Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Constitution and Islam

From my dear friend Billy Rojas comes this constitutional amendment to ban Islam in the US.  Brilliant, crystal-clear and something to seriously consider in the face of Islamic supremacism.  Be sure to reads the whole thing, it spells out definitively why Islam must be controlled in the US.

Thank you, Billy for your defense of liberty and freedom.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 
Prepared by: Billy Rojas
Former teacher of Comparative Religion, history and social science.
Alice Lloyd College, Phoenix College, Lower Columbia College,
City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the US Navy PACE Program
to provide college course instruction to military personnel on  board
the aircraft carrier , USS Enterprise . Also a lecturer at the University
of Oregon, Pacifica Forum, 2008 - early  2010.
The wording of the Amendment shall be as follows:
Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution
It is necessary to outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States of America because the teachings of this religion are antithetical to many vital provisions of the US Constitution and represents an existential threat to the security of American citizens. Furthermore, Shariah law, which is intrinsic to all orthodox forms of Islam, which is based directly on the Qur'an, seeks, as a stated goal of the religion, to replace civil law with a system based on inhumane values on the presumption that these values are superior to anything in the Constitution or in the religions of the world, including the religious faiths of the vast majority of Americans. All of this is completely unacceptable.
The United States was founded on ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that compulsion to practice any religion is not tolerable, nor is a state sanctioned religion allowable, nor is a 'religious test' for participation in government. Islam, in contrast, rejects each of these principles and it therefore incompatible, on a fundamental level, with American citizenship.
Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and impose its will on all other religions and upon democratic institutions. This view is completely unacceptable to Americans and is anti-Constitutional.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam, does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil , and this being the case, it would  be unjustifiable to regard Islam as in any way compatible with the many religions which exist in the United States. But not only because of Saudi Arabia, but also because the entire history of Muslim religion has featured intimidation of non-Muslims wherever Muslims have gained power, with few and only temporary exceptions, with some cases where Muslim rule was one  long series of atrocities, as it was in India  where, in the course of Mughal and other Muslim rule, scholars estimate that as many as 70 or 80 million Hindus ( including some Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, and Christians in this number ) were killed, and a similar  number enslaved and often forcibly converted to Islam.  To suppose that the character of Islam is such that it can peacefully co-exist with followers of other faiths is, to be candid, an absurd proposition
Islam includes as its basic tenant the spread of its faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions, none of which is remotely compatible with the US Constitution. This ought to be obvious considering recent history as this Amendment is being written, including the jihad-inspired suicide attacks of September 11, 2001, in which 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans.  This was only one chapter in a long history of  Muslim attacks against Americans, including the mass murder  of  220 Marines in  Lebanon in 1983, the carnage, including American deaths,  at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and which has continued into the present with more Americans unjustifiably killed by Muslim terrorists in non-combatant nations such as Pakistan and Yemen, with people of nations allied with the United states also killed, sometimes in great numbers, as has happened in Spain, Great Britain, on Bali in Indonesia where 200 persons, mostly Australians, were blown up, and in Mumbai, India, to list just  the most well known such incidents.
Additionally, representatives of Islam around the world such as  Osama Bin Laden, the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups,  have declared jihad (war) on America, and  regularly declare that America should cease to exist, and this being the case any other course than outlawing Islam within the USA would be folly.
There is essentially muted opposition to all this mayhem and violence on the part of Muslim "moderates," but  it is also clear that most of  the people affiliated with these groups have little or no influence on normative Islam in the Muslim world, and, as well, clearly have poor understanding of what their own religion teaches and feel free to misrepresent it  to others Which is to say that apologists for Islam  who take the view that their religion is actually a "religion of peace" are, in so many words, either lying or are hopelessly uniformed and, in any case, should not be given credence.
That the concept of jihad as spiritual struggle can be found in the Qur'an is not relevant inasmuch as the dominant use of the term in Muhammad's book is commission of overt violence on behalf of Islam.
