To “get this post” and to understand the comment by THE PEOPLE’S CUBE (PC), one has to do some reading.
Here is the idea behind PC’s quip ~ New York Times: Lawns Are Symbols of Racism and Bad for Global Warming (Breitbart):
While most Americans are spending time this summer enjoying the sun in the comfort of their houses’ yards, the New York Times is out with a new exposé on how lawn care is problematic, once viewed through the lens of social justice.
Lawns are contributing to pollution and climate change, asserts narrator David Botti, and their origins are far from woke, in a seven-minute video on the history of American lawns.
Botti says lawns are part of the “colonizing of America,” which transformed the landscape from “pristine wilderness” to “identical rows of manicured nature.”
“These lawns come on the backs of slaves,” he continues, zooming in on a painting of George Washington in a field to highlight men cutting the grass with scythes. “It’s grueling, endless work.”
“By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses,” he states. …
The Times also refers to the work of historian Ted Steinberg, who calls lawns the “outdoor expression of ’50s conformism.”
Jerry Thornton over at BARSTOOL SPORTS takes the above to an awesome conclusion:
I used to just blame the white supremacists, the neo-Nazis and the garden variety ignorant rednecks for creating division in our country. There was a time I believed the true polluters were the ones flying private jets, dumping plastics into the oceans and clear cutting rainforests. I no longer have that luxury thanks to the NY Times. They woke me to the fact it’s my fault. Me, George Washington, 1950s conformism, a couple of anonymous dead ladies who wanted to live near white people, the golf industry and Big Garden. We are to blame. Me and my Sears Craftsman push model with the autodrive feature are creating racial intolerance and melting the Antarctica permafrost, one blade of grass at a time. And I am sorry.
Jerry makes sure to post the Brothers [movie] scene… hilarious!
Now the the main event… a KAMALA WORD SALAD:
If I was “proud of my lawn” a year ago , it would’ve been labeled some sort of White Supremacy
In other words, in the current #WOKE or CRT (Critical Race Theory) understanding — Kamala is essentially calling those middle-class Americans “systemically racist.”
A COUPLE MORE “TWI-X’S”
Also note that radical Islam got its philosophical start by Sayyid Qutb in part to hating the bourgeoisie “lawn status” of Americans:
Radicalism –as we are dealing with today– has a more recent idealistic foundation, although I am well-aware that what the Islamic State is doing today is no different than what Muhammad did.
(NPR) …Qutb pointed out many things Americans take for granted as examples of the nation’s culture of greed — for example, the green lawns in front of homes in Greeley.
Ironically, Greeley in the middle of the 20th century was a very conservative town, where alcohol was illegal. It was a planned community, founded by Utopian idealists looking to make a garden out of the dry plains north of Denver using irrigation. The founding fathers of Greeley were by all reports temperate, religious and peaceful people.
But Qutb wasn’t convinced. “America in 1949 was not a natural fit for Qutb,” Siegel says. “He was a man of color, and the United States was still largely segregated. He was an Arab — American public opinion favored Israel, which had come into existence just a year before.”
In the college literary magazine, Qutb wrote of his disappointment:
“When we came here to appeal to England for our rights, the world helped England against the justice (sic). When we came here to appeal against Jews, the world helped the Jews against the justice. During the war between Arab and Jews, the world helped the Jews, too.”
Qutb wrote about Greeley in his book, The America I Have Seen. He offered a distorted chronology of American history: “He informed his Arab readers that it began with bloody wars against the Indians, which he claimed were still underway in 1949,” Siegel says. “He wrote that before independence, American colonists pushed Latinos south toward Central America — even though the American colonists themselves had not yet pushed west of the Mississippi… Then came the Revolution, which he called ‘a destructive war led by George Washington.'”
When it came to culture, Qutb denounced the primitive jazz music and loud clothing, the obsession with body image and perfection, and the bald sexuality. The American female was naturally a temptress, acting her part in a sexual system Qutb described as “biological”:
“The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.”
Even an innocent dance in a church basement is proof of animalistic American sexuality:
“They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire…“
To Qutb, women were vixens, and men were sports-obsessed brutes: “This primitiveness can be seen in the spectacle of the fans as they follow a game of football… or watch boxing matches or bloody, monstrous wrestling matches… This spectacle leaves no room for doubt as to the primitiveness of the feelings of those who are enamored with muscular strength and desire it.”…
As Lawrence Wright in the Looming Tower has pointed out… even green lawns “enrage” Muslims against the West.
Sorry left-libertarians, foreign policy Ron Paulists, and non-interventionists
A great article citing a study by some Oxford professor backing up what we here at Libertarian Republican have been saying all along – the reason they hate us is because we are open about liking to fuck women and our women are open about liking to fuck men.
[….]
From the UK Express, “SEX and WOMEN: The reason Islamic State extremists want to kill ALL westerners”:
The “pressing of sexual imagery on to the world” means western culture is hated in the rest of the world and leads to jihadists wanting to “kill people in the name of purifying the world”, Diarmaid MacCulloch said. The gay Oxford theological historian and presenter of the BBC’s Sex and the Church said the hatred of western culture reaches far and wide and can be seen in Boko Haram in Africa, in the Middle East and in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. He said: “It seems to me that it is about sex.
“A unique feature of western culture is that it loves talking about sex, it obsesses about sex, it presses sexual imagery on to the world. “Other cultures think about sex a lot but they do not talk about it and they find it intensely embarrassing and frustrating that the West talks about it.”
The enhanced role of women in society is another reason Islamic State comrades hate western culture, the professor added. He said: “The anger that other cultures feel towards western sexual openness, it is so much of the murderous anger which we are seeing in Boko Haram, Islamic State and other revivalist movements of the 20th century.
Libertarian Republican [sadly, LR is defunct] again confirms their [Islamists] long held position that our freedoms here in the West, and especially America, are what drives the Muslims hatred of us — NOTour foreign policy.
Front Page Magazine has an excellent article where they quote Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican quite a bit in regards to how and what Ron Paul thinks:
Rep. Ron Paul believes the United States is a greedy, militaristic empire that brought 9/11 upon itself. He believes that Iran poses no threat to U.S. or Israeli security and that Iran deserves to have a nuclear weapon if it wants one. As for Israel, he does not think it should have ever come into existence as a Jewish state. Nevertheless, Ron Paul, whose crackpot beliefs would be disastrous for the United States and the free world if ever implemented, is a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.
With money, good organization, a demagogic message that has a surface appeal to voters looking for a radical break with the status quo and an enthusiastic cadre of supporters fueling his campaign, Paul has vaulted into the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in the Iowa caucuses, which he could well win on January 3rd. He is virtually tied with Newt Gingrich for second place in New Hampshire after the heavy favorite, Mitt Romney. Overall, Paul is currently running third in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.
Paul’s foreign policy philosophy hearkens back to the pre-World War II “America First” isolationist movement that was shattered with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. In fact, Paul would have been right at home in that movement. According to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide to the congressman, Paul believed that the United States had no business getting involved in fighting Hitler in World War II. “He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business,” Dondero said. “When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand.”
Paul has harbored similar conspiratorial thoughts about 9/11. Dondero said that his former boss
engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions…
Paul was opposed to the war in Afghanistan from the outset, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11, according to Dondero. It was only after feeling intense political heat from his home district that Paul reluctantly reversed his initial opposition to the resolution authorizing military action in Afghanistan and decided at the last minute to vote “yes.”
