Muhammad Mended His Own Clothes!

Muhammad Mended His Own Clothes!
By Robert Spencer | November 15, 2006

Preview Image

The Wall Street Journal, which should know better but obviously doesn’t, has published a list of five recommended books about Islam (thanks to all who sent this in). Among them:

“Muhammad” by Karen Armstrong (HarperCollins, 1992). To understand Islam, one needs to understand the central role played by the Prophet Muhammad in the religion’s creation and propagation. Orphaned at a young age, he was a successful trader when the divine revelations began. In Karen Armstrong’s sympathetic and sometimes academic profile, she argues that, unlike Jesus, who could be a pacifist because he lived during Pax Romana, Muhammad faced warring tribes across Arabia. She paints a portrait of a very human prophet who is expedient and clever, who loves women and–despite having multiple wives–even mends his own clothes. But at his death, divisions over succession lead to the murder of three of the first four caliphs, or leaders, who followed–setting in motion the Sunni/Shia struggles that continue today.

So Muhammad was forced away from pacifism by his circumstances? Then why did he enjoin his followers to offer unbelievers conversion, subjugation, or death? Why did he tell the pagan Quraysh: “Will you listen to me, O Quraysh? By him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter” (Ibn Ishaq 131)?

Why not instead preach peaceful coexistence as equals? And he “mends his own clothes”! Heavens to betsy! He must be a feminist!

Never mind that rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).

The Qur’an also declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).

Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).

I am not surprised to see this arrant apologetic nonsense coming from Karen Armstrong. But to see it in the Wall Street Journal is disheartening.

Click Here to support


Iran sent 700 Somalis to fight Israel

Iran sent 700 Somalis to fight Israel

An act of war — and further evidence of the international character of the jihad, and of Sunni-Shi’ite cooperation against the infidel. From The Australian, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

MORE than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia travelled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a confidential UN report says.The report, seen by The New York Times, says the militia in Lebanon returned the favour by providing training and – through its patrons Iran and Syria – weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia.

The paper said the report appears to be the first indication that foreign fighters assisted Hezbollah during the 34-day conflict, when Israel maintained a tight blockade on Lebanon.

The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded.

The report says Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon are providing arms, training and financing to Islamic militants as they seize political and military control in Somalia.

The Washington Post said the report, prepared by a panel of UN weapons and financial experts, warned that the conflict could reignite a war between Eritrea, the chief foreign sponsor of the Islamists, and Ethiopia, which is backing Somalia’s weak transitional federal Government.

Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming

Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming

Editorials in Iranian newspapers claim ’50 percent of Israel already destroyed,’ say ‘Israel must collapse’
Yaakov Lappin

Iranian newspapers Kehyan and and Resalat have urged Muslims around the world to prepare for a ‘great war’ to destroy the State of Israel.  The newspapers published the editorials, translated from Persian by MEMRI , the Middle East translation service, to mark ‘Quds’ day on October 20, an Iranian ‘holiday’ calling for the “liberation” of Jerusalem and war against Israel.   “Hizbullah destroyed at least half of Israel in the Lebanon war… Now only half the path (to its destruction) remains,” an editorial in the conservative Keyhan newspaper declared.

  “It was proven that, by means of an offensive operation that need not be equal to Israel’s moves, it is possible to neutralize the Zionist navy,” the article said triumphantly.  ‘Great war not far off’ It continued: “Just as in one 33-day war more than 50 percent of Israel was destroyed, and the hope of its supporters for the continued life of this regime was broken, it is likely that in the next battle, the second half will also collapse.”  “On that day… Jordan will not be able to prevent the Jordanian Islamists from operating through the long Jordan-Palestine border, and the millions of Egyptian Islamists… will not let the Sinai-Israel border remain quiet, and the Syrian Golan Heights will not remain as a (mere) observer of the battle. That day is not so far off.” The Resalat newspaper struck a similarly bellicose tone with an editorial entitled “Preparations for the Great War.”

