down at the same time of revelation in then available means. I am not going to either accept or refute this. Fact however is; a single copy of Quran was not available for reference during the time of prophet. The revelations were written down but they never had been unified into being a single book. That is why we see the first and last revealed verses are not sequenced in Quran. The book is an entirety of various verses amalgamated but chaotically. Thence, what we have today A to Z of Quran is a later totaling that did not have the consent of the man to whom the verses were said to have revealed.

Now, Just go through the verses of Quran I quoted to start this article. It is denotative of a paradox within the Quran: If Quran was not in existence (as we have now) during the time of Prophet Muhammad, how could it be possible for god to refer Quran as a book? These verses are not the sole self referral a reader will go through while examining this book. There are a lot more to add to this and quite interestingly, these statements frilled with challenges are also considered to be god’s words. See such a challenge below:

Say: “If the mankind and the djinns were together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” [Quran: Chapter 17 Verse: 88]

God challenges humankind (and djinns) to produce a Quran. I stress on the word Quran because god is demanding a discomfiting task. If these verses were the last words of god to his beloved prophet, then the claim will have been a little pertinent though not entirely appropriate. According to Mufassirs (Quran interpreters) the last revelation Muhammad had from god is not the above verses, connoting god’s challenge is nonsensical. He should not have made such a challenge until he dispatched his last revelation, or should have waited for his words to get lodged into a single book. And again, this challenge should have been an addendum of Quran not a part of it.

So, my contention is these self referrals and challenges find in Quran are obviously later additions to Quran made by the compilers of it. If I am wrong here, that only results in more reasons to believe Allah was being foolhardy to discharge such and such in quite unbefitting junctures.

Now, for the purpose of reinforcing my contention, I will bring out the verse I quoted earlier again here to scrutinize so a conclusion will be made possible.

We see as early as in the second chapter of Quran:

This is the Book (the quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (pious) [Chapter 2 Verse 2]

Focus on the verses: what is this book referred here by god? Over again, these verses are not the closing remarks of Quran. They have been revealed to Muhammad much earlier and even after obtaining them from his god, Muhammad got blessed with many more revelations. Yet god speaks of a book that is undoubtedly the guidance for pious believers. Which book? There has not been a book yet, but only fragments that are waiting to get accumulated into one..!

There is more to follow:

When I first issued this in FFI forum, it led to heated debates. Arguments against the contention have been: in verses 2:2 God is not referring a book rather it is of what he managed to reveal till then. Hardly has it held water, because verses 2:2 mention a book that serves as guidance to the whole of pious faithful. If God only managed to reveal few but not all at that time, those readily available will seldom serve as true guidance to the pious, because Quran as a whole is what makes absolute guidance, not few of it. To make the guidance for the whole of pious believers, god should reveal the whole of what he wants to reveal, but this particular declaration of Quran’s dignified status comes much earlier. There is no good reason to believe god was just pointing to few verses that he revealed. God had more to say, and he did say more after revealing those verses.

After all, Allah- the god of Muslims is definitely entitled to proclaim of his work but not before the work is done. If he needs such a long time (23 years) to finish off his work, he can not pop up in the middle with bizarre claims and challenges regarding to it. Let the work be done then discharge whatever he wants to acclaim, but god did not follow this logical route. Instead he went for the erroneous alternative to be too premature to release claims on something that has yet to be finished.

How apposite it could be for god to act so prematurely? He is dispatching his revelations to a seventh century Arab in stages and as early in a stage he releases statements as his own on the very work under process; insisting they are too considered to be the part of his divine writ..!

Is it because Allah is irrationally petulant?

In conclusion: The verses find in Quran referring to itself as Quran or divine writ are not the words god revealed to Muhammad who was at the receiving end. Again, the challenge of “to produce a Quran similar to Quran” too should be considered as not exactly god’s own. Quran itself or the “making of Quran in stages as it is stated in it” is very much evidentiary to this conclusion.

Who’s the Bigger Threat to America: The Moderate Muslims or the Honest Jihadist

By: Amil Imani

Humanity has suffered horrific wars in the past. Yet, the present multi-form and multi-front war waged by Islamists has the potential of inflicting more suffering and destroying more lives than ever before. Ruthless Islamic forces are advancing rapidly in their conquests while those of freedom are acquiescing and retreating. Before long, Islamism is poised to achieve its Allah-mandated goal of cleansing the earth of all non-Muslims. Any and all means and weapons are to be enlisted in the service of this final holy war that aims to establish the Islamic Ummeh.

Is “Moderate Islam” an illusion? Moderate Islam is a wedge that will jam open the door to Jihad. The great majority of Muslims are not adherents of the radical line. Yet, because the Islamists wage their war under the name of Islam, they receive immense direct and indirect support from the rank-and-file ordinary Muslims. It is this support of moderate Muslims that keeps the Jihadists alive. And it is the Jihadists who intend to show no mercy to any and all who do not share their theology, be they Muslims or not.

For the record, all Muslims, moderates, radicals, Shiite, Sunnis and other sects and sub-sects of Islam are in unanimous agreement that the Quran is the word of “Allah.” All Muslims are also in agreement that “Allah” spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Allah declares, “The book is not to be doubted.”

To be a loyal and faithful Muslim, one must adhere to and perform many rituals, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadiths/Sunna, every waking moment of his entire life. Disobeying these rituals does not make one a moderate Muslim, but rather it would make him a non-Muslim, facing an uncertain future.

[They who deny the Quran]: “They have incurred Allah’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers…” Quran 2:89

“If you doubt what We have revealed to Our servant, produce one chapter comparable to it. Call upon your idols to assist you, if what you say be true. But if you fail (as you are sure to fail) then guard yourselves against the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers. Quran 2:23-5

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Quran 9:73

“That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers” Quran (5:69).

The jihadists have searched the scripture and have selectively chosen those statements and precedents that they could use to legitimize their violent and primitive agenda. The Jihadists, for instance, claim that the Quran itself urges them to make jihad, “jahedoo fee sabeil-u-llah,” (make jihad for the cause of Allah.) The word “jihad” has at least two vastly different meanings. It means exertion. It also stands for making war, and it is the latter that the jihadists invoke as their mandate.

While the so-called moderate Muslims are generally silent, either out of fear, lack of organization, or apathy, the Islamists work around the clock and around the world to further their agenda. Hardly a week passes without a Grand Mufti or an Ayatollah issuing pronouncements in support of radical Islam. The rank-and-file Islamist clergy, for their part, transmit these fatwas and edicts to their flocks in mosques and hammer them into the minds of impressionable children in madressehs. Through this grassroots process, radical Islam is recruiting greater and greater numbers of adherents. On the one hand, the Islamists engage in acts of violence to disrupt the functioning of societies, while on the other they cleverly exploit the freedom they enjoy in non-Islamic lands to subvert them from within.