In Ron Paul’s Blame America world view, the U.S. military, which conquered fascism and has since World War II helped to liberate many millions of people from the cruel grip of totalitarian communism, fanatical jihadism and secular dictatorships, is somehow the world’s greatest source of evil and conflict in the world.
“Just come home,” Paul has repeatedly intoned, echoing George McGovern’s 1972 campaign slogan “Come Home, America.” A President Ron Paul would gut the nation’s defenses and homeland security as he carries out his promises to drastically cut military spending and to repeal what he has called the “police state” Patriot Act.
It’s no surprise that the left-wing, anti-American Code Pink likes Paul’s message. Code Pink activist Liz Hourican told FoxNews . com that the “Ron Paul people are closer and closer to our talking points with each election.”…
Sophie and Noah were the most popular baby names in Germany last year, but in several regions including the national capital strong local variations exist, including the primacy of Mohammed for boys.
Germany’s state funded language institute has revealed its baby name statistics in 2023, and said Mohammed is the most popular boy’s name in a group of cities. The German statistics combine homophones, meaning Mohammed is counted alongside Mohamed, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammet, Muhamet, and others, in the same way it counts Sophia and Sofia together, which is the most popular girls’ name for 2023.
In 2015, as the Syrian civil war triggered a refugee crisis in the Middle East, wealthy Gulf states, including the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, chose to seal themselves off from refugees, fearing the infiltration of Muslims and terrorists through refugee corridors and permanent admission, a decision heavily criticized at the time but now recognized as justified by critics in both the Arab and Western worlds.
The recurrence of Islamic supremacists holding demonstrations in Germany is finally raising some concern from mainstream media and left-wing politicians. Following the recent Islamic demonstration in Hamburg, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates has mocked Germany for not heeding his warnings about the threat Islam would pose. Since the migration crisis in 2015, the Gulf states have increasingly isolated themselves. Many Arab nations have long resisted accepting refugees from within their own region. Western countries, however, seem to have learned nothing from the Arab countries’ rejection of refugees to preserve their countries and protect citizens. Instead, they have flooded their countries with people who want to kill them.
Calls for a Caiphate in Germany
Last Saturday, shocking scenes unfolded in Hamburg, capturing the entire nation’s attention. Thousands of Muslims participated in a demonstration, brandishing signs advocating for an Islamic caliphate. The crowd fervently echoed chants of the Islamic battle cry, “Allahu Akbar,” while hundreds offered the Islamic salute. Sharia-adherent females, fully veiled as in Islamic states and terrorist organizations, remained segregated from the men.
The demonstration was orchestrated by the terror-tied Muslim Interaktiv group, which is a successor organization to the Islamic terror group “Hizb ut-Tahrir” (HuT), which has been banned since 2003. Germany’s controversial Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution claims to be “closely monitoring” this movement, which advocates for the establishment of a caliphate governed by Sharia law. Mobilizing the Umma (the global Muslim community) to establish their Islamic Civilization is their admitted goal.
The rhetoric during the march included open threats toward Germany, with speakers warning of consequences for politicians and the media once “the sleeping giant awakens.”
[….]
Unglaublich, inakzeptabel und unverständlich, wie sich Menschen, die in Deutschland eine Heimat gefunden haben, gegen Deutschland wenden. Aber das ist typisch für politische Islamisten. https://t.co/M6VXyywIoX
In 2015, during the onset of a refugee crisis in the Middle East triggered by the Syrian civil war, it was notable the Gulf states in the Arab region opted to close their doors to refugees. This decision came despite their status as some of the wealthiest nations globally, including the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar.
Their rationale stemmed from a deep-seated rational fear of inadvertently allowing Islamic extremists and terrorists into their territories through refugee influxes and permanent resettlement programs. Consequently, they chose to prioritize security concerns over humanitarian aid.
Back then, the Gulf states faced substantial domestic and international criticism, particularly from within the Arab world and Western nations. However, with the benefit of hindsight, critics now acknowledge the validity of their apprehensions.
But the fear did not revolve exclusively around Islamic and terrorists when the Emirati Abdullah bin Zayed spoke of Europe believing, in its political correctness, that it “knows the Middle East and Islam better than WE do”. By “WE” he meant: ‘We Arabs and Muslims’. The Gulf states were also concerned that they did not want to import political-Islamic ideologies, radical mentalities, and certain forms of crime through uncontrolled migration flows. ….
Okay, let’s get this party started… right? I had seen a blip of Dawkins admitting — and it really is an admission of sorts — that what Christ wrought [as a worldview] is CULTURALLYwhat he [Dawkins] prefers to live under. He says he prefers this over Islam, but note, he didn’t mention he would rather live under some atheistic program.
“If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I’d choose Christianity every single time.”
Because when dialectical materialism comes about as a worldview embedded into government, what do we get? (PDF version of the below)
A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be ‘most’ really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare. Even the Seven Years’ War, widely recognized to be “religious” in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests.
CHRISTIANITY (Crusades)
9 Total Crusades from 1095-1272 A.D;
The crusades lasted about 177 years;
bout 1-million deaths – this includes: disease, the selling into slavery, and died en-route to the Holy land;
… a minimum of 28 million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 million people. – John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue
As an aside… about 5.714 [yes, point] people were killed a year by the Spanish Inquisition [if you take the highest number] over its 350-year long stretch if you use the leading historian on the topic.
Another aside: the Crusades were largely an operation to free people, whereas Islamic caliphates [jihad] were to convert and enslave people.
Some Resources Used
Alan Axelrod & Charles Phillips, Encyclopedia of Wars, 3 volumes (New York, NY: Facts on File, 2005);
John Entick, The General History of the Late War (Volume 3); Containing It’s Rise, Progress, and Event, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America (Reprinted by Hard Press; date of publication was from about 1765-1766);
William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009);
Gordon Martel, The Encyclopedia of War, 5 Volumes (New Jersey, NJ: Wiley, 2012);
Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London, England: Yale University Press, 1997);
(8-authors) The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999);
J. Rummel, Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (New York, NY: Routledge Publishers, 1997);
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 2005);
M. Davis, House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2015);
Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery (Bloomington, IN: iUniversity, 2009).
Not only were students able to demonstrate the paucity of evidence for this claim, but we helped them discover that the facts of history show the opposite: religion is the cause of a very small minority of wars. Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature (according to author Vox Day in the book The Irrational Atheist). If you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, it cuts the number down to a little more than 3%. A second [5-volume] scholarly source, The Encyclopedia of War edited by Gordon Martel, confirms this data, concluding that only 6% of the wars listed in its pages can be labelled religious wars. Thirdly, William Cavanaugh’s book, The Myth of Religious Violence, exposes the “wars of religion” claim. And finally, a recent report (2014) from the Institute for Economics and Peace further debunks this myth.
In other words, the culturally Christian West seems to diminish the propensity to “war.”
WHICH may be part of the issue, as well as culturally where we are headed with “gender,” “climate legislation/regulation,” “free-speech,” and the like that are bringing a consensus of sorts on the idea of the positive attributes of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Which leads me to my next example… a recent ATLANTIC article. Mr. Thompson starts the article thus:
As an agnostic, I have spent most of my life thinking about the decline of faith in America in mostly positive terms. Organized religion seemed, to me, beset by scandal and entangled in noxious politics. So, I thought, what is there really to mourn? Only in the past few years have I come around to a different view. Maybe religion, for all of its faults, works a bit like a retaining wall to hold back the destabilizing pressure of American hyper-individualism, which threatens to swell and spill over in its absence.
