|
Guestbook / Blogs
God Bless
America
| |
Prophet of Doom
Book Review
Islam in Muhammad's
Own Words
Islam is a caustic blend of paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its
lone prophet, conceived his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and
money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait
until you see the evidence.
Critics of Prophet of Doom claim it is offensive, hatemongering, and
unnecessarily violent. We agree - but we didn't write those parts. They came
directly from Islam's scriptures. Over the course of these pages, we quote from
most every surah in the Qur'an - putting each verse in the context of Muhammad's
life by quoting vociferously from Islam's most trusted sources.
Islamic Terrorism
Timeline
As an expert on Islam and terror, I know that all good Muslims are terrorists
and that most all terrorists are Muslims. These are irrefutable statements of
fact. This comprehensive review of terrorism from 1960 to 2004 confirms that 95%
of all terrorist acts are the result of Islam. If just 20% of Muslims are
fundamentalists, they are 3,000% more violent than the rest of the world
The War on Terror -
An Open Letter
Let's begin with the most ignorant and injurious slogan: "the war on terror." It
is ignorant because it is senseless and it is injurious because it camouflages
the actual enemy, making us more vulnerable. Terrorism is a tactic, not a foe.
To declare war on terror is akin to saying that WW II should have been fought to
rid the world of blitzkrieg. If America had killed every kamikaze suicide
bomber, the political and religious regime that manufactured them, unchecked,
would have produced more of them faster than the nation could have killed them.
Earlier today I did something I had not done
in a long while. I consented to doing an interview on Islam - this one on WABC
in New York. While I have done one thousand five hundred hours of national and
regional talk radio interviews and debates on the direct connection between
fundamental Islam and terrorism, I had retired from doing more because it became
clear to me that the hosts and I were speaking a different language and using an
entirely different filter to discern right and wrong.
Today was no exception. So to help remedy that problem, I have composed this
Open Letter.
What is a War on Terror?
Let's begin with the most ignorant and injurious slogan: "the war on terror." It
is ignorant because it is senseless and it is injurious because it camouflages
our actual enemy, making us more vulnerable.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a foe. To declare war on terror is akin to saying
that World War II should have been fought to rid the world of naval armadas and
blitzkrieg. If we had focused our energies on killing every kamikaze suicide
bomber and every S.S. terrorist, the political and religious regimes that
manufactured them, unchecked, would have produced far more of them far faster
than we could have killed them.
Terrorism is a common tactic. Sherman used terror when he marched to the sea,
making war intolerable for the South. America used terror when we firebombed
German and Japanese cities, making support for the war wane.
According to the Islamic Hadith and Qur'an, Muhammad was a terrorist - having
established Islam through a series of armed raids against civilians. The most
brutal and unjustified were against the Jewish communities of Qurayza and
Khaybar. You can read what the Islamic scriptures have to say about them in the
"Islam's Holocaust" and "Blood and Booty" chapters of Prophet of Doom.
The simple fact is that all wars are the result of religion, politics, or both.
The current war is no exception. It is against a poligious doctrine called
Islam.
For most of man's history, religion and politics have been inseparable. Cleric
and king united to control and fleece the people. Islam is the best example - an
equivalent blend of religion and politics. But let us not forget Communism and
Nazism, the religions of man. They promote collectivism and control under the
guise of secular humanism. These poligious doctrines caused the murder of over
100,000,000 people in the 30 years between 1917 and 1947. Today, the biggest
killer is Islam. Over 90% of today's wars and terrorist acts are directly
attributable to Muhammad's legacy. If only 20% of Muslims are fundamentalists,
and thus Jihadists, it means that they are 2000% more lethal than the rest of
us. Ought we not examine the religion that makes them that way?
In its first one hundred years, a river of blood flowed from Muhammad's feet.