  “The great war is ahead of us, (and will break out) perhaps tomorrow, or in another few days, or in a few months, or even in a few Years… Israel must collapse,” the newspaper said. It added: “For the first time in the 60 years of its disgraceful life, the Zionist regime – the West’s beloved in the Middle East – tasted the taste of defeat, and the citizens of this regime trembled at the menace of Hizbullah’s missiles… The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime, and remove this cancerous growth. Like the Imam (Ayatollah) Khomeini said: ‘Israel must collapse.'”  



Cut Off The War Funding: We Have The Power

How Will Rome Face Mecca?

How Will Rome Face Mecca?
By Joseph D’Hippolito | April 6, 2006

One of the Catholic Church’s most controversial figures inflamed public debate in
Italy with a typically off-handed comment — and inadvertently exposed the
Vatican’s problems in crafting a coherent, comprehensive response to Islamic imperialism.

Cardinal Renato Martino — the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the
Vatican’s former ambassador to the United Nations — said that the Italian government should allow the Koran to be taught during the hour mandated for Catholic religious instruction.


“If there are 100 Muslim children in a school, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be taught their religion,” Martino said in a press conference March 9. “If we said ‘no’ until we saw equivalent treatment for the Christian minorities in Muslim countries, I would say that we were placing ourselves on their level.”


Martino’s comments came as campaigning in
Italy’s April 9 general election entered its final push. Two significant issues are the effect of massive Muslim immigration on Italian society and the ensuing place for government-sponsored Catholic religious education, mandated by the 1929 concordat between the
Vatican and
Italy that was renewed in 1984.


Two days before Martino’s press conference, the president of
Italy’s largest Muslim group — the Community of Islamic Organizations in
Italy, which controls that country’s mosques and has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood — asked the government to substitute Muslim instruction for Catholic instruction where appropriate.


That president, Mohammed Nour Dachan, also refused to sign a document in which Muslims pledged to accept
Italy’s constitution, denounce terrorism and recognize
Israel’s right to exist. His organization demands Islamic schools, Islamic banks and clerical supervision of textbooks.


“The impression was the Cardinal Martino, in the name of ‘dialogue,’ was uncritically accepting Nour Dachan’s request for a separate place for Islam in
Italy,” wrote Sandro Magister, who has covered the
Vatican for more than 25 years for the
Milan magazine, L’Espresso.


Enhancing the controversy are remarks Pope Benedict XVI made while greeting
Morocco’s new ambassador to the
Vatican on Feb. 20. During the audience, the pope advocated religious freedom “in a reciprocal manner in all societies,” a reference to oppressed Christian minorities in Muslim nations.


“But for Cardinal Martino,” Magister wrote, “this reciprocity would seem to be irrelevant.”

Reaction was swift and fierce. Wrote Ernesto Galli della Loggia in a front-page editorial for the
Milan daily Corriere della Sera on March 10:


“The words of Cardinal Martino on a host of highly important questions constitute a position clearly antithetical to the one repeatedly and vigorously marked out by Benedict XVI. One could even say that these words form a sort of embroidered design of a real and proper anti-Ratzingerian manifesto.”


Another front-page editorial in Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, stated March 11 that Martino’s proposal contradicted
Italy’s constitution and Catholicism’s place in Italian culture.


Martino was so embarrassed that he had to appear on Vatican Radio on March 10 to control the damage. On March 13, the
Paris daily Le Figaro quoted Martino as saying that his off-hand proposal was a “sign of respect” toward Islam that would encourage Muslim nations to relieve persecution of Christian minorities.


Nevertheless, the Italian bishops’ conference continued its campaign. On March 16, Avvenire published an overview of European religious education by Carlo Cardia, a non-Catholic professor of ecclesiastical law and a consultant for a major left-wing party. Cardia concluded thus:


“There does not exist in
Italy an organized Islamic confession that is recognized by the state. There are various groups, which are not infrequently in conflict among themselves. And this prevents the implementation of teaching that would not be based on any community, institution, or confessional hierarchy.


