Is the Mark of the Beast Upon Muslims?

I have come upon a disturbing bit of information, and it happened entirely by chance. It may be an extraordinary coincidence or something else.

Only yesterday, as I was browsing the ‘Net, I came across across a brief discussion of something called a zabiba, or Muslim prayer bump. This is basically a callus or scaly patch of skin some fanatical Muslims develop on their foreheads by hitting it too hard on the ground while prostrate in worship of Allah. I initially thought this unsightly bump on the head was just another oafish aspect of Mohammed’s queer religion. I considered writing a post about it, but discarded the idea. I thought it was not significant enough.

That assessment changed drastically when I happened to watch the Glenn Beck show online. It should be understood that I had never before watched that show online, and only two or three times on television. However, I am rather interested in the current developments in the Middle East, which Glenn Beck discusses in a realistic way, unlike almost every other mainstream media figure. He does not subscribe to the politically correct pablum about an "Arab Spring." So I thought I would give his show a try.

A search led me to the video below. The whole thing is well worth watching, but the crucial portion starts at about 33:00 and lasts only one minute. A transcript of that portion of the show also follows, with the most important passages in bold:

Video and Partial Transcript of the Glenn Beck Show of February 17, 2011

Starting at 33:10 on the accompanying video.

Glenn Beck: But then you get to the Mark of the Beast. The Mark of the Beast... Christians believe, you know, that you’re going to get some sort of a number and you’re marked.

Joel Richardson: According to the Bible, the Mark of the Beast is a mark that is put on the foreheads, that essentially condemns someone to Hell. On the Islamic side, the Muslims have picked up on this tradition, except that in Muslim tradition the Beast is a good guy and he marks the foreheads of all true Muslims, and in essence Muslims are desiring that they would receive the Mark of the Beast.

Glenn Beck: And this... who’s the Beast, the Anti-Christ or is...

Joel Richardson: The Beast, according to Islamic tradition, is a literal beast that comes up out of the earth.

Glenn Beck [pointing at blackboard where features of the Beast are listed]: Ahmadinejad, when he says the Twelfth Imam, he wants this guy to come?

Joel Richardson: He wants the Mahdi.

[Transcriber’s note: as the previous discussion during the show had made clear, the Mahdi is the Sunni counterpart to the Shiite Twelfth Imam.]

Glenn Beck [pointing at blackboard where features of the Beast are listed]: Okay, perfect. Hasten the return of this guy.


Now, my friends, I submit to you these pictures of Muslims bearing the zabiba, none of which has been altered:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber

Imran Sheikh Attari, radical cleric from Pakistan

Abdel-Latif Moussa, radical cleric from Gaza

Unknown Muslim

Mohammad Reza Naghdi, commander of Iran's Basij militia

Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, murderer of Salman Taseer

Unknown Muslim

What this sad gallery shows is that the zabiba is usually seen not on ordinary Muslims, but on individuals who have truly chosen the path of evil, who have dedicated their lives to jihad and to the promotion of the most militant forms of Mohammedanism. That is why I believe the connection to the biblical Mark of the Beast is valid.

One issue that must be discussed. The Bible states that the Mark of the Beast is a number or a name (Rev. 13:16-17), but could it be possible that the zabiba is a sort of embryonic mark to "reward" the most loyal adepts of evil in the time before the Beast's rule begins? Later, when plausible deniability is no longer necessary, the "prayer bump" might metamorphose into the actual Mark of the Beast.

Incidentally, the zabiba is most commonly found in Egypt, the very country liberals are portraying out as the new beacon of democracy of the Middle East.

Islam is a false religion of brutality and subjugation. Those who dedicate themselves to it in effect dedicate themselves to evil. So make your judgment: do these Muslims have the Mark of the Beast upon their foreheads?

Response to Politically Correct Views on Ground Zero Mosque and Islam

This exchange originally appeared on Catholic.com. An individual who is well-intentioned, but whose views fall strictly within the politically correct spectrum, laments the supposed villainization of Muslims. My response follows.

