Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Why Do Muslims Murder Americans?

The latest talking point in the Western terrorism apologist camp is that Islamic terrorism against Americans began in 1968 when a PLO supporter named Siran Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy. Thaddeus Russel, a radical professor and author of something called, "A Renegade History of the United States", circulated the latest version of this meme when he wrote;

"Not one American died at the hands of a politically motivated Arab or Muslim until June 5, 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy was shot to death by Sirhan Sirhan. The killing came shortly after President Lyndon Johnson declared that the U.S. would become Israel’s major sponsor"

Of course there's one problem with this claim. History.

The difference between History and Radical History, is that the former is a record of events that actually took place, and the latter is a distortion of history based on a political agenda. The idea that Muslim terrorists began murdering and trying to murder Americans, after an LBJ announcement isn't history. It's radical history. So let's take a look at history instead.

In 1958, ten years before Sirhan Sirhan began polishing his gun, the United Arab Republic (a geographical Frankenstein's monster under the rule of Egypt's Hitler worshiping General, Gamal Abdel Nasser) funded and armed a Muslim revolt against the Christian Lebanese government of President Chamoun. Eisenhower responded by sending in the US Marines as peacekeeping forces. The Muslim terrorists responded by setting off bombs in public squares, restaurants and department stores where Americans were likely to be found.

A Beirut cafe filled with US soldiers was bombed. So was a bus outside the Capital Hotel, which was filled with Americans. The ABC Department Store, a five story building frequented by Americans was hit by a suicide truck bomber. The same building also housed the local offices of the Singer Sewing Machine company. A bomb went off 30 yards away from the car of the US ambassador. A US Sergeant was shot and killed by a sniper. But of course we've already forgotten the Marines storming Red Beach on 24 hours notice. But the terrorism still went on. The US embassy was bombed in 1967 and bombed again in 1969. And all this is only a snapshot of Arab Muslim terrorist attacks against the US in a single city, in one country.

But apologists for Muslim terrorists will go on to claim that we just shouldn't have been in a Christian country, being claimed by Muslims. Just as they would similarly agree that we shouldn't support Israel, a Jewish country being claimed by Muslims. Or Thailand, a Buddhist country also being claimed by Muslims. In essence we should just stay out of every non-Muslim country being claimed by Muslims. Which includes much of the known world-- including parts of Europe, such as Spain.

So instead let's stay at home. Surely Muslim violence will not trouble us here. Not before the dreaded year 1968, when LBJ and RFK said something positive about Israel. That has to work. Doesn't it?

Then let's go back to 1930, before there even was an Israel. Before US forces were carrying out peacekeeping operations in the Middle East. When the Nation of Islam was founded by W. F. Muhammad. That friendly religious order which claims that white people are subhuman and that America is the devil. The Nation of Islam is however more than just a letter on a baseball cap or a crazy leader occasionally appearing on talk shows to explain why he hates the very people who are giving him a platform. Like just about everything with Islam, it has had a long and bloody history from the very beginning.

In 1932 Robert Karriem, one of Muhammad's followers, gathered 12 other followers together, along with his wife and children, as he tied down a tenant of his, James J. Smith, and stabbed him in the chest and then smashed in his skull. Karriem proclaimed "The unbeliever must be stabbed through the heart" and "every son of Islam must gain a victory from the devil. Four victories and the son will attain his reward". All quotes from Muhammad's teachings about Islam. Kerriem was caught and put away, but the violence only grew.

In that same year, the Reverend J.D. Howell, pastor of St. Stephen's African Methodist Episcopal Church, warned against "the sinister cult of Islamism" which "toppled sanity into homicidal fantasies".

Reverend Howell also emphasized that "The Negro race cannot, as such, be held responsible for the actions and teachings of fanatics. Their 'Arabian' leader is solely to blame. There must be quick and just punishment of those who come among us and, for personal gain, lead us astray. The Islamic 'Bible' and the Nation of Islam must go"

In 1955, the FBI described the Nation of Islam as an "Especially Violent and Anti-American Cult". Its publication contained the quote, "Of all the governments in the world, there has never existed one so wicked as America, which has misled the holy people of Allah.". The FBI internal bulletin found that the Nation of Islam presents "...a threat to the National Security of the United States."