Issuing death threats and finishing the job are part of the modus operandi of the Islamists who disagree with them. It is not surprising that Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” received a fatwa because it appeared to mock Muhammad.

The Iranian historian, Ahmad Kasravi, on March 11, 1946, while being tried on charges of “slander against Islam,” was shot to death along with one of his asssitants in open court in Tehran by followers of Navvab Safavi, a Shi’a extremist cleric who had founded a terrorist organization called the Fadayan-e Islam (literally Devotees of Islam).

The Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed because one of his books was thought to be sacrilegious. And when the Arab scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet, he was injured after being thrown from a second- story window by his students at the University of Nablus in the West Bank. Even many broad-minded liberal Muslims become upset when the historical veracity and authenticity of the Quran is questioned.

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed November 2, 2004, by a 26-year-old extremist Muslim of Dutch-Moroccan descent for creating a 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies. The voices of the moderate Muslims have again been effectively silenced.

When Anwar-as-Sadat signed the peace agreement with Israel in 1979; four assassins from the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him in September, 1981.

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. “—Muslim Brotherhood

“During the Muslim Brothers’ seventy-plus years of existence, there have been cycles of growth, followed by divisions into factions, including clandestine financial networks, and violent jihad groups, such as al-Jihad and al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya in Egypt, HAMAS in Palestine and mujahideen and Al-Qaida groups in Afghanistan.”

The mainstream American media continues to indulge in the fantasy that “radical Islam” can be reformed by everybody realizing that we are at war with this minority of devils. They are Islam revisionists because they think all the “bad stuff” in the Quran was inserted there after Muhammad’s death. Naturally, they are vague on this point, as to precisely which suras were ex-post.

Presently, fanatical Islam is lashing out with mad fury before its own final demise. The “infidel” world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed.

Unfortunately, even some Islam-realists fall short. When they are put in front of the camera, they refuse to acknowledge that it is Islam that is the source of evil, so they resort to a redundant phrase of how “moderates” can reclaim the faith. The whole thing is truly bizarre. I have yet to hear, whenever a moderate Muslim is asked about the true nature of Islam, ‘Hold on here! I do not agree with your revisionist thinking. I am an Islam-realist. We believe Islam is in and of itself a religion of evil, and I declare it, not from the view of a particular religious dogma, but from a humanistic and common sense definition of morality, not because of what some belief was inserted into the Quran but because of:

1_What Muhammad said that remains unabrogated.

2_What Muhammad did (and said while he was doing it).

3_What Muhammad did not say or command or support that is good.

4_ What Muslim consensus has been for every century afterwards.

5_What the governing code of Muslim terrorists is today.’

Islam is, therefore, in total, universally, and innately evil. It actively encourages some of the most debased, inhumane treatment of people known to man, regardless of which dogma you compare it to (religious or secular).

While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. My beliefs have matured over the years. I now think that God has a set of values that are absolutely right and good, rebellion against which is wrong (sinful), and about which the commitment to deceive others is evil, as is the commitment to deny the existence of anything absolutely good or bad.

I believe communism is an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy that is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man. To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play…that there is no God. But Satan works in multiple theaters simultaneously. I believe Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play. Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire that men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism.

It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam…”submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Both atheism/materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same. Fascism is fascism.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and an American devout Muslim wrote in an article (Islamism, not Islam is the Problem) : “Most should understand that strategically, identifying ‘Islam as the problem,’ immediately alienates upwards of one quarter of the world’s population and dismisses our most powerful weapon against the militant Islamists—the mantle of religion and the pulpit of moderate Muslims who can retake our faith from the Islamists.”

Well, of course it does. Shaming the devil incites the devil, calling the USSR an “evil empire” did not win Ronald Reagan points for diplomacy, but nonetheless, it was an evil empire. Calling Nazis evil did not help endear the Germans to the Americans either, but they were slaughtering the Poles down to the last child. This is not a reason to be restrained in advocating the removal of evil.

Dr. Jasser asserts: “The process of theological renewal and interpretation in the light of modern day thought—ijtihad—as it is known in Islam is in many ways hundreds of years behind Western enlightenment today arrested around the 15th century. This process can either be facilitated by non-Muslims or hindered by the belief that it is impossible.”

This author betrays any knowledge of western enlightenment and its causes. He also presupposes a process of change that simply does not exist in the scripture of Islam, as defined in the Qur’anic codex. In short, he’s making this all up. Islam is a fully hardened religion because that is how Muhammad configured it. You can’t build an empire from slaughter and violence by making your ethics variable. Would you now have us believe you think Muhammad was a fool?

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, “the majority voices in the middle, the non-Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslims, who understand the problem, have to be on the frontlines. They cannot be on the frontlines in an ideological battle being waged that demonizes the morality of the faith of Islam and its founder, the Prophet Mohammed.”

Opponents of Islamism demonize Islam with Muhammad’s own words and deeds. You cannot be a serial murderer and complain that it is unfair for the DA to constantly harp about all those people you killed!

He continues: “We cannot win this war only on the battlefield.”

Yes, but tell that to the Viennese who in 1632 defeated the marauding Muslims to save Christian Europe from slaughter and annihilation. Explain that to the Sudanese Christians of 2007. How about the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Does anyone know where all the Christians and Hindus in Pakistan went? Ask the French and Spanish how Charlemagne and Castile unceremoniously removed the Moors from Spain and France. And what happened in 1948, the day Israel was legally declared a nation? Oh, the battlefield is an ugly place, but it seems to have been the only way militant Islam has been repulsed. Most loving Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, I have news for you too, love does not conquer Islam.

Dr. Jasser: “In debate, it can become easy to lose the focus of the argument when resorting to criticism based on identity rather than on ideology. For example, so many Islamists locally and nationally resort to attempting to demonize me as an individual rather than deal with my anti-Islamist ideas as a Muslim and as an American. Our Islamist enemy dreams about uniting all Muslims under one nation—the transnational Muslim ummah.”

This is exactly as Muhammad desired: “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” Quran 8.012

Also, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them, but Allah wants Islam to prevail through war and intimidation).

4:162b Muhammad said, “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya.” ["Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for the protection of the Islamic government.]

4:196 Mohammad said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”

Dr. Jasser: “But academically, when dealing with the faith of one-quarter of the world, and with its history, a central morality of individual Islam (the personal character of most Muslims) has generally demonstrated synergy with Judaism and Christianity.”

Synergy? You mean like this: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” Quran 5.051

From Muhammad the Messenger of Allâh to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia): “Peace be upon him who follows the Guidance. I am grateful to Allah, there is no god but Him, and I bear witness that Jesus son of Mary was no more than a spirit created by Him, and His word («Be!» – and he was) which He bestowed on Mary, the Virgin, the good, the pure, so that she conceived Jesus. Allah created Him as He created Adam by His Hand. I call you to worship Allah Alone, and not to associate any partner with Him and (I call you) to His obedience and to follow me and to believe in that which was revealed to me, for I am the Messenger of Allah. I invite you and your men to Allah, the Exalted. I bear witness that I have communicated my message. I invite you to listen and accept my advice. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance.”