Time and again, I have read very negative things written about Muslims, all of them untrue. 
Ridiculous things such as all Muslims being in plot to over throw the United States by Jihad, all Muslims being sympathetic to terrorists, all Muslims favor stoning woman for the most petty of sins, Islam being a religion founded none other than Satan himself and the Koran being the most evil book in the world. All these accusations reared their ugly head just a few months ago when some of our neighbors wanted to build a house of worship in New York City, and creep in no matter what context Islam is discussed in. 
There is no real good way to refute any of these accusations. If their lunacy is not immediately apparent at face value, then its pretty hard to discuss them seriously. Nonetheless, I wish to attempt to demonstrate how these making these slanderous claims is an affront to the dignity of the human individuals that follow Islam.

Lets for a moment assume that Islam was indeed started by Satan. A ridiculous claim, as far as I'm concerned - I'm sure Satan has claimed the establishment of Islam, but as we all know, Satan is the Father of Lies.
But, for argument's sake, lets allow the claim. Even if everything about Islam were evil, and its teachings were a one-way ticket to Hell, there is a much more important truth:
Every Human Being is created in the Image of God, and every Human Being has the Natural Law imprinted in their Heart and Conscience. 

This is fundamental to the Catholic faith. Bishop's and philosophers have derived so much of our understanding of God by observing human nature and reconciling it with the Gospel. We understand the Ten Commandments because, before they were imprinted on stone tablets, they were imprinted in our Humanity.
Muslims are Human. Even Human's that follow a Satanic Cult have the True Commandment's imprinted in their heart. Its a fact that Satan will succeed and lure some people to disobey the commandments and into Hell, but there are nearly eight hundred million Human Beings, scattered throughout Southern China, Thailand, Cambodia, India, Madagscar, Northern Africa, Europe, North America and the Middle East, that it is patently ridiculous to believe Satan's claim of total dominion over them.
All glory and honor belongs to the God of Adam, the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, and the God who is Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed. Muslim's may have failed to recognize the Divine Incarnation of the Son, but they worship the God of Abraham and Moses just as we do. 
Human's are created in the image of the God of Adam. No matter how corrupted the interpretation they have of God, this fact, their human dignity, will always point their hearts and souls in worship of the True God as revealed to Humanity through the Catholic Church.
Humans are inherently good. This is a fact of our faith. To presuppose a group of Humans, whether Muslim, Hindu, or Protestant as Evil, is a violation of their Human Dignity, and an affront to the God who made us in His Image.

I take issue with your distortions regarding rightful criticism of Islam. First of all, you are using a series of straw man arguments to try to show that negative views of Islam or Muslims are unreasonable. By using, and in fact emphasizing, the word "all", you only have to present a single Muslim who does not follow the tenets of his religion in order to tear down your own straw men. Of course, no sensible person claims that all Muslims are actively waging jihad, are in favor of stoning women, etc. although those claims are precisely true of a great many Muslims worldwide. In Egypt, for instance, a recent poll reveals that 82% of the population is indeed in favor of stoning adulterers. Considering the 10% or so of Egyptians who are Christian and thus likely to oppose this practice, that means nearly all Egyptian Muslims support stoning. But you are right: nearly all is not all.

As to Islam being evil, having been founded by Satan, etc. let us consider that it is a false religion that destroyed a great portion of the ancient Christian world and has been trying to conquer the remainder ever since. If you dispute that Islam is false, you are not a Catholic or a Christian; if you dispute that it has tried to conquer all of Christendom, you know nothing about either Islam or history. Now what would you call a false religion that incites its followers to destroy through violence the One True Faith? "Evil" seems like a pretty fair description. Is Satan the author of all evil, though? That is a philosophical question surely beyond the scope of this post.

If Islam is evil then, why should the citizens of a Christian country (and we do not concede that the United States is anything else) want any mosques in their midst at all? Do we really want to facilitate Islamic proselytism? Do we really wish to encourage further Islamic immigration by making unredeemed Muslims feel right at home? In particular, do we desire those things at the very place where a few short years ago Muslims committed the greatest atrocity in this nation's history? Even if we lay all evidence aside and assume for a moment that the people behind the Ground Zero Mosque are the finest specimens of human being on God's green earth, it is inevitable that Muslim militants worldwide will see it as a victory mosque, and will see us as too weak to prevent to them from celebrating the carnage they inflicted right on top of the bones of our dead.

