Monday, November 16, 2009


( . . . and pray tell, what do Cossacks [see them in the picture above] have to do with instilling fear into the hearts and minds of the hordes of Mohammed? Read on and see)

[First published in the original "Islamic Danger" blog]

ISLAM: The Fear Factor

This global jihad can succeed only if we lose the battle for hearts and minds – our
--David Kupelian
"How To Defeat Radical Islam"

With "Islamophobia" they want to howl "victim!" but at the same time make us afraid.


Are Moslems afraid of Islamophobia?

The term Islamophobia was coined in an attempt to give a name for what Moslems perceived as an antipathy towards their ideology. Observing that the term antisemitism used to describe an unreasonable hatred for Jews, Moslems wanted to come up with a similar catch-phrase to embody the dislike for their actions and ideology rising in the non-Moslem world.

The most natural designation for the antipathy they perceived would have been anti-Islamism or anti-Moslemism, but that did not contain what Msolems wanted to get across. It made them into victims, which was okay with them for their purposes, but it also made them appear as weak victims. And this they did not want. They did not want to appear as the beaten-down Islamic equivalent of the spat-upon Jews that were the target of antisemitism.

Whether this was done consciously or unconsciously does not matter, Moslems came up with the word Islamophobia.

This served their purpose well. A phobia is a fear: Acrophobia--fear of heights, Arachnophobia-fear of spiders, Claustrophobia--fear of enclosed spaces, etc. Ergo: Islamophobia--fear of Islam.

They threw this at us as if shouting, "You are afraid of Islam!" this serves a dual purpose, it makes us ponder whether we are or not (weakness) and it makes us feel guity that we are atiMoslem, a religion, the Arab race, the whole package.

"How to Strike Fear into the Hearts of Your Enemies"

Apparently an Islamic dictum is make your enemy tremble with fear and then to strike him.

But Fear is but a weapon, a tool, like a gun, It can be used against us and by us. Moslems fear us. No matter how they boast, strut about and brag. Using poetic hyperbole (Saddam Hussain "The Mother of All Battles") they try to strike fear into our hearts.

When we tell the Islamic world that we will destroy them were they to attack us --the type of attack that would trigger swift and terrible retribution, where the type of response is left open (it is our choice) , they should be concerned. We are not as "nice" and soft as some of our more public faces and voices make us appear to be.

When it comes, it will be brutal. (Nagasaki, Hiroshima were but rehearsals for what is awaiting the Islamic world were it to strike the "trigger blow.")

Our leaders will not always be close with Islamic houses. It will not always have such idiots a Jimmy Carter speaking for us. The Kosovo Moslem trickery played on Bill Clinton (and us gullible ninnies) was a good one. But, we will have the leaders we need when we go to war. When the war comes, the real war, it will be the jihadists who will soil their bloomers.


The following exchange is traditionally attributed as the demand for fealty made by the Turkish sultan Mehmet IV (1642—1693) to the Zaporozhian Dnieper Cossacks, followed by the answer given by the Cossacks and their chieftain Ivan Sirko (1605?—1680).

Proposal Of Mehmet IV, Sultan of Constantinople

I, sultan, the son of Mohammed, the brother of the Sun and the Moon, grandson and the deputy of God, the owner of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Great and Lesser Egypt, the tsar of tsars, the lord of lords, knight extraordinary, soldier invincible by anyone, stalwart keeper of the crypt of our Lord, trustee of God himself, hope and comfort of Moslems, contender and great defender of Christians — command you, Zaporozhian Cossacks, to surrender yourselves to me voluntarily without any resistance and not to compel my vexation with your attacks.
-Turkish Sultan Mehmet IV

The Answer of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Sultan of Constantinople

More criminal than Barabbas
Horned like the fallen angels
With Beelzebub you are down there
Fed on garbage and filth
We will not come to your Sabbaths
Rotten fish of Salonica
Long chain of frightful dreams
Of eyes torn out with a pike thrust
Your mother blew a liquid fart
And you were born out of her colic
Tormenter of Podolye Lover
Of wounds of ulcers of scabs
Groin of a pig arse of a mare
All your riches you should hoard
To spend on your treatments

- Guillaume Apollinaire
French poet

— English translation from the French by MZ

That was the poetic, the cleaned-up, version of what is the Zaporozhian Cossacks actual reply is said to have been. Here is what they are supposed to have said.

The Kozaks of the Dnieper to the Sultan of Turkey: Thou Turkish Satan, brother and companion to the accursed Devil, and companion to Lucifer himself, Greetings! What the hell kind of noble knight art thou? The Devil voids, and thy army devours. Never wilt thou be fit to have the sons of Christ under thee: thy army we fear not, and by land and on sea we will do battle against thee. Thou scullion of Babylon, thou wheelwright of Macedonia, thou beer-brewer of Jerusalem, thou goat-flayer of Alexandria, thou swineherd of Egypt, both the Greater and the Lesser, thou sow of Armenia, thou goat of Tartary, thou hangman of Kamenetz, thou evildoer of Podoliansk, thou grandson of the Devil himself, thou great silly oaf of all the world and of the netherworld and, before our God, a blockhead, a swine's snout, a mare's ass, a butcher's cur, an unbaptized brow, May the Devil take thee! That is what the Kozaks have to say to thee, thou basest-born of runts! Unfit art thou to lord it over true Christians! The date we write not for no calendar have we got; the moon is in the sky, the year is in a book, and the day is the same with us here as with thee over there, and thou canst kiss us thou knowest where!

Wait! Wait! You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's a more earthy translation of that reply:

Response of the Zaporozhians to Mehmet IV.

Zaporozhian cossacks to Turkish sultan! Thou, sultan, Turkish prick, and brother and comrade to the accursed devil, secretary to Lucifer himself. What sort of cock-wrangling knight art thou, if thy naked arse canst not smother a hedgehog. What the devil shits, thy army eats. Never wilt thou have Christian offspring under thee, thou son of a bitch; we fear not thy armies, by land and by water we shall fight thee; may thy mother be fucked all the way through. Thou Babylonian hash monger, Macedonian bullshitter, Jerusalemite braggart, Alexandrian wether, Greater and Lesser Egypt’s swineherd, Armenian swine, Podolian villain, Tatarian gopher, Kamenetskian executioner, fuckwit to the entire world and its underworld, fool to our Lord, grandson to the asp and crook to our cock. Pig’s snout, mare’s arse, feral dog, heathen blockhead, fucked be thy mother. So the Zaporozhians spoke unto thee, dastard. Thou wilt not lead even the Christian pigs. Now we end, for the date we know not, calendars we have none, the moon is in the sky, the year is in the book, the day with ye the same as with us, and for that thou canst kiss us in the arse!
Signed: Division chieftain Ivan Sirko with the entire Zaporozhian division

Whichever version is best is up to you. Take your pick. I like the first, Apollinair's: it's short and it can be repeated in polite company. The two other, however, are more in keeping with the Cossack spirit. If you really want to let 'em have it, either one of those will do the job. Number three can be used just before the Mohammedan forces come at you with their battle cries.

Whatever happened to the Zaporozhians after that example of how diplomacy should be exercised with an unfriendly power is a matter of conjecture.

The diplomatic exchange is traditionally attributed as the demand for fealty made by the Turkish sultan Mehmet IV (1642—1693) to the Zaporozhian Dnieper Cossacks, and the answer given by the Cossacks and their chieftain Ivan Sirko (1605?—1680).

As for the Sultan of the Turks, Mehmet IV, he was the . . .

Son of sultan Ibrahim I born of and brought up by his Russian concubine Turhan Hatice, Mehmet IV ascended to the Ottoman throne following the assassination of his father in 1648. His reign witnessed great military victories against Venice, Transylvania, and Poland. However, his ambition to extend his rule into Podolia and Ukraine in the East, and Austria and Hungary in the West, was thwarted on September 12 of 1683 by the rout of the Ottoman armies at the walls of Vienna, at the hands of the coalition led by Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine and king Jan III Sobieski of Poland. In the wake of a further defeat in 1687 at Mohacs, inflicted by the Holy League led by Charles V of Lorraine, Mehmet IV was deposed and imprisoned by his council. He lived out his days with two concubines, confined in quarters overlooking his favorite hunting grounds.

Cossack chieftain Ivan Sirko distinguished himself in campaigns against Poland, the Ottoman Empire, and Crimean Tatars, accompanied by constant fluctuation in principles and alliances. A characteristic episode in his military exploits has him liberating seven thousand Christian prisoners from Moslem captivity. To these beneficiaries of his martial prowess Sirko offered a choice between accompanying his Cossacks to Rus, and returning to their original Crimean homes. He then dispatched his troops to slaughter three thousand Christians that chose to return to their homes instead of starting from scratch amongst the Cossacks. Surveying the ensuing carnage, the heroic chieftain spoke: Forgive us, brothers, and sleep here until the Last Judgment of our Lord, lest you multiply in the Crimea amongst the infidel, vexing our brave spirits, and causing your eternal unbaptized damnation. (Простите нас, братья, а сами спите тут до страшного Господнего суда, чем размножаться вам в Крыму между бусурманами на наши молодецкие головы, а на свою вечную без крещения погибель.) This amalgam of pragmatic interest in preempting the reproduction of potential enemies with altruistic concern for saving Christian souls provides a vivid illustration of the Cossack chieftain’s favorite saying: «Нужда закон змінює», need will amend law. Today, this intrepid Cossack hero is celebrated in official Ukrainian coinage

Following the account of how a French poet and a Russian composer got together (in spirit only as one was already dead) is another translation of Apollinaire's oeuvre into English and then into Russian. Why into Russian? It became part of the Shostakovitch Symphony No. 14, which included Apollinaire's longer poem "The Ballad of the Badly Loved," of which the reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks is a part. Why Apollinaire included this in the larger poem, I do not know.