Christ made it a particular point of foundation 600 years before Muhammad when he said, “love thy enemy”… in return 600 years later, Muhammad said:

“O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom.” Quran 2.178

When Christ specifically said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone; forgive as my father has forgiven you.” Doesn’t sound too “synergistic” to me, dear Doctor. Or how about this: “Thou shalt not murder.” When Muhammad said: “Fight (in wars of aggression) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden (that) which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.” Quran 9:29

But before we set aside the emotionally-exciting comparison notion to Hitler, let’s compare which doctrine is the more instructive to violence and oppression, Nazi-ism or Islam. And in conducting a rational inspection, what we find is not whether Islam should be compared to Hitler, but that Hitler never got out of the minor Leagues, whereas Islam is truly a major League…all-star team of depravity.

Here’s Jihad’s legacy since the very early days of Medina, when the prophet of Islam went on an eternal rampage of bloodlust throughout the world, and based his religion on the utter destruction of every other belief system through force and fraud:

“Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.” — Jamie Glazov, 2007

Let’s see.

I have asserted in the past there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. This truth is not escaping intellectual blogs because politically correct media cannot bring themselves to rank religions or admit that some things are truly good or bad. They do not want to offend their liberal or Islamic audiences. But in this great argument, they are way behind the curve. The people are anxious for the truth. The people must know the truth so that they can defend themselves against a deadly and powerful adversary.

I believe this is the most important argument facing us right now, but as long as fence-sitters feel capable of condemning “all forms of extremism” unchecked, most people will not take sides. Only when it is clear that (whether or not people will admit it overtly) Islam is unjust and dangerous. Will we get support for a number of tough measures that should send Islam back to its cage where it belongs?

A word of caution, never rely on the source of moderates’ logic. Muhammad was evicted from Mecca in a much more polite and humane way than Muslims have ever treated Christian, Hindus, Buddhists, Persians or pagans. He was threatened with death if he did not leave, for it was he who mocked and disrespected the pagan Meccan religion. 21st century Muslims would cut your throat for a fraction of Muhammad’s offenses, apparently belying the notion that people were generally less civilized in the 7th century. So off he went to Medina, holding a grudge that would be eventually settled in Meccan enslavement and slaughter. It was in Medina, where Muhammad positioned himself between two rivals, warring families to establish himself as ruler.

From that point on, it was as if he had sold his soul to the devil. There were no Wahhabists telling Muhammad to order mafia style hits on poets and women who parodied him. Muhammad went from raiding caravans to creating an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian warrior culture that was sanctioned by Allah. It was a system in which you either joined up to fight the next city-state, or you were slaughtered, your wife raped, and your children and women sold into slavery. If you enlisted into this dark cult, which you did by uttering a simple chant “there is no other god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet,” you were entitled to steal, rape, and enslave in like manner to what happened to your village, as long as you gave 20% of your booty to Muhammad for governance and personal wealth. It was a bloody Ponzi scheme that even Hitler could not have conceived of. None of this can be denied, as it is codified (probably by Muhammad’s eunuchs since in all probability he was illiterate).

It is on this ethical and political paradigm that some revisionists have invented a brave new world of lies upon which to rest their revisionist insanity. Some revisionists claim it is just as likely as not that “orthodoxy” does not exist in Islam. Does this sound like the mind of a scholar? Since the definition of “orthodoxy” is: “approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology,” he is literally saying Islam as a doctrine has no meaning whatsoever, since nobody has figured out what it means. I’ll leave it to more creative intellectuals to come up with an “orthodox” description of that kind of nihilistic thinking.

Here’s what Muhammad said about the “rigidity”. “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? Also translated as: Whatever divine communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We (without fail) bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” Quran 2.106

Could this mean that the angel of Allah (ostensibly Gabriel) was delivering divine revelation to Muhammad? A revelation such as, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” Quran 5.051,

The only way in which this and each former or subsequent message could be changed or abandoned is if it was specifically replaced with another verse that contradicted it…then the former would be modified or removed from ORTHODOXY! This is how all Muslims understand the principle of abrogation, and it is the only way to comprehend Islam as a coherent theology. Since everybody understands this, one has to wonder if some revisionists are either wholly unqualified to be discussing the doctrine or are purposely deceiving the reader. I’ll tell you what, let’s get real Muslim clerics (as opposed to apologists pretending to understand Islamic Law) to see if they agree with Stephen Schwartz And if they don’t agree with him, I’d expect that we should ask him to henceforth study other “peaceful” religions, perhaps Aztec culture.

Unfortunately for Mr. Schwartz, the foundational principles of Islam are not contained in “Aqida al-Tahawiyya”. They are codified within the Quran and Hadith. This is why Stephen Schwartz failed to invite the reader to browse the Quran, available here: And while Mr. Schwartz parses these texts (like WC Fields, when asked why he of all people was reading the Bible, he replied, “looking for loopholes”—you provide the accent), such as taking the words of the Quran as loose allegories and recommendations, or scripture applicable only to limited time spans, Muhammad had already anticipated such apostasy, when he said:

“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.” Quran 3.007

Muhammad was referring to the scripture he was delivering to the people, which he referred to as “the discrimination”, or the way to determine what prior scripture was truth and what was false, and in both this and the previous verse mentioned, he was condemning Jews and Christians for what he felt was their aptitude for verse-shopping (a valid criticism by the way) and mis-applying revelations. But what Muhammad did was to shut down any argument over what is being said for all time. If Muhammad told the tribal men to stone unchaste women to death, he damn well meant it. Even as Jesus, some 650 years prior in a book well established all over Africa and the Arabian Peninsula said…nobody may stone an unchaste woman to death unless he is without sin himself…period. So we have Schwartz’s opinion, or we have Muhammad’s clear commandments about how to accept orthodoxy. Hmmm. I don’t know. Sorry, Mr. Schwartz, I’m going with Muhammad on this one…you remember him? Or is he left out of the “Aqida al-Tahawiyya” too?

Stephen Schwartz: “As to the rejection of “moderate” as “impl[ying] that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent,” Asma Khalid provides no evidence for this absurd assertion, which exists exclusively in the minds of people seeking to combat moderation. Moderate Muslims oppose the radicalism of the Saudi-financed Wahhabis and the extreme Shias because these developments are destructive of Islamic tradition. Moderate Muslims argue over aspects of the Islam existing from Morocco to Malaysia and from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Botswana, and may seek progressive changes in aspects of the faith. But they, not the “orthodox,” represent the majority of believers, and, with some exceptions, do not fight against classical Islam.”