His religion turned a once peaceful and self-reliant people violent and
dependant. In the 3,000 years of recorded history between 2500 B.C.E. to 500 C.E.
there isn't a single incident in all of recorded history of Arabs leaving Arabia
to conquer or plunder anyone. Then Muhammad invented a religion based upon jihad
- holy war and plunder. He called it Islam - submission. Muhammad personally led
75 terrorist raids, all against civilians and exclusively for the purpose of
stealing booty and gaining power and control. Within a year of his death, his
successor led the War of Compulsion and forever robbed Arabia of any semblance
of freedom. In the next ten years, without any provocation, the first Muslims
attacked and conquered civilians in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and Turkey.
Within its first 100 years, Islamic terrorists had ravaged and plundered every
civilization from Spain to India. What changed these people if it was not Islam?
While Islam continued to be tyrannical, brutal and bloody, in the interest of
time, I'm going to jump ahead to the obvious: Islam was solely responsible for
causing Muslims to fly planes into our buildings. The suicide bombers not only
used Islam's signature tactic, they confessed to the crime, leaving video taped
recitals from the Qur'an behind and by shouting "Allah Akbar" - Allah is
greatest as they perpetrated their attack. Moreover, like the Jihadists who are
killing us in Iraq, they all came out of mosques.
In the case of the second World Trade Center bombing, the plan was conceived by,
and the participants were recruited from, the al-Kod mosque in Hamburg, Germany
- not Kabul, Afghanistan. And the first World Trade Center bombing was
masterminded by Shiek Ar-Rahman - a man named after Muhammad's first god. The
blind sheik is the world's foremost authority on the Qur'an - having served as
the senior professor of Qur'anic studies at Islam's premier university, Al Azhar
in Cairo - before he was exiled for having assassinated Anwar Sadat. If Islam is
peaceful, that's hard to explain.
A nation which lashes out against a tactic rather than the actual enemy, the
religious and/or political doctrine motivating the assault, is destined to lose.
Until Americans come to understand who the terrorists are (good Muslims) and why
they kill (Islam), we have no chance of protecting ourselves from them. They
will destroy our largest cities with nuclear or biological weapons and we will
lose all we hold dear as a result.
Can America Establish Democracy?
The first, last, and only democracy in human history was an oligarchy called the
Delian League, which in less than 50 years disintegrated because its leaders
became imperialists and elected to do what we are doing - compel compliance. So
when politicians claim to be establishing a democracy in Iraq, they are
displaying their ignorance of democracy and the cultures in which it flourishes
and shrivels.
For democracy to prevail, even a republic to succeed, the voters need to be
enlightened and responsible. And they need to cherish the virtues which nurture
education, freedom, and choice.
So let's survey the political landscape. Over 90% of nations in which the
majority of the people consider themselves Christians are republics. Relative
freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity reign. Over 90% of nations in
which the majority of the people are Muslims are dictatorships in which the
people have relatively no freedoms, choice, access to truth, or prosperity.
So what is it that causes one culture to embrace freedom, choice, enlightenment,
and prosperity and the other to be hostile to these things? The answers are as
obvious as the evidence is clear. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are based upon
knowing and understanding truth and embracing it while condemning deception.
Yahweh wants people to be free to choose. The Islamic scriptures are the
opposite. The fifth surah says that Muslims who question the Qur'an will lose
their faith and become apostates. The fourth surah tells good Muslims to murder
apostates. There is a significant disincentive to learn and question, to be
enlightened. More importantly, Islam revolves around the concept of "submit and
obey." The Qur'an is completely hostile to freedom and choice. As proof, I
organized every comment Allah made on the subject under the banner of "Freedom
and Choice" in the "Muhammad's Own Words" Appendix of Prophet of Doom. Check it
out for yourself.
For freedom and choice to prevail, the culture/religion/politics of the people
must promote them. Islam does not. It never has and it never will. The evidence
is overwhelming and undeniable. To ignore the obvious does not make us
enlightened or compassionate. But it will make us dead.