This apocryphal tale inspired Guillaume Apollinaire (1880—1918) to condense legendary Cossack obloquy into a digression within his great love lyric La Chanson du Mal-Aimé, first published in the Mercure de France on May 1st, 1909. On 29 September, 1969, its Russian rendering played a key part in the first performance of Symphony No. 14, Opus 135 by Dmitri Shostakovich (1906—1975). Thus the tale of Eastern European diplomacy came full circle.

Here are the promised alternate translations:

The Zaporozhian Cossacks' Answer
to the Sultan of Constantinople (Guillaume Apollinaire)

You are a hundred times more criminal than Barabbas.
Living as the neighbor of Beelzebub,
You wallow in the most foul vices.
Fed on filth since childhood,
Know this: you'll celebrate your Sabbath without us.

Rotten cancer, Salonica's refuse,
A terrible nightmare which cannot be told,
One-eyed, putrid and noseless,
You were born while your mother
Was writhing in fecal spasms.

Evil butcher of Podolye, look:
You are covered in wounds, sores and scabs.
Rump of a horse, snout of a pig,
May all the drugs be found
For you to heal your ills!

VIII. Otvet zaporozhskikh kazakov konstantinopol’skomu sultanu

Ti prestupney Varravii v sto raz.
S Vel’zevulom zhivya po sosedstvu,
v samiikh merzkikh grekhakh tii pogryaz.
Nechistotami vskormlenniiy s detstva,
znay: svoy shabash tii spraviish bez nas.

Rak protukhshiy, Salonik otbrosii,
skverniiy son, chto nel’zya rasskazat’,
okrivevsiy, gniloy i beznosiiy,
tii rodilsya, kogda tvoya mat’
izvivalas’ v korchakh ponosa.

Zloy palach Podol’ya, vzglyani:
ves’ti v ranakh, yazvakh i strup’yakh.
Zad kobiilii, riilo svin’i,
pust’ tebe vse snadob’ya skupyat,
chtob lechil tii bolyachki svoi!
—Guillaume Apollinaire; translated by M. Kudinov

The point of all of this is that the Cossacks were not nice touchy-feely types that felt the pain of their Mahometan adversaries. They figure in on this treatment of fear--fear that can cut both ways--because they have been used before to keep Islamic forces at bay. They also were used by the Tsars in pogroms against Jews [more on this further down below in this treatise] and to control the rising people ante-Bolschevik Revolution.

[Now, do not think for one second that I propose relying on the Cossacks strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Mahometans nor to do the fighting for us. They can, however, be used as an example of how to conduct diplomacy versus Moslem demands, threats, and boastful grandeur.]

Addendum. Amended to be a suitable--

--Answer of the American People to the letter (of November 2006) sent to them by Ahmadinejad:

More criminal than Barabbas
Horned like the f*cking devil
With Beelzebub you are down there
Fed on garbage and shit
We will not come to your Sabbaths
Rotten fish of Teheran
Creature of nightmares
May your eyes be plucked out
Your mother blew a liquid fart
And you were born out of her colic
Tormentor of the world
Lover of wounds, of ulcers, of scabs
Pig's prick, mare's ass
Get some professional help
To rid you of your delusions

[Adapted and changed from "The Answer of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Sultan of Constantinople" by Guillaume Apollinaire, English translation from the French by MZ with changes and substitutions by Leslie White.]

Here's more about them (Cossacks, that is)


The original Cossacks were runaway slaves who fled the central areas of Russia and settled the southern steppes along the Don River where they were unlikely to be caught. Later, they acknowledged the sovereignty of the tsar in exchange for the status of a special military community with its own rights and freedoms. Don Cossacks took part in all wars that Russia waged from the 18th to the early 20th centuries, and won renown as especially fearsome defenders of the nation. However, this could not save the Cossacks in 1920, when the Soviet government, encouraged by Lenin, abolished them by special decree.

Nevertheless, the Cossacks, who now predominantly reside in the Rostov Region next to the North Caucasus, have managed to preserve the unique customs, traditions and culture of their predecessors. In the early 1990s, they were officially rehabilitated and given the status of a public organization. But this was not enough for these patriotic and military-minded people: They were waiting for a chance to resume their traditional role of frontier guards, and the new law will give them a chance to do so.

The Cossack revival has been brought about by recent changes in the area. The North Caucasus and the Krasnodar Territory need protection from Islamic extremists, as well as from Chechen and international terrorists. In addition, migrants who have flooded the region often attempt to impose their order on the local population. As a result, the number of Russians is diminishing, and Russians no longer feel safe.

General Gennady Troshin, formerly commander of the federal troops in the Chechen Republic and now presidential aide on Cossack issues, is confident that the Cossacks will help protect Russia's southern borders. He considers the Cossacks a serious force, saying that they are already helping the government bodies to maintain law and order in their stanitsas (large villages). Cossack atamans, or chiefs, are usually members of the local administration, and their opinion carries weight with the local governors.

A rank-and-file Cossack made a typical statement in a recent televised report: "Today both [Islamic extremists] and our 'Western friends' are making attempts to split Russia again. Russia needs to muster its spiritual power. Something has to be done to oppose the rat race, the cult of violence and drug addiction. Who will serve in the Army tomorrow? Weaklings. We don't want this to happen. This is why we, the Cossacks of Russia, are restoring our traditions."
If the bill becomes law, draft-age Cossacks will gain the right to serve in traditional Cossack military units, as well as frontier and internal forces. The bill provides for Cossack involvement in the war on terror, in dealing with emergency situations, and in protecting public order. They will also take part in efforts to guarantee state and border security, as well as ecological and fire safety. The federal authorities will also be obliged to give partial funding to the Cossacks from the state budget, and to grant them certain tax benefits.

But the Cossack renaissance is not welcomed by some human-rights activists, who sense in it a tinge of rising Great Russian chauvinism.

"Needless to say, it is difficult to object to people's desire to unite. If they want to guard the frontiers, let them do this as a version of contract service," Lev Ponomaryov, head of For Human Rights, said. "But it is alarming that they may be given the right to maintain law and order within these borders. Experience shows that the Cossacks have their own interpretation of law and order."

Russian Cossacks are used to skeptical attitudes. But today they have a powerful supporter in Putin, who views the so-far-unregistered 10 million Cossacks as his potential assistants in consolidating Russia's integrity and ensuring its citizens' security. The Kremlin expects the Cossacks to reaffirm their historical reputation as patriots, defenders of the state and champions of moral values.

The gist of the Cossack phenomenon is manifest in a popular anecdote about Napoleon, who is quoted as saying: "Give me 20 thousand Cossacks and I will conquer the whole of Europe and even the whole world." The Don atamans sent him a prompt reply: "Send us 20,000 French women, and in 20 years you will get 20,000 Cossacks. But they will serve Russia nonetheless."

Cossacks as the Nemesis of Jews Residing in Tsarist Russia

That they were, all right. Whenever the Tsars saw fit to divert the Russian populace's ire from the Russian ruling class, the Jews were blamed for everything, and to placate the suffering masses, the Cossacks were loosed on the Jews. The pogroms were merciless sprees of murder, robbery, and rape. There looms, however, a possible brighter future in the relationship between Cossack and Jew. Perhaps, faced by a common Islamic enemy, the Cossacks can divert their ruthlessness towards the real menace: the southern borders of Russia and the Islamic forces menacing Christians as well as the singled-out-by the Koran ans the enemy of Mohammed and his unseen (conveniently made-up) master--the Jews.

posted on 08/11/2006
KIEV, Ukraine – Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin and the Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Naomi Ben-Ami met with the leader of the Ukrainian Cossacks Anatoliy Schevchenko and the General Judge of Cossacks Igor Kozlovsky. At this meeting, the Cossack leaders assured the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine and the Israeli Ambassador of their support of Israel as it combats terrorism. As a dean of a local higher-education institution, Mr. Schevchenko said his teaching staff was doing everything possible to explain to their students the importance of supporting Israel as well as the need to fight against anti-Semitism and national and religious intolerance.

The Cossacks also announced that they were going to visit Israel on a solidarity mission at the invitation of Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin. The parties shared their opinions regarding the current situation in Ukraine and in Israel, the Israeli Ambassador expressing her hope that joint efforts of the international community aimed at resolving the current conflict and preventing such conflict in the future. At the end of the meeting, the Israeli diplomat thanked the Cossack leaders for their support and understanding of the Israeli position.

To this, the most appropriate comment is the Spanish "ojala" from the Andalusian Moorish arabic meaning "that allah would want it to be so)."

The savagery of the followers of Mohammed can be matched or better yet be outstripped by that of the Cossacks.

to finish off this diatribe on "how to instill fear into the hearts and minds of the Mahometans," here is a description of another encounter between Moslem and Russian warriors. The outcome? Well, let us see . . .

Abdul Abulbul Amir
Written By: Percy French
Copyright Unknown

The sons of the prophet were hardy and bold,
And quite unaccustomed to fear,
But the bravest of these was a man, I am told
Named Abdul Abulbul Amir.

This son of the desert, in battle aroused,
Could spit twenty men on his spear.
A terrible creature, both sober and soused
Was Abdul Abulbul Amir.

When they needed a man to encourage the van,
Or to harass the foe from the rear,
Or to storm a redoubt, they had only to shout
For Abdul Abulbul Amir.

There are heroes aplenty and men known to fame
In the troops that were led by the Czar;
But the bravest of these was a man by the name
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

He could imitate Irving, play Euchre and pool
And perform on the Spanish Guitar.
In fact, quite the cream of the Muscovite team
Was Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

The ladies all loved him, his rivals were few;
He could drink them all under the bar.
As gallant or tank, there was no one to rank
With Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

One day this bold Russian had shouldered his gun
And donned his most truculent sneer
Downtown he did go, where he trod on the toe
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir

"Young man," quoth Bulbul, "has life grown so dull,
That you're anxious to end your career?
Vile infidel! Know, you have trod on the toe
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir."