“Asma Khalid goes on to complain that ‘To be a ‘moderate’ Muslim is to be a ‘good,’ malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.’ Does this mean that an “orthodox” Muslim should be “bad” – again in the manner of some African American protest — and refuse to adjust to the customs of the West, if that is where one lives? Or seek to preserve an intransigent Islamism in the Muslim world?”

“Such views would be profoundly un-Islamic. Islam is a religion and enjoins doing good.”

But it is the definition of “good” that is what we need to understand, Mr. Schwarz. Don’t make me quote Bill Clinton on definitions. Tell me how the following clear, unabrogated commandments can be considered “good” by an impartial witness?

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.’” Quran 8.012. Allah who we are told is all-knowing, all-wise, most compassionate, and omnipotent, commands the Muslim to put Allah’s terror into effect by cutting off the fingertips of the Nonbeliever! What should ring in your ears forever is the promise “I will instill terror” and asking Muslims to commit acts so brutal as to be the agents of Allah’s terror mentality.

“Thus (will it be said): ‘Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.’” Quran 8.014

“O ye who believe! When ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.” Quran 8.015

“If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!” Quran 8.016

The above three suras are in uninterrupted succession, meaning Allah is declaring that the way he will punish the unbelievers for “striving against”…meaning those resisting his onslaught. His punishment is effected by the faithful Muslim taking the battlefield. He exclaimed these things as a rallying charge to his storm troopers who were attacking innocent villages! And this is how history records that within 70 years of his death, the Muslim hordes conquered all of the Middle East and Africa, as well as Spain! Is this all just a coincidence? Did all these nations attack Islam and lose? Or is Stephen Schwarz being consistently foolish in his interpretation of Islamic doctrine?

How about this one?

“Against them (the unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.” Quran 8.060

Or these two concurrent verses:

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.” Quran 4.015 Here’s how they really feel about women’s rights. Starve the little harlots to death. Has this passage been abrogated? And if so (and if not) how can the Quran be divine?

“If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” Quran 4.016

These two verses above prove a different system of justice for men as opposed to women.

Islam can’t be good, for crying out loud! This is evil we’re looking at.

Stephen Schwartz: “Why would the good conduct of Muslims be wrong because, by opposing violence, they elicit the approval of Westerners? Good is good, and nothing else, in all religions, promotion of peace, mutual respect for one’s neighbor, and personal dignity.”

Respect? You mean like these holy words?

“Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Quran 4.056

Hadith: 4:73 Muhammad said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 48: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The example of a Mujahid in Allah’s Cause– and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause—-is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair.”

How tolerant and respectful are your standards, Mr. Schwartz?

Here’s a little news flash for you:

…the Imam of the Mosque of Mecca in Saudi-Arabia called Jews “pigs and monkeys”. Even though Islam no longer has a caliph — a figure of eminence like the Catholic Pope — the imam of the mosque of Mecca would seem to come close. After calling Jews “pigs and monkeys”, he took after the West in general: “Their course is supported by the advocates of credit and worshippers of the Cross, as well as by those who are infatuated with them and influenced by their rotten ideas and poisonous culture among the advocates of secularism and Westernization. News article by John Gibson – June 4, 2002.

But where did the Imam get such an idea to insult an entire group of people? Could it be this sweet little thought?

“Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this (referring to the previous verses), as judged by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (Jews), those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’” Quran 5.060.

And this from a religion that erupts in a worldwide pretense of vicious violence when one Dane publishes one cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb on his head. Mr. Shwartz, that is sickening.

Mr. Schwartz: “Further, traditional Islam calls on the Muslim immigrant to a non-Muslim land to accept the customs of the country to the degree they do not directly conflict with Islam — and no country in the world either bans the practice of the Muslim religion, or compels people to drink alcohol or eat pork. From the legitimate Islamic viewpoint, Muslims are required to show a positive example of themselves and of the faith if immigrating to a non-Muslim country.”

Oh, and I might add they’re doing an exemplary job of showing their true colors. If there are so many moderate Muslims out there, why do we need a man named Stephen Schwartz to explain their perfect record of moderation to us? One million French Renault owners want to know!

Mr. Schwartz: “Continuing with her anti-moderate polemic, Khalid states, “True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion’s tenets.” It thus becomes clear that Khalid has no conception of basic Islamic beliefs.”

Khalid is perfectly correct on this point. And as such, an extremist with respect to orthodoxy would be Mr. Schwartz, who masquerades as a “moderate”, a term which represents a nonsensical, chimerical absurdity. Mr. Schwartz is confused, again.

Mr. Schwartz: “No Muslim except a radical speaks of “true” Islam, because the judgment as to whose Islam is “true” was always believed to rest with God, not men.”

See the above. The Quran was delivered according to the man who wrote it (as opposed to the authority who presumes to speak for all of Islam, (Mr. Stephen Schwartz) as a way for men, humans, people, mankind to know what is true and what is false. It doesn’t sound like a group therapy session here. It’s black and white. And that is exactly what Islam is.

Mr. Schwartz: “This is why, in its classic period, Islam fostered pluralistic debate and discouraged accusations of heresy. In two of the best-known hadith or oral comments, the Prophet Muhammad himself compared the illumination of Muslim scholars to the heavenly bodies in the night sky. He said, “The simile of the scholars of knowledge on the earth is the stars in the sky by which one is guided in the darkness of the land and the sea.” He also said, “my Companions are equivalent to the stars in the sky; whichever of them you point to, you will be guided, and the differences among my Companions are a mercy to you.”

Mr. Schwartz: “In addition, the call for “piety” in Islam represents a non-mainstream conception. Since the time of the 11th-12th century Islamic thinker, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, considered the greatest Muslim theologian after Muhammad, Muslims have recognized that intentions — the beliefs of the heart — are superior to punctilious observance of religious rituals. Asma Khalid demands to be called “orthodox,” not “moderate,” and such a message is complacently conveyed to the Western public by mainstream media like The Christian Science Monitor, but the arguments presented in her anti-moderate op-ed are those of a fundamentalist, not of a traditional Muslim.”

Why is Schwartz constantly avoiding quoting Muhammad, you know the man who invented Islam?! Is he trying to avoid something…something terrible, dark and disgusting? He strains himself.

Mr. Schwartz: “Deterioration of Muslim discourse is further visible when Asma Khalid writes “The public relations drive for ‘moderate Islam’ is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike.” Islamic extremists are merely “so-called”? Does this mean they do not exist? Khalid blares on, repeating her tortured and illogical claim that moderate Islam “indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent.” These exercises in mental acrobatics become, eventually, tedious. How could distinguishing the category of moderates within a religion label the entire faith?”

If you tire of acrobatics, Mr. Schwartz, take off your leotards and begin to define terms. Stop distorting words and start quoting the long list of current and past Islamists who would completely disown your metaphorical burning of the entire Quran in a quest to purify the religion of hate.