And, by the way, it is without dispute the Ground Zero Mosque. An engine from one the planes that hit the Twin Towers fell on the very spot where the so-called "Cordova Center" (whose very name honors the Muslim conquest of Christian Spain) is to be located. That makes the spot, forever, part of Ground Zero.

As to Muslims being fellow humans made in the image of God, I doubt anyone at all disputes that, least of all a Catholic. But how does that manifest truth apply to any of your arguments? Should we pretend Islam is something it is not--namely, true and good--in the name of not hurting the feelings of Muslims?

If we truly love Muslims as fellow human beings and if we wish them to gain eternal salvation, the last thing we should do is to handle their false and malignant religion with kid gloves as you seem intent on doing. The pagans of the ancient world were not converted solely by gentleness. Rather, their temples were knocked down or converted to churches and pagan priests were forcibly dismissed. The same was true of the mass conversions of the Aztecs and the Incas. In large part, all of these heathens--whose souls would very likely have been otherwise lost--embraced Christianity because there was no alternative; their old cults had ceased to exist. When human beings are in thrall to a false religion, often the kindest thing one can for them is to be very unkind to their religion. To me, it seems clear that very much applies to Muslims in our day.

Oh, Joy! Egyptians Are Now Free (to Rape American Women)

I PREDICTED THAT THE NITWITS OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WOULD REGRET AIDING AND ABETTING THE HYSTERIA FOR “CHANGE” in Egypt. Perhaps the more moderate consumers of Kool-Aid among them have already begun to rethink their position now that one of their colleagues, Lara Logan, has been sexually brutalized by the nice pro-democracy activists of Tahrir Square.

Hosni Mubarak was far from an admirable figure as ruler of Egypt. He allowed his cronies to loot the national treasury (although his alleged personal fortune of $70 billion is very likely a fantastic exaggeration) and he regularly failed to protect Egypt’s Christian minority, in fact blaming “foreign hands” for bombing Coptic churches instead of the obvious culprits, Egyptian Moslems. The man after all is himself a Moslem. Nevertheless, he was sensible enough to keep the peace with Israel and to realize that, contrary to Koranic prescriptions, the Arabia of the Dark Ages falls short as a model for a 21^st century society. Indeed, compared to what now looms over his country, Mubarak was a prince of a man.

In yet another eerie parallel to the 1979 Iranian revolution, Egypt has its own version of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Moslem Brotherhood. Like Khomeini, he is an elderly cleric living in exile, made popular among his fellow Mohammedans by his hair-raisingly radical pronouncements, who has waited his whole life for the chance to institute “real” Islam in his native land, you know, the kind of righteous religion that bans music, cuts off hands and feet, makes women go around in 120°F wearing a tent, makes Christians pay up not to be slaughtered (right away), and allows Moslem men to express their joy by raping infidel reporters at will. Of course, the politically correct crowd will point out that Qaradawi belongs to the Sunni, rather than the Shiite, flavor of Islamo-thuggery, but I think the readership of this humble blog sees through that particular distinction without a difference.

The Moslem Brotherhood claims they will not run a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections, and I believe them. Someone like al-Qaradawi is not going to condescend to something as Western and as decadent as running for office, especially when there are much easier ways to achieve total power. The good Brothers are as familiar with the triumph of the Islamic Revolution as anyone, and they recognize a successful modus operandi when they see it. So instead of having to worry about actually winning an election, they find it much easier to put their muscle behind some poor doofus (perhaps el-Baradei, perhaps somebody else) who is held up as a moderate consensus candidate, and then when he wins, make him into their puppet. Of course, if President Pinocchio is not compliant enough, they can easily come up with a pretext to get rid of him and install someone who is.

By the grace of God almighty, there shall come a blessed day when Egypt and the rest of the Middle East are free of the shackles Mohammed and his Moslem cutthroats fastened on that part of the world so many centuries ago, but until then, the Mubarak era will look like a golden age compared to what is very likely to come.