"So take your last look at the sunshine and brook
And send your regrets to the Czar;
By this I imply you are going to die,
Mr. Ivan Skavinsky Skivar."

Quoth Ivan, "My friend, your remarks, in the end,
Will avail you but little, I fear,
For you ne'er will survive to repeat them alive,
Mr. Abdul Abulbul Amir!"

Then this bold mameluke drew his trusty chibouque
With a cry of "Allah Akbar!"
And with murderous intent, he ferociously went
For Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

They parried and thrust and they side-stepped and cussed
'Till their blood would have filled a great pot.
The philologist blokes, who seldom crack jokes,
Say that hash was first made on that spot.
They fought all that night, 'neath the pale yellow moon;
The din, it was heard from afar;
And great multitudes came, so great was the fame
of Abdul and Ivan Skivar.

As Abdul's long knife was extracting the life -
In fact, he was shouting "Huzzah!" - -
He felt himself struck by that wily Kalmuck,
Count Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

The sultan drove by in his red-breasted fly,
Expecting the victor to cheer;
But he only drew nigh to hear the last sigh
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

Czar Petrovich, too, in his spectacles blue
Rode up in his new crested car.
He arrived just in time to exchange a last line
With Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

A loud-sounding splash from the Danube was heard
Resounding o'er meadows afar;
It came from the sack fitting close to the back
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skovar.

There's a tomb rises up where the blue Danube flows;
Engraved there in characters clear;
"Ah stranger, when passing, please pray for the soul
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir."

A Muscovite maiden her lone vigil keeps,
'Neath the light of the pale polar star;
And the name that she murmurs as oft as she weeps
Is Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.
* * *

I'd call it a DRAW, wouldn't you?

. . . and before we go:

[spoken in a sonorous voice]

"Dedicated to the jihadists in mind and would-be deed that threaten us with mayhem:"


You cannot kill words
Rapists of those who bore you
You cannot cut heads off ideas
Nor stab the will to resist.
You, would-be hunters, will be the hunted
Mewling hyenas sent loping
Dragging your shit-smeared hindquarters
back to your accursed umma.
You filth, you devil's shit,
You will squat with the one who spawned your vile mind-twist
Who sent you to sally forth
To bay an unseen idol's name at the crescent moon.
You will swallow your own dung and suck your urine
While the demons of hell howl
around the quivering blobs of roasting flesh
That were once you.


You, eaters of dung and drinkers of urine


Bury your noses in your scriptures, the curse of the world is upon you,
You cannot achieve as neither did your strain
in what-had-once-been al-andalus, at Poitiers,
and when your Turkish proxy legions
twice bloodied their be-turbaned heads against the walls of Vienna.
Your kind was humbled by Hulegu Khan,
your Turks swallowed bitter salt-water at Lepanto.
Your Berber pirates felt the steel of U.S. bayonets,
and you stewed in the filth that is your umma for centuries.
Until the soft and bleeding-hearted Westerners
gave you the means once more to come for them
and try to force your unclean ways on them.
The time has changed, your turn is come and gone.
Away with you, your clock has run out. Back!
Back to the realm of the prince of darkness
from whose loins your hateful teachings sprang.


(chanted softly, with reverence)

There will be millions of jihadist dead. Jihadists are appalled by pigs blood and entrails. Wrapped in pork intestines and splattered with pig's blood before castration and being chainsawed from crotch to top of the skull, a jihadist will never reach paradise. Likewise being sewn inside of a pig carcass is a guarantee to another realm than "blessed" paradise.

There are thousands more of fun things to do to a jihadist. Forget about Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, those were country clubs compared what the jihadist unlucky enough to be captured rather than killed (and turned into a jihadist-in-a-pig blanket) will face.

Until next time then, this is your friendly interlocutor saying . . . "ta ta"

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The Pedigree of "Islamic Danger"




It evolved from no-holds-barred free-for-all on message boards [AOL, Yahoo], to club [Yahoo], community [Yahoo, MSN], and group [Yahoo, MSN], until it launched into the blogosphere.

Right now, we have eleven [11] blogs on Blogspot*--but do not be concerned, were these to be muzzled, we have blogs standing by to take over the fight at other venues.

An early start in the resistance against Islam, the original "Islamic Danger," an internet club, was formed by two founders who had met as keyboard-comrades-in-arms on internet message boards in 2000. [At AOL]

In those early--pre-9-11--days of the anti-jihad, any uncomplimentary reference to "the religion of peace" (dubbed as such by the authorities) was immediately punished by deletion of the post as "hate speech." Although rife with Jew-hatred and attacks against American values, messages posted by the followers of Islam remained, regardless of their breach of the Terms of Service (TOS).

In early 2001, the fight was moved to a more receptive venue--as an internet club "Islamic Danger"--its first incarnation [at Yahoo]. Membership in the club grew phenomenally until it led the Middle East section in membership, visits, and number of posts. This growth spurted noticeably after the Islamic attack against the United States on 9-11-01.

Visibility brought more enemies of the Islamic and Leftist persuasion. Every post was examined by the enemies of America for breaches of Terms of Service (TOS). The club was brought down by an European who "felt the pain" of the Islamics ("self-professed, perennial victims").

The original founders were banned for life from the venue, and sadly disappeared from interspace. [Like hell]

Several stalwart followers of the old "Islamic Danger" established a community with the same name at another internet venue [at MSN]. Same story repeated itself. As its membership grew, attacks by Islamics and their Leftist fellow-travellers multiplied. An attack, including the posting of hate messages and inappropriate photographs, and then running screaming "hate!" and "TOS violation!"to the "authorities" led to the sudden demise of the group.

There were several attempts to resuscitate the group--the last proving successful. As long as membership stayed under a noticeable percentage, the group was allowed to remain. Any sudden growth led to deletion of the group.

Two of these groups still exist under the old name, as well as several clones under the same management.

The "Islamic Danger" blogs you can find on the internet [the blogspot "Islamic Danger"blogs, listed below] were started by veterans of the early struggles to warn the West against the danger of Islamic infiltration into its lands with the aim of subjugation of free people. The goal of the Islamics, as it has been since the early days of desert brigandry under Mohammed, is to have a subjugated heavily-taxed population that the Mohammedans could then milk and live off.

The predilection for Islamics to live off the work of others is a fact that can be seen in the EU welfare states where they rushed for "asylum." Conquest by demographics is a fact of Islamic striving to conquer the free world. Their abhorrence of work can be seen from the Saudi penchant for having an oppressed and sexually brutalized foreign "underclass" do manual labor in lieu of the usual Christian and other non-Moslem slaves that have been used by Mohammedans for the past 13 centuries (1).

1. . . . [Donald Rumsfeld] observed that oil billions have shielded [Moslems] "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis[*] while their young people remain unemployed. An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.”
--Donald Rumsfeld

Related to the above:

Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror: The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers (52)

[*] Not to forget Filipinos and Filipinas

* Name not taken from, but we strongly endorse, the excellent
The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization
by Yohanan Ramati
1. The Historical Background of Islamic Resurgence
2. The Diagnosis
3. The Cure the West Rejected
4. Postscript from the Ashes of the Twin Towers
[ Full article for printing ]

* "Islamic Danger" Blogs
Islamic Danger FU
The Jew in Yellow
The Jew in Yellow No More
On the Back of My Mind
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad
Islamic Danger 2U
Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)
Islamic Danger to Americans
Islamic Danger in History
Islamic Danger Redux
Islamic Danger (original, now censored)



A bold look at the history of America at war.

A warning to those that would attack us

. . . the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending."

--Robert Spencer

In support of of the previous post, "WHO IS TAKING THE BRUNT OF ISLAM'S ATTACK ON THE WEST? "

I am reprinting this here.
--Leslie White
* The Gadsden Flag is an instant reminder of the American Colonial period. Since colonial days, the rattlesnake has been used to portray the spirit of Americans. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin published a political essay describing the 13 American colonies as a snake divided reminding us of the danger of disunity.


In 1774, Colonel Gadsden of the Revolutionary Army emphasized this by printing the legend "DONT TREAD ON ME" on his flag.

The birth of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps

By 1775, the snake symbol wasn't just being printed in newspapers. It was appearing all over the colonies ... on uniform buttons ... on paper money ... and of course, on banners and flags.

The snake symbol morphed quite a bit during its rapid, widespread adoption. It wasn't cut up into pieces anymore. And it was usually shown as an American timber rattlesnake, not a generic serpent.

We don't know for certain where, when, or by whom the familiar coiled rattlesnake was first used with the warning "Don't Tread on Me."

We do know when it first entered the history books.

In the fall of 1775, the British were occupying Boston and the young Continental Army was holed up in Cambridge, woefully short on arms and ammunition. At the Battle of Bunker Hill, Washington's troops had been so low on gunpowder that they were ordered "not to fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

In October, a merchant ship called The Black Prince returned to Philadelphia from a voyage to England. On board were private letters to the Second Continental Congress that informed them that the British government was sending two ships to America loaded with arms and gunpowder for the British troops.

Congress decided that General Washington needed those arms more than General Howe. A plan was hatched to capture the British cargo ships. They authorized the creation of a Continental Navy, starting with four ships. The frigate that carried the information from England, the Black Prince, was one of the four. It was purchased, converted to a man-of-war, and renamed the Alfred.

To accompany the Navy on their first mission, Congress also authorized the mustering of five companies of Marines. The Alfred and its sailors and marines went on to achieve some of the most notable victories of the American Revolution. But that's not the story we're interested in here.

