Thursday, March 30, 2006

Simple Questions

Earlier this month, a student at UNC-Chapel Hill, who had been raised in this country since the age of two, turned into an islamic murderbot and tried to run down a crowd of people with his SUV.

Luckily no-one was killed, though many were injured.

His intent was to murder as many innocent students as possible, as his religious duty.

Now, it turns out, he left behind a very interesting note, reproduced below.

It is utterly fascinating for what it reveals about the thinking of the jihadist, and the logic of the muslim religion that directs its adherents to kill.

After reading it, I pose two simple questions.

Question the first: Should this person be charged with a crime and treated as a simple criminal, and be out in maybe a few years on on attempted murder charges?

Or should he be seen as an illegal enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo forever?

Scalia, or course, has the answer right:
"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. Give me a break," Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying.
Question the second: Given his accurate explication of the koranic justification for his actions, straight from the mouth of the holy man mohammed, can the problem be rationally claimed to be with a few radicals who have "hijacked" a "great religion", or is the problem with the fundamental tenets of islam itself?

Now the letter:
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.

I did intend to use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at the present, most likely due to my foreign nationality.

I am a servant of Allah. I am 22 years of age and I was born in Tehran, Iran. My father, mother and older sister immigrated to the United States in 1985 when I was two years of age and I’ve lived in the United States ever since.

I attended elementary, middle and high school in North Carolina and I was accepted into the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I began my college career in August 2001 and graduated in December 2005 with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and philosophy with Allah’s help.

I do not wish to pursue my career as a student any further because I have no desire to amass the impermanent and temporary fame and material wealth this world has to offer. However I made the decision to continue my studies and to graduate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so that the world will know that Allah’s servants are very intelligent.

Due to the killing of believing men and women under the direction of the United States government, I have decided to take advantage of my presence on United States soil on Friday, March 3, 2006 to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world.

In the Qur’an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women. I know that the Qur’an is a legitimate and authoritative holy scripture since it is completely validated by modern science and also mathematically encoded with the number 19 beyond human ability. After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.

I have chosen the particular location on the University campus as my target since I know there is a high likelihood that I will kill several people before being killed myself or jailed and sent to prison if Allah wills. Allah’s commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah’s commandments must be obeyed. Those who violate Allah’s commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah’s will.

Sincerely yours,
Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar
Anyone note the evil irony of calling allah the "merciful" and "compassionate", then talking about his unending imperatives to kill the unbelievers?

And for all those "the Bible is violent!" morons, there's a difference between the mere recording of bronze-age history, and the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.

For the logic-impaired, it is the explicit teachings of mohammed that are damning.

Read for example these questions asked by Investor's Business Daily:
Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?


Is the “test” of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?


Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

There are other questions, but these should do for a start.
Yes, that's quite enough.

How many more examples are needed???

Send Taheri-Azer to Gitmo with a sack over his head for the duration.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Giving Up

It is disheartening, how so many are just giving up.

For example, it looks like Congress wants to give up on controlling the borders -- I keep hearing politicians and pundits claim you "just can't" detain or deport the illegal invaders so we might as well not try.

This from the only country that ever actually sent, and safely returned, men to the surface of the freakin' Moon!

Russia and China want to give up on stopping Iran, watering down the U.N. statement.

Censorship due to intimidation also abounds.

Who knew our cherished freedoms really rested on such shaky foundations?

How does it feel to know that backward medieval pinheads are controlling our bookstores and Universities?

Oh what smug defenders of "Free speech" they were when it involved "offending" Christians or white middle America!

Item one:
NEW YORK, March 29, 2006—In violation of its own policies, New York University (NYU) is refusing to allow a student group to show the Danish cartoons of Mohammed at a public event tonight. Even though the purpose of the event is to show and discuss the cartoons, an administrator has suddenly ordered the students either not to display them or to exclude 150 off-campus guests from attending.
Item two:
Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.
“What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression,” said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. “Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy.”
The enemies of civilization are counting on the American Voter to give up:
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of “running away,” leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.

To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of “the last helicopter.” It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein’s generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton’s helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.

According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an “aberration,” a leader out of sync with his nation’s character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an “American Middle East.”
In some places, like Sweden, they've already given up their country to the invading barbarians:
“When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The [muslim] boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The [muslim] immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young [muslim] robbers do not plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”
You know what?

If we don't fight back, we deserve to die.

If we don't reclaim pride in our culture, it deserves to die.

The traditional and effective response to jihad is of course the Crusade.

I had been thinking lately, as a daily reminder (and to annoy the mohammedans), that it would be fun to find some kind of "Crusader Cross" lapel-pin and start wearing it.

Wouldn't that be interesting if everyone of a like mind began to do so?

The New Templars!

Or something like that.

Even the Pope has recently re-opened the issue of the Crusades, to not see it as a bad, shameful thing to apologize over!
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The Crusader Cross Pin would remind us to relentlessly demand of our elected officials that they enforce and toughen the laws. Educate them to the threat. Don't let them see the invaders as just more cheap votes.

Write to the local paper. Attack all idiotarians in the op-ed pages with sharp rebuttals.

Express unpopular, non-PC opinions proudly.

We need to re-learn how to be rude, cultural chauvinists or else we will perish. The over-feminization of our society has to be moderated.

But now here's a group that already beat me to the idea of being a New Crusader!

I have no idea if they're kooky or not. Third parties tend to have a crackpot factor to them. Although, upon reflection, the Democrats and Republicans have crackpot elements to them as well, they are just usually masked by the job of governance. But the Democrats are really faltering in that regard.

But at first glance, this party looks rather interesting.

They use as their symbol, the Crusader Cross of Jerusalem!

The Christian Falangist Party of America is, it seems, a right-wing Christian nationalist party -- but with a twist!

Usually such parties are the realm of neo-Nazi skinheads.

But the CFPA is explicitly pro-Israel, anti-racist, and -- best of all -- militantly anti-islam!
The C.F.P.A. was founded in Philadelphia, Pa. on September 14th, 1985 as the first Falangist Party in America and is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seeks to destroy our Western Christian Civilization. The C.F.P.A. is not a hate organization and it does not condone acts of violence or hatred towards those of differing or opposing viewpoints and lifestyles nor does it condone racism or anti-Semitism in any form. Our organization has no ties or connection whatsoever to the Spanish Falange nor any other neo-Nazi / anti-Democratic groups who use the name Falange or Falangist. The C.F.P.A. believes in Jesus Christ, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and nationalistic loyalty to the United States of America.
From their Declaration of Principles,
Another rock of foundation of the CFPA is our support and defense of Israel and our belief that the Jews returning to their land and bringing Israel back into existence is Bible prophecy being fulfilled which precedes the return of the Messiah our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We also reject any form of anti-Semitism or Racism and hereby resolve that neither of these will ever be a policy, tenant or belief of this political party or Christian Falangist Movement so help us God. We forever base our political convictions on the Holy Bible, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of these United States of America.
Their core beliefs are listed here. Even as a pro-morality religious party, they have a surprisinly refreshing take on certain subjects, for example:
10. Public displays of homosexual behavior should be outlawed.

11. That what consenting adults do in private is between them and God and not the government's business no matter how filthy, perverted and disgusting it is.
A little dose of libertarianism, I see!

Many of their items I agree whole-heartedly with, and you'd never see a mainstream politician making such forceful statements, such as:
2. In maintaining and defending "Western Judeo-Christian civilization" both here and abroad.
6. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
12. The immediate end to the onslaught of illegal immigration and a cap on all legal immigration.

13. In fighting against Communism, Socialism, Radical Islam and the New World Order.

14. That English should always remain our national language and that to become a citizen of the U.S. one should have a working knowledge of English.

15. That non-citizens should not have the same rights, privileges and benefits that citizens have.

16. That being against something is not hate, it is free expression.
22. That illegal immigrants are breaking the law and therefore are criminals and that an honest aggressive effort should be made to deport them.

23. That the U.S. should boycott and stop all foreign aid to nations that persecute or permit the persecution of Christians and Jews.

24. That as of September 11th. 2001 these United States of America are at war with terrorists in particular but not limited to Radical Islamic Terrorists and that every effort should be made to insure the safety of our citizens both here and abroad. That the National Guard be used to patrol and protect the integrity of our borders.
28. In using all of our resources to break us away from foreign oil dependency by tapping into our vast oil reserves in Alaska and other places. We look to the eventual replacement of fossil fuels with hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe. The U.S. must be self sufficient in energy.
Now, granted, they lose me when they talk about reverting back to the "silver standard", and "freeing Pollard", but on the whole it's one of the better platforms for the problems we face today.

The major parties should take note.

And never give up!

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Great Sentence

Hitchens sure knows how to end an essay:
I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.
The rest is quite good too.

Monday, March 20, 2006


On LGF, commenter Pro-Bush Canuck observes
Look, it wasn't the Muslims that radically changed all the rules since 1968. They didn't suddenly embrace multiculturalism and cultural relativism. We in the West decided to embark on that change of course. Muslims are just doing what they have always done: trying to find ways to undermine the kuffar while advancing Islam.

It is we who have changed, not them. If you want to get angry at someone, how about the people who decided that mass immigration from cultures known to be openly hostile to the West would be a good idea. Or the people who fill our children's heads with the idea that the West is a moral abomination and that the likes of the Palestinian "martyrs" are noble freedom fighters?

I am a complete enemy of Islam. However I don't hate them in the way I hate our own leftists. I hope we defeat the Islamists; I have no idea how we will deal with the left in the long run (except perhaps their failure to breed may phase them out over time).
I was thinking today how the insanity in our society (or, as history shows, in any "advanced" and hence soft civilization) makes it almost impossible to resist determined barbarians.

And it's even worse when the gates are being thrown open to them willingly.

Commenter Cartman states the obvious conclusion, that the craziness won't go away until things get really bad, and only the people with guns survive:
Unfortunately, the left will always be amongst us, in any society, Democratic or otherwise. The evolution of human nature dictates that there will always remain a segment of any society that is unwilling to contribute to the greater good, as long as that concept is tollerated. Subsistence and support for these unfortunates absolutely depends upon the notion of ideological handouts. It's become a well-oiled machine, thanks to the Democratic party in this country, and the liberal agendas in Canada, the EU and Australia. Yet we must take heart. According to Darwin, in times of extreme eco-stress, only those who retain the instincts for survival through self-perpetuation and creativity will survive. Those who are not able to take care of themselves through no fault of their own, will only be cared for and nurtured through the protection of their peers who pass this evolutionary test. When the going really gets tough, the sycophants will wither on the vine. Natural selection at its finest.
It's just so wasteful and tragic.

If only these people would grow up and see beyond their self-absorbed myopic protests to the real threats, a lot of potential chaos and destruction can be avoided.

I think that's what makes me the angriest at the socialist left.

The utter waste -- increased by their selfishness, and cloaked in moral superiority!

P.S. I just bought another gun.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Justice Ginsburg, Traitor

Found via Bernoulli Effect.

Speaking of judicial over-reach, first we need to impeach Justice Ginsburg, who continues to defend her position that legal precedents from foreign countries can and should be used in determining Supreme Court cases, instead of relying entirely upon the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the Highest Law of the Land, which she took an oath to uphold.

An oath she is openly breaking.

Powerline opines,
I've tried to be measured in this critique of Ginsburg's speech, but the truth is that it is more reprehensible than I have suggested. You really have to read it to appreciate how far removed it is from American laws and traditions, and how demagogic it is in both tone and substance.
Remove these un-American idiots now.

Ginsburg, by the way, came via the communist-front ACLU.

No surprise there.

She's a dangerous traitor:
One last comment, on the title of Ginsburg's speech: "A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind." This more or less sums up her position: the Declaration refers to "Mankind," but that is out of step with what Ginsburg views as the 21st century liberal consensus. So she changed Thomas Jefferson's words to accord with her own usage. And, I suppose, with the usage of various foreign courts. Which is what she and her fellow Democrats propose to do to the Constitution: where the language doesn't match their opinions, change it.