Here, ARMSTRONG & GETTY discuss the article, as two non-believers/cultural Christians themselves:
As they were discussing the issue, I was thinking of this well worn quote from G.K. Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” You should read the entire ATLANTIC article.
Bill Maher recently noted the following:
For all the progressives and academics who refer to Israel as an outpost of Western civilization, like it’s a bad thing, please note: Western civilization is what gave the world pretty much every [expletive] liberal precept that liberals are supposed to adore. Individual liberty, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, women’s rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech. Please, somebody, stop us before we enlighten again.
Western civ is basically the Greco-Roman/Judaica-Christianity stream of influence. The CHRISTIAN POST, after quoting Maher, finishes their story:
Which, in fact, brings up just what Bill Maher left out in his otherwise thoughtful and compelling monologue. As you might expect from the guy behind the faith-despising faux-documentary Religulous, he’s not quite ready to admit the role of religion in cultivating liberty and human rights. Because Voltaire and Rousseau were anti-religious, they are safe to mention. Locke and King are often praised almost in spite of their deep faith, which Maher never mentioned.
And it is this failure for community, freedom, and following the science (gender) that is chasing people away from secularism… into Western Foundations.
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Frank Turek author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” about the collapse of the New Atheist movement; Richard Dawkins admitting that religion may be necessary for a flourishing society; the failure of atheism in providing a sense of purpose and meaning; what prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris overlooked; how only religions like Christianity and Judaism can protect a society from the worst elements of radical Islam; the spreading of social justice and woke culture in America’s churches; the case for intelligent design as a part of the story of evolution; how morality always ends up being legislated; Jordan Peterson’s utilitarian view of religion; and much more.
CROSS EXAMINED NOTED: Yes, we know that Dave Rubin is an openly gay man. CrossExamined.org does not always agree with and affirm all the held beliefs of our guests. Dave did not agree with everything Frank said when he was on The Rubin Report last month either. However, it is good to have dialogue and ask questions of non-Christian guests to see if they are open to Christ, as you will hear Frank do with Dave. We also welcome guests who can add value to specific topics on which we do agree. Despite our noted disagreements, Dave gets a lot right.
I will end with this article I found to be an interesting and pleasant read… this is how it ends:
Society appears to have come a long way from initially professing relativism, which rejects any and all standards of truth including moral, to eventually embracing wokism – an utterly aggressive force of imposed “moralistic” judgment. Semantically different, these concepts are actually homogeneous. When objective truth is denied, its place does not remain empty; it is swiftly occupied by opinions and beliefs of the “self,” either formed by individuals themselves or, more commonly, enforced through educational, group and/or societal indoctrination. People who do not love truth or are precluded from seeking it will find themselves confused, easily manipulated and ultimately deceived.
Jason Eaton pleaded not guilty today to attempted murder charges for allegedly shooting three college students of Palestinian descent in Vermont. Authorities have not charged Eaton with a hate crime but police say they are still investigating. NBC News’ Stephanie Gosk reports.
So, that is the narrative. An Islamophobic attack. But Eaton has not yet been charged with a hate crime. FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE may have a clue as to why… but first, they lay out the narrative well:
When three Arab Muslim students were shot and wounded in Burlington, Vermont, politicians and the media immediately hyped it as the ‘Islamophobic Crime of the Century’.
President Biden issued a statement declaring that “there is absolutely no place for violence or hate in America.” Vice President Kamala Harris’ statement bemoaned that “far too many people live with the fear that they could be targeted and attacked based on their beliefs or who they are”. The three Muslim men identified as ‘Palestinian’, two of them were wearing keffiyehs and Kamala, like many other leftists, was implying that the shooter was ‘anti-Palestinian’.
“The idea that three young men walking down the street get shot, perhaps because of no other reason than they are Palestinian, is unspeakable,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said. ”But I gotta tell you, this is not just a local phenomenon, this is happening all over the country.”
Then he blasted Israel.
“I’m heartbroken by yesterday’s senseless shooting of three Palestinian-American students visiting Burlington. We do not tolerate hate or Islamophobia in Vermont,” Sen Peter Welch tweeted.
“I do want to be clear that there is no question this was a hateful act,” Sarah George, the local State’s Attorney, claimed without evidence.
“In this charged moment, no one can look at this incident and not suspect that it may have been a hate-motivated crime,” Burlington Police Chief Jon Murad argued.
Anti-Israel groups convened a rally calling for the destruction of Israel.
“I stand here to stand with oppressed people who now fear for their lives just walking down the street here in Burlington,” Vermont Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman told the hateful mob.
A speaker at the hate rally with the antisemitic University of Vermont affiliate of Students for Justice in Palestine blamed the shootings on Jews, calling them the “shameless monsters who enabled this” and denouncing “a crime of unspeakable racist hatred, a crime borne out of white supremacy, out of fascist, genocidal malice, a crime borne out of Zionism.”
TRUTH TIME:
Woah. This guy must be a Right Wing Domestic Terrorist. But as I have argued in the past, much of this is a marriage between “Leftist ideals.” So even if he was truly a White Supremacist, that would mean I assume he is a lefty. As I note at the end of my point #3 discussing “Are Racists Voting for Republicans en masse?”
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:
They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).
All of these claims, along with many others around the shootings, were based on lies.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee falsely claimed that “a man shouted and harassed the victims, then proceeded to shoot them. We have reason to believe this shooting occurred because the victims are Arab.”
In reality, they had been shot by a local resident outside his house who did not say a word.
The three Muslim men were returning home from a party on Saturday night when James J. Eaton, a local resident with a history of mental instability, stumbled out of a white clapboard house on the residential street and without a word fired four shots at the three men.
Eaton had been described as “that hippie guy” and “progressive”, an organic farmer who had posted a meme with a definition of “Amerika” that called it “the worst sense of the United States, ie imperialism, corruption and the global exportation of American culture.”
He appeared to be a Biden supporter
Media outlets, anti-Israel activists and politicians attributed the shootings to the Hamas war. Everyone from Biden and Kamala on down emphasized the “Palestinian” identities of those shot and implied that Eaton had attacked them because he was opposed to the ‘Palestinian’ cause.
In reality, Eaton supported Hamas.
On December 6, Seven Days, a local news outlet known for breaking stories about local politics, revealed that Eaton had tweeted, “the notion that Hamas is ‘evil’ for defending their state from occupation is absurd. They are owed a state. Pay up.”
Responding to an article about a proposed ceasefire, he wrote, “What if someone occupied your country? Wouldn’t you fight them?”
Local politicians were aware of this which is why in December a Burlington City Council resolution from Councilman Ali Dieng, an African Muslim immigrant currently running for mayor, trying to tie the shootings to an attack on Israel failed, and so did a resolution pushing the false claim that the students had been targeted because of their identity.
The latest Islamophobia hoax had fallen apart in Vermont, but still lingered nationally….
Bottom Line?
The suspect, James Eaton, is “mentally unstable, left-leaning, opposed to America and supportive of Islamic terrorists. He was neither Jewish nor pro-Israel” and had “publicly stated his support for Hamas.”