The Nation of Islam murdered "infidels" who left the movement or criticized Elijah Muhammad. Some were stunningly brutal, the murder of an entire family in Philadelphia, including drowning two infants<. But the worst was yet to come. Unlike the Son of Sam or the Zodiac killer, the Zebra Murders , which took place in San Francisco in 1973 have been generally forgotten... because they are politically incorrect.

The full number of those murdered by the "Death Angels" of the Nation of Islam may never be known. Estimates range anywhere from 71 to over 200. Those targeted were children as young as 11 year old Michele Denise Carrasco and as old as 81-year-old janitor Ilario Bertuccio. Salvation Army cadets, college students, a retired coast guardsman. The victims were shot, mutilated, raped or decapitated. Some were so badly mutilated that their identities have never been learned.The killers were Nation of Islam members and in some cases used NOI businesses to carry out their atrocities. Their defense was paid for by the Nation of Islam. The horrifying crimes had been committed because the Black Muslim perpetrators believed that murder was their "ticket to heaven".

The Zebra Murders were the worst acts of Muslim terrorism perpetrated on US soil, until September 11, 2001. Like virtually every Muslim atrocity, they have been swept under the rug, their memory scrubbed away and banished to the dusty archives. Because it is much easier to claim that Muslims began murdering Americans in 1968 because they were angry over Israel-- than to admit the ugly and unpleasant truth. That Islamism, is not any fundamentally different than Communism or Nazism. It is an ideology which calls for world conquest and the absolute dominion of its leaders.

Let us step back then before 1973, before 1968, before even 1955 and 1932. All the way back to 1786. When Muslim pirates were preying on American ships, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Tripoli, to try and understand what his justification for these attacks was, the ambassador replied that, "It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." 35 Americans died in the Barbary Wars, long before LBJ, RFK or Theodore Herzl were even born.

The justification of an 18th century Muslim ambassador for his piracy against the United States shares a common theme with the Zebra Murders taking place on American soil, nearly two centuries later. The Islamic Supremacism which insists that Muslims have the right to kill those who are not their kind, for reasons or religion or race, and that those who commit the murders will have a ticket to heaven. It also forms the common denominator with the ideologies of Muslim terrorist groups of the present day.

Apologists for Islam focus on the practical motivations behind Islamic atrocities. The Barbary pirates wanted slaves and money. The Death Angels enjoyed rape and torture. Hamas and Al Queda want to rule over different countries. But they are united by the common denominator that Islamic teachings served to dehumanize their enemies and turn them into subhumans. And that is, and has always been the problem. The idea that others are subhuman, and that you can therefore enslave them, kill them and abuse them justifies any number of crimes of opportunity. This goes back to Mohammed and his followers, who embarked on epic sprees of murder, slavery, rape and robbery because they were doing the "Will of Allah", and those who hadn't gotten on board with Islam, were enemies and infidels.

In the 1930's, European countries tried to deal with Nazi Germany through appeasement, by ignoring the realities of Nazi ideology, and instead treating it as a symptom of economic and political grievances. The result was that Nazi power grew, and so did their atrocities. They went from street violence and a few murders, to conquest, war and genocide. Like the Barbary Pirates and the Death Angels and Hamas-- the Nazis had practical motivations for their crimes. Some of them wanted loot. Some enjoyed torture and murder. But they had the same justification-- that everything they did was correct and even praiseworthy, because their victims were subhuman monsters.

Most murderous ideologies will harness some sort of popular grievance and appeal to their follower's baser desires to kill and plunder. But to ignore the actual ideology, is a dangerous form of denial. To try and appease it is even worse.

Muslims did not begin murdering Americans in 1968 because they were angry about Israel. They were murdering Americans in 1929, because they were angry at Jews. They were murdering Americans in 1909, because they were angry at Christians. In 1973 they were murdering Salvation Army cadets, homeless people and a teenager who was bringing a teddy bear to his little sister, because they were angry at Americans. In 1955, it was because the Americans were there with a peacekeeping force to prevent them from slaughtering Christians in Beirut. In 1786, they were killing Americans.. because they were just there.