“And then, one cannot ignore the potential conflict between some of the features of Islamism in its present state and fundamental questions for our society – the matter of human rights, beginning with religious freedom, the principles of equality between men and women, the monogamous structure of matrimony – which constitute the most valuable heritage of the secular-Christian tradition of Italy and the West.

“At a moment when Islamic fundamentalism constitutes a concrete reality in many countries from which immigration comes into Europe, it would be a mistake not to take note of the risk that a hasty legitimization in the sensitive channels of the schools could let in subjects capable of transmitting other messages, creating ambiguous connections, and placing at risk values that are fundamental for civil life.


“These are some of the obstacles that make an organic presence of Islam in the Italian schools unfeasible and not worthy of entertaining.”


On March 20 Cardinal Camilio Ruini, papal vicar for the Archdiocese of Rome, addressed the conference’s spring session:


“In particular, (it is necessary) that there not be any conflict in the content with respect to our constitution, for example with regard to civil rights, from religious freedom to the equality between man and woman to marriage. Concretely, until now there has been no representative body for Islam that would be capable of establishing such an accord with the Italian state. Furthermore, we must assure ourselves that the teaching of the Islamic religion would not give rise to socially dangerous indoctrination.”


Martino, whom Magister described as “a cardinal out of control,” has a well-deserved reputation as a self-promoting loose cannon. One month before the invasion of 
Iraq, Martino blamed the West for the Muslim world’s plight:


“Not only the United States but the entire West should make an examination of conscience of how we oppress the rest of the world — unkept promises, spreading ways of life that are not moral or acceptable to the rest of the world (Reuters, Feb. 6, 2003).”


When American forces captured Saddam Hussein, Martino offered these thoughts:


“I feel pity to see this man destroyed, being treated like a cow as they checked his teeth (Dec. 16, 2003).”


Six days before commenting on Muslim education, Martino talked about his recent trip to
Cuba, where he met Fidel Castro:


“Castro knows the social doctrine of the church. The times when the church was persecuted in
Cuba are water under the bridge (ANSA news agency, March 3).”


But Martino’s most recent comments also reflect the weight of outmoded policies and attitudes that Catholic leaders must shed as Benedict forges his own policy regarding Islam.


Pope John Paul II viewed Islam as a useful ally against Communism and secularism. Front Page Magazine’s “The
Vatican’s Pro-Saddam Tilt?” also chronicled how the late pope sought to engage Islam to promote world peace through ecumenism, even at the expense of Christian minorities in Muslim nations. But Benedict XVI subtly announced a radical change from the outset.


At his installation Mass, the new pope welcomed fellow Catholics, other Christians and Jews in his greeting, but not Muslims. Later, two selected speakers delivered intercessory prayers for oppressed Christians. One prayer was in Arabic.


However, Benedict and his bishops must confront what French historian Alain Besancon called the “indulgent ecumenicism” that dominates the Christian response to Islam, whether through Martino’s superficial multiculturalism or through the wistful yearning for traditionalist transcendence that 
Besancon described in Commentary magazine:


“Contributing to the partiality toward Islam is an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist individualistic arrangements…. Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in
Europe, these writers cannot but admire Muslim devoutness…. Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”


Influencing that attitude was the work of European scholar Louis Massignon, who popularized the ideas of the Koran as a kind of biblical revelation and of Muslims as being among Abraham’s spiritual children.


“An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in
Besancon wrote, “much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas.”


Europe is not the only place where such indulgent ecumenism holds sway. Cardinal Bernard Law, the disgraced former Archbishop of Boston, created controversy in November 2002 when he bowed toward
Mecca and prayed to Allah in a suburban mosque during a Ramadan service. Afterward, he told the congregants:


“I feel very much at home with my fellow fundamentalists here, who are convinced that God must be at the center of our lives (Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2002).”