So @MichaelGreenspa brought up the New Mexico Muslim killings. He links to WIKIPEDIA, which is a decent article — but for how long?
NEW MEXICO MUSLIM KILLINGS
NARRATIVE TIME:
Let us get a bit of “narrative” and then truth from JIHAD WATCH:
“I am angered and saddened by the horrific killings of four Muslim men in Albuquerque,” Joe Biden had tweeted. “While we await a full investigation, my prayers are with the victims’ families, and my administration stands strongly with the Muslim community. These hateful attacks have no place in America.”
“The targeted killings of Muslim residents of Albuquerque is deeply angering and wholly intolerable,” Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham tweeted. “We will continue to do everything we can to support to the Muslim community of Albuquerque and greater New Mexico during this difficult time. You are New Mexicans, you are welcomed here, and we stand with you.”
CAIR offered a $10,000 reward for the perpetrator of the “hateful shooting spree” and demanded that Biden make it his responsibility to “protect Albuquerque Muslims from further harm”. But when the perpetrator turned out to be a fellow Sunni Muslim, CAIR is no longer describing his actions as “hateful”, but “deranged”. Soon he’ll be dismissed as mentally ill.
TRUTH TIME:
E X C E P T. . . .
The alleged perpetrator, Muhammad Syed, a Sunni Muslim refugee from Afghanistan, was reportedly angry at his daughter’s marriage to a Shiite Muslim.
And took it out on some local Shiite Muslims in Albuquerque which is now the new Afghanistan.
So it was a – a – a – “hate-crime,” one imported to our shores. It was the hate of Sunni Muslims towards Shiite Muslims. NPR expresses the idea of “shock.”
Syed is well-known to the Muslim community in Albuquerque, multiple people told NPR. He regularly came to the same mosque that the victims had attended.
“For months, this guy was praying next to other members of the community as if everything was normal,” Aggad said. “It shocks you.”
Syed has been charged in two of the four deaths, and police say he is the primary suspect in the other two killings. He was arrested during a traffic stop more than 100 miles from Albuquerque, authorities said Tuesday.
In a conversation with officers, Syed denied connection to the shootings. According to the criminal complaint, a gun recovered from his home matched bullet casings found at the crime scenes.
However, it may be a shock to those raised in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West…. not to those born into Muslim/Middle-East countries and traditions. This is the norm.
“All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion.”
Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.
MUHAMMAD –Ordered his followers, as well as personally participating in, both digging their graves and cutting the throats of between 600-to-900 men, women, and children. Jews. Some of the women and children were taken as property. He was a military tactician that lied and told others to use deception that ultimately led to the death of many people (taqiyya): The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.”
In the West, what is said and done more or less corresponds to the intentions of the speaker and the doer. Liars and cheats abound, of course, but generally they can go only so far before being caught out in the contractual relationships of their society. Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account, and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives. In Shia practice, a man is allowed what is called “precautionary dissimulation,” a recognition that truth may be impossible in some contexts.
Pierre Bourdieu, the French social anthropologist, has pointed out that no dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.[1]
Islamic ethics include deceiving the Kafir. The doctrine of deception is found in the Sunna and the Koran. The Arabic name for sacred deception is called taqiyya.
We never see any depictions of Muhammad with children, we just know that he most likely acquired a child bride at age six and consummated that “marriage” when she was nine[2] — he was a pedophile in other words. While the Qu’ran states that a follower of this book should have no more than 4 wives, we know of course that he had many more, about 5 more in fact. And “Just War Theory” cannot apply to Muhammad and Muslim’s since when he said:
“I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle and offer prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity…then they will save their lives and property from me” (Sahih Muslim 1.24).
He ordered his followers to raid caravans, “This is the caravan of the Quraysh possessing wealth. It is likely that Allah may give it to you as booty.”[3] As he was dying, he said these now famous words, “I have been made victorious with terror.”[4]
Many more examples could be provided! Even when it comes to “salvation,” the most ardent/obedient Muslim still leaves his or her entrance into “heaven” is, in the end, an impersonal act of arbitrary divine power.… no story of love and sacrifice or assurance is provided.
[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago, IL: Ivan R, Dee Publishers, 2009), 4, 38.
[2] Bukhari, vol. 5, book 63, no. 3896; cf. Bukhari, vol. 7, book 67, no. 5158.
[3] Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq and H. K. Ghazanfar, vol. 2 (Kitab Bhavan, n.d.), 9.
[4] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 2977 (Darussalam, 1997).
I was reading through some passages in the Quran not too long ago and came across Quran chapter 79, verse 42. I immediately noticed how similar this verse in the Quran is to Mark 13:31-32 … So, I started to do some more research on who Muhammad REALLY thought he was compared to Jesus. The findings are quite shocking!
JESUS
JESUS – When Peter struck off the ear of the soldier, healed it. Christ said if his followers were of any other kingdom, they would fight to get him off the cross. He also told Peter if he lived by the sword, he would die by it.; Christ invited and used children as examples of how Jewish adults should view their faith… something culturally radical – inviting children into an inner-circle of a group of status-oriented men such as the Pharisees was unheard of. Especially saying to them their faith must be similar; Jesus, and thusly us, can access true love because the Triune God has eternally loved (The Father loves the Son, etc. ~ unlike the Unitarian God of Islam).
Love between us then has roots in our Creator… [examples]:
my wife and I for instance, as well as family,
the love in community/Body of Christ,
love for our enemies, …etc…
…has eternal foundations in God; This love from God towards us has caused a Sacrifice to ensure our salvation (John 3:16-17; 5:25; 6:47). Jesus said as well that he has “spoken openly to the world… always teaching in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. ‘I said nothing in secret’” (John 18:20). The Bible also states that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) … and Jesus is God in orthodoxy (i.e., Jesus cannot lie). The love of Christ and the relationship he offers is bar-none the center piece of our faith… something the Muslim does not have. Which is why the Church evolved because they have a point of reference in Christ to come back to. In Matthew chapter 5 we find Jesus’ teaching and commending us to the following:
THE BEATITUDES | BELIEVERS ARE SALT AND LIGHT | CHRIST FULFILLS THE LAW | MURDER BEGINS IN THE HEART | ADULTERY BEGINS IN THE HEART | DIVORCE PRACTICES CENSURED | TELL THE TRUTH | GO THE SECOND MILE | LOVE YOUR ENEMIES
Muhammad would never be able to speak of these things that Christ did in the record of Matthew. Which is why whenever given the chance I say to a Muslim I pray they emulate Jesus’ life and follow Him rather than Muhammad. I wish Muhammad had read and followed Jesus’ teachings as well.
This is a segment of a Muslim caller into the Michael Medved Show and both Mosab Yousef and Michael Medved respond. Yousef compares Christians to Muhammad, the caller compares Muslims to Christians:
AQUINAS THOUGHTS ON MUHAMMAD
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the most prolific thinkers in Western history; his words should not be taken lightly, regardless of your cultural/religious background. Subscribe now to stay updated with excellent content.
BREITBARThas a neat story about Aquinas and his views on Islam… here is a portion of it:
…In one of his most significant works, the voluminous Summa contra gentiles, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the scholar argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Islam.
Aquinas contrasts the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.
Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”
Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.
“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”
Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”
Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.