PAUL adds: It won't happen, of course, but I think there's a case to be made for impeaching Justice Ginsburg.
Yes, there is.

I take issue with references to "witchhunts" for communists during the 1950s.

Witches, as understood by their hunters of the times, weren't actually real, let alone threats.

Communists are and were both.

Food is Bad

Something is truly demented with the priorities of our society.

Here is an AP News Story that indicates our real problems are that food is too plentiful, too inexpensive, and too tasty.
Food Industry a Target in Obesity Fight

It's tempting to blame big food companies for America's big obesity problem.
Sure, companies set the stage with cheap, calorie-dense foods.

But government also has propped up agribusiness, the medical community was slow to take on obesity and good nutrition, and consumers seem determined to move less and eat more, says Tillotson, a former food industry executive.
But don't let that stand in the way of lawsuits to, what, destroy the evil food industry?

So that food becomes more expensive, calorie-poor, blander, and scarce?

Why are we obese?
Yale obesity expert Dr. David Katz says that's because companies aggressively peddle food to people who don't need it.
That's such an odd statement, isn't it?

Am I wrong, or don't people tend to be designed to eat a few times per day?

So who's to say the audience "doesn't need" food?

Without it, you die!

And "aggressively peddle"?

What business doesn't?

Teh article of course points out the "food industry" position of personal responsibility, but the critics respond:
Personal responsibility has limits in the face of a multibillion-dollar marketing whirlwind pushing countless high-calorie treats.
Just like "freedom of speech" has its limits when it "offends" a designated victim group, I suppose?

Furthermore, we:
can't explain the growing ubiquity of food or the ballooning portions of it, from bigger buckets of movie popcorn to McDonald's much vilified — and now defunct — Supersized burgers.
It's a menace! The growing ubiquity of food!

We must have scarcity!

Now it gets really weird:
But what if those companies engineered their foods to make you eat more of them? Though he acknowledges that evidence is scarce, Katz believes companies do just that, much the way tobacco companies were accused of tinkering with nicotine.

Research shows that people eat more when faced with a variety of foods, or even a variety of flavors within a single food. For example, you are less likely to overeat plain baked potatoes than those drenched in butter, salt, sour cream and chives.

Sugary cereals, Katz notes, have more salt in them than many potato and corn chips. Katz believes that's one way to make a cereal's flavor more complex and appealing to get people to eat more of it.
You see? The evil food industry makes food that is too tasty and too appealing!!!

We must have blander foods!

So the solution to tasty food, of course, is to sue the food industry into oblivion for its crimes:
"You can't get to a solution until you get a diagnosis. If you don't see the role of the junk food industry in causing the problem and in continuing to maintain the problem, you've missed a big part of the diagnosis," says Daynard, who is leading a soda industry lawsuit.

"Things that dramatically assign blame, like a lawsuit, help people make a diagnosis."
See, the real problem is that
consumers can't be counted on to want what's good for them.
There we go! That's how your typical left-wing fascist works. Deciding what's good for you then forcing it on you via big government, preferrably by judicial means because it's non-democratic and they wouldn't get their way otherwise.
Whatever the food industry's share of the blame, Tillotson, the Tufts professor, thinks obesity lawsuits are inappropriate and Congress is considering a measure to bar them. Food companies were asked to feed a hungry nation; suing now penalizes them for doing so, he believes.

Tort reform is desperately needed to rein in these social-control-freaks.

Free Speech

Cathy Seipp makes some interesting observations about the hypocrisy of the lefty "free specch" people who are happy to ban books they don't like, showing they were never principled to begin with:
March 11, 2006 -- A FRIEND of mine took his daughter to visit the famous City Lights in San Francisco, explaining that this store is important because years ago it sold books no other store would - even, perhaps especially, books whose ideas many people found offensive. So, though my friend is no Ward Churchill fan, he didn't really mind the prominent display of books by the guy who famously called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns."

But it did occur to him that perhaps the long-delayed English translation of Oriana Fallaci's new book, "The Force of Reason," might finally be available, and that, because Fallaci's militant stance against Islamic militants offends so many people a store committed to selling banned books would be the perfect place to buy it. So he asked a clerk if the new Fallaci book was in yet.

"No," snapped the clerk. "We don't carry books by fascists."

Just savor the absurd details of this for a minute. City Lights has a long and proud history of supporting banned authors - owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti was indicted (and acquitted) for obscenity in 1957 for selling Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," and a photo in the store's main room shows Ferlinghetti proudly posing next to a sign reading, "BANNED BOOKS." City Lights also has been featured in the ACLU's annual Banned Books Week events.

Yet the store won't carry Fallaci - who is being sued in Italy for insulting religion because of her latest book, and also continues to fight the good fight against those who think that the appropriate response to offensive books and cartoons is violent rioting.

It's particularly repugnant that someone who fought against actual fascism in World War II should be deemed a fascist by a snotty San Francisco clerk.
This contradiction led one commenter at LGF to note,
I'm beginning to wonder if the free speech movement ever really existed. Maybe we already had free speech (except for obscenity), and what was disguised as a 'free speech' movement was actually a 'get America' movement. What actually came of the 'free speech' movement is PC controls over speech. Speech is no longer free largely because of the free speech movement.
That surely explains the observed facts.

Seipp continues,
Strangest of all is the scenario of such a person's disliking an author for defending Western civilization against radical Islam - when one of the first things those poor persecuted Islamists would do, if they ever (Allah forbid) came to power in the United States, is crush suspected homosexuals like him beneath walls.
This is no idle comment. Just last week Sistani, the "moderate" Supreme Spiritual Leader of Iraqi's Shiite population, officially declared that gays and lesbians
should be killed in the worst manner possible.
Some might morally equivocate and say we have Pat Robertson or something. I note that unlike Sistani, who can start or end a civil war with a single word, wielding the power of life and death over millions, Pat Robertson is just a guy with a tv show.

I.e., the decrees of one of these men, vis-a-vis the treatment of gays, has real world significance.

And those of the other man do not.

But oddly many on the left can't see that.

Otherwise, how to explain a group like Queers for Palestine, when the ruling party of "palestine" summarily executes gays in the streets?

Seipp concludes (and the whole article should really be read),
one of the great paradoxes of our time is that two groups most endangered by political Islam, gays and women, somehow still find ways to defend it.

David Warren sees similar double-standard forces at work in the "Free speech" demands of the MSM to continually publish photos from abu Ghraib, but to cower from reprinting the Danish Mohammed cartoons or of islamic atrocities and celebrations of 9/11:
the media both here and in Europe go to extraordinary lengths to suppress just the sort of material that could incite ill-feeling that way [against islam]. This began the morning of 9/11/01, with the non-coverage of street celebrations in Arab ethnic neighbourhoods of Brooklyn and Detroit. As recently as last month, mainstream media were editing out London cartoon protesters carrying signs reading, “Behead Those Who Insult Islam”, “Europe You Will Pay”, etc.

On the other hand, there is patient, exhaustive coverage of anything that might incite anti-Western hysteria in the Islamic world. For even while the largest media outlets were refusing to show those bland Danish cartoons -- and doing so out of a pretended “respect for Islam” -- they were dredging up additional sordid photos from the Abu Ghraib outrage in 2004, and running those prominently.

I have often noted, that editorial decisions in the Western media could not be more useful to fanatical Islam if we were taking instructions directly from some Afghan cave. Ask yourself, when reading or watching, if the consistent message is not: “Fear Islam, but do not dare to criticize it.”

There is no conspiracy, however. The violent audacity of a generation of Muslim neo-jihadis happens to correspond precisely with the self-loathing of a generation of Western post-hippies.

Perhaps never before, in the history of interaction between the “Dar al-Islam” (Muslim-ruled world), and the “Dar al-Harb” (the external world with which it is perpetually “at war”), have aspiring Muslim conquerors met such willing candidates for “dhimmitude”.
We have to re-learn how to be "rude", especially when speaking of the Third World.

Because our civilization is better.

And we're unashamedly proud of it.

Because that's free speech, isn't it?

And yet somehow people are more annoyed with me as a knee-jerk reaction when I point out the moral objectionableness and indefensibility of following the teachings of a "prophet" who liked to rape little pre-pubescent girls -- according to their own scriptures! -- rather than being annoyed at the people who venerate the pervert.

Because, you see, I'm being rude.

To Third Worlders.

There is no greater sin!

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Iran Summary

My previous post was rather verbose and I don't want blert's observations to be lost.

Here I have excerpted them:
First, they want to create an arsenal of a nuclear superpower, no nickel and dime operation. Anything less is suicide. At that level of power, they can sit at the big table and have complete freedom of action. Smart.

Second, co-opt or absorb OPEC. Smart. Extract semi-monopoly rents from your enemies.

Third, infiltrate all of the infidel lands with martyrs. Smart. Russian and Europe may fall into their lap. Run a protection racket to extract more rent.

Fourth, upon the magic hour pop everything at one go: and that means everything. Smart… all or nothing is the only viable path in nuclear war. Trading blows… now that’s suicide. The mullahs have no intention to receive any counter blow. With any luck a muslim can launch some missiles on America from Russia. It’s a ‘Terminator 4’ plot fantasy.

Whenever the button goes down, Iran intends to be the ‘innocent’.

The romantic idea that hard hearted mullahs with fat wallets and decades of effort with world class technicians and working blueprints can’t have yet succeeded: how precious.

The world’s intelligence services and the IAEA have a flawless track record in failing to predict the tempo or status of budding nuclear powers. Failure 100% of the time. How sweet. I read here on WOC that most are awaiting their pronouncements. Oh, well.
Like Nazi Germany, Iran figures to mop up the weak states around them and leverage themselves up into true superpower. Getting America out of the Gulf is essential. The way forward is to wear down the American voter. It’s working, perfectly.

GWB probably IS paralyzed. The mullahs are not going to provide timely pretext. The MSM demands levels proof that are unattainable. Russia and China are determined to block further American hegemony in the Gulf.

The Rubicon has already been crossed, but the savvy non-scientists out there say it not. With no direct knowledge of the process, even an element of it, they don’t know what to think or when to think.

As to the notion that our intel is going to get this one right: then what of 9-11-2001.

The EMP story is just a scare. The mullahs don’t want to put our lights out. They simply want to blow us up.

Iranian Ambitions

Iran is racing towards an atomic arsenal -- if they don't already have one.

I heard some authors/pundits on O'Reilly basically standing against pre-emption, claiming they were certain Iran was "5 years" away from an atomic capability.

So what's their plan, wait 4.5 years to do something, and hope they aren't wrong in their estimate by 6 months?

What kind of stupid policy is that?

Given the stakes?

Others say we will strike, but politically must wait until they declare a capability or test a weapon.

That assumes they'll follow that script, rather than secretly creating a dozen or two nukes and "testing" them by detonating them simultaneously over Israel and major American cities.

They've said they want to over and over.

Here's just one example, from Spain's former Prime Minister, reporting that Iran's Supreme Spiritual Leader, the absolute ruler of the country, told him this in 2001:
Aznar: Khamenei said in 2001 Iran aimed to 'set Israel alight'

Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.
"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack."
Why for that alone we aren't killing every mullah in the country at this very moment is beyond me.

Many think our arsenal deters them from such a policy and don't let that scenario figure in their analysis.

We didn't "deter" 9/11 did we?

It's time we got it through our heads that islam wishes to simply murder as many Jews and Americans as it can, by any means necessary.

Its culture is dying, being crowded out by the inevitable approach of modernity. Our very existence is unbearable to their way of life. The only way their culture can survive is to snuff ours out.

I had a conversation with a guy recently who asked, incredulously, why the Iranian leaders didn't want their country to be "strong" by "modernizing" their infrastructure, educating their people, and becoming good modern liberal capitalists.

