Tuesday, March 29, 2011


This is a test that I have devised to judge whether a Muslim is moderate or not. It isn’t the most perfect test, of course, but it works. Using this test, so far, I have found many perceived moderate Muslims do be no different than terrorists. Here is how the test goes.

You have to ask the following two questions in the same order as they are presented here:

1) So, you drink alcohol, but do you also eat pork? (This question does not help in judging whether the Muslim is moderate or not. Of course if the Muslim eats pork, he might very well be a moderate but the point of this question is to ease them into thinking that the questioner is truly just asking a question and has no other agenda.)

2) What do you think about Israel? (This is the question the answer to which will help you judge whether a Muslim is truly moderate or not. It is because the issue of Israel is so hot in Muslim minds that you should always ask the first question before you get on to this one. That way, the Muslims don’t just blow up and might, I repeat, might answer in a manner that humans can understand, and not just dogs.)

It takes practice, of course, to remain patient while you hear their response. Sometimes a lot of them say that they are not political but that is very rare. You have to also remember to follow up their answers with more questions. You can actually expose a whole lot of them using this technique. I have done so on many occasions—that is, exposed them left right and center.

I have used the same techniques on Arab Christians and more often than not, I have found them to be no different than Muslim terrorists in the way they think.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

As Long As We Are Talking About The World Turning Against Israel


Report: Argentina offered to 'forget' bombings for improved ties

Argentinean daily says South American country told Islamic Republic it would suspend probe of deadly attacks on Israeli embassy, Jewish center in 1990s in order to increase trade between countries

During secret talks with Iran, the Argentinean government offered to "forget" the bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in the capital Buenos Aires in the 1990s in exchange for improved ties between the two countries.

The Argentine weekly Perfil reported Saturday that the negotiations were aimed at increasing the trade volume between Argentina and the Islamic Republic, which is currently estimated at $1.2 billion a year.

According to the report, Cristina Kirchner's government offered to suspend the investigation of the bombings, which are believed to have been orchestrated by Iran.

Memorial ceremony in Buenos Aires for bombing victims (Photo: Reuters)

It was further reported that a memo sent by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that "Argentina is no longer interested in solving the mystery of these two attacks and would rather improve its economic relations with Iran."

Perfil said Argentinean Foreign Minister Hector Timerman asked Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to relay the offer to Tehran. The three met at the Syrian city of Haleb on January 23, the weekly said.

In September Kirchner told the UN that Argentina would continue the investigation and demanded that Iran hand over those responsible for the attacks.

In the 1992 embassy bombing, 29 people were killed and 242 were injured. In the bombing at the AMIA Jewish community center in 1994, 85 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. No one has been indicted despite the fact that Israel and the US have been assisting in the investigation.

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi is wanted by Interpol for the attack on the Jewish center, as are four other Iranians.

Argentinean prosecutor Alberto Nisman said Vahidi was accused of "being a key participant in the planning and of having made the decision to go ahead with the attack."

Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah commander who was assassinated in Damascus in 2008, was also suspected of involvement in the attack.

Also read here how Argentina backstabbed Israel before.

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Monday, March 07, 2011


I have been wanting to write an article on the issue of eating Halal food for a long time but haven't really gotten around to doing it. However, recently Pastorius posted an excerpt from an article that was published on Jihad Watch. I was really happy that someone else had written an article about this whole thing and so I wouldn't have to do it. But then Epa commented and my hopes of being lazy were shattered. Pastorius summarized Epa's comment as follows:

"Who gives a crap? It's only food."

However, this is what Epa actually said:

Halal OR Kosher for that fact are manifestations of 'what you have to do to safely eat meat/fish in a low/no tech desert or warm environment'”

Well, he said more (you can follow the link and read the whole thing) but this is what prompted me to pick up my pen (keyboard) and start writing this lengthy article.

I will first deal with whether Halal food is just like Kosher, a way for us to eat safe, clean food in a desert or warm environment or is it a ritualistic way of slaughtering meat in Islam, hence “food sacrificed to idols”, in the section “HALAL MEAT: ISLAM'S WAY OF SACRIFICING FOOD TO AN IDOL”. Then I will deal with whether Christians and Jews are to eat food sacrificed to idols or not in the section “BIBLICAL REASONS FOR NOT EATING FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS”. And lastly, I will deal with why people in the West should boycott Halal meat for political purposes and not just for religious in the section “POLITICAL REASONS FOR BOYCOTTING HALAL MEAT ALONG WITH ANY OTHER PRODUCT PRODUCED IN ISLAM OR BY MUSLIMS”. Let us begin!