What's particularly interesting for us is that some of the Marines that enlisted that month in Philadelphia were carrying drums painted yellow, emblazoned with a fierce rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with thirteen rattles, and sporting the motto "Don't Tread on Me."

Benjamin Franklin diverts an idle hour

In December 1775, "An American Guesser" anonymously wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal:

"I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America."

This anonymous writer, having "nothing to do with public affairs" and "in order to divert an idle hour," speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America.

First, it occurred to him that "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America."

The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance." Furthermore,

"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her." Finally,

"I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. ...

"'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living."

Many scholars now agree that this "American Guesser" was Benjamin Franklin.
The foregoing from

There is a book titled

Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist
Hunting by H.W.W Crocker

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch

says the following about the book:

"Because the global jihad is advancing on many fronts, not all involving terrorism or violence, a strong military is not the only thing we need to defeat it. But it is -- especially when properly deployed -- an indispensable prerequisite. I have been reminded of this while reading Don't Tread On Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting by H. W. Crocker.

This book is not only briskly and brightly written, as are all his books, but it underscores the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending.

posted by Robert at September 20, 2006 08:42 AM

Other reviews:

Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist
Hunting by H.W.W Crocker

Fast-paced and riveting, Don’t Tread on Me is a bold look at the history of America at war.

Also available as an eBook


“Talk about politically incorrect! Don’t Tread on Me is the best, most entertaining account of the American warrior I’ve ever read. Crocker gets it! So will you.”
—Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former military aide to the president, bestselling author of Dereliction of Duty and War Crimes

“Robust and provocative, Don’t Tread on Me is a unique addition to any library of American history—and it might try to annex your neighboring volumes.”
—Tony Blankley, McLaughlin Group panelist, bestselling author of The West’s Last Chance

“In Don’t Tread on Me, Crocker writes manfully of our nation’s proud martial spirit that is assailed on so many sides today. I was ready to head to the nearest armed forces recruiting office after reading it.”
—Steven F. Hayward, author of Churchill on Leadership and The Age of Reagan, 1964–1980

“The central thrust of Harry Crocker’s sparkling book is that a nation’s very essence is reflected in the character of its military, that its history is written in the blood and courage of its fighting men. In prose as unblinking as it is fast-moving, he tells the story of the creation of the ‘American Empire.’ This book is a true one-of-a-kind; its power flows from Crocker’s focus on the dauntless warriors who forged and safeguarded the United States of America.”
—Lt. Gen. Dave R. Palmer, U.S. Army (Ret.), former superintendent of West Point, author of George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots

“Don’t Tread on Me is that rare but admirable thing—a book written from a Tory, Imperialist, Southern Gentleman’s perspective. Winston Churchill and Andrew Jackson would both be proud. A rousing read through the rattling good tales of American history.”
—John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large for National Review

“A book as dashing, formidable, and triumphant as the American fighting man it describes.” —Bernard Cornwell, author of Sharpe’s Fury and the bestselling Richard Sharpe series

Book Description
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?

• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?

• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?

• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?

• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?

• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?

The answer to these questions is a resounding yes, says author H. W. Crocker III in this stirring and contrarian new book.

In Don’t Tread on Me, Crocker unfolds four hundred years of American military history, revealing how Americans were born Indian fighters whose military prowess carved out first a continental and then a global empire—a Pax Americana that has been a benefit to the world.

From the seventeenth century on, he argues, Americans have shown a jealous regard for their freedom—and have backed it up with an unheralded skill in small-unit combat operations, a tradition that includes Rogers’ Rangers, Merrill’s Marauders, and today’s Special Forces.

He shows that Americans were born to the foam too, with a mastery of naval gunnery and tactics that allowed America’s Navy, even in its infancy, to defeat French and British warships and expand American commerce on the seas.

Most of all, Crocker highlights the courage of the dogface infantry, the fighting leathernecks, and the daring sailors and airmen who have turned the tide of battle again and again.

In Don’t Tread on Me, still forests are suddenly pierced by the Rebel Yell and a surge of grey. Teddy Roosevelt’s spectacles flash in the sunlight as he leads his Rough Riders charging up San Juan Hill. American doughboys rip into close-quarters combat against the Germans. Marines drive the Japanese out of their island fortresses using flamethrowers, grenades, and guts. GIs slug their way into Hitler’s Germany. The long twilight struggle against communism is fought in the snows of Korea and the steaming jungles of Vietnam. And today, U.S. Navy SEALs and U.S. Army Rangers battle Islamist terrorists in the bleak mountains of Afghanistan, just as their forebears fought Barbary pirates two hundred years ago.

Review by a reader: Thought provoking

M. Lynch (Chicago, IL USA)
Freedom isn't free, and whether it was at Valley Forge or Pearl Harbor, the United States has had to fight for the right to remain an exceptional nation. H.W. Crocker's story is a great tribute to the men and women who have served in uniform and defended our borders. Needless to say, in these uncertain times, "Don't Tread on Me" is an important reminder that we Americans cannot take our freedoms for granted.

More reader reviews can be found at the website:


Who is dying in the war against us by Islam? (Oh pulleeze! Not "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" or "a tiny minority of . . . ," etc., etc., etc.)

You can see their faces--those of the dead--in uniform, on some of our News channels (even the crappy ones that suck up to the Arab Moslems because they are watched in the Arab world and have Saudi investment [but one does have a socially redeeming feature by giving Glenn Beck lots of airtime.]) They show them on PBS to make us feel guilt--for our government having sent fighting men to Iraq. The faces are the faces of the fallen, the dead, our dead.

Most of them are the faces of the young, the brave, our finest. Never mind that Kerry arrogantly relegates them to the category of failures, those who couldn't cut it in academia; the senator is an anal orifice. These young men and women chose the military as a profession. In the United States their profession has a history stretching back to before our Revolution. Without fighters, there would not have been a Revolution, and we would today be subjects of the British monarch. (And the Moslem-placating sad remnant of what was once a glorious empire. [You do not like that empire--on which the sun never set? Why? Because there were people in its colonies that were not "free?" Well, my friends, today these self-same people are "free," of the British, but under oppressive rulers that may be of the same color and nationality but far worse than the British ever were.]) But I digress, back to our fallen heroes.

There is that congressman who with a gravelly voice tells us that the men and women in our volunteer armed forces come from an underclass, not from the elite, the people who govern our country. He hoarsely urges a draft--everybody goes, whether they want to or not. When push came to shove and we were fighting for our country's existence--as we did in World War II--a non-volunteer, citizen army was necessary. Whether people who are forced to go into the military are as effective as those who want to fight is questionable. Some have it in them to become warriors, others hide behind cover and never fire a weapon.

Highly trained contingents such as our United States Marines, Army Rangers, Navy Seals and other Special Forces are certain to use their weapons and do a professional job, whether they agree with the politics enveloping the conflict or not.

People enlist in a volunteer military for various reasons. If it is to further their education or to stay as professionals and retire earlier than the rest of the population, it is an honorable vocation.

Not all of the dead are in their late teens or their twenties. There are older enlisted men and officers equal in age to civilians back in the States that have wives and children. They will never see their loved ones again.

On PBS, Jim Lehrer showed twenty of the dead--with accompanying dead air--silence. Out of reverence for our dead? Or to make us feel ashamed?

Everyone publicly gives lip service to supporting our troops. Yes, they support the troops, but not the war. During Vietnam time, the anti-American Americans spat on our troops, derided them, or accused them of atrocities as did that same John Kerry, U.S. Senator, and an . . . you know what I said about him before.

Now, I am not a G. W. Bush fan, for a multitude of reasons, but our enemies want to kill Americans, as much as they hanker to kill Jews. If there are no Americans--armed Americans-- to discourage them from this yearning, where do you think they will find massed, unprotected Americans? They did on 9-11, and the jihadists will try to serve their allah by coming over here to placate him with human blood (ours or theirs).

This sounds like the Bush line justifying being in Iraq. (I would've liked it better had he attacked the Saudis.) During Bush's predecessors' tenure, however, a destroyer was attacked by the jihad boys, embassies were blasted, bodies of American fighting men were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by howling Moslem mobs, a couple of hundred US Marines had to die in Beirut without firing a shot, and the greatest humiliation of all was when the toothy Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to take and keep American hostages and take over the American embassy in what should have been considered an act of war.

This is not the time to discuss whether we should stay in Iraq and what should've been done, could've been done. This is the time to honor our dead. They died defending our way of life, whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan or on some mission against the enemy that must forever remain unknown.

Countries that do not have a fighting military, and that have what others want, cannot survive. If we rush to draft our men (and perhaps women), the elite will supply the officer class. Will these officers measure up to our professional officers? Some civilians turned officers become fighting men, others take cushy jobs (you've seen it in world War II movies.)

When I am near military installations, I see young men and women who volunteered, who enlisted. I talk to them and it saddens me that some will die, never having reached the age of twenty.

We did not want this war, we did nothing to justify Islamic jihadists crashing planes into our buildings and killing thousands of people. It is their war against us. Islam's eternal war seeking to make the entire world Islamic.

There is no glory in war. There is, however, honor, We must honor those that died in the war that has yet to reach its zenith, that we must hope and pray will not rage through our streets, in our mountains, our fields, our villages and towns.

First published at the now-censored and -locked "Islamic Danger" on 11/30/06

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Fighting Wars to Lose . . .

or "Why Since World War II, the U.S. has lost every war it ever was drawn into."