“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”
According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Islam “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”…
MUCH MORE
Here are some ways to deal with Muslim apologists questioning Jesus’ Divinity:
(Above) Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim, answers a question from a faithful Muslim about how Jesus could have both a Divine (God) nature and a human nature without confusion or contradiction. See more from Nabeel HERE (He has passed away)
Nabeel is battling stomach cancer, so any prayers would be a gracious help.
Here is a more in-depth presentation dealing with how the question is typically raised.
Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view!
Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God.
Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. In this video, we consider several examples of such claims.
For more on the deity of Christ, watch these videos by David Wood:
Among the major differences between Islam and Christianity is that of the character and nature of God as understood by the Bible and the Qur’an. For the Bible, Yahweh is a relational God, a God who appears to his people throughout the Old Testament, who took on flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and who will be present, the Bible claims, in heaven with us once again: “For now we see through a glass, darkly,” wrote the apostle Paul; “but then face to face.” [76]This is very different from Allah in the Qur’an, a God who is distant and remote, transcendent and lofty, who does not deign to step down into his creation, and is not present in Paradise. As Muslim theologian Isma’il al Faruqi writes:
Allah does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will… Allah does not reveal himself to anyone… that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam.[77]
Central, too, to the Christian understanding of God is that Yahweh is loving; indeed, the Bible goes as far as to boldly make the claim that God is love,[78] the one whose character and nature define what love actually is. You will commonly hear people opine that all religions teach that God is love, but this is simply not true – for instance, nowhere does the Qur’an claim that “Allah is love.”[79]
Finally, at the heart of Christianity stands the belief that, in Jesus, God has experienced suffering, paying the price of the cross in order to reconcile humanity to himself. Now atheists may choose to dismiss, laugh at, or even scoff at that claim, but it is a claim unique to Christianity.[80] It is certainly not an idea found in Islam, where the Qur’an goes as far as to deny that the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion ever happened.
It has long fascinated me that when Christianity talks about the cross and the suffering of God, it is doing something quite startling, namely reversing the traffic pattern of every other religion, world view, and belief system. All other religions of which I am aware tend to work in one of three basic ways: they claim that if you know the right things, do the right things, or experience the right things, then you will achieve paradise, nirvana, wisdom, a higher state of consciousness, good teeth — whatever it is you are looking for. Islam adopts this model (“Keep the commandments”), as does, incidentally, the New Atheism, whose message is that if you think the right way — think good, secular, scientific thoughts — you’ll be one of the smart ones, one of the brights,[81] one of the elite, the elect.
[76]1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).
[77] Isma’il al Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambésy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982, pp. 47-48.
[78]1 John 4:16.
[79] And many Muslim theologians argue that Muslims should not use the word “love” when talking about Allah; see e.g. Murad Wilfried Hofmann, “Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love” in 14th General Conference of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan, 2007. See also Gordon Nickel, “The Language of Love in Qur’an and Gospel” in Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Angel Urban, (eds), Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009, pp. 223-248.
[80] If you wish to understand this idea (which, whatever you make of it, is the central claim at the heart of Christianity), a great place to start is John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester: IVP, 2006.
[81]A nauseatingly self-congratulatory term coined by some of the New Atheists to mark themselves off from the rest of the world, whom they clearly perceive as dimwits. See Daniel Dennett, “The Bright Stuff“, The New York Times, 12 July 2003.
Andy Banister, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or, The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2015), 62-63.
I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.
“Muhammad” Talks to “Jesus Christ”
I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.
….. 1400 years has proven that Islam is not a religion of peace. ISIS is in keeping with Islamic tradition. Of course there are Muslims who ascribe to living peaceably among non-Muslims, but this is not in accordance with normative Islam. As loathsome as Andrew Tate is, he is correct in stating that members of ISIS “are the real Muslims.” Muslims who support peace first need to admit the obvious problem within their religion and stop deceiving infidels.
This is the reason why Muslims also kill their fellow Muslims in droves: because the people who are being murdered are not considered to be the correct kind of Muslim, or are not Islamic enough. The ideas of wanting to live peaceably with infidels and of honoring the principle of equality of rights for all people are not found the history and practice of normative Islam. Christian persecution, the jihad against Israel, Muslims killing other Muslims, Muslim rape gangs, forced conversions, child marriage, the beating of women, full female coverings, the “Islamophobia” battering ram which aims to shut down the freedom of speech, Islamic blasphemy laws, forced conversions, female genital mutilation, the fear that has been struck into Westerners if they dare to insult Muhammad (Samuel Paty is an example of what can happen), and more are all founded upon normative Islamic teaching. All of it is backed by Islamic texts and history, as has been explained in detail at this site innumerable times over the last two decades. What more do infidels need to be convinced of this?…..
Here we are at the beginning of our series to investigate what we mean by “Political Islam”.
In this episode, Bill Warner and Al Fadi find that the majority of the Quran (51%) is focused on the non-Muslim/outsider.
This raises the question “why does the Quran, a religious text for Muslim’s to follow, focus more on the outsider than the Muslim?”
Moving forward we find that the early Quran (also known as the Meccan Quran) is more religious and poetic in its presentation whereas the later Quran (also known as the Medinan Quran) is more narrative based with less coherency.
Updating this old post a bit. Finding media taht works, fixing some links. It was originally posted in June of 2015. I am not updating the list of percentages below, so they are dated a tad — but the practice will never change to Muhammad’s followers.
In fact, cousins are not even considered blood relatives in the Islamic tradition because the Qur’an does not forbid or condemn marriage between cousins. Here is what is said in chapter 4, verse 23 of the religious text:
“Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, Mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
As a result of this long religious tradition, convincing Muslims to stop the practice of inbreeding has proven difficult.
Video Description for the Below:
Do an experiment for yourself, go to your computer and google Islam inbreeding. I think you’ll be stunned at the results. You’ll find that in the Arab world, 40 to 50% of all marriages are inbred. In Egypt, 40% of the marriages are to a first cousin. In Saudi Arabia, 2/3 of the people who marry, marry a close relative. In Britain, the Pakistani refugees, 55% of their marriages are to first cousins.
Now, the result of inbreeding is genetic damage, you get increased diseases, mental retardation, and lower intelligence. I call inbreeding a crime against the next generation. Now why is there so much inbreeding in Islam? Well, if you think about it you know the answer. Because of Mohammed, he married his first cousin, so that makes that process sunnah.
The Koran lays out rules of marriage, but it allows first cousins to marry. Half of Muslims are inbred. Lower intelligence and insanity rates are higher with inbred people, and the closer you are in blood relation, the more schizophrenia there is.
In Denmark, three times as many Muslims fail the military intelligence test as the average Dane. 2/3 of all the Muslims in Denmark are illiterate. And in Denmark, education for slow children, slow learners, accounts for 1/3 of their educational budget. It’s expensive to have such people.
Sharia is evil, since it dictates the suffering of people is Allah’s wish. Now think about this – Islam says it is destined to rule the world, and if it does, inbreeding will be everywhere, and humanity will actually devolve. And this can’t be changed, because the Sharia is Allah’s law. But why are we silent about Sharia, suffering? Why can’t we educate about this harm?
An interesting study showing we may be dealing with — in general — a very unstable [mentally] part of the world:
A Danish psychologist warns that 1,400 years of inbreeding, marrying first cousins, may be wreaking havoc on Muslim intelligence, health and sanity.