Because Islam is subversive by its very nature, and antagonistic to followers of all other religions, actively seeking to harm  people of other faiths, and actively seeks to replace the US Constitution with an alien legal system that is abhorrent to Americans, Muslims have no claim to First Amendment freedoms or protections
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within  the United States is now prohibited. It shall be prohibited in perpetuity inasmuch as the motivation for Muslim hostility to America and to many other peoples is found in the core text of Islam, the Qur'an, a book regarded by all orthodox Muslims as inerrant, with commands to action in it regarded as absolutely binding.
Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment all mosques, schools and other Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed and confiscated by the state, determination of what to do with physical property to be decided by appropriate governmental agencies and the courts. Legitimate owners of such properties, excluding representatives of any Muslim nation in a state of war with the USA, or representatives of terrorist organizations, or of organizations known to provide tangible support for such groups, shall be compensated for their loss at fair market value. They shall be allowed to remain in the United States, under surveillance, until said properties are disposed of, but in no case more than 120 days. 
In cases where American assets are confiscated in foreign countries  pursuant to ratification of this Amendment, or confiscated pre-emptively because of the prospects of this Amendment, even when such action is disguised as if it was motivated by unrelated concerns, any foreign national from such country who owns property in the United States shall have his ( or her ) assets  frozen unless and until that foreign nation allows US citizens to legally sell or otherwise dispose of their property in safety, at fair market value, secure in their persons.
All foreign born Muslims shall be deported.  Muslims born in the United States who choose to remain in America shall be stripped of their citizenship and become subject to all laws enacted following ratification of this Amendment.
Anyone who advocates jihad shall be regarded as advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and shall, upon conviction, be punished with death.  This sentence shall be carried out within 90 days of a guilty verdict.
Any Muslims incarcerated in American prisons or other detention facilities shall be denied communication with any other Muslim without express written consent of the appropriate court, or special dispensation from the President. No Qurans or other Muslim literature or media of any kind shall be allowed in the possession of the detainee, nor Internet access, or any equivalent, be permitted.
The preaching of Islam in any venue is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in public schools as part of studies of religions of the world, and in colleges and universities, provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, unprovoked aggression and conquest, and its ongoing war against  democratic and other non-Islamic values. What should also be made clear is that Islam teaches inferior status of women in provisions of Shariah law as well as local customs in various Muslim nations,  and allows for their abuse though such Qur'an-sanctioned practices as wife beating. Islam also sanctions slavery, which is expressly forbidden by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Cruel and unusual punishments are also part of the fabric of Islamic law, including such barbaric practices as amputation of hands for theft and crucifixion of prisoners of war.
It must be clearly understood that Islam demands death for classes of  people who are expressly protected by provisions of American law and by the US Constitution. Included under sentence of death under Islam are all people who venerate a Goddess, since this is said to be the gravest of "sins," defined as a category of what Muslims refer to as "shirk," meaning association of any "partner" to ( their conception of ) God , aka "Allah." This, in  effect, condemns to death all Hindus, since Hindus worship a variety of Goddesses, many Buddhists since Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists venerate female deities or equivalents, many or most Taoists and Shintoists, Shamanists who have central Asian background, as well as Neo-Pagans, Ishtar devotees, many American Indians who follow their traditional religions, people from tribal parts of Africa, Melanesia, Brazil, or elsewhere , and still others. Also condemned to death under provisions of shirk are Atheists, anyone said to be guilty of "blasphemy," even simple and honest criticism of Muhammad or the Qur'an, anyone who seeks to witness to a Muslim about another religion, any Muslim who converts to another faith and quits Islam, and  still others. None of this is tolerable under the US Constitution.
Nor is Quranic and more general Muslim anti-Semitism ( anti-Jewish bigotry ) or anti-Christian prejudices explicit in the Qur'an tolerable under the Constitution or laws which derive therefrom.