That is the ugly bottom line. Islam justifies the murder of non-Muslims. It says that their property may be taken and their wives raped-- if they don't submit to Islam. The Koran states that Allah is the enemy of infidels. It states that Jihad is mandatory for all Muslims. It promises paradise for those who join in. The non-Muslim has a choice of either submitting to their rule, and becoming a Dhimmi, a second class citizen-- or being an infidel and a target for anything a Muslim cares to do to him or her.

Americans are targets because they are non-Muslims. That is why Obama emphasized in his Cairo speech that America is a Muslim country. That is why Russia joined the OIC. Both are ways of saying, "Don't attack us, we're one of you." But why does that need to be said? It needs to be said, because Islam places Muslims and non-Muslims in different categories. Because it assigns different categories to Muslim and non-Muslim countries. In Islam, there is the Dar Al Islam (The Muslim Realm) and the Dar Al Harb (The Realm of the Sword). A country that is not Muslim, is not in the process of becoming Muslim, and does not have a treaty or truce with whatever a given Muslim faction considers to be real Islam-- is part of the Dar Al Harb, to be made war on, conquered and subjugated.

Why do Muslims murder Americans? Because they're not Muslims. And even when they're Muslims, it's because they're not the right kind of Muslim. Because Americans have things they want. Because America occasionally interferes with their goal of recreating a Caliphate. Because American power is an implicit insult to Islamic Supremacism, which demands that non-Muslims cannot have more power or taller buildings than Muslims. But in the end as always, Americans are a target because they are non-Muslims, which makes them inferior, deprives them of equal rights in Islam jurisprudence and renders them subhuman.

Had America never allied with any non-Muslim country or Muslim country, that Muslims have a grievance with-- Americans would still be murdered. Because as long as an ideology embraces both violence and the dehumanization of those outside the ideology-- murder is inevitable. This did not begin in 1965. It began in 610. And it's not over yet.

(Spanish language translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)


Paul said...

Wow. That's a lot of news there.

The only information I'd ever seen on the NOI was the Autobiography of Malcom X and hearing their radio shows out Berkeley.

In light of this history report, it's no mystery what happened to Malcom X.

But why no mention of Lebanon in 1983 when 240 Americans were killed in a suicide attack?

And when did they decide that the Zebra killers were associated with Muslims? I'd never heard that.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

NOI top people had a way of getting killed.

I didn't mention the barracks bombing as this talking point specifically claimed that no American had been killed by an Arab or Muslim before 1968.

Followed the included links on the Zebra Killers in the article.

Suleyman Al Thunayan said...


Most of this "Why Muslims kill Americans" is just Muslim hating bigotry, as if atheists, christians, jews, hindus, buddhists have never comitted worst massacres than we have. Only then would it make sense to blame Islam. America itself is built upon genocide, therefore cannot complain of others murdering Americans. Maybe it is God taking revenge for the native population.

The questions here is why do you think Muslims shouldn't kill if others do? Do they not have the same feelings of good and bad like all of humanity? Did God give us a special gene? Any sane person comes to that conclusion.

I respect your right to be hateful and to free speech though, that is not why I wrote this nor am I complaining, because I see Muslims who do the same about you. So you see unlike you I am a fair person.

Why I did write this was to suggest a solution. The story begins with a reporter blaming Israel for Muslims killing Americans. It then says that Russia joined the OIC, and Obama said America is a Muslim country so that Muslims won't attack it.

The solution here, is that Israel should join the OIC. Israeli Arabs comprise 25% of Israel. Nobody can blame Israel if it is a member of the OIC. It will be better for Israel too, just like Russia discovered. Take my advice.

Anonymous said...

I had completely forgotten about the Zebra Killings.

Excellent (and quite scary) editorial, Daniel.

Link about the zebras is worth the time to read.

Anonymous said...

Do Muslims (Hezbollah, Hamas, al Queda, etc.) recognize Black Muslims/NOI? Is NOI just an American off-shoot whose main objective is to kill or intimidate whites? What of Black Panthers? Do they claim to be NOI also?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Generally Arab Muslims used to view NOI as heretical, but Farrakhan has done a lot of convergence with the Muslim world.

Cathy said...