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred, which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly, says Nicolai Sennels, author of the book Among Criminal Muslims and articles on the psychology of Islam and Muslims….
Combining his own research and several studies, Sennels says the genetic damage of such intermarriage, which is part of Islamic religion and culture since their prophet, Mohammad, allowed it, is causing lower intelligence (IQs), increased physical defects and greater incident of mental illness.
Almost half of Muslims worldwide are estimated to be inbred, with 70 percent of marriages in Pakistan, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia and 80 percent in Nubia in southern Egypt in consanguineous (blood-related) marriages to first cousins, to name just a few of the countries, he cites….
Dr. Nicolai Sennels original post preserved as a PDF, some links fixed.
Mood Disorders More Common In Children Of First-Cousin Parents, Study Finds(GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT)
Relationship Between Consanguinity And Depression In A South Indian Population (PUBMED)
Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children(BHALGALPUR UNIVERSITY – PDF)
Effect Of Inbreeding On IQ And Mental Retardation (PUBMED)
And this older story via AMERICAN THINKERon the issue with some figures. Keep in mind these are recent statistics and do not — obviously — include the historical trend:
…. Everywhere in the western world, people look at the savage violence that is a daily occurrence in the Muslim world and shake their heads in stunned disbelief. A pastor of a very small Christian flock in Florida burns a Koran. Weeks later at literally the global antipode, Muslim imams drive through neighborhoods in a vehicle with loudspeakers attached, calling the townsfolk to riot. The townsfolk respond, and before it is all over, at least 22 innocent people are dead at the hands of these townsfolk, with at least two of them beheaded. How is this possible? How can this be? How can human behavior and culture be so monstrously different? Is this difference attributable to nothing more than environmental nurture theory?
No. There is something else. There is a catalyst — absent in every other culture on earth — that has poisoned the cultural soil, thus yielding the fruit of bad harvest for nearly 1,400 years. That catalyst is inbreeding. As a direct result, the Muslim population is mentally developmentally disabled on a mass scale.
All human cultures display strict prohibitions against inbreeding and consanguineous marriage. Incest is a universal taboo. This is a transcendent anthropological fact. As a Roman Catholic, I attribute this to what is called “The Natural Law.” Every human person without exception is created by God with a deep, innate knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Stabbing someone in the neck for no reason whatsoever is just as wrong here in Lone Tree, Colorado as it is in the Amazon basin, as it is on the high plateaus of Mongolia.
But there is one culture, one faux “religion,” that expressly condones and encourages consanguineous marriage and breeding. That system is Islam, and the document that explicitly ratifies incest is the Koran, specifically Sura 4 verse 23:
Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage — if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time — but do not break up existing marriages.
Sounds like an exhaustive list — but it is not. It is the most lax incest prohibition in all of human culture. There is a massive omission: cousins only once removed. In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one. Mohammed himself married Zaynab, who was his father’s sister’s daughter. Mohammed and Zaynab were direct first cousins.
Marrying your first cousin is the genetic equivalent of marrying your half-sibling. Think of your own family. Let’s say your dad has a sister, who is “Aunt Linda” to you. Your dad and Aunt Linda, being full siblings, have exactly the same genetic constitution. Their family trees prior to their generation are identical. Therefore, if Aunt Linda has any children, who are your first cousins, they are, in genetic terms, 50% identical to you. You share one of your two genetic constituencies with your cousins, thus making them genetically the same as a half-sibling would be.
First cousin marriage for just one generation is extremely risky in and of itself. This is why virtually every other culture on earth prohibits it, and treats it as a cultural taboo. When two people come together who carry so many similar genetic alleles, the chance of an undesirable recessive trait expressing itself in their offspring soars. Now, understanding that single-generational risk, understand that Muslims have been marrying their first cousins over and over again for 1,400 years. Sit in stillness for a moment with the full, terrifying gravity of this.
The Reproductive Health Journal reports the following rates on consanguinity in Muslim countries. Where a statistical range has been recorded, I have used the lower parameter:
Algeria: 22.6%
Bahrain: 39.4%
Egypt (North): 20.9%
Egypt (Nubia-South): 60.5%
Iraq: 47.0%
Jordan: 28.5%
Kuwait: 22.5%
Lebanon: 12.8%
Libya: 48.4%
Mauritania: 47.2%
Morocco: 19.9%
Oman: 56.3%
Palestine: 17.5%
Qatar: 54.0%
Saudi Arabia: 42.1%
Sudan: 44.2%
Syria: 30.3%
Tunisia: 20.1%
United Arab Emirates: 40.0%
Yemen: 40.0%
Muslim men are never, ever allowed to be around, see, converse with or otherwise interact with any females outside of their families. However, they are permitted to act as chaperones for their female first cousins. If your first cousin is the only person of the opposite sex you ever get to interact with, is it any surprise that Muslims are marrying their first cousins more as the rule than as the exception?
According to the BBC, 55% of Pakistani-Britons are married to a first cousin, and as a corollary to that produce “just under a third” of all children in the UK with genetic illnesses, despite being only 3% of the total births.
As a direct result of inbreeding, the Muslim population is the only population on earth that is mentally and physically devolving. ….
FAITH AND FREEDOM notes this in a post titled, “Inbreeding And The Effects On Islam”
Family marriages and inbreeding has led to mental illness among Muslim communities throughout the world.
A few years ago a pilot with the Lockheed Corporation, an American aircraft manufacturer, was given the task of training Saudi pilots to fly their new fleet of planes.
He was given three assignments and, for a while, became part of the military & civilian community in the region and the report made for interesting reading.
‘During the pilot transition program with the KV-107 and C-130 with Lockheed, we found that most Saudi pilot trainees had very limited night vision, even on the brightest of moonlit nights.
Their training retention rate was minimal including maintenance personnel. Some had dim memories and had to be constantly reminded of things that were told to them the day before. An American, British or any other western instructor is burned out pretty quick.
It actually took Muslim C-130 pilots years before they could fly in the dark safely and then would be reluctant to leave the lights of a city.
Ask any Marine, Air Force or Army guy who has been trying to train Iraqis, and especially Afghans. The phrase they use is, ‘Yep, dumber than homemade dodo.’
Recently the academic journal, Mankind Quarterly, presented research revealing the average IQ score across the Arab world to be 81.
This, of course, is significantly lower than the European average of 100 and possible explanations offered by the journal are ‘hybridization with sub-Saharan Africans, an increase in the more educated Muslims employing birth control and the Muslim religion not fostering critical thinking.’
However, there is a better explanation.
Nikolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has carried out extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world, which is the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first cousins.
This practice, which has been banned in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world.
Systematic inbreeding throughout the Muslim world, encouraging cousin to marry cousin and uncle to impregnate niece, is considered by science to have done irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool and is affecting the sanity, health and intelligence of recent generations.
Nikolai Sennels estimates that close to half of all Muslims in the world today are inbred. In some countries, such as Pakistan, that figure is closer to 70%. In both the United Kingdom and Denmark the number of immigrants who are married to their cousins is around half. Half of the Muslim population are inbred.
The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia, 64% in Jordan, and Kuwait, 63% in Sudan, 60% in Iraq, and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
BBC research has concluded that the Pakistani/Muslim inbreeding is the reason a British Pakistani family is thirteen times more likely to produce children with a genetic disorder. Figure show that whilst Pakistanis are responsible for only 3% of British births they account for 33% of genetic birth defects.
