Brilliant video: The Three Stages of Jihad

Seems to be a consensus that this series is Pam Geller's best yet.

Beautiful. Bernard Lewis, eminent historian of Islam and the Middle East, says that in Islam's core texts, uses of the word "jihad" are military in meaning in the overwhelming majority of cases He writes on page 72 of his book The Political Language of Islam, that...the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [Muslim specialists in the Qur'an, hadiths, life of Muhammad, and Islamic law] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense. Lewis also writes, on page 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam, that For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power.

Rachel Miller, please explain how the article is misleading. You claim it's an "ignorance-fueled" propaganda scheme. I'm betting you are the ignorant one, and cannot defend your claims. Since you claim to know, and not be ignorant, please educate us on the mistakes in the article. The ads merely quote a tiny portion of the huge number of Muslims who support military jihad in order to spread Islamic law. Christian love is not really love if you don't even bother to know the characteristics of what you claim to love. And I say you don't know. What you are talking about is not, I think, really Christian love, but a sort of moral preening to make one feel good about oneself, i.e., a kind of self-love.

On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, HE AFFIRMS THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW HIM WILL BE SLAUGHTERED Abu jahl said to them: "Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell." The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: "I do say that."

If you recognize who they are, then you should press charges for attempted murder.

I haven't decided what I think about the EDL yet. I went to their website, and they say people of all races and religions are welcome in the EDL. They take a strong line against Islamization of the UK. Both those elements sound good. At the same time, they sound a little wild and rough, which seems not so good to me. I'm less concerned about a few -- as long as it's really only a very few -- rank and file members being Nazis than I am about the leadership. It's important that none of the leadership be fascist. I'm concerned that I did not see many non-white faces in the photos I looked at. I saw one beautiful tan-skinned young woman, perhaps Indian. Also, I saw a photo of a young black man, but I couldn't tell from the photo if he was attending the EDL demo, or watching from outside...but otherwise, what appeared to be a sea of white faces. So I'm not sure about the EDL yet. I'm only interested in anti-Islamization movements if they are genuinely inclusive of people of all races and cultures. EDL claims to be, so I'll be watching them hopefully, to see if the fruit matches the claim... Meanwhile, Atlas' inference seems astute: that the people arrested for violence must not have been EDL, because the media would have jumped on that and announced it, whereas in fact the media just spoke of "people" being arrested. That does suggest that Muslims were the ones arrested, or perhaps UAF partisans. When Muslims are involved in violence in the name of Islam, the media does frequently euphemize just who was involved: we read of "people," "youths," "Asians," etc., etc. I feel sorry for all the non-Muslim Asians thus tarred. It doesn't seem quite fair to Hindu Asians, atheist Asians, Christian Asians, etc., to tar them when what's involved is violence motivated by Islamic supremacism. And I gather that past police reports have attributed some extreme violence to some UAF members. But I guess we'll have to wait to see if Atlas was correct in her astute inference. In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Slice said: "I can 'ally' with you but not if I agree that you get to missionize as many Jews and young Israelis as you can." What does that mean? You want to prevent proselytization? Unless you are talking about preventing proselytization of children, you are talking about restricting freedom of speech and religion. I don't think you really mean that, do you? As long as the use of force is excluded, "missionizing" is permitted in all free countries. It's called freedom of religion. Any religion can do it.