Did my earlier post go through? A message showed as an error

The kapo Russell vomits, at Phil Weiss's blog (another kapo)

Thaddeus Russell defends his piece on Israel’s dangerousness

Yesterday we posted twice on Thaddeus Russell's groundbreaking and hugely popular piece on Daily Beast saying that Israel has proved to be a dangerous creation. Russell has gotten a ton of flak on the piece, and he offered us his response "to the criticisms I've received -- from The Israel Project, Ronald Radosh, pro-Israel bloggers, and dozens of anonymous email correspondents." Herewith:

The major criticisms are:

1) Many Islamist terror attacks have been unconnected to Israel.
2) There were attacks on Americans (by the Barbary pirates and against Christian missionaries and Zionist settlers in the Middle East) before 1968.
3) My argument relies on post hoc ergo procter hoc.
4) Al-Qaeda was motivated by more than just its opposition to the existence of Israel.
5) I am a coward for not standing up to America's enemies.
6) I hate Jews.

My response:

1) I do not deny that many Islamist attacks were unconnected to Israel. That fact does not affect the argument that the existence of Israel and U.S. support for it provokes such attacks.

2) The Barbary pirates attacked American ships because they were pirates, not because they were political Islamists.

3) The post-Barbary, pre-1968 killings of Americans had nothing to do with the victims being Americans and everything to do with them being Christian missionaries or Zionist settlers in Arab and Muslim lands. Again, I do not claim that the existence of Israel or U.S. support for it has provoked ALL Islamist attacks. I only claim that they make such attacks -- against Jews and Americans -- more likely.

4) Though historical causality can never be proved in a scientific sense, the causal link between terrorist attacks and the existence of Israel has been stated by the terrorists themselves, in virtually all attacks by Islamists against Americans (and against Israelis, of course).

5) I acknowledge in the article that Al-Qaeda was motivated by more than just its opposition to the existence of Israel or U.S. support for it. But that does not eliminate the fact that Al-Qaeda did list U.S. support for Israel as a reason for its fatwa, nor does it undermine the claim made by Petraeus that U.S. support for Israel is the principal recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.

6) If the U.S. withdrew from the Middle East and an Islamist attack were launched against the U.S., I would strongly advocate lethal self-defense against the attackers. I, unlike many who hold on to their sacred land no matter the cost, value my life more than any political or spiritual claim.

7) As for the assertion that I am motivated by "hate," I must contend that I am in fact motivated by love -- for myself and my Jewish and American family members and friends.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Ah yes Suleyman, those infamous murderous Buddhists. Funny how Muslims are currently engaged in wars with every major religion, yet you don't seem to see Christians, Jews and Buddhists massacring each other all over the world right now.

What's so "special" about Muslims?

Israel joining the OIC? That worked out so well when the Jews agreed to be ruled by Mohammed and Islam last time around.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


Rather predictably it's a long string of "They had it coming".

Not a big shocker from a terrorist apologist.

FrumiousFalafel said...

Really excellent article! I will re-post it immediately due to the plethora of examples throughout the past 200+ years of Muslim blood-lust.

Anonymous said...

"That Islamism, is not any fundamentally different than Communism or Nazism. It is an ideology which calls for world conquest and the absolute dominion of its leaders."

Incorrect. There is no Islamism. There is only ISLAM. And Islam is VERY different from both Nazism and Communism. For one, it is more durable. For another, it is more violent. Islam is more antisemitic and antiscientific than Nazism could ever be in its worst incarnation. It is more destructive to national wealth, private property and the environment than Communism has ever been or ever will be.

It must be made clear. Islam is Islam is Islam. It is the essence of Satan. It is evil incarnate on Earth, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It is infinitely WORSE than any ideology ever invented by man, because it is not of human origin but a product of Satanic revelation, the exact polar opposite of the revelation at Sinai, given to the exact polar opposite of the nation that received the revelation at Sinai.

These truths must be repeated until they are as self-evident to every non-Moslem in the West as the color of the sky and the direction of the sunrise. Because only when these truths are fully internalized will it become possible to treat Islam and Moslems as they should be treated.

Anonymous said...

Actually, what stands out in Russel's blather is:

"I, unlike many who hold on to their sacred land no matter the cost, value my life more than any political or spiritual claim."

The level of cowardice and weakness evident in this statement tells everything you need to know about the author. This position is the epitome of modern Western so-called "secular intellectualism" -- nothing is more valuable than your own arse. Any society dominated by this philosophy is doomed to richly deserved destruction.

