Posted on 03/19/2008 11:24:04 AM PDT by JeepInMazar
Associates Islam with terrorism? What’s new about that? Anyone who doesn’t know that most terrorists are muslims has their head square up their tails.
“...Regnery, which has published a string of controversial neo-con books...”
Is this worse than the other top 10 publishers of socialist, arch-science, screeds?
Reminds me...I need to re up my subscription to Human Events. I’ll get that in the mail this afternoon.
Day late and dollar short?
Part of the terrorism-is-not-Islamic-campaign and Islamophobia watch program.
I’m still eagerly awaiting Wilder’s “Fitna.”
Shortly after 9/11, Karen Armstrong visited Palestinian academic, Edward Said. She apologized to Said for never reading the Koran. He thought such an apology was ridiculous, and he found her to be a superficial twit. And that’s coming from a fellow Leftist.
I was thinking that Al-Arabiya was making a big deal of this because they felt the timing was right for some reason. But the fact that it’s being published in Arabic is probably the cause of their news report now.
Good link. Thanks.
Ah! Didn’t think of that. You’re right.
snicker
No mention as to how this book is being “given away free?”
Speaking of free books, Saudia Arabia is funding the distribtuion of free Qurans in the United States. I got mine at a mosque and use their own footnotes to demonstrate the anti-Christian nature of Islam.
The radical Muslim world fears Conservatives.
They absolutely hate Liberals, but will find them easier to kill if the Conservatives aren’t around to stop them.
The book claims that Muhammad said terrorism made him victorious and that he used to tempt people with paradise so they would crush his enemies.
The author also accuses Muhammad of treason, breaching the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, and instigating Muslims to kill Jews.
Spencer, the director of the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch websites, also claims that the prophet encouraged Muslim men to take women captive to control them.
And which of these statements is untrue? Muhammed’s violation of his sacred oath and signed treaty (not once, but twice) is well known to Muslims. It’s an integral part of the Hegira story. And widely admired, as a very clever trick. The president of Pakistan cited the story of how Muhammed broke his oaths with the Jews of Medina and the Infidels of Mecca in his speech to the nation explaining why he was entering into a treaty with Bush after 9/11.
The speech was broadcast to the world (I heard the translation on NPR), but the NY Times evidently thought that part wasn’t important enough to include in its printed transcription the next day.
These three items are all commonplaces among Muslims, accepted and admired. They just don’t like infidels to know about them. But notice that the article doesn’t deny any of it—it just finds it insulting for Infidels to talk about it.
The Mohammedans hate that a few modest-sized publications like HUMAN EVENTS do not kowtow to them the way the big and powerful TIME, NEWSWEEK, and the MSN types do.
Does that make them a not-for-prophet entity?
It is easier to shelve investigative reports in the media if the corporation can be bought, at least in part.
Well, that's true to some extent. But the story of the Hegira is probably as familiar to Muslims as the story of the Exodus is to Jews. I.e., it is absolutely central.
And Mohammmed's lies under oath are a central party of that story, known to all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.