It must be clearly understood that Islam is a religion of intimidation and threats that allows Muslims, through the doctrine of Taqqiya, to dissimulate, that is, to lie about their religion or misrepresent it to others. Such misrepresentation, it should be noted, may be unintentional given the high rate of  (as usually defined ) illiteracy in many Muslim countries and the "religious illiteracy" of many Muslims generally, as pointed out by researchers, to the effect that such people may, out of a desire to "go along to get along,"  that is, adopt the  behavioral customs of others. But such things should not be misleading and lull Americans into falsely thinking that Islam is functionally little different than other religions fairly well known in the United States. On the contrary, as outlined here, Islam is qualitatively vastly different.
Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to allow discrimination  against persons of Arab or Iranian or Pakistani or other background often associated with Islam. Indeed, it should be pointed out that Arabs may be Christians and in America often are , Iranians may be Zoroastrians, Pakistanis may be Hindus, and so forth. Nothing said here is intended to promote violence against Muslims anywhere outside of the need for actions in war, or against terrorists, or for purposes of self-protection against Muslim violence. Nothing said here is meant to incite people to destroy property owned by Muslims, either in the United States or elsewhere.
Important : Any Muslim who repudiates Muhammad, the  Qur'an, and Islam, shall be excused from all provisions of this Amendment since, by definition, he or she would then no longer be a Muslim. This repudiation must be genuine, however, and made under oath. If it is discovered that false pretenses were involved the individual shall immediately be subjected to all applicable laws, retroactive to the time of the false repudiation. There is no requirement for a former Muslim to convert to any other religion although this shall be that person's option.
This Amendment is specific to Islam in all of its forms, without exception, although members of the Ahmadiyya sect, inasmuch as they have already rejected parts of the Qur'an, shall not be under purview of American law as it applies to those parts of Muslim teachings it regards as superceded.  Upon informed judicial review, much the same may be said of specific Sufi sects.  The key word here is "informed."  It must be regarded as essential for any court that its members educate themselves, at a recognizable level of competence, to the  nature of Islam when deciding such cases. The courts must be cognizant of Muslim propensity to conceal the truth and not be deceived by camouflage vocabulary, euphemisms, or other devices meant to mislead people about the true beliefs and intentions of followers of Muhammad.
Nothing said here is intended to apply to independent religions which may make use of the Qur'an as an historic document that has been  superceded by later "revelations" or other binding pronouncements, provided no criminal recommendations in Muhammad's book, or later equivalents, are regarded as currently in effect. "Criminal" in the context of this Amendment refers to American law as derived from the US Constitution.
Nothing said here is in any way meant to disparage arts of the past inspired by Islamic culture, architecture associated with the religion, Arabic or Persian poetry or the like, traditional Muslim costume, Mid Eastern or Turkish calligraphy, Muslim historic writings,  in principle the philosophy of Ibn Sina ( Avicenna ), historic accomplishments by Muslims in the sciences, or anything  similar, all of which have intrinsic worth. 
This Amendment in no way infringes on any other religion except Islam.
It is the express hope and desire of this Amendment that there shall never again be a need for such an addition to the Constitution. But as things are, and might well be into the indefinite future, it is necessary to outlaw Islam in the United States in order that the religious freedoms of Americans who are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu , Zoroastrian, Baha'i, Taoist, Confucian, Jain, Shintoist, as well as Goddess devotees, Neo-Pagans, New Age believers, Atheists, and still others, are protected and spared from the depredations of Muslims.
It may well be that "average Muslims" have little or no interest in the criminal-in-character dimensions of Islam , but this is no excuse for belonging to a religion which exists in radical opposition to the US Constitution and repeatedly produces fanatics inspired by the Qur'an who murder innocent people and commit many acts of violence in efforts to "live up to" teachings at the center of their de facto anti-American religion.
This Amendment should not be interpreted to in any way legally encumber the US Government in its dealings with Muslim-majority nations. During the era of the Cold War, the United States maintained diplomatic relations with various Communist regimes despite the fact that America and the Soviet Union and other Communist states were enemies. 
However, there are implications for US military policy, among them,  immediate dismissal of Muslim chaplains and all other Muslim personnel from the Armed Forces of the United States, releasing the military services from all obligations to such personnel. As well, under no circumstances shall American forces permit any implementation of Shariah law in any territory under its military authority.