He completely could not grasp that their value system is completely different from ours, and their definition of "strength" belongs not to the secular realm but to the religious one.

The modern Western mind, shaped by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, with a possibly fatal dose of post-modern secularism, simply cannot comprehend the thought-processes of the pre-rational, pre-scientific people in the rural areas stretching from Pakistan through Africa where the only form of "education" consists of memorizing the verses of the koran and the natural world is assumed to be run by magic and djinn-like spirits.

We have only to look at Qutb's In the Shade of the Koran, the deeply thought-out philosophy inspiring the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda, to see how little this life in the physical world means to them.

God may have died in the West, but supernatural entities still rule the minds of a large part of the world, and we had better understand exactly what that means.

Especially when those people are about to obtain nuclear weapons for the glory of their warrior moongod.

The above is a preface to the following.

In a comment at a post at Winds of Change, poster "blert" summarizes a Russian analysis and offers his own cogent remarks on Iranian strategy and intentions:
Iran can create nuclear bomb.

Academician Viktor Mikhailov, director of the Strategic Stability Institute of Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy, academic supervisor of Russia's Federal Nuclear Center (Research Institute of Experimental Physics), holder of the Lenin and State prizes, and minister of nuclear energy from 1992 to 1998, in an interview with RIA Novosti military commentator Viktor Litovkin.

Key points: Iran is better set to design weapons in many ways relative to the Soviet Union.

Iran has heavy water production; has had it for years. Its new civilian plant will be a pressurized heavy water design.

Heavy water is virtually the perfect moderator and makes uranium enrichment quite unnecessary. The Nazi scheme was so crude that it would have killed the lab crew. They intended to lower, on chains, cubes of un-enriched uranium into a swimming pool bath of heavy water. A few simple changes later: it would work. That’s all there is to it. The killer for Nazi Germany: no heavy water. The Germans never even seriously pursued enrichment of uranium: too expensive and difficult. ( During the war, it was assumed that they were doing so.)

Transmuting heavy uranium up to plutonium is easy. It can then be separated by chemical means to yield virtually 100% bomb grade plutonium.

America used the Hanford plants in the State of Washington to produce the plutonium for Trinity and Fat Man. To show you how much quicker it was, it started later than Oak Ridge and produced two bombs to one.

Hanford used ultra-pure graphite blocks as the moderator. Power was never extracted. It was totally optimized for plutonium production.

The Chernobyl reactor type is but a variation on Hanford: steam power is extracted and they run hotter. Bomb grade plutonium is routinely kicked out of these plants, so much so that at the end of the Cold War tons of surplus plutonium was stockpiled. This in a nation that had weapons by the thousand. Much of this stockpile was weakly guarded.

Highly Enriched Uranium is the nuclear explosive of primitives. It is too expensive. It does make for a very simply bomb design. It was never tested before first use. Confidence was high.

Even Trinity was regarded as unnecessary by many. Every sub-component had already been tested and re-tested. The Oppenheimer crew never wanted to bomb Japan. Trinity got rid of one weapon and stalled the attacks. The war could’ve been ended months earlier. Tibbets forced the issue by sending the 509th to Tinian. That put the onus on Oppenheimer & Co.

It ought to be apparent to all that Iran doesn’t dare test her nukes until she is really ready. Doing so would give Bush & Co a green light to attack before enough atomic retaliation is available.

Folks, stop trying to come up with your own Iranian strategy. Just listen to what they have said, on the record, when they thought only loyalists were listening.


First, they want to create an arsenal of a nuclear superpower, no nickel and dime operation. Anything less is suicide. At that level of power, they can sit at the big table and have complete freedom of action. Smart.

Second, co-opt or absorb OPEC. Smart. Extract semi-monopoly rents from your enemies.

Third, infiltrate all of the infidel lands with martyrs. Smart. Russian and Europe may fall into their lap. Run a protection racket to extract more rent.

Fourth, upon the magic hour pop everything at one go: and that means everything. Smart… all or nothing is the only viable path in nuclear war. Trading blows… now that’s suicide. The mullahs have no intention to receive any counter blow. With any luck a muslim can launch some missiles on America from Russia. It’s a ‘Terminator 4’ plot fantasy.

Whenever the button goes down, Iran intends to be the ‘innocent’.

The romantic idea that hard hearted mullahs with fat wallets and decades of effort with world class technicians and working blueprints can’t have yet succeeded: how precious.

The world’s intelligence services and the IAEA have a flawless track record in failing to predict the tempo or status of budding nuclear powers. Failure 100% of the time. How sweet. I read here on WOC that most are awaiting their pronouncements. Oh, well.

Well, maybe there’s one exception: Oppenheimer and his buddies did inform the Communists of their progress. But that was given to them on a silver platter. The Soviet Union didn’t penetrate Los Alamos… it came to them. The first Soviet bomb was an absolute clone of Fat Man right on down to non-metric dimensions. Likewise, the TU-4 was an absolute knockoff of the single B-29 that came into Soviet possession.

When the Cold War was over, the Russians started bragging about Oppenheimer. It cut -both ways: it embellished the KGB and GRU… and cut low the reputation of their own atomic bomb developers.

I know it’s hard to believe that J. Robert Oppenheimer was a Communist; just because his wife, brother, parents were Communists and Russian archives point to him as the man that gave it all up for them. But I’m willing to believe it.

The mullahs are anything but stupid or insane. They are radicals. Ahmadi-Nejad really is like Hitler: his presidency is more in the nature of the German chancellorship. It’s by appointment only. He has installed his personal buddies all over the active leadership of the country. His superior, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, apparently is in ill health: cancer. He has a replacement in mind, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who is as radical as they come.

Like Nazi Germany, Iran figures to mop up the weak states around them and leverage themselves up into true superpower. Getting America out of the Gulf is essential. The way forward is to wear down the American voter. It’s working, perfectly.

GWB probably IS paralyzed. The mullahs are not going to provide timely pretext. The MSM demands levels proof that are unattainable. Russia and China are determined to block further American hegemony in the Gulf.

The Rubicon has already been crossed, but the savvy non-scientists out there say it not. With no direct knowledge of the process, even an element of it, they don’t know what to think or when to think.

As to the notion that our intel is going to get this one right: then what of 9-11-2001.

The EMP story is just a scare. The mullahs don’t want to put our lights out. They simply want to blow us up.

A good example of that thinking was the attempt on Baghdad’s Green Zone. Obviously schemed by the Iranians and run through a front, the notion was to bag’em all. Such a stroke would clear the deck for an American humiliation and departure. Natch.
The mental axioms of islam are incompatible with the fundamental beliefs of Western liberalism, and one or the other must give way.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Walking Robot

Found via New Spew, a really neat video of a robotic 4-legged "pack mule" prototype for the military.

"BigDog" can carry about 100 pounds. Great for hauling ammo to the front through dangerous spots, for example.
A nimble, four-legged robot is so surefooted it can recover its balance even after being given a hefty kick. The machine, which moves like a cross between a goat and a pantomime horse, is being developed as a robotic pack mule for the US military.

BigDog is described by its developers Boston Dynamics as “the most advanced quadruped robot on Earth”. The company have released a new video of the robot negotiating steep slopes, crossing rocky ground and dealing with the sharp kick.
Direct link to the video of it walking around is here.

It's kind of cute.

I can't wait until they strap some machine guns on it.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

David Warren Is On Fire

Read the whole thing, but some excerpts from David Warren's latest from Canada:
Our Kandahar detachment does not consist of “peacekeepers”. A person must have his brains scrambled for breakfast to think it does. For the peace is being imposed. Our guys are not “honest, impartial middlemen” between the Taliban savages and the elected government of Afghanistan. We are there to serve the latter by eliminating the former. It is a kill or be killed proposition. We are there to protect the common people; and therefore to kill the common enemy.

The pansies of the Left are already fibrillating: “We didn’t think this was going to be a war!” Grow up, little people.
A great start that just gets better:
There is no neutral ground between civilization and barbarism. There is not even a boundary. You are either going up, or you are coming down.

In the words of W.H. Auden:

Recalled from the shades to be a seeing being,
From absence to be on display,
Without a name or history I wake
Between my body and the day.

Do you follow? Let me explain. Beneath the garments of our civility, we are naked men. The conditions for our survival must never be forgotten. We were not born in our clothing. Every fragment of our comfortable world was purchased at risk, from the wilderness of nature, and the wilderness in the heart of man. Our ancestors built and rebuilt, all ultimately, as Nehemiah built Jerusalem wall -- sword in one hand, trowel in the other.

To follow from my remarks on Saturday, which were chiefly translated from Wafa Sultan’s magnificent Arabic, there is not and never was a “clash of civilizations”. It is in the nature of things that only one civilization can prevail at one time: that the inferior will aspire to the superior, and be assimilated to it; or else, it will aspire to bring the superior down. The clashes are thus between higher and lower; between civilization and barbarism in their many degrees; and barbarism prevails where its hard beak meets the soft mush of decadence.

For part of the superiority of the high civilization is to be found in its self-confident ability to defend itself, and to uphold civilized norms. We maintain and extend the frontiers of our civilization; or else they shrink. The Western model of civilization, with its openness and freedom, is flawed, as all civilizations are flawed. We may now be succumbing to our decadence, our death wish. But what remains is all we have against the “day of outrage when hellikins cavort through ruined drawing-rooms” (Auden again).
Against barbarism, the civilized must never be soft. Against barbarism, the civilized must be ferocious.
I learned this long ago, implausibly enough, partly from reading Mad Magazine.

I still remember reading one of their pieces about 30 years ago that spoke historically about ancient civilizations such as Rome falling to "lean and hungry barbarians from the East."

They then ended with a panel depicting a vaguely asian-looking "lean and hungry barbarian from the East" with an automatic rifle, a Mao-ish uniform, and a big smile, easily knocking over a bewildered-looking Weebil-shaped fat and overly-contented Westerner with a simple poke of a finger.

Or maybe it was "Crack'd" and not "Mad"...

The barbarians are always at the Gates.

how to end this threat of anarchy spilling out of the Third World?

This is discussed at Belmont Club.

Some interesting points were made there:
ShrinkWrapped said...
Excellent post, Wretchard, and may I add to it that one place the left-wing elites in the West intersect with the Islamists is in their (unconscious) support for anarchy. The elites typically support the free expression of instinctual drives (eg, there should be no controls on people's sexual behavior, "anything goes", revolutionary violence is admirable, etc.) When young men are raised without being civilized (learning restraint, frustration tolerance, delayed gratification) they become agents of anarchy, taking what they want when they want, as long as they are able.

4:13 AM

WildMonk said...
Another excellent post. Shrinkwrapped: I'm not sure the left-wing elites understand (or permit themselves to see) that there is a fundamental difference between a healthy society's ability to handle some segment of their society that practices 'fashionable' anarchy and a sick society's penchant for falling victim to it completely. Such studied ignorance, based on equally ignorant theories of cultural relativism, is much to our disadvantage in trying to transform Iraq and other anarchic societies. Excellent comment though!

6:02 AM
Papa Bear said...
Wretchard writes "Anarchy is self-defending, as the failed United Nations relief mission to Somalia in 1990 discovered to its cost. It will appropriate relief supplies, money and aid workers themselves as gang property, the economic basis of its system. Anarchy absorbs violence just as it absorbs relief and even gains strength from it when weapons, designed to disrupt ordered societies, are unleashed on it. "

There is a long-standing choice in human life: you can live as a civilized worker, or as a predator. What you call "anarchy" may be more accurately named "predator society".

A civilization is only viable if it is able to control its predator population (either by caging them, making them go elsewhere, exterminating them, or domesticating them). If the predators become dominant, then work is no longer viable because the predators will take the worker's production. The result is what you call anarchy.