Lowered intellectual capacity is another devastating consequence of Muslim marriage patterns. Sennels believes that children of consanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that social abilities develop much more slowly in inbred babies.
The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, which is the official score for being classified as retarded, increases by an incredible 400 percent among children of cousin marriages. By the way, similar effects were seen in the British Royal Family, where inbreeding was normal practice for a very long time.
In 1,200 years of Islam only 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic. In contrast Spain, for example, translates 100,000 books into Spanish every year. 70% of Turks have never read any book and only nine Muslims have ever won a Nobel prize. And five of those were for peace and nothing to do with academia, science or literature.
Sennels pointed out, ‘The ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world. A lower IQ, coupled with a religion that prevents critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many Muslims to have any success in our high-tech knowledge societies.’
Muslim children across Europe dominate the numbers who are regarded to have special needs. One third of the entire education budget in Denmark is allocated to special needs and 70% of the children benefiting are Muslim. 64% of Muslim children in the Danish school system remain unable to read or write after ten-years of education.
Mental illness is also a major issue. Research has revealed that the closer the blood relative the higher the chance of producing schizophrenic children. 40% of patients in Denmark’s largest ward for the clinically insane are Muslim.
In America, the land of the brave and the free, the majority of Muslims have lower IQ’s, less education, lower incomes and are in menial jobs. Way below average on every score.
Sennels concludes: There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool throughout the community…..
The Amish have a similar issue, but they do get outside immediate family and have much less “breeding-time” under their belt (INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES).
MORE MEDIA
We explore the unique mindsets of Muslim criminals in Denmark, an exploration of the violence prescribed in Islamic texts, immigration policies, and Islamic reform, among other topics. (Correction: At the 46 minute, 44 seconds mark, I misspoke. Mushriqun refers to idolaters and polytheists whereas Munafiqun refers to hypocrites.)
This powerful documentary reveals the tragic health problems suffered by children born within first cousin marriages and explores the controversy surrounding this cultural phenomenon. A disproportionate number of rare recessive genetic disorders occur amongst those of South Asian and especially Pakistani descent and the programme investigates the science, political and social consequences of marrying your first cousin.
A 33-year-old walked into a Detroit-area police station armed with a handgun in late December and attempted to open fire. Owing to performance issues and the swiftness of a nearby officer, he was unable to follow through with a possible Christmastime massacre.
Amid claims by Ali Naji’s family that the dead gunman was a victim of unlawful deadly force, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy announced Thursday that the officer who put him down will not face criminal charges.
PJ-MEDIA notes a different story involving Jihadi threats to police (Yonkers, N.Y.):
While Maxine Waters is fulminating (yeah, what else is new) against Donald Trump, accusing him of “attempting to organize his domestic terrorists,” and the Biden regime continues its efforts to portray Trump and his supporters as “insurrectionists,” the actual terrorists haven’t stopped their activities even for a moment. On Friday, the feds tore themselves away from trying to fabricate cases of “white supremacist” terrorism long enough to arrest a real terrorist who plotted to murder police in Yonkers, N.Y. This guy was an Islamic jihadi. Remember them? They’re still at it, even as our government and law enforcement apparatus have decided that patriotic Americans constitute a much greater threat.
The New York Post reported Friday that “an ISIS-loving radical Islamic extremist from Yonkers was busted by the feds Friday for plotting to kill the city’s police officers and mayor beginning on the street where the local St. Patrick’s Day parade was set to go down.” This charmer is a thirty-two-year-old man named Ridon Kola, who “directly messaged the Yonkers police, saying ‘I will crucify Yonkers cops and their bosses all along McLean ave. It will be a horror scene . . . Allahu Ekberr.’”
McLean Ave. in Yonkers was the site of Saturday’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, and so Yonkers police were concerned that Kola might have planned to wage his jihad against the paradegoers. They moved quickly to arrest him on Friday so as to forestall that possibility. Yonkers Mayor Mike Spano commented proudly: “Yonkers is proud to host one of New York’s largest St. Patrick’s Day parades and threats like this will not intimidate us from celebrating the many contributions of our Irish American community.” That was great, but this episode brought American authorities no closer than they were already to understanding why people such as Ridon Kola plot bloodshed and murder in the first place……..
….The store he drove 25 miles out of his way to shoot up was the King Soopers market, known to locals as a “Jewish” store with a majority Jewish clientele because of its abundant supply of Kosher groceries.
The King Soopers website advertises the grocery chain as “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.” The store is also included on a Vaad Hakashrus of Denver list of stores that carry kosher items.
[….]
The Post Millennial Colorado shooter Ahmed Al-Issa reportedly had ISIS sympathies, an anonymous White House official said on Tuesday, according to Jack Posobiec.
Screenshots of Al-Issa’s social media pages have also been obtained by The Post Millennial‘s Ian Miles Cheong, prior to the page being deleted. The screenshots show that Al-Issa was a practicing Muslim, aruging against Islamophobia and for increased acceptance of refugees. Al-Issa also shared anti-Trump content….
NEW YORK (VINnews) — Investigative journalist Laura Loomer has revealed that Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa, the terrorist who perpetrated Monday’s deadly attack in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket, was actually inspired by ISIS and targeted the supermarket, King Soopers, because it is kosher friendly. The supermarket keeps lots of kosher foods and is known as a place where Jews will be present to purchase such foods.
Despite this, none of the mainstream media outlets have emphasized this fact, even though King Soopers advertises itself on its website as “Your One-Stop Shop For Kosher Groceries.” Moreover this week marks the advent of the Passover festival and Jews around the world are crowding kosher stores shopping for groceries and supplies.
Al-Issa, a Syrian immigrant during the Obama years, pledged allegiance to ISIS before carrying out the attack. Previously he had expressed hatred for former President Donald Trump and his “anti-Islamic” immigration policies. However the timing of the attack demonstrates that it was no mere venting of Islamic fury but was meant to target Jews preparing for Passover. On a number of occasions Al-Issa also expressed his anti-Jewish sentiments.
Al-Issa allegedly had failed attempts at terror attacks previously. He had planned to target a Trump rally which took place prior to coronavirus in February 2020 at Colorado Springs but then decided to wait for the next rally in Denver scheduled for March of that year. However that rally was eventually cancelled due to COVID-19……
…..But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.
All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.
The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.
We know that the suspect is in custody. He was injured. They have not released any details about who he was, but we did see footage of a White man. He was wearing shorts. No shoes, no shirt. He seemed to be bleeding down his leg and he was handcuffed.
TWITTER THREAD: Here are all the idiotic leftists who immediately jumped to politicize the tragic Boulder shooting to push their narrative, only for it all to fall apart when it turns out the shooter is muslim…
Colorado authorities released the identity of the alleged Boulder supermarket shooter on Tuesday morning. Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, 21, is accused of opening fire and killing 10 people during the Monday massacre.
Boulder Police named the Arvada, Colorado, resident as the injured suspect seen in video following the deadly mass shooting Monday at a King Soopers supermarket. The man allegedly opened fire on customers and killed a Boulder police officer, 51-year-old Eric Talley, during the shooting. The deceased victims range in age from 20 years old to 65 years old. A law enforcement press release identified his full name as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. A Facebook page appearing to be that of the suspect features posts with quotes from the Islamic Prophet Muhammad….