Such sentimentality, however, ignores the irreconcilable differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam that
Besancon described in his Commentary article, “What Kind Of Religion is Islam?” 


Though all three faiths are monotheistic, Islam rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, no concept of a covenant between God and humanity exists in Islam. Instead, Allah decrees his law “by means of a unilateral pact, in an act of sublime condescension (that) precludes any notion of imitating God as is urged in the Bible,”
Besancon wrote.


Islam also rejects the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of mediation between God and humanity. In the Koran, Jesus “appears… out of place and out of time, without reference to the landscape of
Besancon wrote.


Most importantly, Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of divinity revolve around one irreconcilable difference:


“Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and even more so to the Christian conception of God, is ‘Father’ – i.e., a personal god capable of a reciprocal and loving relation with men,”
Besancon wrote. “The one God of the Koran, the God Who demands submission is a distant God; to call him ‘Father’ would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege.”


Sentimental ecumenism and John Paul II’s geopolitical agenda also prevented the Catholic Church from effectively confronting barbarism in Allah’s name. Oriana Fallaci excoriated the church in a 2002 editorial in Corriere della Sera. Some excerpts: 


“I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop (Hilarion Capucci), one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to…plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them ‘martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party.’


“I find it shameful that L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Pope–a Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the Jews–accuses of extermination a people who were exterminated in the millions by Christians. By Europeans. I find it shameful that this newspaper denies to the survivors of that people (survivors who still have numbers tattooed on their arms) the right to react, to defend themselves, to not be exterminated again [parentheses in original].


“I find it shameful that in the name of Jesus Christ (a Jew without whom they would all be unemployed), the priests of our parishes or Social Centers or whatever they are flirt with the assassins of those in Jerusalem who cannot go to eat a pizza or buy some eggs without being blown up [parentheses in original].

“I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who inaugurated terrorism, killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists. By shooting them, abducting them, cutting their throats, decapitating them. 

In her most recently translated work, The Force of Reason, Fallaci blamed the Catholic Church’s lax policies on immigration and ecumenism for the disintegration of
Europe’s identity:


“This Catholic Church…gets on so well with Islam because not few of its priests and prelates are the first collaborators of Islam. The first traitors. This Catholic Church, without whose imprimatur the Euro-Arab dialogue could neither have begun nor gone ahead for 30 years. This Catholic Church without which the Islamization of Europe, the degeneration of
Europe in Eurabia, could never have developed. This Catholic Church…remains silent even when the crucifix gets insulted derided, expelled from the hospitals. This Catholic Church…never roars against (Muslims’) polygamy and wife-repudiation and slavery….”


Even Benedict’s call for reciprocity fails to address adequately the totalitarian nature of Islamic societies, as the ordeal of Afghan convert Abdul Rahman and
Algeria’s parliament illustrate.


On March 21,
Algeria passed a law forbidding members of religions other than Islam to seek converts or to worship in public without a license. Violators would face imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to 10,000 Euros.


If Benedict wishes to develop an effective response to Islam, he must do more than demand reciprocity. He must forthrightly challenge the entrenched attitudes Catholic leaders have regarding Islam. He should start by publicly disciplining an obnoxious cardinal who can never resist a camera, a microphone or a notepad.

Click Here to support

Murtha reportedly called Dem ethics, lobbying bill ‘total crap’

Folks this isn’t the way.

Well the Dems trotted out the OFD (Old fart democrats). The republicans quicly retaliated by trotting out the OFR (Old fart republicans) . So here we sit at status quo. We need to get tough with the left. Folks this isn’t the way.

Bud Simmons

Victory for Values Voters? — The Center for Arizona Policy

Welcome to “Survivor: The Isle of Crappy Republican Leadership.”

Vacant Lott