Caught in the Whirlwind

MANY IN THE WEST ARE NOT AWARE THAT EGYPT HAS THE MIDDLE EAST’S LARGEST CHRISTIAN POPULATION. Anywhere between five and fifteen percent of a total population of 80 million is Christian, which means that Egypt is home to at least four million and perhaps as many as 12 million long-suffering Christians, the higher figure being about as many as the entire population of a medium-sized country, such as the Czech Republic.

Another little known fact is that the vast majority of these Christians are not converts or newcomers, but the remnant of Egypt’s original non-Arab population that has faithfully resisted conversion to Islam for more than 13 centuries, despite persecution that has been constant and often brutal. These Christians are called Copts, an old Greek word meaning simply “Egyptian”, which is an indication of their status as the original sons and daughters of the land. Much smaller Christian groups such as Armenians, Italians and Melkite Catholics are present as well, though their numbers have shrunk considerably in recent decades.

Now, however, Egypt’s Christians are perhaps facing a greater peril than ever before. If the Moslem Brotherhood seizes power—which may be only a matter of time—the situation for Christians will go from merely horrible to truly impossible because their condition as “infidels” will cause them to be subjected to the most severe forms of Mohameddan thuggery.

Our goal for Egypt must not be meek acceptance of the grim fate about to befall that ancient nation, or even mere containment, but liberation from the oppression, ignorance and degradation imposed by Islam. Only then, after so many centuries, will Egypt be able to resume its position as a member of the family of civilized nations. In the meantime—if worse comes to worst—conscientious citizens of Western countries must be ready to pressure their governments to receive our Coptic brethren as refugees, for such a status would be entirely genuine when applied to them. As to Moslems, however, except for a very few extraordinary cases, they must not be admitted into Christian countries, not only for the obvious reason that we do not want an increase in their number among us, but also because Moslems ought to finally learn that if they make a bed they must lie down in it.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

The Worse, the Better

I CONCUR WITH ROLAND SHIRK'S ASSESSMENT THAT IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME until Egypt is in the grubby hands of the Moslem Brotherhood. As it happens, though, this is one instance in which the worst case scenario is actually the best case scenario. That is so because we who reject dhimmitude want the Mohameddan thugs to show their true face. We want them to overplay their hand and go into full jihad mode. That way our even the most indolent of our compatriots will have no choice but to wake up from their slumber of hedonism and political correctness and do something to save Western civilization—even if that something is merely not voting against those who are ready to act.

Coexistence between any two opposing forces is only possible if they are both willing to accept in principle the legitimacy and permanence of the other side. However, while Westerners have been willing to share the planet with the Moslems and all other members of the human family, for the sons of Mohammed (hellfire be upon him) only conquest will do—any period of peace is to them only a temporary lull in which to gather strength in order to resume conquest at the first opportune moment. Indeed, if they acted otherwise they would cease to be Moslems.

Now, after nearly 1,400 years Mohammed’s damnable cult is finally poised to achieve its long-time goal of destroying Christian civilization, our enemies having figured out that thanks to the stupidity, greed and cravenness of much of our ruling elites, they can conquer us without firing a shot or swinging a scimitar. All they have to do is apply for an immigrant visa. Then they can settle in our lands and start building mosques and raising multitudes of Moslem babies—all generously subsidized by the welfare state. In France, 30 percent of school-age children are already Moslems. In Michigan, the number is not far behind. Who doubts that all of America and all of Europe will have a Moslem majority if things don’t change?

Thus, it is clear that coexistence with the Moslem world is not an option—not any longer. It is only through confrontation, by standing up for our culture and our faith, and waging a relentless war on all fronts that we will save ourselves.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

Twitter Power Triumphs in Egypt; We're in for a Bumpy Ride

THERE IS SOME CELEBRATIN’ GOING ON AT THE WHITE HOUSE and in mainstream media news rooms all across the nation. Mubarak has been put out to pasture and the way is open for “democracy”, which in this case pretty much means the Moslem Brotherhood. Of course, that should be of no concern at all, since they are “largely secular”, have “eschewed violence” and are “all around jolly, nice fellows I’d love to throw down a couple of beers with” in the opinion of our brilliant Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper. All right, I made up that last part, but you know he wanted to say it. All kidding aside, where do they find people like this? I’ll refrain from making cheap jokes about Crapper Claptrapper Clapper’s last name, but it is entirely to fair to ask: does he actually get paid for judgment of this quality?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Obama, the mainstream media and liberals elsewhere will live to regret all their sideline cheering for the Egyptian rabble.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