This guy knows all the victimhood buttons to push. Yet while the establishment media will take it all as proof that he is not a jihadi, what about the ISIS sympathies?
Yeah…. what about those?
According to a White House source, Al-Issa “had “ISIS sympathies.” (GELLER REPORT)
Updated with POWERLINE’S excellent run-down of Ellison… He is a fan of everything radical and part of the problem in Minniapolis. I have
Given that this guy glorifying the Antifa handbook is Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison I doubt he’s going to be telling the truth about Antifa’s involvement any time soon pic.twitter.com/6zqBhtfkm4
— Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) May 30, 2020
I first detailed his Ilsamic affinities on my old site (February 28, 2010), But some of POWERLINE are locals… so they have followed all these crazies for longer:
[…..]
1987–Ellison enrolls in University of Minnesota Law School
1989–Ellison publishes the first of two articles in the University of Minnesota Daily under the alias “Keith Hakim.” In the first such article, Ellison speaks up for the Nation of Islam.
1990–Ellison participates in the sponsorship of the anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture given at the University of Minnesota Law School (“Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?”). Ellison rejects the appeal of Jewish law students to withdraw sponsorship of the lecture. Ellison graduates from University of Minnesota Law School.
1992–Ellison appears as speaker at demonstration against Minneapolis police with Vice Lords leader Sharif Willis following the murder of Officer Haaf by four Vice Lords gangsters in September.
1993–Ellison leads demonstration chanting “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace” in support of Vice Lords defendant on trial for the murder of Officer Haaf. Ellison attends Gang Summit in Kansas City with Willis.
1995–Ellison supports Million Man March, appears at organizing rally with former Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Muhammed at University of Minnesota. Ellison acts as local Nation of Islam leader in march at office of U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis protesting indictment of Qubilah Shabazz for conspiring to murder Louis Farrakhan. Ellison charges FBI with conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison writes article under alias “Keith X Ellison” attacking Star Tribune for criticizing Louis Farrakhan. Here it is; click to enlarge:
1997–Ellison appears under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad” at Minnesota Initiative Against Racism hearing in support of Joanne Jackson. Ellison defends “the truth” of Jackson’s statement that “Jews are the most racist white people.” This is the Star Tribune’s article on the controversy, which refers to Ellison’s statement:
[….]
1998–Ellison first runs for DFL endorsement for state representative. Ellison identifies himself as member of Nation of Islam in Insight News article on his candidacy. Ellison runs for endorsement under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad.”
[….]
2000–Ellison gives speech supporting Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson at National Lawyers Guild fundraiser. Demands Soliah/Olson’s release. Asks audience to recall time when “Qubilah Shabazz was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan.” Speaks favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur.
May 2006–Ellison writes letter to JCRC asserting involvement with Nation of Islam limited to 18 months supporting Million Man March.
August 2006–Ellison appears at unpublicized fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad among featured guests.
What are we to make of this? Take a look at Ellison’s May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council; it served as the keystone of his 2006 campaign for election to Congress. That letter to the contrary notwithstanding, the documents posted above nevertheless by themselves establish that 1) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam exceeded any 18-month period, 2) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the promotion of the Million Man March, and 3) that Ellison himself, far from being ignorant of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, actively supported it.
The steadfast refusal of the local Minnesota media to examine Ellison’s public record in the course of his congressional campaign represented a striking case of nonfeasance, incompetence and willfully averted eyes that remains a story unto itself……
Ellison shed crocodile tears for a brilliant television sound bite effect–not truth. Matthew Shaffer of National Review reports on the real aftermath of Hamdani’s death on September 11, 2001.
[S]ix weeks after the September 11 attacks – before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception – Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
There’s little evidence of the “rumors” of which Ellison speaks, either. Poke around yourself on Google.
(snip)
You’ll discover two discordant sets of returns: none for sites and news reports accusing Hamdani of being a terrorist, and many thousands of pages honoring him as a hero while claiming that he was “widely accused” of being a terrorist.
(snip)
[H]e was eulogized by the New York Times, had scholarship funds named after him, was honored by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (both of whom went barefoot to honor Muslim practice) at his funeral, and has been celebrated over and over again by the media.
Ah, but Bloomberg and Kelly, who removed their shoes, didn’t convert to Islam.
After this appearance on the Bill Maher show, one writer at BIGPEACE.COM POINTS OUTthat the verse Rep. Ellison quotes is now — for all intent and purposes — defunct:
Matthew Shaffer of NRO (as noted here by Ethel Fenig) exposed Keith Ellison’s mendacious taqiyya (Koran-sanctioned Islamic dissimulation) theater during the Congressman’s testimony at Thursday’s Homeland Security Hearings on American Muslim radicalization.
The next day, during a 3/11/11 interview with Bill Maher (on “Real Time With Bill Maher”), responding to Maher’s complaint that, “[Islam] comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Koran, which is taken very literally by its people,” Ellison invoked a deceitfully redacted extract of Koran 5:32, and the ostensible Koranic paean to “tolerance,” verse 2:256.
Ellison’s disingenuous response was predictable.
Following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Koran 5:32, “whoso slays a soul …shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether”, attempting to demonstrate that the Koran disapproved of violence and killing. Here is the entire verse (5:32), quoted in full context, with the intimately related verse, Koran 5:33:
(5:32) Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. (5:33) This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement
[For direct comparison see, Mishna, Sanhedrin, IV, 5, “Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be written, about him as if he has sustained the entire world”]
As Warraq noted, with regard to Koran 5:32/33, 1
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. [2 see these commentaries as well] “Behave, or else” is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished
Regarding the other pacific sounding verse Congressman Ellison cited, 2:256, it must be contextualized by Muhammad’s bellicose evolution within the Koran itself. But how, exactly? Abrogation is critical to understanding this evolution. Ali ibn Abi Talib—revered by Shiite Muslims and Islam’s 4th “Rightly Guided” Caliph—is reported to have told a pious Muslim companion, Abdul Rahman
“[C]an you differentiate between abrogating and abrogated verses” Abdul Rahman said, “no.” Thereupon Ali said “Thou art damned and causeth others to be damned.”
The Koran’s “verses of peace,” as cited by Ellison, and many other Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), “Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”, for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration. And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”. This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
…the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force.
I brought this up in a discussion with a Muslim in a debate setting and he never got back to me… I wonder why? Here is a small reference to this conversation from another post of mine:
iii. Comparison of Scripture. Some quick facts. Scripture in Islamic tradition is prescriptive. In the Biblical sense it is descriptive. This simple comparison goes a long way to explain why most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamic. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition, verses in their Scripture. I guess the best way to exemplify this is with this final posting in a debate where a Muslim was trying to explain his faith to others. However, I showed him I had an in-depth understanding of his view of his scripture. Here is my response which is cataloged at my site Discussing God:
Kursat,
You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu’ran abrogates its “verses” and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something “better”) in application for the Muslim.
So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right?
For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu’ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a “Western” manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn’t it Kursat?
Obviously Kursat didn’t return because he was not a moderate Muslim. Moderates look at the Qur’an as descriptive and they reject the idea that these verses in the Qur’an are placed in any chronological importance. THUS, the later verses about Jihad in Islamic fundamentalism DO NOT trump the one’s about peace.