Update on "Incident at Haditha" July 23, 2009 (see *Footnote)

UPDATE JULY 19, 2009:
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands - By Debbie Schlussel

Hizb ut-Tahrir America's (HTA) Khilafah conference, held at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, IL, USA
from The Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Hizb Ut-Tahrir In America: Preaching Hate, Building A Caliphate
Hizb ut-Tahrir, (HT) the pro-jihadist organization meeting this weekend in suburban Chicago, has been waging a below-the-radar campaign to recruit Americans for decades. Hizb ut-Tahrir activists in the United States have generally taken a low public profile following the 9/11 attacks, avoiding the vitriolic, hate-America rhetoric coming from HT activists abroad.The open nature of this weekend's Khalifa (Caliphate) Conference in Chicago under the Hizb ut-Tahrir banner indicates that the group has decided to enhance its recruiting efforts among U.S. Muslims.
Read the full story

Select Quotes from Historic 1994 Hizb Ut-Tahrir Rally in London's Wembley Arena
In 1994, tens of thousands of supporters of Hizb ut-Tharir rallied in London to demand Islamic control over the West, issued calls for world wide jihad and violent attacks, attacked democracy as incompatible with Islam, and demanded that an Islamic caliphate rule the entire world. The rally was one of the most radical mass Islamist gatherings ever held in a Western country.
Read the full story

Treading on Eggs in Afghanistan!
Obama’s new battle plan will get more Americans killed!
New US battle rule: No fighting near Afghan homes. Of course, once Taliban fighters learn of the directive, civilian homes will be the perfect place to seek cover.

(Contains NewMaterial) Added on June 21, 2009

The Answer: The welfare of the enemy has become more important . . .
. . . than that of the troops fighting for us.

Under such a condition, who but the bravest would willingly enlist in our armed forces?

Our present President never did . . . or had to. His predecessor served . . ah . . . barely. He was a cutup at that age: air national guard, spotty attendance . . etc.

Enlisting--or accepting a commission--means that you have to trust in military justice and in that your country will back you up before being more concerned about the safety and welfare of the enemy than yours.

Nigh impossible Rules of Engagement (ROEs) and an overly solicitous attitude towards those we are fighting--at the expense of our own fighters--would soon disabuse one of these illusions.

See such events as Action at Haditha* . . .

. . . and the tragic events leading to the loss of a SEAL team to safeguard the lives of three enemy individuals who betrayed the Americans' trust--or whose leader acted in fear of a courts-martial and American pro-enemy lawyers looming in his imagination . . .

This made our troops into split-personality fighting forces: worry about completing the mission while staying alive, in one piece, and making certain that you kill enemies only out of necessity while preserving the precious lives of enemy civilians--at the expense of the lives of American warriors.

Now you must learn about Something Terrible:

Joan Swirsky: Something Terrible Has Happened To Michael
posted by Lance
at TMQ2 (The Moslem Question 2 -- its predecessor TMQ1 was shut down by fair-to-all-but-fairer-to-Moslems-blogspot blogger authorities)


. . . there are rare instances in which a member of our military is punished for doing what he was trained to do – subdue or, if necessary, kill the enemy. This is what happened.

In May 2008, a known member of an al Qaeda cell, Ali Mansur, was suspected of having organized an attack on the young Army Ranger’s platoon, which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more under Lt. Behenna’s command. For some unfathomable reason, Army intelligence ordered that Mansur be released and ordered Lt. Behenna, who was then 24, to escort the terrorist to his home.

On the way, Behenna questioned Mansur in an effort to learn additional information about other members of the terrorist cell, as well as who was financing it. During the interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense.

But instead of expressing relief that one of their own had survived the attack, the government cast Mansur as the “victim” and prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder!

The following timeline was taken, in part, from the website that has been established in support of Lt. Behenna – – and confirmed by his mother, Vicki.

On February 23, 2009, Behenna went on trial. During the trial:

* The government argued that Behenna executed Mansur while he was sitting on a rock, while Behenna said that he shot in self defense after Mansur stood up and tried to reach for the Lieutenant’s gun during the interrogation.

* A government expert, an Iraqi doctor who performed the autopsy, said that the bullets had a horizontal trajectory, suggesting a direct confrontation and not a scenario in which a defenseless Mansur sat helplessly on a rock while a standing Behenna shot him at a downward angle. In fact, both government and defense experts agreed on the trajectory of the bullets that killed Mansur.

* In short order, the prosecution decided not to call to the stand another government expert, Dr. Herbert MacDonnell, but instead sent him home. But not before Dr. MacDonell told Behenna’s defense attorney that he would have been a good witness for the defense.

* While Dr. MacDonnell was picking up his coat in the prosecution room on his way out of the courthouse, he told the three prosecutors: “The explanation that Lt Behenna just testified to was the exact same scenario I told you yesterday. Lt Behenna is telling the truth.”

* Referring to Dr. MacDonnell’s statement that he would have been a good witness, the defense counsel, Jack Zimmermann, asked the prosecutors if they had any exculpatory evidence that should be provided to the defense. (This is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt.) But the prosecutors denied having any such evidence despite having been told by their own expert witness that Lt Behenna’s explanation was the only logical explanation of the events that had transpired.

* Because this evidence was withheld, the prosecutors were able to argue that Lt. Behenna executed Ali Mansur while the “victim” was seated on a rock – in spite of the testimony of forensic experts, including Dr. MacDonnell, who agreed that Mansur was standing with his arms outstretched when he was shot.

* On February 27, 2009, Lt. Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder and assault by a military panel of seven officers – none of whom were combat arms.

* Following the trial, Dr. MacDonnell contacted the prosecutors again, asking that the information he provided them be given to the defense.

* After Dr. MacDonnell’s e-mail was provided to the defense counsel, Mr. Zimmermann moved for a mistrial.

* Judge Theodore E. Dixon promptly ordered both sides in the case to file briefs relating to a possible mistrial, and, after reading the briefs, set a date for an additional hearing and ordered additional briefs, including one from the defense requesting a new trial.

* But on March 20, Judge Dixon denied the defense motions to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial and sentenced Lt. Behenna to serve 25 years in Leavenworth penitentiary.

Lt. Behenna’s attorneys are appealing the verdict. It is Vicki Behenna’s understanding that the General of the 101st Airborne will review Michael’s case in the next several weeks, in which case he can set aside the findings of guilt, order a new trial, or reduce Michael’s sentence. After the General’s decision, Michael’s case will be docketed in the appellate court, a process that can take from one-to-three years for the appeal to be heard.


There are those who believe that Michael was “sacrificed” for political reasons. Is it possible that the motive for failing to provide the exculpatory information had anything to do with our military’s desire to be able to tell the Iraqi government that they had convicted an officer, the better to actualize some kind of quid pro quo arrangement or smooth over some ruffled feathers?

In my opinion, it’s a miscarriage of justice for a soldier who is fighting for the Constitutional rights we hold dear – the right to due process and a fair trial – to be denied those rights in his own trial! And what about the demoralization this causes other U.S. troops, who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation? Whether they are U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be afforded anything less than a fair trial.

The Behennas and their many supporters have mobilized to help Michael and they urge everyone to contact his or her elected official to make sure that justice is done. And because the government has limitless resources but they don’t, they’ve established a Legal Defense Fund to help their efforts.

1LT Michael Behenna Legal Defense Fund
c/o Jack Dawson, co-trustee
100 Park Avenue, Second Floor
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-8099

Rachel Lawrence Mor, co-trustee
3037 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 251
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73116
Please read Legal Disclosure before donating.

They’ve also promised to send a Defend Michael Wristband for any donation of $20 or more.

"If we fail to support those fighting for us, one day there will be no one to fight for us."

"Sacrificing our warriors to garner favorable world opinion, especially that of our enemies, is perceived as weakness not fairness."

The Story

An American Hero deserves a new trial Petition
Critical evidence was withheld by prosecutors during the trial of 1LT Michael Behenna. If you believe that soldiers who fight for our constitutional rights,

To read more about perversions of American warrior values go to
. . . to Betrayal at Haditha
Semper Fi? (Always Faithful?)
The Marines to the country, YES!
The nation to its Marines? NOT ALWAYS
and apparently not at Haditha, Iraq.


See the following links for "Action at Haditha" details:

More Recent Haditha Events:


Haditha, Four Years Later - 2009

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the leader of the Platoon charged with counts of murder occurring in November 2005, in Haditha, Iraq, still has not had his day in a military court-martial. The loss of Iraqi civilian life occurred in November 2005, when members of his squad were clearing houses looking for the trigger man, who moments earlier had set off an IED that killed one Marine and severely wounded two others. There were two official military investigations of the incident, and an in-depth NCIS investigation, taking another year and a half to complete. However, 2007, the Hamdania murder cases were in the news, and the Marine Corps chose to take them to trial first, further delaying the Haditha cases.

Article 32 Hearings for Wuterich

In 2007, nearly two years later, the Article 32 hearings, similar to preliminary hearings, were underway with eight Haditha Marines facing charges. As rarely happens in the military justice system, the results of various Article 32 hearings led to 6 of 8 cases being dismissed. By the end of 2007, there remained only two Marines charged with manslaughter and failure to investigate, Staff Sergeant Wuterich and his Battalion Commander, LtCol Chessani, respectively.

Military Defense Lawyers

Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s civilian and military lawyers, Neal A. Puckett and Haytham Faraj, were ready for a court-martial in the spring of 2008, two and half years after the IED attack in Haditha. During the military court pre-trial hearings, the government subpoenaed the outtakes from the CBS 60 Minutes Interview. The judge quashed the subpoena. Another subpoena was also quashed on First Amendment grounds. The prosecutors appealed the military judges ruling twice, delaying swift justice for a Staff Sergeant Wuterich. The first appeal has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The second appeal has just reached the first military appellate court. In the meantime, the Battalion commander’s case has been dismissed due to unlawful command influence, and Staff Sergeant Wuterich, who is not allowed to attend professional military education or be promoted, is still waiting to go into a military court, having waited three and half years. Most of the military lawyers involved with the case, including the military judge, have retired or transferred.