This section should not take me long. The only thing I want to address here is Epa's comment. I am proposing that Halal is not just a way to eat clean meat (fish does not have to go through any religious sacrifice or prayer, Muslims can eat it right out of the water) but an offer and a thanks to Allah for providing the meat. Here is what the process entails.

Apart from making sure that the animal (or bird) has no blemishes and your knife is sharp, you have to lay down the animal and make sure it faces Makkah (Mecca). Then you have to say “Bismillah-e-Allah-u-akbar”, which means, literally, “In the name of Allah, Allah is greater”. And that's when you make a sharp cut in the animal's throat (without severing it completely) and let the blood drain. That completes the slaughtering part. Then you skin it and cook it, just like anybody else would do.

This sacrifice is Haram (not acceptable) if it is not done properly: if there was a blemish in the animal, if the animal didn't face Mecca, if Allah’s name was not recited and if the whole procedure was done by someone who is not a pious Muslim (a pious Muslim is one who offers prayers to Allah 5 times a day, pays Zaka', fasts during Ramadan, goes for Hajj at least once in his lifetime if he has the means to do so and most importantly, says the Shahadah, that is, “La-ilaha-ilAllah-e-Muhammad-ur-Rasul-Allah”, which means, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet/apostle/messenger).

What concerns me is not the facing of Mecca (as to me that is a joke), neither the blemishes (because I would rather eat an animal without any blemishes than one with some) but the part about invoking the name of Allah and it is that part that the Quran specifically tells Muslims to follow. Rest of it has been added through the Hadiths and later traditions (as far I know).

The Quran talks about invoking Allah's name in the following ways.

Sura 2. Verse 173: He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.

Sura 5. Verse 4: They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food): say: Lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah; eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.

This is the stuff that matters the most to me. I can not, and I will not, eat anything that is sacrificed in the name of an idol and Allah is nothing other than an old Meccan idol, there is no doubt about that.

This concludes the discussion about whether Halal (which just means “acceptable”) meat has been sacrificed to an idol, namely Allah, or not. To me the above verses leave no doubt about it at all. I am sorry Epa but this does not sound to me like a way to keep meat clean in the desert climate of the Middle East.

Now onto Biblical reasons as to why we shouldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols.


I have been avoiding food sacrificed to idols for the last couple of years now. My primary reason for not eating food sacrificed to idols is simple: Biblical. However, my secondary reason is political. So this discussion should cater to both Christians/Jews and atheists/agnostics/theists. I will first start with the religious significances.

I know there is always a lot of debate amongst Christians whether this rule applies to us in this modern day and age. Many actually don't even think that there is any religion any more that sacrifices food to its god/gods so there isn't any food out there that can be labeled as “food-sacrificed-to-idols”. If we, as Christians, are ever to venture into the matter of idolatry committed through food that is sacrificed to idols, we should ask what the Bible has to say about it.

I am going to start with Paul, who is everyone's favorite when it comes to food sacrificed to idols. Before I begin, however, I just want to say that I have my reservations about Paul. Where sometimes he sounds like the smartest guy in the world, at other times he sounds like someone that has no idea at all what God said about a certain issue (I realize that it is quite possible that I have misunderstood Paul here, but so far I haven't heard a plausible argument to prove my misunderstanding). One of those issues is food sacrificed to idols.

Let's see what he has to say:

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God. 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

I highlighted the things that I think are related to the discussion at hand. (I just have a side-question: What the heck were the believers doing in an idol's temple in the first place?) Where I disagree with Paul is this. It is God who cares about food sacrificed to idols, it is not about someone's sensibilities. Read the following:

Deuteronomy 32: 15 But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation. 16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. 17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded. 18You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth.

Revelation 2: 13 I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead.

Now, as far as idols being no gods but demons or nothing, I agree with Paul as that is what God seems to be saying too. However, where I don't agree with him is when he seemingly makes it all sound like, “we should care about idols only in case someone is offended by it”, as if that was the only thing that mattered here, which, as we have seen above, is clearly not the case. So, either Paul is wrong here or he is just misunderstood; I am hoping it is the latter (I would really appreciate plausible explanations to this passage in case I am wrong). Now that I have made my viewpoint on this popular passage from Paul clear (hopefully), let us see what the Church was told about food sacrificed to idols (apart from the verses from Revelation).