6:03 AM
sax said...
This is precisely what Thomas Barnett argues in his book entitled "War and Peace in the 21st Century"

6:16 AM

Charles Martel said...
The anarchy and chaos imposed by the Left is not dissimilar to that found in Iraq, Syria or Iran. The Left's particular brand of anarchy is a precursor to that found in the aforementioned nations. It is ironic indeed that with all its ostensible commitment to non-violence the Left manages not only to ultimately engender violence but to coddle it along the way.

7:17 AM

Aristides said...
I think this idea of interacting with the rest of the world at arm's reach is a recipe for disaster. I think our options are (for lack of a better world) Imperialism or Barbarism.

In this sense, Fukuyama's labeling of neo-cons as Leninists strikes me as too simplistic. As you know Lenin read Marx's theory of historical determinancy and decided to give history a little artificial boost. Instead of waiting on the "inevitabilities" of industrialism, he wanted to impose them.

Neo-cons believe that democracy is the only stable structure for a society in the long term, because of many reasons which I will not get into. What's intriguing is that embedded in their theory is an "evolutionary" understanding of societal fitness -- that Western democratic liberalism arose after a long string of unlikely contingencies, but that its properties, once realized, gave it certain advantageous traits. These organizational developments allowed Western democratic liberalism to survive in the rough and tumble world of civilizational natural selection.

And now, the neo-cons want to mate this evolutionary winner with a whole host of evolutionary losers. Iraq is our attempt to falsify this theory. How likely is it that a child so begotten will be viable (we do have some examples of success)?

Of course, we may not have a choice, not a true choice. If our options really are Imperialism or Barbarism, we may have to start using our big stick in a copulatory sense -- nurturing the children that survive infant mortality, aborting those that should never be born.

Either way, it's important to understand that the success of the West was an accident of nature. It emerged out of a complex series of events that are absolutely unique and utterly non-repeatable. To think of our progression as an evolutionary law--and therefore to sit back and wait for other societies to metamorphose into what we would define as success--is folly.

We need to cross-pollinate. If we don't, we are going to have to eliminate.

It might just be that simple.

12:27 PM

Neo-neocon said...
Wonderful post. So wonderful I couldn't resist adding to it, including the following description of some of the differences of opinion about the Iraq War:

Perhaps, in the end, that's the greatest difference between those who are hawkish on this war and those who oppose it: the former believe the unleashed chaos was not avoidable, and needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later, because dealing with it was inevitable and waiting would only allow those forces to build....In the end, one's position on the matter probably depends on how one diagnoses the disease. Was it a small set of carbuncles that could be easily lanced (police action), or a chronic illness that just needed some intervention here and there but nothing drastic (isolationist and/or realpolitik)? Or was it a lethal illness that had probably already metastasized, and needed a strong dose of powerful and dangerous medicine to have any hope of cure (neocon, interventionist)?

I come down on the side of the latter diagnosis.

12:29 PM
Crime is another form of predatory, barbaric behavior that Civilization cannot tolerate, just like terrorism. There's a thread of left-wing thought that just can't see the threat, however, of either.

This blindness is a form of mushy decadence, as David Warren described.

To illustrate with a brief digression, it always gets me how I read AP article after AP article decrying the "increase" in our prison population -- get this -- "despite" a drop in crime!

From The New York Times on November 8, 2004:
Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates

The number of inmates in state and federal prisons rose 2.1 percent last year, even as violent crime and property crime fell, according to a study by the Justice Department released yesterday.

The continuing increase in the prison population, despite a drop or leveling off in the crime rate in the past few years...

[It goes on to ponder this "paradox":]

In seeking to explain the paradox of a falling crime rate but a rising prison population...

[and seems to suggest we'd be better off releasing people -- to do what, make crime go down more?]
The morons writing those stories don't seem to grasp cause and effect.

That maybe crime goes down because predators are being -- gasp! -- locked up, rather than crime just naturally falling and the big meanie government still throwing harmless pot smokers in jail.

Department of Justice figures on incarceration show the former thesis is correct, and the latter narrative is a myth.

For example, the Justice Dept has found:
Violent crime rate has dropped in every income category by at least 40 percent between 1993 and 2003.
See this dramatic chart from the Bureau of Justice:

Is this just Demographics, or the effects of Incarceration?

Has the population fraction between the ages of 20 and 30 declined by at least 40% over 10 years? I don't think so. Demographics can only account for about one quarter of that decline (I compute about a 10% relative drop in that population).

But we see incarcerations have gone up.

There are only two cases. In the first case, one believes that whether or not someone becomes a criminal at any point in time is a mostly random variable -- it can happen to anyone, given the proper circumstances.

If that's true, then locking them up doesn't really help, as the remaining people have the same chance as before for going criminal (except for demographics).

In the second case, one believes criminal tendencies become ingrained in someone's character at some point. Thus, locking up those people reduces the overall level of crime, as the remaining population of society is thus less inclined to crime.

Correlation in itself is not causation, but given a theoretical model (case 2 above), correlation lends support, unlike in case 1, which fails to explain the crime rate facts.

Although the prison population climbs, the actual incarceration rate has levelled off in the last few years, after ramping up steeply from 1980 to 2000.

Which looks to me as a good explanation of why violent crime fell off a cliff after a critical point was crossed around 1990.

Property crime reduction tracks the increase in incarcerations very well all the way back to 1980.

See also this chart:

The DOJ says:
Over half of the increase in State prison population since 1995 is due to an increase in the prisoners convicted of violent offenses.
The big bump in drug incarceration was in the late 80s. But since 1990, the steepest curve in that chart is the violent offender.

Therefore, the notion that the newly jailed are all just casual pot smokers is a myth.

Indeed, the best single predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal behavior, especially repeated past criminal behavior that has led to incarceration.

Most serious crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders. It is a way of life for them. The person with a clean record who makes a mistake in judgement usually doesn't go to jail and doesn't get into trouble again.

For example, the DOJ tracked 272,000 inmates who were released in 1994. The average one had been arrested prior to that 15(!) times. Each went on to
commit 3 more arrestible crimes in the next 3 years after their release.

Here's a little statistical thought experiment!

Take any two people chosen at random. Suppose all you know is one has been released from jail recently for stealing, and the other has never been to jail. You are to guess which (if any) will be in jail within 3 years.

If you pick the first person, you will be right about 75% of the time.

If you pick the second person, you'll be right less than 1% of the time.

And picking neither is only right 25% of the time!

Talk about a "sure thing"!

From the DOJ:
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
And that's just arrests! Think of all the crimes they're doing that they don't even get caught for!

Yes it's possible somebody does a crime out of the blue, but the difference between 1% and 75% is too large to be a statistical accident, and thus one can make policy on that difference that correctly extrapolates into the future.

Given these repeat-offense rates, one can construct a mathematical equation that shows conclusively that keeping those repeat offenders in jail longer (or making sure they get sent there instead of probation), reduces the chance (and hence in the aggregate, the rate) of crime in the community.

And that is indeed what has been observed.

Misguided fools wish to release the criminal and welcome the barbarian, to make them feel good about themselves through ostentatious "tolerance."

We must stop them.

Koran Indicted

Via Fjordman in a comment at LGF, Koran indicted in Germany for being incompatible with their constitution:
At the prosecutor’s office at Gorch-Forck-Wall 15 in Hamburg, an unusual letter was received Monday morning, containing an indictment filed this weekend. The indictment targeted the Quran, charging that the holy book of the Moslems, according to the accuser, is incompatible with the German constitution.

“Support Denmark!”
The accuser is “Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen (BVB)”, which concerns itself with, in its own words, “defending basic rights and freedoms” against Islam. The extensive international furore, allegedly caused by the Muhammed cartoons, has made clear the relevancy of the alliance. Its homepage is decorated with a Danish flag with the words “Support Denmark! Defend the Free World.” superimposed on it.
That homepage is here. A reporting blogger translates from that website:
A quote: “Schluss mit der falschen Toleranz für die muslimische Doppelmoral.”

Take this translation with a grain of salt - this is a translation between two non-native tongues for me - but that would go like this is English:

“End the wrongful tolerance of Moslem hypocrisy.”
Now that's talking my language!
The indictment has been filed in several states, including Hamburg, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bayern and probably more.

In several talkshows on German TV, conservative politicians have pointed out that the Quran is incompatible with the German constitution. The Turkish-born writer Serap Cileli said on January 29 this year that “the Quran must be considered a historic document. It is not compatible with our constitution and Human Rights.”

Now the alliance wants the matter tried at the courts.
She says it is a task of sisyphean dimensions to inform the media, politicians and churches of the true intentions of Islam in the enlightened world of the West.

“We are grateful to Jyllands-Posten that discussions about Islam have now become possible,” says Jutta Starke.

“You suffer for all of Europe and that’s why we find it indecent that Europe hasn’t loudly, in unison, taken a stand for Freedom of Speech against the laws of the Quran.”
The decisive count of the indictment “is in the Quran’s status vis a vis the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitution”. In the appendices to the indictment, 200 points have been listed “where the Quran is against and claims itself above the constitution.”
The newly elected German-born chairman of the Moslem Central Council of German, Ayyub Axel Köhler, is quoted in the indictment:

“A constitution after the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers, is nowhere to be found in the Islamic theory of the State. From an Islamic viewpoint, this is obvious, since the laws - the laws of God - in the form of sharia, are already made and thus no legislative power is needed, in that sense of the word. Only Allah is the legislative power.”
The indictment is against the 200 verses of 114 suras (ED:chapters) of the Quran that are not compatible with the constitution, including demagoguery, incitement to murder, murder and mutilation, war, acceptance of thievery against infidels, meaning all non-Moslems. Verses are also pointed out where the equal rights of men and women are not upheld and where people of different faiths are oppressed.

Example: “The unbelievers among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians): They are the vilest of all creatures.” (Sura 98:6)

According to the indictment that paragraph violates Article 4 of the Constitution and Paragraph 166 of the Penal Code.
A good sign. At least the word is being spread!

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Error in Judgment

As the diplomatic options finally are grinding to their expected failure, Rummy speaks on Iran in the way I do so love:
Q Mr. Secretary, the vice president just addressed the issue of Iran and said, quote, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." He said if Iran remains on its current course, it will face "meaningful consequences."

So my question to you is, first, do we have the ability to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? And what are those "meaningful consequences"? Could they be military?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I have not read the full text of that. The president and the vice president and the secretary of State have all spoken on this issue. It's -- I am not going to get into details of anything relating to that.

I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. And we know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment.

Q Why is that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I've said all I have to say.
Then a little later,
Q What kind of force? I'm sorry.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The Quds Force. The Revolutionary Guard types.

Q Well, are we talking about for actual violence or for political purposes?

SEC. RUMSFELD: To the extent we find that -- I don't think we could consider them religious pilgrims.


Q Do you think this is backed by the central government in Iran? What's your --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, of course. The Revolutionary Guard doesn't go milling around willy-nilly, one would think.
That's good material, comedy gold!

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Whittling Away

More good news:
Fresh on the heels of the arrest of Abdur Rahman, Bangladesh nabs the other most wanted terrorist in the country

Bangladesh has scored the second high profile arrest of an al-Qaeda linked terrorist in less than a week, and essentially captured the numbers one and two terrorists in the country. After the arrest of Abdur Rahman, an associate of Osama bin Laden and one of the original signatories of al-Qaeda's fatwa establishing the International Islamic Front, Siddique ul-Islam, better know as Bangla Bhai, along with two associates were nabbed after a shootout with Bangladeshi police. While the details of his arrest are sketchy, the likelihood is his arrest was facilitated by information obtained from Rahman's capture and subsequent interrogation. Rahman threatened to 'martyr' himself during the standoff with police last week, but later surrendered without a fight. A case of 'martyrdom for thee but not for me,' which should not inspire the rank and file jihadists. Bangla Bhai also chose surrender over suicide. (Update: Andrew Cochran has a roundup of news from Bangladesh concerning the capture of Bangla Bhai The Counterterrorism Blog.)