Silberberg / AP

Another event at Haditha:

A U.S. Marine inspects the remains of a vehicle destroyed by a roadside bomb. . . . Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed in the blast near Haditha.
updated 6:06 a.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 4, 2005

Friday, May 1, 2009

Virtue and Purity as Boasted of by Islamics

Islam and its Islamics (Islamic Clerics - contraction thereof) prides itself on these two exemplars of Islam's superiority to everything that is not Islamic.

Let us examine these two characteristics in Islam of which its adherents make so much and boast of them to make us seem decadent.

ihsan (Arabic)

Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀρετή) is moral excellence of a person. A virtue is a character trait valued as being good. The conceptual opposite of virtue is vice.
The English word virtue is derived from the Latin word virtus which is in turn from vir meaning "man" in the masculine sense. The word virtus means "the male function" conceived in terms of strength or force; hence "the power to accomplish".
(The Roman virtue called virtus, indeed, specifically meant courage or strength of arms, rather than 'virtue' in the broader English sense.)

[Note; wiki-wiki! Wikipedia, take care what it tells you. this, however, appears reliable.]

OK, enough of that. BUT, as this word is oh-so-masculine, it fits right in with the "a man is worth two women (or is it 4? Or is it that four men have to testify as eye witnesses if a woman is raped to make the rape charge stick? Or is it six men? Before the woman is stoned to death for adultery?

About the koran:
Language is poetic and arabesque, but the essence of the message is-- **

How Virtue is practiced by Islamics

Well, that is moot point. Point 1. It applies only in (social) intercourse with other Islamics. The despised kafir (that's us non-Islamics) is left out. The Islamic can lie to him deceive him (that's highly praiseworthy among the Mahometans, when a kafir is the target) , rob him, kill him, take his wife and children to do with what he wishes (no statuatory rape law is part of Sharia).

There is no Point 2. Virtue in Islam can be compared to what we call morality and ethics--although ours apply to all man-(and woman-)kind. Ours derives from the 10 Commandments, viz. Thou shalt not . . . murder, steal, etc.

Islamics do not consider killing a kafir (one of us) as immoral. In fact, it is a step on the road to the sexual hot-house that Mahound describes as his paradise.

How described by Mahound*

[*easier to type out than Mohammed; if pronounced rapidly, its almost approximates the Arabic prononciation of Mo-ham-med--as does Mahomet. This proper noun has been used in literature in Salman rushdie's The Satanic verses (Warning! Danger! Fatwa issued on author) It is a transformed re-narration of the life of the prophet Muhammad (called the "Messenger" {and "Mahound"}in the novel) ]

How Mahound described "Virtue"

In fiction (Islamic, koran, etc.) and in fact


Purity means that something does not contain foreign material or pollutants; the opposite of purity is impurity. The term may also be used to denote the absence of immoral behaviour or qualities (see morality).

In Islamic fiction (koran, etc.)

"The Koran . . . was originally written in the purest Arabic. Muhammad continually appeals to its extraordinary superhuman beauty and purity, as an evidence of the divine source from which he declared it to flow. He challenged unbelievers to produce, even with the aid of genii, any passage worthy to be compared with a single chapter in the Koran. Those who are acquainted with Arabic inform us that in its purest type it is in the highest degree copious, musical, and elegant; and that these qualities all meet in the Koran."

Language is poetic and arabesque, but the essence of the message is ** [footnote]

Mahound's obsession with "purity." Was the man a compulsive obsessive?


They rendezvous and exchange kisses, the mistress and her mister, or was it the gigolo and his social partner. Perhaps they are only friends and lovers. It does not matter. The two are having a tryst. I do not recall; has this escapade been going on for hours, days, months, or is it years. Sigh; it is unimportant. The two twist, tangle, and turn their bodies into one another as they walk down the street. They arrive at their destination. Swiftly, the couple enters their room. They passionately engage while on the sofa, on the floor, and finally, they fall into bed.

They “make love,” generate heat. The ordeal is hot and they are sweaty. Ultimately, they decide to shower together. Upon cleaning their bodies, the duo realizes they feel relieved. All their perspiration and transgressions were washed away.

Studies conclude; the sense of cleanliness after committing adultery or sex that is not ordained by a moral authority appeases guilt. The sensation, that all is “right with the world” if I wash after violating a value or ethical principle, is called the “Macbeth Effect.”

This marvel of “washing away my sins” is operating in the minds of many. Researchers, Chen-Bo Zhong from the University of Toronto, and Katie Liljenquist of Northwestern University, establish there is a “psychological association between bodily purity and moral purity.”

They surmise it is no wonder. Religious rituals have focused on physical cleansing since the beginning of time. Initially, many of these rituals were in fact practical ways for controlling the transmission of diseases. Ultimately, the obsession to be clean or perhaps, guilt free led to an antibacterial trend. Numerous products touted they would prevent the spread of germs. After years of this campaign, scientist stepped in to remind the public, some bacteria is essential for good health. Society was shaken; people want to be cleansed, totally [inside and out.]

[end quote]


Is this why the koran is so explicit about "purity," uncleanness, and toilet etiquette?

from an Islamic website:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by unwanted recurrent thoughts and images that are invariably distressing because they are violent, loathsome, threatening, or obscene in nature. They are recognized as the individual's own thoughts even though they are involuntary and often repugnant. They are largely out of control of the person, and often the more the person tries to resist them the worse they become.

These unwanted thoughts generally produce a very high amount of anxiety. This is the obsessive component of the disorder. These thoughts lead a person to engage in such behaviors that would relieve the anxiety or threat. Since the thoughts are recurrent - non-stopping, the resultant defensive behavior is also repetitive. For example, if the obsessions are about catching germs or becoming unclean, the person frequently washes himself/herself. If the obsessions are about personal safety and security, the person engages in to repeatedly checking the doors and locks in his house. This is the compulsion component of the disorder. These repetitive behaviors take up so much time of their daily life that they become unable to live a normal life. Paradoxically, the more they engage in these defensive behaviors, the more they are attacked by these obsessions. Thus, the obsessions followed by compulsions become such a vicious cycle that they cannot easily break out of it.

Here is a case example that sufficiently illustrate the nature of this disorder and how it renders a person totally helpless and dysfunctional. The person states:

“I always feel that there is urine on my clothes so I feel unclean (napaak) and keep checking my clothes to see if they are wet. I keep changing my clothes. I always feel that if I step on something wet and my feet get wet than it is urine. If I burp or cough than or throw up, I think my clothes are now dirty and I feel unclean; so I change my clothes and keep washing my mouth. When I make wudu, I keep thinking it is not done right. When I pray Salah I keep thinking that my hands are dirty because my mind keep telling me that I have put my finger into my private part so I am unclean (napaak). So I keep washing my hands. The same thing happens when I recite the Qur’an. When I drive, I keep wiping my hand with damp tissue because I feel my hands are dirty. When I cook I keep washing my hands because again I keep thinking that I have touched my Dr. Mohammed Sadiq (April 2005) Page 2 of 6 private part and have become unclean. I always carry tissue in my hands so I know I did not touch my private part. I put safety pins on my dress to hold my dress down, so as to ensure that I don’t touch my private part. Because of the fear of throwing up, I have started putting tissues in my month, so I don’t throw up. I know all of these thing or so weird, but If I don’t do it, I feel scared and unclean (napaak), and lots of anxiety. I feel that I am crazy, my husband and the kids think so too. I try to stop thinking about these feeling, but they keep getting stronger so I give in to the washing so the feelings will go away, but they keep coming back.”

From an Islamic perspective, these unwanted thoughts are called ‘Wasaawis’ (plural of Waswasah), which are whispered in the minds and hearts of people by Shayaateen. We find evidence of this in the holy Qur’an and Ahadith. Allah (swt) says: “Then Shaitaan whispered suggestions to them both in order to uncover that which was hidden from them of their private parts….” (7:20) “Then Shaitaan whispered to him saying, ‘O Adam! Shall I lead you to the tree of eternity and to a kingdom that will never waste away?’” (20:120) “Say: ‘I seek refuge with Allah, the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, the God of mankind, from the evil of the whispers of the devil, who whispers in the hearts of men…. (114:1-4) And the Prophet (saw) said: Abu Huraira (r.a.) narrated: Allah's Apostle said, "Shaitaan comes to one of you and says, ‘Who created so-and-so and so-and-so?’, till he says, ‘Who has created your Lord?’ So, when he inspires such a question, one should seek refuge with Allah and give up such thoughts." (Bukhari, Muslim) These Wassawis play a significant role in many mental disorders that involve anxiety and cognitive distortions.

To a lesser degree, these obsessions and compulsions result in what is known as Obsessive Personality Disorder. A person suffering from this disorder shows peculiar idiosyncrasies. For example, he/she may be quite particular about a specific way of maintaining cleanliness, or washing dishes, or wearing clothes, or making their beds, or doing their work, etc. If things are not done exactly in that way, they become quite annoyed and frustrated. Some end up being perfectionists; they are hard to satisfy.

Virtue In Fact

Mahound's life

the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (saas), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. (There are examples of Mahound not being virtuous: lying, deceit, coveting another's wife, etc.)

A hadith [ahadith, pl.] is a narration about the life of the Prophet (mhrih) or what he approved - as opposed to his life itself, which is the Sunnah as already mentioned.

At odds with Ten Commandments

which are more virtuous?

You make the call.

Lives of Islamics (Islamic clerics)

Toilet training a la Mahound.

Quite disgusting

sources, Islamic:

Virtue amongst the Moslem masses

Islam is wonderful, but I can't stand the Muslims

Freedom is the prerequisite for Virtue
says Dinesh D'Souza

Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, a leading theoretician of Islamic fundamentalism who has been called "the brains behind Osama bin Laden," argued in his books that the West is a society based on freedom, while the Islamic world is based on virtue.