Liberals Will Cry Bitter Tears

From the White House to the State Department to the New York Times to CNN to the Daily Show, it is hard to fathom what the motley crew agitating for “change” in Egypt hopes to accomplish. Liberals will rue the day they decided to help push out Hosni Mubarak and turn over Egypt to the rule of the Moslem mob. Corrupt and mediocre though the Mubarak regime may be, the bureaucrats of the National Democratic Party at least are sober enough to reject the fanaticism of the Moslem Brotherhood, which is bound to assume power in the event of open elections, either by winning those elections outright or by subverting the process afterwards. Here’s a little pearl of wisdom: “If ten men are willing to vote for what they believe and two men are willing to fight for what they believe, the two will give the law to the ten.”

As it were, there are more than two “Brothers” and they are very much willing to fight; Barack Obama, Anderson Cooper, Jon Stewart and the rest of the dhimmified liberal idiotocracy had better believe that. I close with the Brotherhood’s instructive motto:

“Allah is our goal,

the Prophet our leader,

the Koran our law,

Jihad our way,

dying for Allah our highest hope.

Allahu akbar!”

This World Is Too Small for Both Decency and Islam

Sometimes I wonder if my attitude towards Islam is uncharitable. “Perhaps we should all live and let live,” I think. But then something unfailingly comes along to remind me just how foul the religion of Mohammed (may hellfire be upon him) is. The truth is that we cannot share the world with Islam because there can be no compromise with evil. And make no mistake, Islam is evil.

This time the reality check came in the form of this YouTube video that shows the perverse, maniacal, odious, demonic  joy the events of September 11, 2001 inspired in Moslems, and not just the cave-dwelling fanatics of Al Qaeda, but the regular Moslems seen on any street of the Middle East. Above all for the sake of these people who are truly in the grip of evil, we must purge God’s earth of the plague called Islam.

Incidentally, I plan to repost this video every year on the anniversary of September 11, lest anyone forget that while we wept they laughed and danced on the streets.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

A Dirty, Little Moslem Secret: Boys Turned into Sex Slaves

MOSLEM MORALITY IS FALSE MORALITY. Moslems like to blather about how their bogus religion makes them superior to the despised Christian world. However, all it takes is a slightly closer look at what goes on in Moslem societies for it to become clear that Moslem assertions of moral superiority are nothing but rank hypocrisy—even when contrasted to the degenerate values that have taken hold of the West in recent decades.

Bacha bazi dancing in early 20th century Samarkand

Among the many practices that belie the self-serving depiction of Moslems as paradigms of rectitude is the revolting practice of bacha bazi (literally, “playing with boys”). This consists of obtaining prepubescent and adolescent boys, sometimes as war booty, but more often simply by buying them from their parents or guardians, and reducing them to the condition of transvestite slaves, who are forced to pleasure their “masters” by dancing in a lewd and effeminate way, but most crucially by submitting to the basest desires of the “master” and his guests.

At present, bacha bazi is most often found in that primitive, mean land called Afghanistan, but it was once much more widespread. One Anthony Shay, the author of a book whose title is “The Male Dancer in the Middle East and Central Asia”, described the reasons for the decline of this loathsome practice as “Victorian era prudery and severe disapproval of colonial powers such as the Russians, British, and French, and the post colonial elites who had absorbed those Western colonial values.” This writer is presumably either a pederast himself or a particularly abject dhimmi, but he does reveal an important truth: if bacha bazi is no longer ubiquitous all over the Mohammedan world, if it has at least been confined to Afghanistan, a country barbaric even by Moslem standards, it is only because of the influence of the supposedly iniquitous foreign kuffar.

Likewise, the feeble efforts being made to eradicate bacha bazi occur only through the efforts of Westerners present in Afghanistan, and of a precious few Western-influenced Afghans. The PBS series Frontline presented a documentary film on the topic in 2010 that served to raise awareness of the issue, and the topic has also appeared in several online media.