Following World War II America was able to promote freedom, choice,
enlightenment, and prosperity in Germany and Japan because we had correctly
identified and defeated the politicians and doctrines responsible for tyranny
and terror. We banned them before we attempted to establish what they strove
against. Yet in Iraq, we have partnered with, financed, and promoted our real
enemy, and the enemy of freedom, choice, enlightenment, and prosperity. As a
result we will fail.
What Is Going To Happen In Iraq?
Iraqis will elect a Shi'ite government and they will impose an Islamic state.
The Suni's will fight them and America will be caught in the middle of a civil
war. It will be like Vietnam all over again.
Under Islamic law and unified with Iran, Iraq will become what it was not - a
clear and present danger to America. We will have set our actual enemy and the
enemy of freedom on the throne. And we will have squandered American prestige
and wasted thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in the process.
As in the case of Vietnam where we allowed Americans to die until we had
achieved "peace with honor," so it will be in Iraq. The peace accords were of no
value because the signatories did not share our values. The Communists ignored
the document and imposed their will on the people. It was as if we had never
been there.
Muslims, like Communists, do not honor treaties. The Qur'an says that any treaty
between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is not binding on the Muslim. Muhammad used
this tactic when he had too insufficient a force to invade and control his
hometown-Mecca. He signed the peace treaty of Hudibyah in which he agreed not to
fight with, rob, or terrorize Mecca for ten years. The following year, with
10,000 men carrying swords and spears, he returned and conquered them - imposing
Islamic law. Throughout his career, Muhammad authorized lying to achieve his
means. It is why he is noted for saying: "I have been made victorious with
terror," and "war is deception."
Sad to say, but our engagement in Iraq will end just like Vietnam. The only
question is: how many will die before we declare victory and leave?
Have the Terrorists Hijacked Islam?
While it's not true, if it were it wouldn't matter. History tells us that as
little as 3% of the population, sufficiently indoctrinated and vicious, will
hold sway over the 97%. As evidence, only 3% of Russians were Communists in 1917
and only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1924 yet they controlled everyone. While no
one knows what percentage of Muslims are good ones - fundamentalists following
Muhammad's example - versus peaceful Muslim hypocrites, at least three times
three percent and most likely ten times that amount are jihadists. That is why
most Muslims revere Osama bin Laden and continue to praise and protect him. That
is why so many Muslims strap bombs to their bodies - murdering and mutilating
everyone in their path.
The minority will tyrannize and terrorize the majority when the few are immersed
in sufficiently vicious and hateful doctrines. This is why I dedicated 75 pages
of Prophet of Doom to a side-by-side comparison of Hitler's Mein Kampf with
remarkably similar passages from Muhammad's Qur'an and Hadith. When we come to
realize that Islam and Nazism are virtually indistinguishable in their prophet,
his words, ambitions and deeds, we will be empowered to save ourselves from
them.
The Qur'an is a declaration of war against all mankind. The Hadith is a
terrorist manifesto. Islam's lone prophet, Muhammad, according to these sources,
was a mass murderer, pirate, pedophile, rapist, slave trader and terrorist.
Therefore, rather than having corrupted Islam, the terrorists have actually been
corrupted by it. Simply stated, all good Muslims are terrorists and all peaceful
Muslims are hypocrites.
If you'd like proof of these conclusions, either read tomorrow's newspaper or
Prophet of Doom. The book puts every deed and word Muhammad perpetrated and
declared on the subject of war and terror in chronological order and into the
context of his life so that we would stop living in denial. But for those
pressed for time, turn to the sections of the "Muhammad's Own Words" Appendix
entitled: "Terrorism, Jihad, Fighting, Martyrdom, War, and Torture." There you
will discover over 1,000 quotes from the Islamic scriptures on the subject.
While the truth isn't pretty, knowing it is the first step in saving our nation.