What this Amendment is primarily intended to do is to make it unequivocally clear that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, which is already true, and to outlaw Muhammad's religion within the United States and its territories and possessions. It is expected that, as  a result of this Amendment, American foreign policy shall become openly opposed to Islam and that the US Government  will adjust its treaties and other international relationships  accordingly. It follows that it should be understood globally that American values as enshrined in the Constitution are antithetical to Islam. In conclusion, this Amendment recommends that the United States should embark on a policy of opposition to Islam and promotion of freedoms derived from the US Constitution as superior to the beliefs and values of Islam.
Additional information:  This Amendment partly reflects a document published at the Free Republic website on April 20, 2008, entitled --PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST ISLAM_( 
In several places the wording of that material has been duplicated verbatim. Much about it is highly commendable. However, it could not be re-used in its entirety because of various problems not understood by its author. Moreover, his position that Islam is a political movement and not a religion, while Islam does exhibit a clearly political and Fascistic dimension, is ultimately far too simplistic and indefensible. Therefore, many new clauses and arguments are new to the Amendment you now are reading.
Reference should be made to two other documents that make the anti-Constitutional nature of Islam unmistakably clear. These are:
( 1 )  Sharia Law and the US  Constitution , by Louis Palme , published at the website, Annaqed " The Critic " on October 14, 2009,  and
( 2 )  Questionnaire for Muslims seeking  U.S. citizenship, by Billy Rojas, author of this Amendment, sometimes published under a somewhat different title.
Also, a conference on the subject, SHARIA vs. THE CONSTITUTION, 
was convened on November 16, 2010, at--Congressional Meeting Room North The Capitol Visitor  Center Washington, DC. Among guest speakers was a US Congressman. The panel discussion on the theme was intended for "Congressional staff."  The event was conducted under auspices of--The Center for Security Policy, The 7th Amendment Advocate and The Legal Project
While there are many issues which deserve extensive comment, that raise a variety of questions, three additional sources are especially relevant here, namely:
( 1 )  " Ex-Muslim: Proposal that Islam is Tolerant is  Fallacious, dangerous," an article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her argument before the National Press Club in late October , 2010, and ( 2 )  Islam's Ignorant Defenders, by David French,  on the subject of both Muslim ignorance of their own religion and the even worse ignorance--overwhelmingly--of many people who defend Islam in America. This was published at the patheos website on November 10, 2010, and ( 3 )  Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech, an  article by Daniel Huff for October 28, 2010, published in the Middle East Forum newsletter, which makes the point that Muslims are currently seeking to muzzle free speech by all means open to them, in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment, in an on-going and co-ordinated attempt to outlaw criticism of Islam or, at a minimum, to create a climate of fear among US citizens, especially opinion makers, to make  them unwilling to say anything that might offend Muslims.
Barry Sommer, instructor at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon,
and host of the CTV news program, "Islam Today," suggests several  other books that are relevant to this Amendment:
Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism
Nonie Darwish / Thomas Nelson, Cruel and Usual Punishment: 
The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law
Steve Emerson,  Jihad, Inc
Brigitte Gabriel, They Must be Stopped
Robert Spencer, Why Christianity is a Religion of Peace and Islam  Isn't.
Additionally, a book that must be regarded as essential reading for anyone who wants to be genuinely informed about Islam, recommended by both Mr Sommer and myself, written by an ex-Muslim originally from Pakistan, is Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not a Muslim. The book was published in 1995 and obviously does not discuss events since September 11, 2001, but there is so much of value in the book that any bibliography on the subject of Islam should include this volume. Not to read Warraq's volume, it can be said, is not to really be informed about Islam.
For commentary that demonstrates the connection between Islam and anti-American politics, a book to recommend is David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance--Radical Islam and the American Left. The "Left"
in question for the most part consists of Marxist-Leninists,   Communists or Communists-in-Everything-But-Name. That is, the Cold War enemies of the United States, those who still are active, plus their youthful recruits, see in Muslims useful allies in their objective of subverting the US Constitution and replacing our form of government with something similar to the system once known in the former Soviet Union. Not to understand these facts for what they are, would be irresponsible.
In summation, there is so much that is wrong with Islam on purely objective grounds as far as any American citizen who regards the Constitution as the best possible source of law available is concerned, that it is unavoidable to make it known to the public that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, and, therefore, should be outlawed from the United States of America.