In reality, the persistence of bacha bazi is hardly surprising. Man-boy copulation is an time-honored practice within Islam. In his inimitable guide book, “The World’s Most Dangerous Places”, Robert Young Pelton relates that during the 1990s, mujahedeen were wont to set up road blocks on Afghan roads. In addition to robbing anyone who came along, if a boy was unfortunate enough to fall into their hands, he would be made to dress in a bridal gown and then take part in a mock wedding ceremony drenched in alcohol and opium. The happy occasion would culminate with the young lad being sodomized en masse. This often happened in the presence of his father and other relatives.

In the celebrated Persian love poetry of the High Middle Ages, as a rule the beloved is not a woman, but a boy. Moreover, Islam is the only major religion with a mainstream current, namely Sufism (the same one as at the Ground Zero mosque), that presents pederasty as a way to commune with God. Laughably, Sufism has a reputation among politically correct Westerners as a more tolerant kind of Islam. It is nothing of the kind, but simply a form of mystical Islam, every bit as dogmatic and damnable as the more familiar versions. Spengler of Asia Times Online put it well when he said, “by their fruits shall ye know them.” 

Sufism, with its predilection for sex with prepubescent males still holds considerable sway over the Islamic world, despite the enmity of the Sunni and Shi’ite branches, both more concerned with waging jihad. Sadly, it appears that a great many Moslems have decided to split the difference and obsess equally over buggering young boys and slaying “infidels”.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

References:

Wikipedia article on bacha bazi
Asia Times Online: Sufism, Sodomy and Satan
Asia Times Online: Sodomy and Sufism in Afgaynistan

The First Stirrings of World War III?

I AGREE WITH ROLAND SHIRK AT JIHAD WATCH that what is now happening in Egypt is likely to lead to something much larger and more widespread. However, I am actually glad it is happening, not because I love war and strife, but because I for one see a confrontation with the Moslem world as inevitable if the West is not going to simply surrender and accept dhimmitude.

Moreover, time is on their side. Their population is growing faster than ours, they are taking over Europe and increasingly America through immigration, the ever higher price of fossil fuels transfers our wealth to them, which will only help them become stronger militarily through the acquisition of the newest and best weapons, including nuclear.

Winston Churchill felt relief at the outset of the Second World War because he knew that when faced with a truly evil enemy, delaying the inevitable could only strengthen that enemy. Likewise, we ought to be in equal measure glad and determined that the time for the decisive confrontation with Mohammed's thugs is fast approaching.

May God help us and preserve us in the upcoming struggle.

No, Moslems Can't Have Democracy

CONTRARY TO THE OPINION OF THE NAIVE, DEMOCRACY IS NOT A PANACEA that can fix the ills of every society. In Islamic societies in particular, it cannot work in the long run—or even quite frequently in the short run. The Moslem definitions of freedom, justice and good government are all at profound variance with what we in the West think those terms signify. Marisol Seibold at Jihad Watch expounds this very well:

Projecting a Western understanding of concepts like liberty, justice, and good government onto such terms as they are employed by those in favor of Sharia law (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood) only sets up the naïve for profound disappointments and awful surprises.

As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." And joyfully welcoming another regime that pledges fidelity (and therefore ties its legitimacy) to Islamic law certainly fits that definition. 

Here are what, in practice, some common concepts mean to Moslems:

Freedom means that a Moslem has the ability to live—anywhere in the world—in total accordance with Islamic teachings, notwithstanding any adverse impact on others or the Moslem in question being vastly outnumbered. One example that comes to mind among countless others is the habit Moslems in Paris have acquired of closing off public streets on their own initiative in order to facilitate a larger gathering at a mosque, where, incidentally, the imam more likely than not be preaches against the very country and people hosting the Moslems in question. The fact that local residents are inconvenienced or that businesses lose custom is of no consideration whatsoever. In the same spirit are Moslem campaigns to ban pork, alcohol, etc. wherever they live, even if, again, they are just a small percentage of the population.