Bangla Bhai is the ruthless military commander of the al-Qaeda linked Islamist terrorist group Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (Awakened Muslim Masses of Bangladesh), or JMJB. He fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, and is said to revel in torturing and murdering his victims.
And about that Iraqi 'Civil War'?

From a comment at The Fourth Rail,
U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid said last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine - and the reprisal attacks on Sunni Arabs - created a stronger impetus for Sunni-American cooperation.

"There is an improvement in Anbar," Abizaid told The Associated Press on Saturday. "A lot of people in the Sunni community are talking to us, lessening the cycle of violence. Many Sunni leaders are moving forward to take part in the political process."
And in the main article,
Many Sunni leaders were willing to go on the record to express their defiance:

"We are a group of the Anbar people who want to get rid of Zarqawi . . . because this is the only way to make the Americans withdraw from Ramadi or Iraq in general...We are against Zarqawi and his followers because they aim to extend the presence of the occupation and hurt our forces to make them weak... I cannot say that all the people in Ramadi support us, but I can say 80 percent of them do...We have killed a number of the Arabs, including Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Kuwaitis, Syrians and Jordanians... We were also able to foil an attack by Zarqawi's men who were trying to attack an oil pipeline outside Ramadi. We killed four Iraqis trying to plant the bomb under the pipeline."
Rumsfeld finds the MSM's reporting to be slanted:
From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq.

Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.

And then I notice today that there's been a public opinion poll reporting that the readers of these exaggerations believe Iraq is in a civil war -- a majority do, which I suppose is little wonder that the reports we've seen have had that effect on the American people.

General Casey has reported that overall levels of violence have not increased substantially as a result of the Golden Dome bombing. To be sure, violence continues to slow Iraq's progress. That's a fact, and we know that. In the coming months Iraqis will face difficult obstacles in controlling illegal militias, and we know that. They're working to try to strengthen their ministries, and we're trying to help them. And their efforts to fashion a unity government that will represent all elements of their society is clearly being delayed by the situation in Iraq. Nonetheless, the leadership being shown by the Iraqi security forces, by the Iraqi government officials in the wake of these attacks against the shrine has to be seen as encouraging, despite the apparent unwillingness of some to accept it.
I'd also note that in the last few weeks, dozens to hundreds have also been killed in Nigeria in muslim-Christian violence, but nobody in the MSM has said Nigeria is heading for a 'Civil War' and that the sky is falling.

It's not for lack of oil, as Nigeria is also an important producer.

It's not for lack of militias and hostages, as Nigerian rebels also kidnap Westerners (luckily 6 were just set free).

It can only be because the MSM wants ths US to be seen to fail.

But don't question their Patriotism!

The other main difference between Iraq and Nigeria is the presence of 1/3 of the US Army to stabilize things should that become necessary.

Not to mention the continually growing and improving Iraqi Security Forces.

Nigeria is in far more peril of splitting North-South along religious lines at any moment.
The United States Intelligence Agency had stated in its latest report on Nigeria that the country may disintegrate following plans by supporters of President Olusegun Obasanjo to amend the constitution to allow the president to stand for election in 2007.
Yet hardly a peep about it.



There is unfortunately no shortage of depressing instances of newspapers and communities folding in the face of unreasonable islamic demands.

But it's not all doom and gloom.

In fact, in some sense, things must actually be getter better and better every day!

Because really, this was all going on all the time, more or less, since the 1970s in the modern day...and ever since the 7th century in a broader view.

But since 9/11, some people have started to notice.

And more and more notice every day.

The process seems agonizingly slow.

And it is.

Especially as time is no longer on our side in the age of nuclear weapons.

But communications are moving at such a rapid pace and the cumulative effect is actually exponential, that eventually a "knee" is reached in the curve and it eventually shifts from looking rather flat to shooting upward.

The cartoon incident even must have opened the eyes of many a cafe liberal who isn't really a dedicated marxist but has always felt strongly opposed to censorship and first amendment rights. They may still abhor Bush but suddenly muslims aren't all just sweet cuddly misunderstood quaint exotics.

The alliance of the Left with mohammedism has so many contradictions that it cannot long endure. In fact, its crumbling may split some of the Left off with it! Look at the bipartisanship created over the Dubious Dubai ports deal!

My impression from surfing the web for 4 years is that not only are the ranks of the anti-idiotarians growing every day, but many of the ones who have had their eyes opened long ago are now fully ready for total war.

As Victor Hanson would point out, that's a very serious development, for not only do we have a Button to push to unleash ten-thousand artificial suns, but as a republic, we -- meaning literally you and me -- actually have one three-hundred-millionth of a finger personally on that Button.

Power to the People.

Heh. Now I'm actually nostalgic for the days when we had 30,000. Ten thousand (with a third in mothballs) hardly seems like enough now, does it? I mean, we need to have something left over to keep the Red Chinese in line before the weapons labs crank up enough replacements, don't we?

Anyway, enough rambling, here are some minor but inspiring examples of people drawing the line against muslim passive-aggressive whining.

First from Greece:
Muslims in Athens wait for city's first mosque
A mosque has long been planned for the estimated 150,000 Muslims living in Athens but has been held up over objections from the powerful Orthodox Church, and the public.

Studded with minarets two centuries ago, Athens has not had a functioning mosque since the end of Ottoman rule in the early 1800s.
A site was chosen 21 miles outside the city after the Orthodox Church expressed displeasure over the prospect of a minaret rising on the Athens skyline. But construction in the town of Paiania, near the international airport, never began.


Incensed by the project, the town's residents built a large wooden cross on the land allocated for the mosque. A small Orthodox chapel has also appeared on the site.

Paiania Mayor Paraskevas Papakostopoulos said residents are angry that the site is on a hill, meaning the mosque will be visible from afar and seen by visitors flying into the airport.

"It spoils the religious and cultural character of our region, as well as all of Greece," he said. "It's not pleasant to enter a country and the first thing you see is a mosque."
"Our residents look at it as a foreign object in their area, that is being forced on them without anyone asking their opinion," he said.

The Orthodox Church, which had long opposed the mosque, has recently softened its stance. But although it gave its approval to the mosque, it still opposes the cultural center.

It says recent attacks by suspected militants in European capitals have fueled its concerns that the Islamic center may incite fundamentalism.
Now there's an amazing amount of plain speaking!

And I can't find a free link, but in today's Wall Street Journal, it told of how literally tearful wailing demands by muslim groups -- along with obligatory veiled threats of dangers to "peace" -- failed to prevent the staging of a play by Voltaire that depicts Mohammed as a fanatic who uses religion to mask a criminal enterprise. Daniel Pipes has a summary:
In 1994, the city government of Geneva organized the performance of all of Voltaire's theatre plays to celebrate the famous freethinker's 300th birthday. However, the Muslim community (not Islamists, but state-subsidized cultural foundations) objected to the staging by director Hervé Loichemol of Voltaire's play, first staged in 1742, Mahomet, ou le fanatisme, an attack on religious intolerance based on the Muslim biography of Muhammad in which he orders the murder of his critics. The city government withdrew funding for the play and no one dared come forward in response to Loichemol's plea for private sponsorship, so the performance was cancelled.

And here is the update: Eleven years later, Loichemol finally staged a production of Mahomet, ou le fanatisme. It was a reading on Dec. 8 in Saint-Genis-Pouilly, a French town near Geneva, where the mayor, Hubert Bertrand, provided police protection. In response to a Muslim spokesman's protest at a reception before the theatrical event, Bertrand asserted that "Freedom of speech is important, it is a critical part of laïcité." Loichemol was more angry: "You have no right to come here and tell us what we do or do not have the right to produce in the theater." After the performance began, one car and several trash cans were set on fire, which the mayor condemned as unacceptable.
There is more at that Pipes link of examples of Europe finding some spine. I also liked this one:
France's national anthem, La Marseillaise, must by law now be sung and its history learned in primary schools throughout the country.
The tide turns, person by person, day after day.

Yet More Dating Horror

So, I thought I'd try out, as seen on Must Love Dogs! (I haven't seen that movie, actually. I don't love dogs anyway...much prefer cats...)

The very first e-mail I get is from a member in Toronto who asked,
in your spirtual search was the Islamic faith considered as a choice ? I am planning to take fencing next fall .. how does it as a sport make you feel ? hopw you do not mind me asking ..
Why no, I don't mind you asking.

Indeed, you came to the right place for a discussion of islam!

The real question is, will you mind my answering?

The site's e-mail filters wouldn't let me use the word "rape", or give specific web addresses, so I came up with this reply:

You asked about Islam.

From its own scripture, we know Mohammed lusted for a young girl and consummated his marriage with her at the age of 9 when he was in his 50s! See faithfreedom-dot-org for more proof. He also had many people put to death. How can anyone take the teachings of such an evil man seriously? He preaches that women and theft are allowed as the spoils of jihad. Islam is a criminal enterprise disguised as a religion. It means "submission", not peace. Jesus Christ preached universal love. Mohammed did not. If you're searching, look to Jesus. If you join Islam, make sure you're sure, because the penalty for giving it up is death for the crime of "apostasy." What kind of religion does that to you if you leave? I only answer about this because you asked.

Fencing is fun. It's like high-speed chess. I hope you enjoy it.
Gosh, I can hardly wait for her reply!

Then I was pounced on by three Russians, a Chinese, and a Ghanian.

Most of them have surprisingly professional (and fetching) photographs, and even graduate degrees. Gee, they seem real legit...I'm sure I'll only have to fork over a few thousand bucks for their airfare or to get "Uncle Sasha" out of jail.

I paid for this?

It's a shame, because the PerfectMatch personality profile was actually very accurate and insightful.

Luckily I hedged by also joining, a spin-off of that uses myers-briggs-like personality profiling too. Both Chemistry and PerfectMatch are competing with eHarmony and I think they're a little more focused on romantic attraction as a factor, instead of merely long-term psychological compatibility as eHarmony is.

We'll see if they bear any fruit in the next 3-4 months when my subscription runs out...

Assaulted Peanut

From zombie at LGF, this translation of a joke apparently circulating in Germany. I'm still laughing!
(Note: the joke originally starred Sharon, but to update it I'll change it to Olmert.)


Iran and Israel decide to hold peace talks to forestall upcoming hostilities. There are to be two meetings: the first in Tehran, the second in Jerusalem.

Olmert travels to Tehran for the first meeting, and is ushered into the deluxe guest suite at the presidential palace. He goes to the bathroom, makes use of the toilet, but can't find any toilet paper. He then notices a button on the wall. A sign in several languages above the button says, "Do not press under any circumstances!" But, desperate, he presses the button anyway. A small hidden door opens and out comes a roll of toilet paper with the Talmud printed on it.

Later, Ahmadinejad goes to Jerusalem for the second meeting. He too is ushered into the deluxe guest suite, he too makes use of the facilities, and he too can find no toilet paper. He looks on the wall and --yup -- there's a button with a sign above it in many languages that says, "Do not press under any circumstances!"

Ahmadinejad thinks to himself, "Ah ha! if I press the button, a roll of toilet paper with the Koran printed on it will emerge from the wall. This is exactly the kind of insulting provocation I need to start an international incident and scuttle the talks!"

So he eagerly presses the button. But, to his mystification, nothing comes out of the wall. So he presses it again. Again nothing comes out. So he presses it a third time -- still, nothing. Mystified, Ahmadinejad thinks, "I guess the Jews are not as technologically advanced as the Muslims!"

So he wipes with his hand, and goes off to the opening reception. Olmert greets him and says, quietly, "Mr. Ahmadinejad, I have a confession: when I was in Tehran, I pushed the forbidden button behind the toilet. I saw the toilet paper with the Talmud printed on it."

"So," gloated Ahmadinejad, "what did you think of it?"

"Not so bad," said Olmert. "Very soft on the tuchas. But I have a question for you. Did you try to press the button behind the toilet in our guest suite?"

"Why, yes I did," said Ahmadinejad.