Mr. Schwartz: “Khalid wants it both ways, suddenly announcing, “The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the ‘middle way’ is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. “Here we proceed from truth straight to disinformation. It is quite accurate that Qur’an defines Islam as seeking moderation. Why then, attempt to disavow the term “moderate”? But the infamous “Radical Middle Way ” project, which was financed by the British government, consisted of a roadshow in which “ex-radicals” and other fundamentalists attempted to ameliorate extremism among young Muslims. A laudable goal – but why define it in terms of a self-contradictory title like the “Radical Middle?”

Whose semantical pretzel is worse? Yours for denying every unabrogated verse in the Quran and quoting other prophets over Muhammad, while you define “good” as “good”, or Khalid? The term hypocrisy comes to my mind, but that’s just my own mental gymnastics.

Mr. Schwartz: “Asma Khalid, also an exhibitionistic ally, describes herself as “hijab,” i.e. a woman who covers her head. But hijab is a practice among those who go out in public, not a matter for boasting about in print. Ideas, including Islamic ideas, should not he defined by the garments around the skull, but by the contents of the mind.”

Actually to deny this notion is to once again eradicate what is written in the Quran. Schwartz is now appointing himself arbiter over what is and is not official Islam. Can you say megalomania?

Please go back and paste these pages into your rather abridged version of the Quran, Sir. And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions and do not display their adornment except what appears thereof:

a- And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms.

b- And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or guileless male servants,

c- or the children who know not women’s nakedness. And let them not strike their feet so that the adornment that they hide may be known. And turn to Allah all, O believers, so that you may be successful. Qur’an 24:31

The head-covering required by Islamic law conceals the arms, the neck and the bosom, as also the ornaments worn in the ears or on the neck or over the bosom.

Mr. Schwartz: “Khalid concludes with an emotional endorsement of Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Bayyah, a Mauritanian participant in the “Radical Middle Way “hoax alongside alleged “moderates” like the well-known Tariq Ramadan and the ultra-extreme speechifier-turned-”Sufi” Hamza Yusuf Hanson. Ibn Bayyah is Mauritanian by origin, but now teaches in Saudi Arabia, the bastion of Wahhabi bigotry, enthusiasm for Al-Qaida, and incitement to terror in neighboring Iraq. Concluding a maudlin evocation of the sheikh, Asma Khalid declares, “The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.” Still, to emphasize, what of the many respected Muslim scholars, from North Africa to Indonesia, who choose that title for themselves?”

Mr. Schwartz: Since Asma Khalid, with her chatter about “orthodoxy” and “piety,” and her self-advertising hijab, turned to the Mauritanian-born Ibn Bayyah for guidance, let me conclude by citing Tierno Bakar, one of the greatest of the West African Sufis, and born in 20th century Mali:

“The conduct of which I most disapprove and for which I have the most pity is that of the ridiculous hypocrite. Such are those individuals who, with turbans carefully wound eight times around their heads, and a miniature copy of Qur’an in a fine case around their necks, walk with unnecessary dependence on the shoulder of a disciple and wave a cane that appears more like a fetish than a pilgrim’s staff. Such a person pronounces the declaration of faith with more noise than fervor, and preaches with an ardor motivated by nothing so much as immediate attention. Such an individual corrupts the spirit and perverts the heart. He is a thousand times worse than the murderer who only kills the body.”

Mr. Schwartz: “Haters of Islamic moderation may not slay Muslims or non-Muslims physically, but they may kill the soul of a great world religion.”

Lying apologists who are either hideously ignorant or desperately deceitful, are killing everyone everywhere, as Islam continues the perpetual world war it started when Muhammad felt the need to seek revenge and satisfy his lust for blood.

“According to the Historian al-Baladhuri, writing only 200 years after Muhammad, the prophet said: “Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God’s Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom.”

I have a suggestion for people like Stephen Schwartz: Open the Quran and take a black permanent marker and remove all the passages you believe are not part of the “good” that is Islam…like the ones quoted above, and hundreds more like it. Then show your handiwork to the average Muslim in Dearborn, Michigan and see what kind of consensus you receive. You’ll want to update your legal papers before attempting this.

Fascism is exactly what Political and religious Islam was crafted to be. It is no coincidence that Islam has historically been so cozy with the fascist left.

This gentleman is either a true-believing ignoramus or a plant…a stalking horse set out to distract vapid Americans about the true dangers of mainstream Islam. Anyone who presumes Islam is benign and that terrorist Jihadists are “radicals” can never be written off as a “healer”, a mere “secularist”, or even just a naive gentleman. He cannot presume to be intelligent, learned, and worldly and also be so blind without the rest of us treating him with a good measure of suspicion.

I also nominate someone to slam shut the ridiculous argument that “true Islam” was corrupted by a doctored strain of Islam that altered scripture after Muhammad’s death…that true Islam was uplifting and peaceful, but what we see today was corrupted. If it was originally peaceful, someone forgot to mention it to Muhammad, who was, as the historical record shows, a bloodthirsty tyrant. His followers have never been peaceful.

In 1992, Islamic assassins had gunned down our good and brave friend Farag Foda, a professor and columnist, a human-rights activist, and an outspoken critic of the Islamic militants. The murder had shocked Cairo and terrified intellectuals. Egypt’s most popular preacher, Abdel Hamid Kishk, a blind sheikh constantly attacked both the government and its official religious establishment. Kishk had been telling his audience that Muslims who entered paradise would enjoy eternal erections and the company of young boys draped in earrings and necklaces. Some of the ulama, the religious scholars at al-Azhar University, the governments seat of Islamic learning, had disagreed. Yes, they said, men in paradise would have erections, but merely protracted, not perpetual. Other experts disputed the possibility of pederasty in paradise.

“Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?” [Farag] Foda asked in a column in October magazine. “The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer, while Muslim scholars,” he wrote in sadness and pain, “were worried about sex in paradise.”… He was killed.

Dear Iranians: Have the Courage to Say No to Islam

Nearly 1400 years ago, a group of nomads from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known to the history of mankind. With that, they injected their Islamic virus into the veins of their victim: the Iranian people.

Isn’t it time for the Iranians, in a show of solidarity, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the civilized free people of the world to defeat this virulent disease of Islam? In most other lands conquered by Islam, the conquered peoples have lost their identity and heritage and embraced the ways of their new rulers, under an “Arab” identity. Conversely, in Iran a band of indigenous victims, “infected” by Islam, has mindlessly turned on their Iranian countrymen and tried to rob them of their remaining ancient heritage. It is exactly this savage minority that has established an oppressive tyrannical rule and wields power against the Iranian people. Yet even under the rule of Islamofascism, the overwhelming majority of Iranians of various ethnicities and religions remain faithful to their ancient creed – a creed that was given to the world by Zoroaster.