Acts 15: 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

As we can see clearly, the Apostles didn't think it was their decision, rather that it was from the Holy Spirit. Another reference goes as follows:

Acts 21: 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

I don't know whether what I have pasted here is sufficient evidence for it or not but it is enough for me to be convinced that I am to stay away from food sacrificed to idols.

My case stands more for the Christians. The reason there isn't a lot on food sacrificed to idols in the Tanakh is that the Israelites were told not to even deal with the idolaters around them. In fact, they were told to annihilate them once they conquered their land to avoid any idolatry within Israel. They weren’t even allowed to speak out the name of any other god.

This is it for the religious part of this discussion. I will post the section “POLITICAL REASONS FOR BOYCOTTING HALAL MEAT ALONGWITH ANY OTHER PRODUCT PRODUCED IN ISLAM OR BY MUSLIMS” later as this is already getting way too long for a blog post.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

Islam - A False Religion of Lies, Hate and Violence, Part 4

by A. Sayer

*Muslim Brainwashing*


"Say": = used 303 times (Used in the context of instructing someone to "say" something)


"Say" is most often used in an "if" > "then" context; if someone says such and such, then reply like this:...


Example: [11:35] IF they say, "He made up this story," THEN say, "If I made it up, then I am responsible for my crime, and I am innocent of any crime you commit."


In other instances, the "say" instruction is part of textual conversation that attempts to speculate what others will (might) say in any given argument, so Muslims are rehearsed in what they should respond.


This shows how the Quran is a book of argument and rebuttal to other religions. It is an after-the-fact response TO other religions; a knee-jerk reaction, NOT a book that has been actually inspired BY God, nor is it in harmony with God's Scriptures. It seeks to brainwash and "program" it's followers to be contentious, not inspire them to free thought and emotion,much less peaceful intentions. Is there any wonder why Muslims have trouble thinking for themselves, but rather, always flock to some kind of (radical) Muslim leader?


By the way, for the record, the inspired Scriptures of God do NOT attempt to refute other religions so, nor do they attempt to brainwash or program people in what they should "say" to other religions, as the Quran does. The Scriptures stand on their own and do not depend on the Quran (or any other religious writing) - the Quran draws heavily upon the Scriptures, but, ironically, contradicts most of the Scriptures it attempts to quote, particularly where atonement for sin and salvation by Jesus are concerned.

*A First Hand Experience with Muslim Violence*


Some Muslims today HATE free thought and expression, particularly when it comes to exposing their religion and "prophet" (Muhammad) as false. They simply can't stand it when someone questions Islam or implies that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. Anytime someone does dare cast a negative light on Islam, their first and only thought is getting revenge (to silence any voice that speaks disparagingly of Islam) by KILLING them. They can't solve it by prayer, faith or turning the other cheek, nor can "Allah" silence a challenging voice - they MUST attempt to DO something vicious and lethal themselves.


As a number of writers, like Salmon Rushdie, can attest, speaking out against Islam can be very dangerous. Many anti-Islamic writers have become prime targets for Muslim terrorists, and, over the years, a number of them HAVE been successfully killed (usually in countries other than America).


*This* writer was once such target. One Muslim, who couldn't deal with the hard questions and pointed observations about Islam and Muslims, declared, "Ins Allah ("God willing") - I'll be seeing YOU in __~__ !" (my town). Naturally, this threat was more than enough evidence for the FBI to (swiftly!) pick him up, and he hasn't been heard from since (he used to be quiteprolific on Islamic news groups, posting from "Alqueda.org"). Good riddance - the world is a better place without 'im.


Beyond the fact that it was REAL DUMB for him to publicly make such a threat (he had NO business coming to "see me" at all), there's the fact that Muslims think that, because they are not FREE to question Islam, no one else should be. In Islamic countries, even the simplest questions about Islam and the Quran can lead to serious punishment and suffering. I have read several accounts of such punishments, for nothing more than a slight suspicion of Islam voiced in a simple question. If you're a Muslim child, you don't DARE ask about any of the countless contradictions, impossible "logic" or inconsistencies you are certain to encounter!