Olmert's eyes's widened. "Oh no!"

"It's alright," said Ahmadinejad. "Nothing came out of the wall, so I didn't see the Koran toilet paper. No matter how hard I tried, nothing came out."

Olmert still seemed horrified. "How many times did you press it?"

Ahmadinejad: "Three times, but still -- nothing."

Olmert: "You call three nuclear bombs on Tehran nothing?"

Saturday, March 04, 2006

The Lost Verses

According to this overview of islam at the Muslim Student's Association official website at the University of Southern California, the prophet mohammed's life is an example of how to live as an ideal person:
Muhammad (saas) was first ordered to instruct his immediate family on Islam, including his beloved wife Khadija, but eventually it was revealed to him that he should begin delivering the message to all of mankind. In the next 20 years of his life, he communicated the message of Allah to his people, and set an example for how each human being should lead her or his life.
And how are we to know how to follow this example?
In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (saas), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an. Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them. The Arabic word hadith (pl. ahadith) is very similar to Sunnah, but not identical. A hadith is a narration about the life of the Prophet (saas) or what he approved - as opposed to his life itself, which is the Sunnah as already mentioned.
This is important, because:
The Prophet (saas) (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to teach the Sunnah to his companions in word and deed, and urged them to follow it, as he said in his hadeeth: “Adhere to my Sunnah” and “Whoever neglects my Sunnah does not belong to me.”
Which is interesting, because to read these sources indicates that mohammed, the ideal man, was a despicable evil creature.

So what are we to think of people who uphold such a monster as a noble person to emulate?

A pervert who lusted after a six-year-old girl and began raping her at the age of nine?

Not to mention the murders...the mass slaughter...the incestuous lust for his daughter-in-law...all sanctioned by allah...

Really, what are we to think of anyone who utters "peace be upon him" when speaking of this creature?

What does it say about us if we do not abjure people for praising a pedophilic mass murderer, to simply avoid being rude?

What about Aisha?

mohammed is abhorrent. And by direct willing association, so is anyone who follows him. They are responsible for their beliefs and must be held morally accountable.

For not repudiating him on that alone, how can any muslim not be held self-evidently as a contemptible person?

Who will stand for Aisha?

Now to illustrate the above, and to also poke a stick in the eye of those trying to intimidate and silence our freedom of speech, I present the offensively-rendered Lost Verses of the Koran.

I first saw this brilliant bit of writing here, but it's been showing up on blog comments around the web for thte last several months. The author goes by "allah the pig" or variants thereof.

Apart from the lurid descriptions, however, it is actually an essentially correct biography of mohammed, consistent with accepted events -- especially "Surah 116", which is the only one needed to be true to prove my point.

The others are just gravy.

So anyone who objects to the depiction below must explain how "Surah 116" is innacurate.

Lost Verses of the Koran

Surah 115: The Pig


The hurried flight of the Hegira had led the Muslims to a fertile oasis, where they were at last safe from their many enemies in Mecca.

Pausing, each thanked Allah the moon-god for their good fortune.

Assembling at a long table, they enjoyed rare delicacies brought by bare-breasted sirens whose faces were veiled. During the feast Muhammad sternly forbade his disciples to partake of pig flesh, while fondling the youthful breasts of a Nubian girl named Sheba.

Obeying the Prophet, the pilgrims partook of the succulent flesh of jackals and vultures, washing their food down with strong wine.

“I never dreamed I’d have to eat the loins of a jackal, let alone the bitter entrails of a cursed vulture,” observed a hungry pilgrim named Ahmed to a fellow Muslim, choking on the unpalatable morsels.

“Neither did I, but the Holy Prophet has ordered it,” grumbled another starving follower, almost heaving as he consumed greasy vulture flesh.

“A rancid pork chop would taste a hell of a lot better than this crap does,” retorted Ahmed.

“It’s an acquired taste brother, you’ll get used to it,” spoke up another, smiling with a mouthful of rotten teeth.

“I don’t think so,” replied Ahmed, forcing down a burned jackal testicle.

An uncaring Muhammad, famished, greedily wolfed down roasted jackal in enjoyment, quaffing from an earthenware wine carafe on occasion, while choosing which of the sirens that would soon endure his favors.

The meal finished in the late afternoon, a drunken, lustful Muhammad initiated a sex orgy with the sirens, the debauched Holy Prophet, Allah speaking through him, declaring all earlier betrothals or marriages of the women he knew null and void.

The Muslims celebrated their good fortune, again thanking Allah for the bounty they had been blessed to receive.

Later, as Muhammad sat half-naked under a palm tree, masturbating to the thought of molesting little girls, Ahmed chanced by and remarked, "Oh great prophet, why does Allah say that we cannot dine on delicious porcine flesh?"

"Why?" asked Muhammad blithely, closing his filthy, tattered, moth-eaten robe, "Because Allah's younger retarded cyclops brother is a pig, and Allah doesn't want us killing his holy kinfolk."

"Allah is a pig?" asked an incredulous Ahmed, staring at Muhammad.

"Of course," replied the deranged Prophet Muhammad, hallucinating thanks to ingesting strong hashish minutes earlier.

"That's ridiculous, why in hell do we worship pigs?" asked Ahmed sharply, thinking his flight from Mecca may have been the result of heeding the words of a false prophet, possessed of a capricious desert demon who delighted in seeing them consume the flesh of vermin.

"Because they're better than we are," answered a smiling Muhammad, now fantasizing about raping little boys, "Look at me, I'm little more than a lecherous child molester, thief and murderer!"

"True, but pigs can't even talk!" exclaimed a sardonic Ahmed, digging a heel into the sand.

"Allah can, he speaks to me in my dreams," retorted the wildly hallucinating Muhammad, barely able to focus on Ahmed, seeing him in double vision.

"You're a madman Muhammad," declared a disgusted Ahmed, "I'm heading back to join the infidels in Mecca!"

"Who cares?" retorted Muhammad, slurring his words and breaking into riotous laughter.

Prophet Muhammad, opening his robe and again reaching for his flaccid sex organ, was too occupied with masturbating his building erection to reply further, while Ahmed, shaking his head in disbelief, disappeared behind a sand dune.

"What a stupid, perverted, licentious bastard," spat Ahmed, walking off, adding, "Muhammad is crazier than a shithouse rat!"

Surah 116: The Pervert


And it came to pass that Prophet Muhammad was growing ever hornier and more depraved: In a dream it was revealed by Allah that he was to molest a young girl named Ayesha.

Drunk on strong wine, the Prophet looked to a follower named Khalil and announced, “Allah has said I am to have sex on this day with a child; the virgin daughter of my brother in law Abu.”

“What?” asked a frowning, incredulous Khalil, holding a wine bottle, taken back by the remark and turning to Muhammad.

“I am to know Abu’s daughter Ayesha,” declared Muhammad, a finger in the air, becoming visibly aroused at the thought having sex with her.

“She is but a little girl who plays with dolls; her womb does not yet weep, are you insane?” asked Khalil, knowing in his heart that the Prophet was little more than a pervert, thief, liar and murderer.

“Probably, but it is the will of Allah”, a chuckling Muhammad stated to himself, staggering off to the hovel of Ayesha.

“What a twisted devil the Prophet is – the will of Allah my ass, he’s just an evil, depraved monster who lusts after the flesh,” Khalil mumbled disgustedly, putting the bottle to his parched lips.

An oblivious and uncaring Muhammad blundered down the street, weaving as he went, arriving at the hovel shortly thereafter.

Knocking on the door, Ayesha’s mother Umm appeared.

“What do you want Prophet?” she asked with disdain, staring at the debauched Muhammad, clad in a filthy tan robe covered in dust and wine stains, a lone flea crawling upon his moustache near his nostrils.

“Bismillah, I am here to take your daughter Ayesha in bed,” the Prophet answered bluntly, slurring his words.

“You licentious beast!” exclaimed the girl’s mother, “She is only six years old, if it is indeed the will of Allah, take me instead to satisfy your wanton depravity!”

“Taking you is not the will of Allah,” retorted a smiling Muhammad, the scent of wine heavy on his foul breath, “You are a wrinkled and faded flower without comeliness; be gone with your favors; I could never get a hard on at the likes of you.”

Enraged by her rebuff, Muhammad smote her upon the face with a backhand.

“That is what one gets for disobeying the will of Allah,” declared Muhammad, his words punctuated by a loud belch, “Take me to Ayesha, that I may know her on this day!”

Obeying, Umm reluctantly led Muhammad to the room of Ayesha, opening the door.

“This perverted Prophet here wants to screw you,” announced Umm with a frown, Muhammad ogling the virgin child in double vision.

“But you knew my cousin Abdullah, younger brother of Ahmed not an hour ago,” replied a shocked Ayesha, dropping her doll, revolted by the sight of the filthy, lascivious pedophile Muhammad.

“Be that as it may, Allah has said I will also know you,” answered Muhammad with an expectant smile, the gleam of lust in his eyes.

“Why me?” asked Ayesha, looking to the Prophet with trepidation.

“Because Allah has said it and I am horny, let us lay down, that I may know you,” ordered Muhammad blithely as he removed his robe, Ayesha’s mother shaking her head in helpless disgust and closing the door.

Surah 117: The Murderer


Mohammed and his followers enjoyed many days away from Mecca at the oasis, home of his oafish brother in law, Abu Bakr, who was also Muslim.

Dining on roast jackal, vultures and snakes, their strength was renewed by the bounty Allah the moon-god provided: plentiful food for their bellies and plentiful sirens for their carnal pleasure.

Khalil was upset that the Prophet was an evil lecherous pedophile who had known a little girl, so he went to the home of Ayesha to speak with her father, Abu the oaf.

He made his way to the hovel, and knocked on the door.

Ayesha’s mother opened the door, frowning as she beheld another of Prophet Muhammad’s followers.

“Is life not bad enough, what are you here for, to rape my daughter, me, or one of my sons?” she inquired with disdain.

“Indeed not woman, I must speak with your husband, not you,” replied Khalil sharply, who as a good Muslim, looked down upon women as little more than objects of pleasure, or dogs to be beaten into submission.

“My husband Abu is very drunk,” she related, lowering her gaze in respect for Khalil.

Khalil entering the hovel, the oaf Abu appeared from a side room holding a wine bottle, and slurred, “What do want here, follower of the Prophet?”

“I must speak with you regarding your little daughter Ayesha,” answered Khalil.

“What about her?” asked Abu, blinking his eyes and trying to focus on the man.

“The Prophet came unto her in her room a fortnight ago; do you not know?” asked Khalil bluntly.

He has come unto her many times since, she is his wife,” replied the unconcerned oaf.

“His wife you say - you permitted it?” asked Khalil, stunned by the revelation.

“Of course; he has come unto one of my nephews too, Muhammad is a pederast, it is the will of Allah,” declared a shrugging Abu.

“He’s raping our child you drunken bastard!” exclaimed a tearful Umm, looking to Khalil.

Abu smote her across the face, admonishing, “Take care woman, speak not ill of Prophet Muhammad, it is the will of Allah. The Prophet first knew Ayesha in a dream, when Gabriel showed her to him, uncovering her body for him to see.”

“That is really sick, she’s only six years old,” observed Khalil, shaking his head.

“Better for the great Prophet to know her than one of the infidels,” declared a smiling Abu with arms in the air.

“Prophet my ass, Muhammad is a depraved monster possessed of a demon; how could permit such a thing, you are her father!” exclaimed Khalil in utter disgust.

“Yes I am, and the Prophet says I will know her too,” confessed Abu, contemplating the odd thought of having sex with his own daughter.

Umm burst into tears and sobbed, throwing herself to the floor upon hearing Abu’s repugnant words.

A fearful Khalil fled the hovel, not knowing what to think; realizing Muhammad and his brother in law Abu were licentious perverts and vicious rapers of children, possessed of capricious and malevolent demons.