The twenty-first century presents great challenges and opportunities that demand new ways of thinking and behaving. The doctrine of Islam may have been appropriate for the desert dwellers of Arabia some 1400 years ago, for the very people stigmatized in Islamic literature as “Jahil” (ignoramus). But it is dysfunctional today, to say the least. As a matter of fact, Islam went astray from the very beginning and inflicted a great deal of suffering on both its followers as well as those who resisted its advance.

All pre-Islamic achievements that may strengthen the attraction on the part of the Iranian populace are de-emphasized and sometimes even falsely attributed to Islam, to prevent the average Iranian and the world at large from finding out the historical truths about the destruction and retardation Islam has brought to the region. Islam continues to take credit for the arts and sciences produced by the peoples it has conquered — and they were mostly Iranians, Egyptians, Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Babylonians.
Keep in mind that Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah –the Qur’an– the same charter that they held in one hand while slashing the throats of millions of innocent Iranians and yelling joyously “Allah is the greatest” the whole time.

Dear Iranians, I am compelled to write this today and the words just stream through me without any outline or preconceptions. I am talking about this today, partly because it is timely, partly because it is good to know what Islam has done to our precious culture. Some things did not have to turn out as they did. Truth and provocative ideas ought to be welcomed by all of us. “A Slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts” said Euripides. Yet provocative ideas by themselves may not be enough. Actions are needed to correct the past mistakes and that starts with you.

Dear Iranians, as long as you remain a “Muslim” (as you are by default and not by choice), you will remain enslaved by a violent foreign creed and culture. You are unable to think for yourselves and break free. As long as you remain Muslim, you cannot possibly be called an Iranian. Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence, your language, your dialect, or even your genetic makeup or race. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians by any definition, except by virtue of an identity card. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive and demeaning ideology, Islam.

The detoxification of Islam must start with you. It is you who should pick up the flag of freedom and march in the streets and defend your ancestors who were brutally murdered by the hands of the Arab invaders and forced you to become like them.

Remember, life is precious. It is to be protected, nurtured and celebrated. Humankind is moving, perhaps at a glacier pace, toward reconciliation, ever-expanding inclusiveness without any group or ideology imposing itself on others. Any attempt against this trend of unity in diversity is doomed to failure, as exemplified by the demise of fascism and communism. The charter of Islam, the Quran, for the most part, preaches discrimination, death and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Islam, just like fascism and communism, is a dysfunctional ideology that needs to be abandoned.
Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book, which demands terrorism and was written over 1400 years ago, must serve as the one and only guide for humanity.

Let us remember that the Arabs who sallied out of the deserts of Arabia did not fan out to the outside world with the Quran in one hand and flowers in the other, preaching love and peace from street corner to street corner, aiming to capture the hearts and minds of the people. Islam was forced on every culture it encountered at the point of the sword. The kinder, gentler alternative was death or imposition of the backbreaking “jizyah” (poll tax) levied on those who were spared the sword and allowed to retain their religious beliefs as “infidels”. In spite of paying the heavy jizyah, non-Muslims were consistently treated, at best, as second-class citizens in their own homelands all across the Middle East.

Iran is our beloved motherland. She deserves love and respect from all her children. Iran is not a land of the evil, even though presently it is in its yoke. Persians often take great umbrage at being confused with Arabs. Authors like Robert Kaplan and V. S. Naipaul have documented the Persian antipathy toward the Arabs, all the while espousing the Arab religion enthusiastically.

Dear Iranians, you have a dilemma. You require reconciliation with the self. You are either the children of Cyrus the Great, who was the founding father of Iran and symbolized justice and respect for diversity, or you can claim to be the descendent of a man who was not an exemplary prophet. In other words, you are either a “Seyyed” (itself a laughable farce), which is another word for an Arab “lord”, or you are a magnificent Iranian who believes in the lofty tenets of Good Words, Good Thoughts and Good Deeds. You cannot be both. It is time to reconcile. The choice is yours.

My aspiration for my motherland is to see it freed from the evil that has been visited upon it ever since our people bought into a most depraved version of Islam. Whether people become Baha’is or Zoroastrians or Christians, it should be a free choice by each person. Even if a person insists on remaining Muslim, that is his or her prerogative. Yet, imposing the suffocating intolerant Islam on an entire nation is something that neither I, nor any freethinking person can accept. Our beloved Iran deserves to be a country where, once again, we take pride in being its children instead of the present when we often do all we can to conceal our nation of birth when visiting abroad.

Those of you who are still entrapped in the cult of Muhammad of the 7th century are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in you the traditional respect for diversity. Iran is now a nation whose residents are most rapidly abandoning Islam as they learn the truth about it. It is the fundamental ancient Iranian belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

Islam, with its barbaric exclusionary and primitive Bedouin Arab dogma, overtook Iran and brutally strove to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights and diversity. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians—the virus that transforms the person into a bigot who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things “his” way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit.

The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and more. One and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation and they all have shaped Iran into a unified nation. Iranians are the spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents to his Charter—the first Charter of Human Rights—that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all peoples.

Iranians are ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad, “the Monkey”, on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Just look at the numerous photos showing him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck—a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of the Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the “non-believers” of all stripes. One quick look at his willingness to give away territorial and political rights of Iran is another testament to his “un-Iranian” nature.

This shameless Ahmadinejad and his cronies, the criminal mullahs, are personifications and agents of Ahriman “evil”. Nothing whatsoever is beyond their evil intentions. Keeping themselves in power by devastating our land, heritage and people is a small price that they are more than happy to pay. Shame, eternal shame on them. Iran shall rise again. It shall rise from its ashes. I am certain of that.

We do recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic “software” is deeply engrained in the minds of its victims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic “blueprint of destruction” and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life—that of liberty and progress. However, you must avoid any and all Islamic propaganda and join the forces of liberty and gain your freedom from this dark and alien cult of death. For 1300 years, the Islamists have forced you to choose and celebrate death over life, to cry instead laugh and to mourn instead of dance. The crown jewel of Islam simply does not fit the Persians. It never has and it never will.

Keep in mind that Islam hates the power of the individual. Islam hates the achievements of women. Islam hates progress. Islam hates the religious freedom of others. Islam hates the pre-Islamic heritage of Iran and other nations. Islam hates the light of truth. Islam is against free-will and hates democracy, liberty and justice for all. Islam simply loves to crush and eat you alive. That is what Islam does and that is what Islam is. Are you going to worship that? Just Say no, because you are not a robot, you are a human being.

Now, “praise be to the core of goodness” that binds all of us together as devoted lovers of our ancient heritage of respect and diversity. Our motherland is bleeding under the dark cloaks of the oppressive mullahs. Yet, our people shall overcome the poison that courses in their veins and will choose to turn away from the doctrine of death and destruction to, hopefully, pursue life and construction. All of you hold the key and promise for our homeland’s revival and its complete freedom from the centuries old yoke of the barbaric rule of Islam and its “Sharia”.

The light of freedom must be preserved for humanity. To save the motherland, all Iranians must unite and JUST SAY NO to Islam and SAY YES to liberty.