He argued: Look at how badly the West uses freedom — the materialism, triviality, vulgarity and promiscuity. Islamic societies may be poor, Qutb said, but they try to follow God's will. Islamic laws are based on divine law, higher than any human law. Virtue, Qutb insisted, is ultimately a higher principle than freedom.

The classical philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, would have agreed that virtue, not freedom, is a good society's ultimate goal. And they would be right.
In theocratic societies such as Iran, the absence of freedom signals the absence of virtue.
"Sell USA's virtue to Muslim world"
By Dinesh D'Souza

The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa'l-Adab)
by Muslim (full name Abul Husain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Nisapuri)
Sahih Muslim is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (mhrih) (also known as the sunnah). The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called ahadith.

Book 032, Number 6181:

"Abu Huraira reported that a person said: Allah's Messenger, who amongst the people is most deserving of my good treatment? He said: Your mother, again your mother, again your mother, then your father, then your nearest relatives according to the order (of nearness).

Honor your father and Mother includes a lot of the "virtue" morality of Mahound.


of which Moslems make so much is decribed (in Islam On Line) so:
Physical purity means cleanliness of the body, clothing and environment. According to the rules of Islam, Muslims should keep their bodies and clothing clean from any impurities, especially the body wastes of humans and animals.

Islam insists on the use of clean water to cleanse the body of impurities, and only when water is not available can a person use other things. Even the clothing should be perfectly clean from any impurities. For that reason, Muslim bathrooms have a source of running water or pitchers of water next to the toilet.

Similarly, any animal discharges — including the saliva of dogs — are unclean and Muslims should make sure their clothing, environment, and bodies are free of those impurities.

Muslims must have perfect physical purity to pray the Salah (ritual Prayers).


Example: "Wash your nose three times by sniffing water up the nostrils and blowing it out."

[good way to get a sinus infection. I had a friend at one time who snorted water up his nose and --but that's another story.]
A lot of this stuff comes from Judaism and was embellished to suit the desert Arab. Now, the "proof's in the puddin"" as they say. And the puddin' often don't smell too swell.

Here's another one:

Ghusl (Purifying bath)
Narrated Hadrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) said, "When a man sits in between the four parts of a woman and did the sexual intercourse with her, bath becomes compulsory." (Bukhari)"

Comment: No shtSherlock

Removing Impurity (Najasah)
Hadrat Salman (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "He (meaning Allah's Messenger (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) forbade us to face the qibla when easing ourselves or passing water, or to wipe ourselves with the right hand, or to wipe ourselves with less than three stones, or to wipe ourselves with dung or bone." (Muslim)

sounds earthy rather than "pure."

If you want to read more of this, look at

I mean, pure is like the angels, white robes, no sexual organs, certainly no defecation or urination or any of those other "impure" acts such as sexual congress, which can be (I hear) rather nasty, I mean, as far as bodily fluids, and two of the four senses are concerned.

Here are more instruction, directed mostly for the haj (trip to Mecca) but applicable to daily life:

As for personal hygiene, we should bathe daily at least once in order to remove dust, dirt, germs and contaminants. Washing the hands, face and feet frequently helps keep infections at bay; here are the obvious benefits of ablution five times per day. It is important to cut the nails before making the Haj as dirt and germs easily accumulate under them. Clothes should be practical and easily washable so that they can be laundered daily. If we follow these simple procedures, we will gain the appearance of devout Muslims while avoiding contamination. Islam demands purity of soul, body, mind and dress.

Particular attention should be given to food, not only from the aspect of hygiene but also from that of nutrition. To remove parasites and undesirable microorganisms, raw fruits and vegetables should be treated in a special way. All greens, root vegetables and fruits, as well as all other edible raw plants should be soaked for 15 minutes in water with apple cider vinegar added to it — one tablespoon of vinegar per gallon of water. Vinegar is a good disinfectant, readily available and easily affordable.§ion=0&article=57671&d=17&m=1&y=2005

Now, I am not trying to poke fun at this--or at Moslems or may-the-good-Lord-forbid at Mahound. These detailed instructions are good for the unwashed masses (I count myself among them, the descamisados [unshirted ones]), but cannot be claimed exclusively by Moslems. A lot of this is taken from Judaism and embellished with more detail for areas where water is at a premium.

The main point is: Virtue and Purity are not exclusive to Moslems. Mahound took from wherever he wanted to (he was a purloiner and robber) and re-formed it to suit his needs. So, when you hear Moslems boast how they are the only ones in the world that are Virtuous and Pure, try to remember a few of the points I have made here. (Try, I say, I can hardly remember one or two of them any longer--guess I have read this stuff after writing it).

And--as this is not meant to be an exhaustive study of Virtue and Purity as boasted of by Moslems--in the immortal words of the Fictional film character Forrest Gump as portrayed by Tom Hanks, is all I'm going to say about that.

this, then is the End of another Nitschean piece of writing. I do not mean in brilliance nor pithiness of content but in the fragmentary method of putting down thoughts.


Re "Purity" and the koran

koranic thought police on patrol on the internet

The koranic Trojan [a trojan horse, like a computer virus--not the condom] was prevalent in 2005; I do not know whether it still exists today. I have never encountered a koranic verse that I did not ask for, but then I do not ever seek out pornographic sites as I am pure in spirit, thought as well as in body. [could I be a new "messenger?" Naw, I don't have what it takes, chuzpah, gall, an unmitigated drive for plunder, other men's womenfolk, and killing all those who do not believe that I am the new messenger. Oh well, back to the keyboard.]

A new Trojan horse displays a message from the Muslim holy book when a user visits what could be a pornographic Web site.

A new Trojan horse is serving as a moral guard of sorts, displaying text from the Koran if users visit what could be a pornographic Web site, Sophos warned on Monday.

The Trojan horse, dubbed "Yusufali-A," scans the title bar of the active Web browser window, which typically contains the name of a Web site. The program jumps into action when it sees any one of nine terms, including sex, teen, xxx, penis and exhibitionism, Sophos said in a description of the Trojan on its Web site.

When it determines that a pornographic Web site is being shown, the Trojan minimizes that window and displays a message from the Koran instead, Sophos said. If the offending site is not closed, a button labeled "For Exit Click Here" will appear. Moving the mouse to that box will lock it in and the user is forced to log out of Windows, according to Sophos.

Because of the way it is programmed, the Yusufali Trojan may also block innocent Web sites such as medical, educational and sites targeted at teenagers, Sophos notes.

Porn and malicious code have been married before, but more often explicit images are used to trick people into downloading a Trojan horse. Earlier this year however, Sophos found the Baba-C worm, which traveled by e-mail posing as a tool to clean porn from PCs.

The Yusufali Trojan horse is not widespread, Sophos said. Regardless, the Abingdon, England-based antivirus company, advises users to keep their antivirus software up to date.

On Purity in the koran

according to Imam Sulayman S. Nyang of Howard University in Washington, D.C.

quoted in "Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say"
Peter Standring
National Geographic Today
September 25, 2001

[I especially like that "Scholars Say." It can be set to music--Johnny Mathis singing "Chances Are." "Scholars Say, the Koran's a Book of Peace, a book quite slim, they say with a silly grin . . . " I do not think that I will be great song writer, a good one, perhaps, but not great.]

[The following bit is about the jihads!]

"The Koran is very specific with regard to the nature of human struggle, because in order for a human to be at peace with himself, they must control their baser instincts," says Nyang.

The quest to control base instincts such as greed, lust, and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity is known by Muslims as the "great jihad." Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" is a person's most important internal struggle.

Nyang quotes Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."

But also in the holy scripture is a reference to "lower jihad," a more earthly and physical—and controversial—struggle. "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid," quotes Nyang.

This verse speaks of combat or war to be waged against one's oppressors—a struggle sanctioned by God.

But the Koran also states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."

The essence of the verse, Nyang says, is to fight back "if you are attacked by your persecutors, but don't fight back indiscriminately. Follow the rules of engagement." According to mainstream Muslim clerics, those "rules of engagement"' are explicit: women, children, and innocent civilians are off limits.

Purity and the physical book - the koran

At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where jihadists are detained

A woman menstruating and preserving the purity of the koran:

The Left Hand and Moslem Purity

a Muslim swearing on the Koran will not "raise his right hand", but rather will place the right hand on the Koran, while not raising any hand.

So, no left hand on the book, use gloves when touching the book.
also see Gitmo Rules re koran:

But at [Keith] Ellison's fake, photo-op make-believe swearing-in ceremony, both these rules were violated, [as seen in this picture (see original at )

The woman is holding the Koran with bare hands, including her unclean left hand. And Ellison has his unclean left hand on the book. Earlier (not pictured), Nancy Pelosi also touched the book with her uncovered left hand.

"Muslims consider their left hand "unclean" -- they use it to wipe themselves, and not much else."

One can only hope that the aide holding the Koran is not menstruating.

Requirements of ritual purity may seem to restrict a woman's access to religious life, but are viewed as concessions. During menstruation or postpartum bleeding, she may not pray the ritual salah or touch the Koran and she does not have to fast; nor does she need to fast while pregnant or nursing.

All this about the left hand [of a ?] at

. . . Muslims used the left hand to perform certain "unclean" tasks (i.e. cleaning one's bottom after defecation). . . .This practice may no longer apply to Muslims born and/or raised in Western society, but by and large, the left hand is still considered "the unclean hand" in most predominantly Muslim countries.

[Comment: After using rough stones, bones and other material for that task, it had to be finished up--oh well. TP is not one of the prescribed substances for the task. Moist wipes are also useful for this task, but not sanctioned by the koran. Therefore . . . Never shake the left hand of a Moslem--even if his right arm is broken and in a sling. Let the hand-shaker beware. Even with a domestic Moslem, why take chances?]