Later, Abu spoke with the Prophet while they entered a brothel together. He told him of the strange encounter with Khalil.

Khalil’s an idiot, he takes Islam much too seriously,” replied a chuckling Muhammad, looking to his oafish brother in law.

“It is a bad omen Prophet, Khalil woefully disdains your marriage to Ayesha, and disdains that I am to know her too,” declared Abu, even he feeling deep down that such a liaison was distasteful, but knowing it was the unalterable will of Allah, the moon god.

“It is the will of Allah for you to know your daughter, did not Lot of Sodom know his daughters in the cave?” asked a slurring Muhammad, quite drunk, leaning against a wall to steady himself.

“Yes Prophet, he did,” answered Abu with firm resolve, nodding.

“Indeed, it was and is Allah’s will,” replied Muhammad confidently, picking a flea from his beard and crushing it between his fingernails, “As for our problem, I will have a dream tonight, and Allah will order me to kill Khalil.”

“He will?” asked Abu, putting a hand to his chin in confusion, “But I thought the Perfect, Most Merciful Pig Allah never revealed his intentions until you had a dream.”

“No matter oaf, he is making his will known to me by making me drink strong wine on this day,” corrected a quickly lying Muhammad, holding up a bottle.

“Don’t you drink strong wine everyday?” asked a sardonic Abu.

“Not as strong as this stuff,” replied the Prophet with a broad smile, “It has hashish oil in it; let us partake of a pair of this brothel’s women and enjoy wine together.”

As Muhammad and Abu descended into more revelry and debauchery, a troubled Khalil approached another of the Prophet’s followers, the one with rotten teeth. Telling him of his woes, he awaited the reply.

“Who cares what he does, have vulture and some wine,” declared the man, tearing a leg from a roasted, maggot-ridden carcass and offering it to Khalil.

“You don’t care that Muhammad is a deranged pervert who has sex with little children?” asked Khalil, taking the leg.

“Hell no, I’m only here for the food, I was starving in the alleys of Mecca before I met Muhammad,” replied the rotten toothed man, grabbing more vulture flesh and a wine bottle.

“Oh,” answered a defeated Khalil, taking a bite from the leg and reaching for wine.

Late evening came, with Khalil and the other followers drunk and passed out in their tent.

Muhammad and Abu awoke at the brothel after midnight, rested and refreshed.

“What are we to do about Khalil?” asked Abu as they left via a side door, avoiding an encounter with the brothel’s madam, to whom they owed money.

“Leave that to me oaf,” answered the Prophet blithely, holding up a hand, “In my dream Allah told me how to deal with him.”

Muhammad headed down the street and stealthily entered the tent of his followers, intent on taking Khalil’s life. Abu Bakr followed him through the entrance, looking about for possible witnesses.

Holding an oiled leather garrote, the smiling Prophet mercilessly strangled the sleeping Khalil, knowing in his heart that it was the will of Allah.

The helpless follower struggled defiantly as a determined Muhammad gritted his teeth and pulled the garrote tighter, crushing Khalil’s windpipe, the Prophet letting out foul gas from his posterior due to the exertion. The struggling ceased; he and Abu then quietly removed the body from the tent and carried it into the desert.

“That takes care of that problem,” declared a satisfied Muhammad as he pocketed the garrote, he and Abu making their way to his hovel so he could know his young wife Ayesha again.

“When will I know her Prophet?” inquired Abu in the lamplit hovel, looking to his daughter’s room.

“Very soon, Allah has said it, go know your wife Umm for now, oaf,” suggested Muhammad with a smile, opening the door to Ayesha’s room.

Surah 118: The Liar


Time passed, and a strengthened Muhammad and his followers left the fertile oasis. The Prophet was joined by his young wife Ayesha and her father, oaf Abu, who left the remainder of his family stranded at the oasis, his wife Umm dying of grief shortly afterward.

Not one of the party dared question the vanishing of Khalil, some fearing that they too would vanish, perhaps due to Allah’s will or worse.

Muhammad told his followers that Khalil was an evil infidel, and had fled because he had coveted Ayesha, the child looking to her husband the Prophet, she and her father knowing he was not telling the truth.

“That is not true my father, Khalil only came to tell you of the Prophet knowing me,” Ayesha whispered, she and Abu standing only a few cubits from Muhammad.

“Take care in what you utter among others child, some things are better kept to oneself,” answered Abu quietly, not half the oaf the Prophet thought he was.

The rotten toothed man was listening intently; he had watched from the shadows while a smiling Muhammad strangled Khalil, but wisely kept this knowledge to himself, vowing to flee the group at the earliest opportunity.

Abu Bakr, fulfilling the will of Allah, came unto his daughter Ayesha over several evenings in a tent at the beckoning of the Holy Prophet, oddly finding her favors more satisfying than those of his wife.

Feeling strange from the experience of knowing his own daughter, a troubled Abu sought wise Muhammad’s advice.

“It was the will of Allah,” declared the debauched Muhammad, drunk on strong wine, “Allah has also revealed it is you which will sire her firstborn in her twelfth year; her incestuous bastard child Fatima.”

“I will?” asked Abu, incredulous that he would be siring a child by his own daughter.

“Yes,” replied the Prophet, removing his filthy robe, “But first I must satisfy my carnal urges, by indulging in her favors myself.”

Prophet Muhammad entered the tent and came unto the young Ayesha, who complained that she was sore from knowing her father three times in one day.

Striking her across the face, Muhammad admonished, “Keep your mouth shut wife and be thankful to Allah that only I and your father are knowing you.”

“Yes Holy Prophet,” Ayesha replied, closing her eyes and wincing in pain as Muhammad again knew her.

Arriving in Medina the following week, the Muslims found friends in this city, delighting in drunken revelry and the favors of veiled, tempting harlots with dark eyes.

A lecherous Muhammad, Ayesha and his brother in law Abu took up residence at a fine brothel, the Prophet and the oaf sampling the offerings over many weeks, finding that Medina had the finest of all harlots in the land.

Many residents of Medina found that Islam was a faith that appealed to them, Allah’s unalterable will moving the people, they abandoning their staid ways, joining with Prophet Muhammad in idleness, licentious revelry and drunkenness.

Abu later visited the Prophet in his tent, informing him of dreadful news that Medina was host to a band of Jews.

“Jews you say, the people of the book,” answered Muhammad, “They are bitter enemies of Allah and Islam; we will not suffer such people to live in our midst.”

“But there are 40 score or more of them in the city Prophet, do the warriors of Allah have the numbers to defeat them?” asked Abu.

“Of course oaf,” declared the evil Muhammad, “We shall wait until the dark of night, prowling by stealth, and then cut their throats as they slumber; Allah has willed it.”

Listening in the shadows, the rotten toothed man determined it was time for him to flee. Regardless of the free food, he wanted no part of a group of vicious, skulking cowards who would slaughter people as they slept.

Allah’s will was fulfilled on the next night, 40 score Jews meeting their end at the hands of the deranged, murderous pedophile Muhammad and his obedient Muslims.

Surah 119: The Thief


A fortnight passed, with many of the remaining people of Medina embracing Islam, and others fleeing for their lives, with the exception of a wealthy merchant named Sabri and his family.

Sabri vexed the followers with his words that Prophet Muhammad was little more than a drunken liar, murderer, and wanton sexual pervert; a lascivious monster and pedophile who kept the company of prostitutes, drunks and the slothful.

In another dream, the Holy Prophet learned that the vexing merchant had to be silenced, and that he had been chosen by Allah to murder him.

Telling Abu of his dream, he and Abu plotted the murder of Sabri the merchant. After enjoying strong wine together, they headed to his home on a dark late evening, let in by a lovely servant girl.

Muhammad and the oaf Abu observed the opulence of his residence; Sabri dressed in a fine silk robe with a silk turban, seven rings of gold and silver on his fingers.

His wife and the lovely servant girl brought food and a carafe of diluted wine for her husband, they disdainfully looking upon the filthy, debauched Prophet and his henchman Abu.

“Why will you not submit to Islam, it is the will of Allah,” declared the evil Muhammad, looking to Sabri, looking for the chance to end his life.

“The will of Allah my ass, you Muhammad are a murderous debauched lecher and raper of children. Your loathsome followers feed on the rancid flesh of vermin instead of fine pork roasts, and defile all that they touch,” declared a disgusted Sabri, noting that the Prophet was drunk, dressed in a filthy tattered robe, with his unkempt hair and long beard matted with dirt.

“I consume the flesh of vermin too, Great Allah is a Holy, Merciful Pig, it is not halal to dine on the sacred flesh of his younger brothers,” declared Muhammad with a finger in the air, Abu nodding in agreement.

“No, it is you who are a pig, you deranged cretin possessed of a vile demon,” retorted Sabri angrily, looking upon the Prophet with hatred in his eyes.

“Those who do not submit to the will of Allah will suffer dire consequences,” threatened Abu, looking about for anyone who would dare stop them. Observing only two women in the house, he smiled, knowing that the will of Allah was about to be fulfilled.

Sabri paused, staring at the Prophet and Abu in contempt, hoping he could in some way persuade them to leave the city, noting that business had fallen off to practically nothing since the arrival of the Muslims.

“Look, if I give you money, will you and yours flee Medina and never return?” asked Sabri with folded hands, hoping he could encourage them to leave with a payment of fine gold.

“I can’t leave,” declared a smiling Muhammad, “I am serving Great Allah, the Most Merciful Pig.”

Sabri, confused for a moment, replied, “But I thought Allah was the moon goddess of Mecca.”

“Whatever,” retorted a shrugging, uncaring Muhammad while picking his nose, he knowing that Allah didn’t exist anyway.

“You are destroying Medina with your vile harlotry and wicked ways!” exclaimed Sabri.

The Prophet laughed, and replied, “Indeed not, Allah is guiding my hand in this and all my actions, providing me and my followers with what we desire: food, fine drink and the company of willing sirens, like your lovely servant girl back there.”

“My servant girl is betrothed to a good man in Mecca, you will not speak ill of her, nor will you covet her favors,” declared Sabri, noting Muhammad leering through an open door, ogling the girl and his wife.

“I will do as I wish,” retorted the evil Muhammad with another laugh, reaching into his tattered, filthy robe and producing the garrote, “I covet the favors of your servant girl, and will take her to my bed for a concubine on this night. Those such as you will not stop the will of Allah or his Messenger.”

Abu rose while the Prophet was speaking and smote Sabri upon the face with a closed fist, knocking the silk turban from his head. Muhammad descended upon him like a viper, pulling the garrote tightly around his throat, strangling him in his chair while his wife and servant girl screamed.

“Be silent women, it is the will of Allah!” Muhammad yelled through gritted teeth as he took the life of Sabri. Oaf Abu moved into the room and beat them into submission while a struggling Sabri kicked the wine carafe from the table, it shattering on the floor.

Sabri’s life vanquished, Prophet Muhammad exhaled loudly and let the lifeless body tumble to the floor.

The trembling women remained silent as Abu returned to the Prophet with them.
“Where is your money?” asked a greedy Abu of Sabri’s wife.

“A box of gold and silver is in our bedroom,” answered his tearful wife, almost fainting from Abu’s foul breath.

“I’ll get it,” volunteered a smiling Muhammad, pulling the garrote from the body, “Get the rings from his fingers oaf.”

The Prophet returned with a box of glittering coins, pleased that Allah had provided such bounty for his followers.

“I can’t get the last ring off,” complained Abu, having pocketed six others.

“Cut off his finger to get it, and take his robe and turban too,” ordered Muhammad, determined not to leave one valuable item in the house.

Abu obeyed, reaching for a knife on the table, slicing off the finger and pulling the ring from it.

Arriving at the brothel, the Prophet celebrated his good fortune by knowing Sabri’s wife and the servant girl, annulling the widow’s marriage and the girl’s betrothal in the eyes of Allah.

Later that evening Abu was given Sabri’s widow for a concubine, as he had grown weary of Ayesha’s favors, also needing an able slave to cook and serve him.