The concept of justice in the Islamic mind is just as intimately tied to their fabricated religion. To Moslems, justice means reward for those who follow Islam and punishment for those who do not. Thus, it is eminently just for Moslems to take what belongs to “infidels”, but it is horrifically unfair when the reverse occurs, even when what is being taken from the Moslems is just being returned to its rightful owners, if those rightful owners happen to “infidels”. That is why Moslems consider the Holy Crusades so heinous. Surely, the Holy Land had been Christian for centuries before the Mohameddan invasion, but when Christians tired of the outrages constantly perpetrated on pilgrims and fought to liberate Jerusalem, that counted for the Moslems as history’s darkest chapter. Similarly, the Moslem conquest of Spain in 711 is seen as a natural and righteous development, while the Reconquista that threw them out was an evil aggression. In the same vein, it is fitting and proper for a church to be transformed into a mosque, but it must never be restored to being a church.

And what do Moslems consider to be good government? Simply rule of the Moslems, by the Moslems, for the Moslems, and which promotes the Moslem definition of freedom and enforces the Moslem definition of justice.

In view of these realities, it is obvious why true democracy cannot take hold in a Moslem society. Only authoritarian rule—provided with strong incentives by the civilized world—can keep the Islamist wolf at bay, and that only for a while. In all other instances, the more political freedom is gained by the Moslem populace the more quickly and vehemently they will turn to radicalism. The examples are simply too numerous and consistent to argue otherwise: Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and soon, Egypt. It is time for the West to abandon appeasement and wishful thinking to face this stark reality: we must once and for all destroy Islam or it shall destroy us. 

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

History's Lesson: A Hostile Egypt May Be the Doom of Israel

THE FIRST CRUSADE RECONQUERED THE HOLY LAND FROM ITS MOSLEM OCCUPIERS IN 1099, giving birth to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. For 70 years afterwards, the new Christian state existed in relative security in the middle of the Moslem world because though none of its neighbors were friendly, Egypt was perhaps even more hostile to the Syrian Moslems than they were to the Crusaders. The reason was that Egypt adhered to Shi'ite branch of Islam, and its Fatimid rulers were that sect's foremost defenders, while the Syrians were staunch Sunnis.

That changed decidedly in 1171 when, by a combination of violence and the habitual Moslem chicanery, the infamous Saladin, succeeded in overthrowing the Fatimids and establishing himself as sultan of Egypt. He quickly proceeded to convert the country to Sunnism by the sword. By 1175, Saladin had snatched Syria as well, from As-Salih, the 12-year-old son of his old mentor, Nur ad-Din, as it were.

As a consequence, the gallant Kingdom of Jerusalem saw its much larger enemy unified politically and religiously for the first time, a situation much like the one Israel is about to face, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood gets its claws on Jordan as well as Egypt. The noble Christian knights, who had pledged their sacred honor in defense of the Kingdom, fought on courageously, a great many laying down their lives in battle against their fanatical, bloodthirsty foe, but final defeat came in 1187 when a besieged Jerusalem was forced to surrender to Saladin.

The dream of a liberated Holy Land, cleansed of shrines to a false god, and free from the hideous call of the muezzin, was over.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

Professor Juxtaposes the Egyptian Crisis with the 1979 Iranian Revolution

 How the US Will Lose Egypt

THIS IS AN INTERESTING NARRATIVE OF THE EVENTS OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AND OF THE AMERICAN REACTION. THE PROBLEM IS that the author ignores one essential truth: coexistence with any form of Moslem government is ultimately impossible, and any effort to mold or guide the direction of a country under Moslem rule is bound to be futile. It hardly need be discussed why that is true when dealing with radical Islamists. But even as far as religious moderates, such as the Shah and Hosni Mubarak, the problem is that they inevitably become despised by the great majority of the population because to be a moderate Moslem is, by definition, to be a bad Moslem. Even the ridiculously retrograde rulers of Saudi Arabia—despite their generous financing of radicalism—are seen as not being radical enough merely because they accept coexistence with the West on some level. Why, that’s really pretty much what is behind Osama bin Laden’s beef with the world!

So, say what you will, but the only way to have peace on this planet will ultimately be to destroy Islam or surrender to Islam. Those who find the latter choice unacceptable, must realize that in order to kill this cancer of a religion, every presently Islamic country should be ruled by Christians, native Christians where they are present, or foreign military officers where not. The population should be strongly encouraged to convert. To that end, mosques and other Islamic buildings should be ruthlessly destroyed, regardless of esthetic or historical considerations, and clerics and die-hards should be dealt with harshly.