. . . when you pursue your jihad, make sure you adhere to the creed of loyalty and purity and let the Koran be your reference
--Zawahiri [the guy with the Mark of the Beast in the middle of his forehead]

the koran and its "purity"

This what the koran's fans say:

"And so it is that the Holy Koran cannot exist in translation. There are many translations of the Koran, but they are not the true Koran itself, for it is only the Arabic that transforms God's repetitive instructions and injunctions and warnings and threats—and his repetitive hatred of the infidel—into a miraculous song impervious to every challenge.

And so it is that every Muslim must try to master Arabic. It is not necessary that every Muslim succeed in his effort, for God made every man with different capabilities. But it is necessary for every man to try, once he becomes a Muslim. The effort is his obligation, his fard. God is merciful, wise. "
"The State of the American Man" By Tom Junod
Esquire, July 2006, Volume 146, Issue 1


The Koran, on the other hand, was originally written in the purest Arabic [purportedly the first WRITTEN Arabic, hence its purity--nothing with which to compare it, nada]. Muhammad continually appeals to its extraordinary superhuman beauty and purity, as an evidence of the divine source from which he declared it to flow. He challenged unbelievers to produce, even with the aid of genii, any passage worthy to be compared with a single chapter in the Koran. Those who are acquainted with Arabic inform us that in its purest type it is in the highest degree copious, musical, and elegant; and that these qualities all meet in the Koran.

Consequently there is scarcely any book in the world which loses so much by translation. The charm of its graceful, harmonious, rhythmical, sonorous sentences utterly evaporates, and the matter, stripped of its gaudy attire, appears to the ordinary reader insufferably dull and commonplace.

Nothing, however, more forcibly illustrates the poverty of the Koran, viewed as what it claims to be, a complete revelation of theological and moral truths, than its inability to stand the test of translation. If it was really a complete treasury of divine truth, the shape of the treasure-house would be of little importance compared with the jewels it enshrined. But such is not the case; and it is to the consideration of these contents that we now turn: from the form of the book to the book itself.

[emphasis mine, lw]

[Comment: The vessel (the koran in arabic) appears to be worth more than the substance it contains. Perhaps the "beauty" and "purity" of this original Arabic with its flowery language and perfumed metaphors masques that content so much that the reader (or reciter) is carried away by the language and so bewitched by it as to consider the content divine. bne that as it may, what wee are concerned with here is the "purity" in Islam. This quality is found, according to Islamicsources, in the koran, the life of Mahound, and the bodily functions of the Moslem.]

More "Purity"

In the "Mary chronicles" of the koran:

‘O John! take the Book with strength;’ and we gave him judgment when a boy, and grace from us, and purity; and he was pious and righteous to his parents, and was not a rebellious tyrant. 8
So peace upon him the day he was born, and the day he died, and the day he shall be raised up alive. 9
And mention, in the Book, Mary; when she retired from her family into an eastern place; and she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; and we sent unto her our spirit; and he took for her the semblance of a well-made man. Said she, ‘Verily, I take refuge in the Merciful One from thee, if thou art pious.’ Said he, ‘I am only a messenger of Thy Lord to bestow on thee a pure boy.’ 10
Said she, ‘How can I have a boy when no man has touched me, and when I am no harlot?’ He said, ‘Thus says thy Lord, It is easy for Me! and we will make him a sign unto man, and a mercy from us; for it is a decided matter.’

Mecca Suras, The Chapter of Mary
Chapters from the Koran.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.

[if you have a quarrel with that translation from the oh so pure Arabic of the original, either read it in that or pick another translation that pleases you. lw]

One last shot at Islamic "purity"

YUSUFALI: Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another's burdens if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related. Thou canst but admonish such as fear their Lord unseen and establish regular Prayer. And whoever purifies himself does so for the benefit of his own soul; and the destination (of all) is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: And no burdened soul can bear another's burden, and if one heavy laden crieth for (help with) his load, naught of it will be lifted even though he (unto whom he crieth) be of kin. Thou warnest only those who fear their Lord in secret, and have established worship. He who groweth (in goodness), groweth only for himself, (he cannot by his merit redeem others). Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: And a burdened soul cannot bear the burden of another and if one weighed down by burden should cry for (another to carry) its burden, not aught of it shall be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer; and whoever purifies himself, he purifies himself only for (the good of) his own soul; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

I think that's about enough of "purity," it's so much, too much, that I'm about to gag. On to the footnotes, there is a lot more on Islam and two of its selling points there.

*re Patience is a virtue:
From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996): "Patience is a virtue. The ability to wait for something without excessive frustration is a valuable character trait. The proverb has been traced back to 'Piers Plowman' (1377) by William Langland and is similar to the Latin, Maxima enim..patientia virtus (Patience is the greatest virtue) and the French, Patience est une grant vertu. (Patience is a great value.) Some ten years after Langland, Chaucer wrote in 'The Canterbury Tales' (1386) that 'Patience is a high virtue.' Sometimes followed by the wry rejoinder 'but virtue can hurt you.' First cited in the United States in 1724 in the 'Works of Thomas Chalkley' (1766)..."

Posted by Posted by ESC on May 12, 2000

Patience is a virtue,
virtue is a grace,
Grace is a little girl
who didn't wash her face

often recited by AMDdeR (requiescat in pace)
(Floruit 20th cent. A.D.)

Regarding "Grace"
(the word, not the little girl who didn't wash her face)

Actual Grace
(defined . . . as "a supernatural help of God for salutary acts granted in consideration of the merits of Christ.")

Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness.

Before the Council of Trent, the Schoolmen seldom distinguished actual grace from sanctifying grace. But, in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace). For this reason we adopt this distinction as our principle of division in our exposition of the Catholic doctrine. In this article we shall treat only of actual grace.

But even in this footnote, I digress . . . back to the concern at hand:

**In the Koran, . . there is no continuity of design, but great uniformity in expression. On the one hand it is fragmentary and incoherent; on the other monotonous and level.

The Koran consists of 114 chapters or Suras, each of which pretends to be a verbatim copy of a distinct revelation made to Muhammad. The revelations were written on palm leaves or mutton blade-bones, as Muhammad recited them to his disciples [starting in 610 A.D. until he died in 632 A.D.], and were after his death collected into one volume, but without the least regard to chronological order [they are ordered chiefly by length], first by his great friend and immediate successor, Abu Bakr, and afterwards by the Caliph Othman.

There is not much more connection between them than between the several grains in a heap of sand, or the several beads on a necklace. There is in the Koran no movement onwards, as in the Bible, from a definite starting point to a definite goal in the history of God's dealings with man. There is no sequence, no coherence between the parts. The perusal, therefore, may be compared, not to the unrolling of a scroll, but to the picking up of scattered leaves, on each of which some distinct oracle is inscribed.

But while there is no continuity, there is, on the other hand, very little variety. Approximate chronological arrangements of the several Suras have been made by Sir W. Muir and others, based on a careful comparison of their contents and style; and from this some variations in their character may be discovered, corresponding with the tone of the prophet's mind, and the circumstances of his life, when they were delivered.

W. R. W. Stephens: The apostolic mission of Muhammad having been once acknowledged, it was natural that he should undertake the regulation, not only of the creed, but also of the moral practice and ceremonial worship of his countrymen. The Koran consequently became the ethical digest, the civil code, the ceremonial hand book, as well as the theological oracle of his disciples. And it is obvious that if Muhammad's aim was to remodel the national life, the most effectual way of attaining it, his prophetic authority once established, was to frame a number of positive precepts touching every department of moral conduct.

A peculiar character is by this method quickly but forcibly stamped upon the recipients [of the koran]. They become `new creatures,' with new motives, and new purposes. They are capable of being conducted by their ruler to definite ends, because their movements are under control, because the people are more like a disciplined army, than are a people to whom greater freedom of thought and action is allowed.

The deity

[from whence comes the definitions of "virtue and purity"]


Islam - "Austere, Comfortless and Cold"

Such is Islam, viewed as a theological system - a vast advance upon polytheism, fetichism, gross and grovelling superstition of any kind; but how immeasurably below even the Jewish revelation of the nature of God, and of the relation between God and man! It is austere, comfortless, and cold. The Deity is represented not indeed as a mere philosophical abstraction, but yet as a Being, remote, unapproachable in majesty and might, wielding at His arbitrary will the destinies and movements of men, yet far aloof from them; a ruler of overwhelming power, rather than a loving and merciful, though almighty Father. There is nothing to fill up or bridge over the chasm which divides this tremendous Being from man; no divine Mediator, no quickening illuminating Spirit; for the action of angels is too precarious and vague to fulfil these offices.

Islam - resignation to the irresistible will and decrees of God - expresses very well the relation between man and his Maker as set forth in the Koran; the submission of obedient fear to a power, not the devotion of love to a person.

The theology, therefore, of the Koran fails to meet the profoundest religious needs of man; it removes the Creator to an immeasurable distance from the creatures whom He has made, and in the renunciation of all idea of mediation it falls infinitely below not Judaism only, but Magianism and Brahmanism, which in other respects it excels.

All that is good and true in the Koran concerning the nature of God, and worthy of the subject, is to be found in the Bible, if it be not borrowed from the Bible; all that is original is good for nothing, if indeed there be anything purely original, for probably most of the wilder statements could be traced to traditional sources.

The genius, indeed, of Muhammad as the founder of a theological system consisted, not so much in inventing or devising anything actually new, as in piecing together fragments of other creeds, and by his commanding personal influence, tact, enthusiasm, and self-confidence, imposing this patchwork system successfully on so large a number of his fellow-countrymen.

[all emphases mine. lw]

[First published on January 18, 2007 at the original Islamic Danger blog]