By: Amil Imani

Since its inception fourteen hundred years ago, Islam has been at war with the people of this planet. Millions of people have been literally butchered with the sword of Islam.

Some may argue that all religions at one point in time have committed crimes against humanity. That may be so, but none of the existing world religions’ foundation has been based upon shedding the blood of its innocent conquered. Islam lives, breathes and grows on blood. Once we take away this red element from Islam, Islam will vanish completely. Islam cannot possibly live in the hearts and minds of its believers. Islam needs to shed the blood of the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. Islam is about world domination. Fear of pain and punishment for non-conformism is part of being a Muslim.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual “violations” and “indiscretions”, as defined and delimited by Islamic Sharia is punishable by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence).

The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s’ women and children into slavery.

“Ali, who is the successor of God on the earth, and known to fight with a double edged sword, ordered the warriors to cut off the heads of the nonbelievers. Zobair assisted him in finishing this job. Ali also ordered the distribution of the captives and their property [i.e. the ‘booty’] among the Muslims, in accord with Sa’ad’s (b. Mu’adh) decision regarding the fate of the defeated Jews [i.e., the Qurayzah]. After the battle [and executions], Ali ordered everyone [of the Muslims] to return home. Sa’ad (b. Mu’adh) who had been very anxious during the battle, was now happy and praised God upon completion of his task. Then [later] they [i.e., the Muslims] celebrated and enjoyed beautiful women.”

Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same.

Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the “Useful Idiots” of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing “imam Khomeini.”

Throughout centuries, Iranians continued to prevent Islam from making inroads into their cultural identity and divesting them of their heritage. Knowing their culture well, they influenced events and paved the way for posterity to turn the tide. From the beginning, three lines of resistance has become distinct: administrative manipulation, political resistance, and intellectual nonconformity.

Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pall over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims.

Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

One must pay attention to how Islamists engage others in discussion. When they don’t like what they hear, they resort to ridicule, accusations and name-calling. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if these people would, for once, were to abandon their primitive mindset and use a civilized method of dialogue?

What are the facts the Islamists dispute? The truth that they don’t like? Well, that’s tough. Truth is often unwelcome. If truth were to spread, it would reveal the true nature of Islam—something that is unacceptable to an Islamic ruling class. Yet, it is light to our feet. We really must be truthful even if it hurts and often it does. Are there any questions about the facts?

1. Muhammad died and did not leave a written will (he was illiterate, that’s understandable). So, his high-ranking disciples began scheming for leadership. The Shias claim that Muhammad verbally indicated that Ali was to lead his Ummah. Well, 90% of the Muslims say, no he did not and the Caliphate system was the way to go.

2. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, Ali was killed by some disgruntled Muslim, for whatever reason. Violence was part and parcel of Islam from the get-go.

3. Then, there was a battle between Yazid’s forces and Hussein, wasn’t there? Hussein and his band of relatives-followers got butchered. Well, friends, that’s the nature of the beast called war.

4. To this day, Shias bloody themselves, their children, even their babies with self-flagellation in a most horrid way in aza dari (mourning) for what happened to Hussein. What good does this do, other than perpetuate a sense of defeatism and fanaticism that mitigates against Iranians freeing themselves from the yoke of the conniving mullahs? In fact Hussein’s decree to murder and enslave the “inferior Iranians” has been recorded in history, but is kept a secret from the average Iranian Muslim—part of the culture of deceit that is built into Islam. Yet, Iranians are told by the mullahs to go out during the month of Ashura and beat themselves over the death of Hussein, their sworn enemy!!!

The long-suffering Iranian people must put the past behind them and use their excellent talents to not only join the advanced world, but lead it. What a shame to remain stuck in this horrid mentality of victimization. Iranians deserve better than being manipulated by a bunch of mullahs who have been having a great ride on the back of the ignorant poor by deceiving the poor and the ignorant with empty promises of all the goodies, promised in the afterlife.

Forget the afterlife and pay attention to the plight of the suffering masses. Stop playing politics with the lives of the people. Those responsible for this sham have no heart and no shame. Let the bad bygones be bygones, and use the marvelous human potential of Iranians to provide, opportunities to better themselves and their families.

The most important step in the direction of emancipation of our people is the establishment of the rule of law — not the barbaric Sharia — to grant all Iranians, male and female, young and old, of any and all beliefs, equal rights.

We Iranians don’t have a dog in this fight. In fact we should rid ourselves of all Islamic stains, Shia, Sunni, or whatever, and with it stop playing victims of one power or another. Playing victim may give psychological relief but doesn’t solve and problems on the ground, and problems on the ground we have aplenty.

Let’s look forward and do something about the sorry plight of the Iranian people today so that future generation can recall this generations of Iranians as trailblazers who had the courage to break from the bleak past and launch a bright future.

Islam:  The Terroist Watch

Author: Amil Imani on Thursday, February 14, 2008 – 01:26 AM

Ronald Kessler has written an extremely important book that discloses the inside story of the War on Terrorism. He takes a complex subject full of long functional names and leads the reader to relatively easy comprehension. He has exposed the incredibly difficult counterterrorism job of protecting this nation from Islamic extremists. This book was very difficult to write but Kessler has humanized the people of the FBI and CIA by telling their personal story as part of the massive efforts they undertook that overhauled our defenses from September 11, 2001 to today. There has not been a successful al Qaeda attack on American soil since 9/11. And these folks are entitled to our praise for their fine work. Along the way, Kessler reveals the distortions and harm that the left leaning media and especially the New York Times and Washington Post have done to the nation’s efforts to protect our citizens.

Mr. Kessler performed the difficult task of providing a documented and readable history of the 7 year period starting in 2000, but he reaches back in history when the circumstances require. There are no footnotes, but the work retains an academic documented quality by providing prolific actual quotes from interviews of the approximately 50 government employees which Kessler interviewed to bring the story together.

Almost fiction like, the author starts the book with a Prologue which brings the reader into the world of counter intelligence as it is today. He displays the immense power and cooperation between agencies that is being brought to bear now. Then he steps back in time and in conjunction with cases in progress involving the infamous names like Khalid Sheik Mohammad, Jose Padilla, Abu Zabaydah and others, he introduces the major stumbling blocks facing the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies that existed from 2001.

A most significant stumbling block in 2001 was the artificial legal “Chinese Wall” in place at each criminal investigative agency to isolate the crime enforcement personnel of the agency from the intelligence personnel. Kessler does a good job of explaining how that procedure came into being. It isn’t simple to explain but he does a good job. An attorney in the FBI Office of Intelligence Policy Review (OIPR) came up with the idea of using the mechanism of the Chinese Wall to be extra sure that a criminal indictment was never thrown out because the prosecutor had used information to make his criminal case where that information had been obtained under an investigation authorized under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). This Wall procedure required the FBI to maintain separate files for Intelligence Investigations and Criminal Investigations and disallowed the Criminal prosecutors access to Intelligence files. This fear of overturn arose because evidence obtained in foreign electronic interception of a communication that originates outside US is not necessarily subject to the same Constitutional requirements for a search warrant as is an interception (search) in the US of a US person.