Are There Moral Justifications for War?
There are only three moral motivations for war: 1) To defend the nation against
a people and doctrine that have attacked it. 2) To preemptively strike a people
and doctrine that represent a clear and present danger so as to keep them from
attacking the nation in the future. 3) To rid otherwise defenseless people from
tyrants who are terrorizing them. To impose one's value system on others isn't a
worthy or achievable goal. And in cases two and three above, the will to engage
must be tempered with an analysis of the cost and the likelihood of achieving a
favorable result.
In this light, let's look at the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our
initial justification was to lash out at those who had bombed our buildings. But
there were no Afghanis or Iraqis on those planes. The suicide bombers were
Muslims, 80% of whom were from Saudi Arabia. And yet we continued to enrich
Saudi Arabia, sending the Islamic warlords $350,000,000,000 since the attack
took place and at the same time removed our troops and planes - all of them from
Saudi soil.
The plan to bomb America was conceived, staffed, and financed from the Al-Kod
mosque in Hamburg, Germany. The mosque still exists and the imams there still
preach hate and violence so we have not retaliated against the source of our
anguish. But by invading Afghanistan and by blaming al-Qaeda rather than Islam,
we have squandered American blood and coin, making ourselves more vulnerable in
the process.
America pushed the two fundamentalist Islamic regimes in Afghanistan - the
Taliban and al-Qaeda - out of a relatively meaningless dirt hole of a nation
into one of only two Islamic countries with nuclear bombs. So today, the Islamic
forces who wish us harm are more comfortable, more plentiful, better financed,
and better armed than they were before we began. In time they will assassinate
the tyrannical general who controls Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. In so doing
fundamentalist Muslims will gain access to the very weapons we sought to keep
from them, and they will use them on us. In other words, what we did was stupid,
even suicidal.
For those who believe our invasion was humanitarian, and thus justified,
consider this: American forces only control a five mile ring around Kabul. The
rest of the nation is still under the control of Islamic warlords. Only now,
they are better armed. Afghanistan is now the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and their new Constitution is based upon Islamic Law. In other words: we put our
enemy on the throne. The country has become so savage, the bravest humanitarian
organization on the planet - Doctors Without Borders - has withdrawn from it.
Turning to Iraq, the picture is no less horrific. In Tea With Terrorists I
predicted that GWB would invade Iraq a year before he did so. Moreover I
predicted the consequence of his actions. That does not make me a prophet - just
informed.
The reasons we went into Iraq were political. GWB and his advisor Karl Rove
craved the popularity and adulation that goes along with being a war time
president. They succeeded. A failed administration, legislatively and
economically, and an unpopular and inarticulate man, were re-empowered. In my
meeting with Karl and George during the infancy of the first campaign, the soon
to be president told me that he longed for a crisis because that's when he would
shine. All three books written by insiders of this administration say that
during January of the first inauguration, GWB was actively perusing reasons for
invading Iraq.
So during a time that the CIA was briefing Congress with news that Iran, not
Iraq, was the nation in possession of the most deadly WMDs and the nation most
likely to use them against America, GWB told the American people just the
opposite. He told us that the "smoking gun" would be a "mushroom cloud" if we
did not invade Iraq and rid Saddam of his Weapons of Mass Destruction. So we
invaded; but there were none. Someone wasn't telling the truth - bad,
considering he's our president. But it's horrific considering two American
soldiers have been sacrificed and $1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money have
been wasted on average every week since we attacked - all based upon a lie. It's
like Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that caused Congress to approve LBJ's
invasion never occurred.
So what did the liar do? He lied again. This time he said that we have to invade
Iraq because Saddam was working with and equipping al-Qaeda. But that was not
true. In fact the truth is bone chilling. GWB's father's decision to invade Iraq
in the first Gulf War is what led to the 9/11 attack.
Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, because he coveted power and money.