But, the rest of the non-Muslim world IS free to question Islam, think about it and speak their minds on the subject. This bothers Muslims greatly. It irks them that things like the Scriptures, which the Quran relies so heavily upon, Due to gross incompetence on Muhammad's part, can be used SO effectively AGAINST their false religion. It is a shame and

embarrassment to them, and one which they can't answer by any other means but with the violence called for IN the Quran.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Islam’s Invasion Ideology

by Martel Sobieskey

In the same way that a fake $100 bill is not legitimate currency, Islam is a counterfeit religion and therefore does not qualify for first amendment status. It is extremely incorrect to categorize Islam as a religion when its core literature and bloody track record prove a thousand times over that it is an -- Invasion ideology, a shrewd and cunning predator -- disguising itself as a religion.

rightsidenews_camps_02Irrefutable evidence proves Islam to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and a "Trojan horse" hell bent upon destroying all religions and nations worldwide. This irrefutable evidence is a book called the Koran where Allah commands that all Muslims must wage Jihad until the entire world and every single person is either converted to Islam, enslaved, murdered, tortured or abused.

"Fight them until all opposition ends, and all submit to Allah" (Koran: 8:39)

The Koran is a Manual of War

It is an error for anyone to call Islam a religion, but for those who insist, it's best referred to as a "Religion of War" that has arrived on our shore as an enemy invader for the sole purpose of conquering our nation. This point cannot be overemphasized.

The Koran vows to vanquish all religions and nations worldwide.  Allah himself is the protagonist who relishes the role of a "hit man" vowing to knock off every person who rejects Islam -- sending them to burn in everlasting hell.  For Allah, there is nothing more heinous and loathsome than those infidels (non-believers) who refuse to convert, and there is nothing he will not do to eradicate them.

"I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes." (Koran 8:12)

  "Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: Wipe the infidels out to the last." (Koran: 8:7)

Read the Koran for Yourself

Don't take my word on it.  Read the Koran.  By so doing you will be outraged and ask, "Why in heavens name would any person with integrity and intellectual objectivity call such a blood thirsty and homicidally bigoted "tirade" -- a sacred and holy book?"

Below are two sources for authentic passages from the Koran. The first is entitled   "Islamic Quotes"  taken from prophetofdoom.net .  It provides a few hundred quotes organized into 30 different categories and is very "digestible" giving immediate insight into the malevolence of the Koran and related Islamic texts. The second is an article by Citizen Warrior  encouraging everyone to read the Koran, especially "An Abridged Koran" by CSPI. The advantage of the abridged version is that it eliminates monotonous repetition and provides commentary giving a comprehensive perspective and meaning to the text.

Neutralizing Islam

One does not need a crystal ball to foretell that Islam will turn America into a living hell if left unchecked.  9/11 was America's initiation into the so called "religious rites" of Islam. Millions of Americans are outraged that the real culprit in this attack has been given a "free pass" to continue its rampage. 

Since 9/11, the  religion of peace website has documented 16,124 deadly attacks committed by Islam as mandated by the Koran. These prove that Islam does not deserve the status of a religion and that America has been hoodwinked by so doing. We need to face reality, and implement effective methods if we wish to protect our nation from this religious imposter.

One writer bringing clarity to the situation is Daniel Greenfield. In his article: "Can We Ban Islam? Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States" he states in the affirmative that America can legally ban Islam because:

 "Organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized."

They key word here is "overthrow".  Any group that wishes to overthrow the United States can be banned. It is well past time for open debate and discussion upon this issue in regards to Islam.

To reiterate, Islam does not qualify for religion status in the USA because it an Invasion Ideology which absolutely mandates the conquest of the United States.  Please see my related article entitled "Demoting Islam's Religion Status"  it provides the basic elements for discussion and reflection.  Also, a must see "you tube" video named "3 Things about Islam" provides a concise summary of the challenge we face.  It is imperative for all Americans to learn the truth about Islam or it will eventually destroy us.

Martel Sobieskey has 36 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare.  He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, military commanders, educators, journalists, intelligence analysts, and security and police personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched jihadist conditioning inherent in all of Islam – moderates included.

original URL: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100111804/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/islams-invasion-ideology.html
reprinted with permission

Thursday, March 03, 2011