If this proves too much for us to stomach, then we must accept that our children and all future generations will be fighting Moslems or, even more likely, be swallowed up by Moslem fanaticism and sky-high birthrates.

Mubarak Is Out in September, If Not Sooner

HOSNI MUBARAK HAS JUST ANNOUNCED HE WILL NOT SEEK ANOTHER TERM AS PRESIDENT OF EGYPT in the September elections. For those who have more faith in democracy than common sense, including the Obama administration, which reportedly told Mubarak to go, this may be good news, but it’s great news for the Muslim Brotherhood and their even more radical buddies. Their philosophy regarding the democratic process is nothing but practical: “one man, one vote, one time.” And no majority is needed; a plurality or even a close second will do. Intimidation and outright violence will take care of the rest, and once they have power in their hands, they will never yield to anyone who is less fanatical than they are, because it would be quite un-Islamic to turn over the rule of a country to “infidels” and “apostates”.

Egypt Before Islam

WE OUGHT TO REMEMBER THAT EGYPT WAS FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES A CHRISTIAN LAND, albeit one that also was also home to a thriving Jewish minority. In fact, Christian monasticism had its origin in Egypt, largely by merit of St. Anthony of the Desert. In the early Middle Ages, all indications were that Egypt would continue to play the role it had since the dawn of civilization: that of one of the world’s richest and most culturally vibrant countries. That prospect changed drastically in the year 639, when hordes of barbaric horsemen swept in from the sandy wastes of Arabia. This was the Moslem conquest, from which Egypt has yet to emerge. The Mohameddans’ newly invented religion filled them with fanatical zeal, and their material and cultural poverty made them deeply covetous of the fruits of a rich civilization, such as Egypt.

Right away, the invaders set about destroying Egyptian culture. By the imposition of heavy taxation, the jizya, on “infidel” holdouts, when not by the sword, the Mohameddans gradually caused the conversion of most of Egypt’s population. By the proclamation of their rough Arabic as the sole language of government and education, they destroyed the ancient Coptic tongue, the direct descendant of the language spoken by the pharaohs. By the enforcement of irrational Islamic strictures against art, they sterilized the creative impulses of the Egyptian people.

These acts, however, were only par for the course in the unfortunate lands that fell under the Moslem yoke. Egypt witnessed a truly monstrous act of cultural vandalism, the deliberate burning of what was then the world’s richest depository of knowledge, the Great Library of Alexandria. When the Moslem conqueror of Egypt, Amr Ibn al Aas wrote Omar, the Caliph (leader) of all Moslems, what to do regarding the contents of the Library the latter replied with what is arguably the most ignorant statement ever made: “Burn them, for if those books are in agreement with the Koran, we have no need of them; and if they are opposed to the Koran, we must destroy them.”

It is rather hard for someone living in the Information Age, in which knowledge is transmitted and multiplied at the speed of light, to quantify what an irreparable loss this was to the world. In an era when books had to be reproduced by hand, the Great Library of Alexandria had contained the only surviving copies of countless ancient books. It is impossible to determine how much this wanton destruction delayed the scientific progress of mankind, although it may well have been a number of centuries!

It must be pointed out, though, that recently it has become taboo, at least in fashionable academic circles to relate this bit of history. There is a number of baseless alternative theories as to how the Great Library was destroyed, involving sundry villains and all manner of freak accidents. Unfortunately for the Mohameddans and their politically correct acolytes, there are multiple Moslem sources, perhaps not all of them proud, confirming just what transpired: Amr Ibn al Aas gleefully torched the ancient world’s greatest collection of knowledge on the instructions of Omar, the Caliph, Commander of the Faithful.

If this were not enough, the case of the naysayers is further weakened by the well-known Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who wrote about a similar act directed against Persian books. It is the irony of ironies that in the politically correct version of history, Moslems are credited with saving the knowledge of the ancients, but the bar is set so low for them that though having destroyed all they could, whatever smidgen escaped their attention is held out as irrefutable proof of their intellectual accomplishments.