The above paragraph is to explain the problem to be addressed by the “Chinese Wall”. But it is understandable that most non-lawyers will still be confused. The Chinese wall mechanism is a well known procedure in many other legal situations. But the above paragraph was simply the definition of the nature of the issue. Even more burdensome was the fact that there were rules set in place by the OIPR to handle exceptions. These rules were extraordinarily complex and were not generally understood even by the attorneys in the OIPR. Further, OIPR put out the word that anyone who violated the rules was going to be disciplined. So, as is the usual case with human beings, everyone in the agency opted to take the easy way out. The FBI, CIA and other Intelligence agencies adopted the practice of never permitting criminal prosecutors or intelligence investigators to see the other investigators files. Although this was an interpretation unwisely set in place by Attorney General Janet Reno and therefore was only applicable to the FBI and the Justice Department, it eventually was adopted by the CIA as well. This “Chinese Wall” problem explains why the FBI was unaware that the CIA had intercepted several al Qaeda transmissions that might have related to the 9/11 plot including a message on 9/10/01 that stated “Tomorrow is zero day.” None of that information was shared with the FBI.

Immediately after 9/11/01 bombing, President Bush asked for an investigation of the “Wall” problem which showed that no Court had ever thrown out a case because of the feared mixing of information. Unfortunately, the OIPR had adopted an overkill solution that was too complex for the problem and the work around was too easy. The “risk avoidance” or CYA solution was predictable. Every manager needs to be on guard because every perceived possible future problem is not necessarily a real problem, or the fix, as here, can be worse than the problem. FBI Director Mueller immediately withdrew the “Wall” requirement and Congress specifically removed any Wall requirement in the Patriot Act in 2003. As an aside, the Patriot Act amendment kicked off major left-leaning media objections to alleged expansion of governmental power and potential violations of the civil rights of American citizens.

The FBI and CIA immediately after 9/11/01 with President Bush’s full support attacked its other problems including its incredibly outdated computer record systems, diminished morale at the CIA because of President’s Clinton’s de-emphasis in counterterrorism, and inadequate human intelligence at the CIA.

Kessler provides the entire engaging story relating to the reliance by Secretary of State Powell on information from German intelligence in preparing his speech to the UN in which he asserted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Powell had refused to use the US generated intelligence information and he independently reached the same conclusion. Ultimately the Iraqi source that had provided intel to German Intelligence was much later proven to be unreliable. He turned out to be a lower level Iraqi employee in the Saddam nuclear program that was seeking asylum in Germany. Again, the left media accused General Powell and the Bush Administration of intentionally lying in the run up to the Iraq war about Saddam’s possession of WMD.

The real facts underlying the Washington Post story of Dana Priest relating to alleged thousands of CIA’s prisoners being held in secret prisons around the world to enable the CIA to torture prisoners. This story earned her a Pulitzer Prize and caused many European nations to cease cooperating with the US in Afghanistan. The facts were that there were no secret prisons and fewer than 100 prisoners had been rendered to anti-terrorist agencies of countries cooperating with the US in the war on terror. Also many of those prisoners originated in those countries.

Kessler also related the embarrassing story about Brandon Mayfield. Brandon was a US attorney, a recent convert to http://www.faithfreedom.org, that had given funds indirectly to Hamas. His finger print had showed up on a plastic bag discovered in the Spanish train bombing and he was planning a trip to Barcelona. Multiple experts had confirmed the finger print match. Brandon was arrested but there was no other links. Ultimately, in a raid on the terrorist hideout in Spain, the Jihadists blew themselves up to escape capture and the authorities found a finger, the print of which perfectly matched the plastic bag print. Mayfield got $2M settlement and the FBI imposed a higher standard requiring a greater level of assurance on a finger print match.

There are many more interesting stories including the identity leak of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Although this investigation lead to the conviction of Vice President Chaney’s deputy for lying to the FBI, in the end, Richard Armatage, the ex-Deputy Sec. of State, a critic of the Bush Administration was revealed to be the leak to Robert Novak. Although both the Washington Post and NYT were on a daily rampage to show Chaney was the source of the Plame link, when the true identity of the leaker broke, the Washington Post ran it on Page 6 and the NYT ran it on Page 12. I find both those papers disgusting.

This book describes several investigations in minute detail. The manpower and the resources it takes to gather all the facts about the alleged actors and the potential links of their brothers, sisters and friends, the travels of each, schools of each, etc, etc mushrooms gigantically. Everyday the investigators evaluate the risk of the advancement of the plot to the point where continuation of the investigation risks injury to citizens and property. Sometimes where an investigation is centered abroad, and there are domestic actors linked to the plot, when we are warned by the foreign agency that it is going to roll up the plot in their country, the US must make the decision if it is better to place the US actors under 24/7 surveillance to see their response to the foreign arrest or to arrest them. How and where they respond when the branch of their plot is arrested is frequently revealing of the cell.

Home grown US terrorists are a new concern. Several networks have already been rolled up involving prison grown networks of Islamic extremists with serious plans of bombing and destruction. Fortunately these groups have not been sophisticated so far.

The public is aware of only the tip of the counter-terror iceberg. In 2007, there were 60-70 terror plots in US being investigated every day. Every morning in the NCTC at 8:00 AM the Threat Matrix involving these treats is evaluated. Vice Admiral Redd, NCTC, with his small group of representatives from all the security agencies prepares a list of 25-30, which list is further reduced to 10-20. These are brought into the daily video conference involving the President, Nat. Security Council, DHS, and Nat. Intelligence Director. In 2004 alone, the Justice Department reported 379 convictions related to terrorism.

The NCTC is a 10,000 sq. ft. facility built like a TV network control center with 32 large screens and 350 computer stations. They operate a web page for 5000 world wide intelligence analysts. They control the no-fly list, and they are available for instant communication country-wide access from police, customs or immigration officers having a suspicious incident involving a terror risk. Someone on the no-fly list, if stopped for a traffic violation, can be held for a surveillance interview. There are 400,000 names on the NCTC list of terrorist entities.

Kessler points out that a major concern of our all of counter-terror officials is the demoralizing effect of the attacks by the left leaning media. The effectiveness of the terror investigations depends to great degree on the assistance and cooperation of the public. To the extent that the left is successful in engendering suspicion of the counter efforts it will further damage our security. At the current level, even though less than 1% of the open tips actually have lead to a terrorist, they are a valuable eye on the ground that has been extremely important especially regarding the new home grown Jihadist threat.

This book is a MUST READ for all Americans. It contains stories of hundreds of specific events, arrests and convictions and hundreds of details that could not be mentioned in this report.