Until we recognize this philosophy as fundamentally repugnant and treat its adherents the way we treat child pornographers and pedophiles, the West will continue to march down the road to self-destruction.

P.S. I mean what I wrote literally. For writing this single sentence, Russel should be facing 25 to life in prison on a felony charge and lifetime moral offender registration, the same as he would for taking a photograph of himself having sex with a five year old. The Daily Beast likewise should receive the exact same treatment for publishing such a sentence as they would receive for publishing an uncensored photograph of Russel having sex with a child.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Anonymous 1,

Islamism is the implementation of Islam. Please don't declare something to be INCORRECT, unless you are sure that you understand what is being said.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Thanks Frumious,

Anonymous 2, it's a suicide note of civilization.

Keli Ata said...

Why Muslims kill Americans I can't say.I do know they'll continue to do so as long as we try to appease and civilize them.

Hope this goes through, Blogger keeps causing problems.

Following Him said...

Sultan ... I found this statement interesting: "Americans are targets because they are non-Muslims. That is why Obama emphasized in his Cairo speech that America is a Muslim country. Don't attack us, we're one of you."

I had never thought of it that way before. I just thought Obama always spoke of what he wanted and hoped America would become ... a Muslim country. He is trying you know.

Anonymous 1 said...

LOL. If Islamism is the implementation of Islam, is Communismism the implementation of Communism and Nazismism the implementation of Nazism?

By differentiating between Islam and "Islamism" you implicitly create the delusion in the mind of your reader that there can be such a thing as a positive, tolerant Islam. Therefore, you implicitly advocate the continuation of the current status quo, where Islam is slowly winning.

By refusing to differentiate between Islam and "Islamism", you implicitly erase such distinctions in the mind of your reader, logically causing a desire for Islam to be banned and all moslems to be deported, imprisoned or killed.

Terms matter. Your statement is incorrect because it sends the wrong message.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Adding an Ism to an Ism is redundant. Using Islamism highlights the fact that Islam is a political ideology and that its goals are similar to Nazism and Communism.

Anyone who reads this article and comes away with the impression that I think Islam is positive or tolerant is functionally illiterate.

Avi said...

Greenfield I wrote a comment earlier for anonymous. It hasn't come through. Or you didn't post it.

I apologise if it was offensive, but I find it distasteful when xtian zionists (like this anonymous) think their conditional support means we should let them demonise islam just because xtianity has supposedly reformed and is supporting us. most of xtianity is still anti semitic and xtian zionists are funding the jews for jesus and messianic congregations that are xtianising israel by preying on the russians whom they brought into israel, and who are not jews. WE have a fifth column in israel supported by xtian zionists.

Keli Ata said...

Well, if they do then they obviously haven't been reading your blog for long.

Islamism is an appropriate word to use. It also highlights the fact that Islamic terrorism is more than isolated lunatics going on killing sprees as many liberals try to explain it away. You know, the whole "Islam has been hijacked..." mentality of western Muslims and their liberal supporters.

Islamism does indeed convey that it is a political idealogy and much more global than isolated attacks by a small cell.

And for what it's worth my sister attended a lecture given by a former CIA agent. He said that in the near future their will be offshoots of al quaeda, hamas, hizbollah, a phenomena called Islamism.

So you are correct--of course.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

As K.A. has mentioned, there have been some problems with Blogger comments

comment moderation was almost entirely impossible two days ago, now it seems mostly back to normal

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Islam is evil because of the facts, not because of who says it

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Islamism makes the important point that Islam is not just a "religion", it's an ideology that wants political power, not just to have a "little mosque on the prairie".

Keli Ata said...

Right you are:) This goes beyond religion and I am sure a lot of Arabs are involved and secular.

Much as I enjoy Little Mosque there's no mistaking that it's PR intent on making viewers believe that Muslims are no different than your average American, Canadian or for that matter Israeli.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

yes and that's exactly the problem, it jump starts the whole "Every religion has a few apples", which disregards the fact that murdering non-Muslims is not a bug in Islam, it's a feature

T.Rakei said...

Back when RFK was shot, and for many years following, all we heard was that Sirhan Sirhan was just a simple nut case and, his diary notwithstanding, what stood behind his deed was of interest to nobody but a psychiatrist, nothing to do with the Middle East. And now that Israel's would-be destroyers have convinced the world that they deserve a hearing, they are turning Sirhan Sirhan at the Ambassador Hotel into John Brown at Harper's Ferry?