Having to beat her before he knew her, Abu thanked Allah and Muhammad for the welcome gift of Sabri’s wife.

Surah 120: The Hypocrite


More time passed, with some of Muhammad’s followers finding the Prophet’s actions in Medina going against everything he had preached in Mecca, seeing him as Khalil, the rotten toothed man, and the merchant Sabri had seen him: an evil, debauched rapist, pedophile, liar, and murderer.

These and other apostate followers were quickly slaughtered as infidels, fulfilling the will of Allah; a smiling Muhammad strangling many of them as they slept.

Even Abu began to think that Muhammad’s wanton depravity may have been going too far when he encountered him in a tent knowing several young Jewish boys that had been taken captive.

“Prophet, some of the followers are complaining that you are denying them participation in the bounty given us by Allah, and that you are also practicing strange acts that Allah has forbidden to others,” related Abu, frowning at the displeasing thought of Muhammad knowing little boys.

“They want some of the gold, right oaf?” asked a drunken Muhammad, dressed in Sabri’s silk robe and turban, seven rings of gold and silver upon his greasy fingers, the fine garb growing filthier with each passing day.

“That, and some of them would also like to have some of the girls and boys for concubines,” answered Abu.

“They cannot have the little boys, Allah has given them to me for my carnal pleasure,” declared the lascivious Prophet, “As for the little girls, give them to the followers as wives, so that their carnal desires can be sated; it is the will of Allah.”

“Others say that you don’t practice what you have preached,” added a fidgeting Abu, hoping not to arouse Muhammad’s maniacal wrath.

“I’m only the messenger, Allah’s revelations don’t apply to me,” retorted Muhammad, releasing a tearful Jewish boy from his carnal embrace.

“What about me?” asked Abu.

“They don’t apply to you either oaf; would you like a lovely little boy for your carnal pleasure?” slurred the depraved sodomite Muhammad, lustfully leering at another boy he had chosen next to debauch.

“No, I find not that boys appeal to me,” answered Abu quietly, though he was a lecherous pedophile and incestuous pervert, he had no desire to sodomize little boys.

“Suit yourself oaf, more for me to enjoy,” answered the Prophet with a chuckle, undressing another captive boy, returning to his lecherous pederasty as Abu left the tent.

The city of Medina had been taken completely by the conquering Muslims, they reveling in their murderous victory over the infidels and Jews.

In another dream, it was revealed to Muhammad by Allah that they were to attack and conquer the city of Mecca. They were to subdue it and convert the inhabitants there to Islam, after which the Prophet was to take a pagan shrine called the Kaaba and defile it in the name of Allah.

“In Mecca there is glittering plunder, fine gold to steal, and many women to be taken for concubines,” declared the Prophet, “Allah has said to have faith in him and we will not fail; are you with me, warriors for Islam?”

The devoted followers answered, shouting in unison: There is no god but Allah the Pig, and Muhammad is his prophet!”

“We will need weapons to defeat them,” Abu observed, looking to the Holy Prophet.

“Easily done oaf,” replied an unconcerned Muhammad, ordering several henchmen to plunder the city of metal so weapons could be quickly fashioned.

Bronze implements were seized from every home; plowshares were heated and beaten into fine scimitars for the devoted followers.

As his followers labored over hot forges, Muhammad gave a sermon, declaring that vengeance, blood and death would rain down upon Mecca in the name of Allah.

The work completed over several days, a feast was held by the warriors of Islam to further strengthen them for the long journey; the flesh of rats, snakes, vultures and jackals gracing their tables. The hungry Prophet had a willing siren prepare his favorite of all dishes, fat dung beetles boiled in seasoned vulture broth.

“We should give Allah our thanks for the bounty he has provided,” declared Muhammad, seated at the head of his table beside Abu, crushing the hard shell of a dung beetle between his filthy brown teeth.

All bowed their heads in prayer, thanking Allah for the food he had provided.

“Would you like to enjoy a tasty dung beetle oaf?” asked the Prophet, turning to his brother in law, offering one to him.

“No thanks,” replied a nauseated Abu, choking down a plateful of greasy rat flesh.

Washing the unseemly morsels down with strong wine, Muhammad and his followers filled their bellies with the bitter flesh of vermin and then enjoyed the welcome favors of tempting, veiled harlots with dark eyes.

The Muslims, their women and their captives set out for Mecca on the following week, determined to exact Allah’s revenge on the people who dwelt there.

“There are many able men in Mecca, much more than we have,” observed Abu, realizing their numbers were wanting when compared to the teeming hordes of infidels occupying Mecca.

“Allah will watch over us oaf,” replied Muhammad, a sharp scimitar on his hip, he unsure as to what the outcome would be, but keeping this from the others and preparing for the worst.

“There aren’t enough of us Prophet – how will we win?” asked Abu with his arms in the air, looking at their limited numbers, no more than 50 score of able men in the service of Allah.

“Great Allah has said it, they in Mecca will embrace Islam or die for resisting his will,” the vengeful Prophet declared as Medina disappeared behind them in the distance.

A thoughtful Abu wondered why Allah would wish his followers to attack a fortified city where they were outnumbered, and also as to why Allah would have chosen a debauched murderer and licentious pervert for his Prophet.

“Oh well, it is the will of Allah,” agreed a sardonic Abu, much too committed to the deranged Prophet and Islam to back out, checking for the scimitar on his hip.

Surah 121: The Coward


Returning to the oasis to gather strength before attacking Mecca, Muhammad and his followers again feasted on the bitter flesh of vermin and partook of the favors of eager women, the depraved Prophet coming unto the veiled, bare breasted Nubian harlot Sheba.

Oaf Abu learned that his wife Umm had died, Muhammad stating to him over strong wine that it was Allah’s will.

A grieving Abu came unto his new wife, the widow of Sabri, and also knew his daughter Ayesha, fulfilling the will of Allah the Pig.

The Holy Prophet also lusted for Abu’s bride, demanding that he be permitted to lay with her again.

A shrugging Abu handed her over, an angry Muhammad having to beat the stiff-necked infidel woman once again before he knew her.

“You evil murderous beast!” she screamed in tears as Muhammad was knowing her, “May the gods of my fathers destroy you and all you have wrought!”

“How dare you attempt to curse me or Allah,” grunted the Prophet as he reached orgasm, his fetid breath causing her to heave, “Take care woman, or I will expose you as the sorceress you are, giving you over to be stoned by my devoted followers.”

“Better to be dead than to endure your vile attentions again,” Abu’s wife retorted as the Prophet rose from her bed.

“Bitch,” Muhammad muttered as he left Abu’s tent, adjusting his filthy silk turban.

Leaving the oasis on the third day, the devoted Muslims resumed their journey to Mecca, Abu still troubled about their limited numbers and telling the Holy Prophet of his doubts.

“Don’t worry oaf, we will remain behind while the first wave of our brothers besiege and subdue the infidels in Mecca,” Muhammad declared in a low tone of voice, Ayesha looking up to him and frowning.

“Do you have a problem with that wife?” asked Muhammad, strangely controlling his compulsion to beat her for daring to disagree with Allah’s unalterable will.

Ayesha remained silent and looked to the ground, Abu answering, “I thought we would lead them in battle.”

“No, we are to remain behind and observe the followers take the city, it is the will of Allah,” replied Muhammad, he filled with doubts and preferring to watch from afar, as the strong hashish he had eaten in Medina had worn off long ago.

Arriving outside the city walls under cover of night, the Muslims prepared for battle in the only way they knew: skulking by stealth and murdering defenseless people while they slept.

As a full moon rose, a vanguard of devoted followers scaled the city walls, only to be discovered and cut down by the defenders of Mecca.

“Attack in the name of Allah!” shouted Muhammad while retreating to a bluff with Abu, his wives and several trusted followers, the Meccans opening the city gates to meet the glorious warriors of Allah in battle.

Seeing the Holy Prophet on the bluff by moonlight, this sight strengthened the attacking Muslims.

“The battle is not going very well,” observed Abu as the moon rose higher, watching the Muslim army being wiped out.

“Yes, Allah is displeased that our faith was not strong enough,” replied a strangely detached Muhammad, staring from the bluff at the carnage outside the walls of Mecca.

“That, or we didn’t have enough men, I told you,” retorted Abu, watching several followers being hacked to death by the defenders.

“That is possible oaf,” admitted Muhammad, Abu frowning at the reply.

“What do you plan to do to save your followers Prophet?” asked Ayesha.

“Nothing, it is Allah’s will,” replied Muhammad with a shrug, still watching the battle.

Abu’s frown grew into anger as he watched a smiling Muhammad delight in the butchery of his followers.

“You’ve lost at least 30 score since the moon rose, do you intend to stay until we are slaughtered too?” asked Abu’s wife.

“How dare you speak to me unless spoken to!” exclaimed the Prophet, preparing to smite her across the face.

“My good wife Fahimah makes a wise observation,” declared Abu, using her given name for the first time, grasping Muhammad’s forearm, preventing him from striking the widow.

Pulling away from Abu, the Prophet paused and replied, “It’s time for us to leave oaf, we shall retreat to the oasis to pray and fast.”

A defeated Muhammad and his trusted followers left the bluff and headed back toward the oasis in the moonlight. Looking over his shoulder, the Prophet feared that vengeful Meccans might pursue them.

“Let us make haste,” declared Muhammad, fearing for his life.

Several days passed as they retreated from Mecca, the remaining band of Muslims at last pausing for needed rest and making a camp in the desert.

The captive Fahimah had grown to respect her new husband Abu, as he had prevented the Holy Prophet from striking her outside the walls of Mecca. Making him a meal of jackal flesh soup, she presented it to him in his tent.

“Thank you woman,” Abu replied, taking an earthenware bowl and strong wine, she nodding and leaving him to eat.

As Abu was eating, a stir rose in the camp: a lone survivor of the battle having at last caught up to the followers. Putting down his bowl, he left the tent to find the survivor admonishing Muhammad.

“You coward,” he gasped, “You left us to die, have you no faith in your visions, or are they only lies coming from your vile mouth?”

The Prophet, drunk, answered, “I had a dream after the battle, it was Allah’s will that we were defeated, as it was his will that you survived. We lost because our faith in Allah was not strong enough.”

“You lied, telling us of easy plunder and women; there weren’t enough of us to take Mecca, 50 score died outside the gates for nothing!” the man exclaimed.

“No matter, have dung beetles and strong wine to renew your strength,” slurred Muhammad, picking fleas from his beard and flinging them into a small fire at his side.

The man, much too exhausted to argue further, gratefully took a plate of boiled dung beetles and a bottle of wine, trudging off from the deranged Prophet in disgust.

A shocked Abu observed this from the shadows and retreated to his tent. Such knowledge set heavy upon him, he meditating privately on the events.

Finishing his meal, he called for his wife Fahimah, she appearing before him.

I would hear your words wife on this matter: Muhammad preaches Islam, yet he does not follow the words of Allah.”

“He is your Prophet, you have sworn to serve him and Allah, my words are those of an infidel,” she answered respectfully.

“Still I would hear them, for there is wisdom in what you utter,” Abu replied.

Fahimah, still fearful of her brutal husband, yet bound by her personal honor to obey, told him of her thoughts on the Prophet and his actions.

“I care not what god he worships, but this demon in man’s guise is not a prophet of a clean desert god,” she began.

Abu looked at her as she continued, “He forces his followers to consume the flesh of vermin, delighting in their disgust. I truly believe him to be so perverted as to rape an infant - he has others carry out his murderous work while he has no courage to fight himself: you should draw a knife across your daughter Ayesha’s throat and my own to save us from the corruption of this man.”

Abu, oaf that he was, looked at her silently as she urged him to destroy the demon Prophet Muhammad, her wise words much harder to ignore than the screechings of his deceased wife Umm.

Posted by: allah the pig on October 11, 2005 03:14 PM