Saudi Arabia would have been next. So the Saudi hero, Osama bin Laden, still
reveling in his rousing (and American aided) victory against the Russians in
Afghanistan and his instigation of Islamic holocaust against 2,000,000
Christians in the Sudan, also American aided, came home. He told the Fahd
warlords that he and his al-Qaeda holy warriors would be Islam's savior. They
would push the infidel Saddam Hussein - a man and regime they detested and saw
as un-Islamic - out of the holy Islamic lands. But the Fahd family knew better
than to trust a good Muslim, so they turned to the United States for help.
Jealous and enraged, the spurned warrior aided and abetted the ruthless attack
on his rival - America. 9/11 was the result.
While al-Qaeda and Saddam were bitter enemies, once Saddam was out of power,
thanks to America, al-Qaeda jumped right in to fill the void and continued its
terrorist assault against us. We created the climate and the opportunity for our
enemy to succeed where they had previously failed. No meaningful links between
Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have ever been found. They have proved to be
as much of a mirage as were WMDs.
Thwarted again, GWB, hypocritically stood on his soapbox and told the American
people that the justification for spilling American blood and coin in Iraq was
that Saddam was a bad guy. At least it wasn't a lie. But now, as a justification
for war, we were required to consider the cost and evaluate the likelihood of
achieving a superior result. Question one: Would you trade the lives of 1,500
American men and women for Saddam's head? Question two: Would you spend
$300,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars to rebuild what you destroyed? Question three:
Is an Islamic state under the control of Shi'ite clerics (who possess nuclear
weapons and the world's second largest oil reserves) better for America than a
secular state under the control of a two bit tyrant who had no WMD's and who was
spending his money on palaces?
The question no politician or journalist in America seemed willing to
contemplate before our invasion of Iraq was this: If Saddam Hussein had weapons
of mass destruction and if he intended to use them against Americans then the
cost of occupying Iraq would have been far too high for he would have deployed
them against our troops - 250,000 of them. If Saddam didn't have WMD and/or
didn't intend to use them against Americans, then there was no justification for
risking one American life to remove him much less a thousand.
While there can be moral justification for helping people who are oppressed,
Iraq wasn't a rational or moral candidate for salvation. The people of Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, and especially the Sudan are considerably more
terrorized by their Islamic tyrants than were the Iraqis by their secular thug.
Further, the likelihood, while slim, of leaving a less brutal and tyrannical
regime in our wake, was more favorable in those other nations. At the very
least, in the Sudan or in East Timor we could have prevented Muslims from
murdering 3,000,000 Christians.
GWB, living in denial, ignorantly and arrogantly, changed his story once again.
Without dealing with the underlying reason that 95% of Islamic nations are
dictatorial, he praised Islam calling it good and peaceful, and then said that
establishing a democracy in Iraq would be good for the world - a goal worthy of
an ever escalating number of American lives. But Islam and freedom, Islam and
choice, Islam and enlightenment, Islam and prosperity, are as distant from one
another as Nazism was from peace.
Had we chosen to partner with, enrich and support, Nazism in Germany following
the Second World War, would they be enjoying freedom and prosperity today? Did
America's willingness to partner with Stalin and Mao during that war liberate
the Russian and Chinese people or doom them?
So What Are You Going to Do?
Is unjustified optimism, born in ignorance and denial, compassionate or
enlightened when it leads to the loss of 1500 American lives? Was it moral to
re-elect a president who has consistently deceived while leading America into a
morass from which there is no escape? Is the real problem the people who voted
for him or the man who misled them? Mind you, as a Constitutionalist, I am more
conservative than anyone reading this open letter and as a Christian I am part
of the group responsible for GWB's empowerment. So it is with a heavy heart that
I ask Americans these questions: Is Islam solely at fault for the terror Muslims
have perpetrated or do those who have embraced, enriched and tolerated Islam
share some blame? Who is responsible for the mess we find ourselves in? Is there
any way out?
|