Avi said...

Greenfield, dominionist xtianity also is a political power, and xtianity wants political power the only reason it cannot is because it's losing members. if a member from one, slags off another it doesn't make sense. it's like murderer standing before a judge who is convicted of killing his wife, slagging off somone who killed his neighbor.

to put it another way, it makes the arguement from the genuine side frivolous. I just want your message to be taken seriously, and not dismissed as you're a good thinker. Comments are as important on a blog as the pieces you write. Thanks, and sorry about your commenting.

Sammish said...

Excellent review as always. The homocidal and genocidal tendencies of the islamo-political ideology are not new. What puzzle me the most is how the majority of the western (most leftist) media and the mass of the population have been "con...ed" by the religion of peace and submission.

That's the irony.

Lemon said...

Would be nice if anonymous posters took request to take a name on comments seriously.
One can sign a comment easily right within the post.
Makes it so much easier to respond to the comments of others.

Keli Ata said...

This is class example Little Mosque trying to send the message that Islam is no different from xtianity. This episode is called Eid's A Wonderful Life. Cute but really no difference from a christmas episode of any TV show.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Lots of religions have elements that want political power, but the majority of Jews and Christians do not seek to replace government with religion. The majority of Muslims do.

Cathy said...

That was an interesting last comment Sultan.

Isn't Israel supposed to be a theocracy? We lost the land when we gave up Torah. Maybe thats why we are so weak.

The Christian Right in America do have an agenda to install religion as rule. That is the prime reason Obama was voted in. A clear repudiation of Evangelical influence.

Anonymous said...

"little mosque on the prairie"

Don't give the networks any ideas ;)

Aussie said...

Why do Muslims murder Americans?
Why do Dogs lick their Balls ?
The Answer is the same to both questions,
Because they can.

Why CAN they? (lick their Balls and Kill Americans?) because WE let them.

So far neither activity has met with a suitable response.
Personally I can live with Dogs licking their balls so long as they don't do it in front of my Mother or my elderly Aunt.

As for Muslims Killing Americans, whilst I am not an American,I am an Australian,I know that Muslims get just as much of a kick out of mass murdering Australians as they do out of their mass murdering of Americans.
Unlike Muslims all my Male Dogs have been happy to lick and let live.

Muslims are enabled by Fifth Column leftist facilitators within Western Judeo Christian Democracy's who control how our military and Police forces are ALLOWED to respond to the Islamic menace,eg. with one or both hands tied behind their backs.

As for my Dog, who cares what he does with his nuts so long as my Mother and elderly Aunt don't have to look at him doing it.

It's way past the time we started kicking the Islamic world in the BALLS,or are there not ENOUGH DEAD Americans yet?

Anonymous said...

Muslims have been killing American since 1786, the First Barbary War.

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]"

Jewel said...

I never knew any of these facts until I read this, Daniel. It's enough to make you fall to your knees and weep. Seriously. Watching the utter inhumanity codified into a religion is sometimes more than a mind can bear.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Jewel, there is always great evil in the world, but its presence gives good a chance to emerge and something to fight for

Van Grungy said...

Do you think Malcolm X was given the info that demographics is the weapon of peaceful conquest in mecca?

It would explain Malcolm's shift away from 'any means necessary' when he returned from mecca.

silentnomore9 said...

How good it would be to have this history lesson given to our young adults before they encountered the brain washing of the liberal arts colleges. I have always been amazed that Muslims are so kind to my face and so without conscience in the depth of the evil that they serve. Perhaps you should send this history lesson to the White House fax machine. They are going to be negotiating "peace" between Israel and Palestinians (falsely so called) early in May, 2011. Maybe a history refresher would do them good. :-)

vladdy1 said...

I am late in joining the discussion, but I just wanted to note that as a Christian in the Bible belt, I can assure Cathy that her paranoia about our wanting to rule America is unreasonable. Christians are among the greatest defenders of the U.S. Constitution, laws and founders. Rather than spreading urban myths, come to the Heartland and talk to us. The flags outside all our houses have stars and stripes on them, not crosses. (Anti-Christianity is awfully chic right now, isn't it?)

Post a Comment