Gitmo and the detainees

As I was pouring over old files I came across this I wrote back in Jan of 2010.  Seems I had pretty strong feelings about Guantanamo, and to revisit those feelings I thought I would share.  Prescient then, moreso now.


Gitmo: Club Med for the Followers of Allah

   Those held at Gitmo are mostly jihadists, and their reason for being there has little if anything to do with Israel.  It is not uncommon for intelligence to pass from one partner to the other, no surprise that Israel, if armed with the knowledge would have shared it with US forces, thus resulting in a capture.  To intimate that Israel somehow snatches innocent Muslims off the street and provides them to the US in exchange for a favor is, as far as I know false.  No evidence I have ever seen even hints at that.  If it is true, I condemn it.
  You ask, how can I claim to know their ideology when I don't know about them personally or their situation which brought them to Gitmo.  You're right, I don't know those details, but that is irrelevant inasmuch as the ideology of Islam, as defined and practiced by it's leaders today is the over-riding force, the prime source if you will guiding and directing their actions day to day.  Whatever claims made as to hardship, upbringing or social status being somehow related to how they point a gun or send a rocket is laughable.  It is not poor disadvantaged Muslims doing dastardly deeds, it is the educated, the elite at times, the ones who can read, think and plan.
  Sura 9, verse 29 is known as the sword verse or the jihad verse.  This is a primary source of hatred from the "religion of peace"         

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
  Gitmo detainees are intimately familiar with this sura and consistently use it as one of many Qur'anic justifications for their actions.
  If all these detainees are just innocents, well that just flies in the face of recent history.
  The number of former Gitmo prisoners slipping back into their old, nasty jihadist ways is growing, despite programs to re-educate them away from jihad and into things like art and painting.  At least 74 former detainees are back to their evil ways....;jsessionid=D49760D508403FE81B48544D34C080CA
   The Saudis, not known for human fair-play have a problem with inmates we released...
   We even have one who, after release became upper management of Al-Qaeda....
   There are many more examples of the behaviour of Gitmo detainees and how they are NOT the innocent little lambs portrayed by the PC press.  Again I will say that there are indeed a few at Gitmo who have or want nothing to do with jihadists or blowing things/people up.  When found out, give'em 50 bucks and a new suit and boot them back to their home country. 
   As to conditions at Gitmo, I would rather be incarcerated at Gitmo than here in the US.  Every fact-finding mission to Gitmo has shown consistently that the Muslims there get far better treatment than even what they get in their country of origin.  It matters not who looks at Gitmo; civilian, NGO or gvnmt the results are the same.
   Here is a first-hand account from a minister....
   From the book "Inside Gitmo"....
   Afghanistan approves of Gitmo....
   Seems the kids like us.....
   Famous New Orleans football quarterback sees nothing wrong with Gitmo....
   There is no denying that abuses have occured and those responsibile are held responsibile.  However the conditions at Gitmo, the treatment prisoners receive is top-notch and their welfare is attended to.
   With the majority of detainees clearly jihadist-oriented, and the dangers of releasing them after a civilian trial (if found innocent, of course) quite clear, it makes sense to maintain Gitmo and keep them where it is easiest to monitor, control and ultimately dispense justice of an appropriate kind.
   The safety of Americans is paramount.  Our leaders are charged to protect and defend from all threats both foreign and domestic.  Bringing Gitmo detainees to the US has the grave potential for undermining our security. 

From the "What the Hell is going on?" file

Islam has banned many things: pants, beer, laughing, kissing in public, music, cell phones, pictures of people, movies, television, wrong hairstyle, and a host of other innocuous things over the decades.  This is one for the books.  Do not be surprised to find out that yodelling is banned in Austria, via hate speech laws which "insults Muslims". 
This may be funny on some levels, but it is another sign of hownon-Muslims must accomodate Muslim norms, even at the expense of local culture.

Read it all here.

Yodelling offends praying Muslims, say judges

"An Austrian has been fined for yodelling while mowing his lawn, according to a report."
What's next in Austria, jail for cream pie?

The Register-Guard; Keeper of the One-Sided News

As if we don't know how biased the MSM is, in today's RG there was more obfuscation and spin than I have seen in a while.  Here I answer their take on the Portland jihadist.
Read the RG today, and see what you think.

Mohamud Osman Mohamud: A Jihadist in Oregon

It is always the quiet ones, isn’t it.  Friends and family say that no, he never did or said anything to make it seem as if he was minutes away from blowing people up in the name of Allah.  His peers and fellow students, never ones to point a finger say that Mohamud Osman Mohamud, or “Mo-Mo” as he was called was an easy-going guy, liked to drink beer and have sex outside of marriage.  A typical American college student with nothing going on behind the mask of university life.  So the question is: why did he do what he did?
   In todays R-G 11-30) there is not one, or two but four published pieces on this attempted murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children, and they all did their best to not tell us the motives and reasons behind his actions. 
  The first article we see, on the front page immediately sets Mohamud up as a patsy who was “groomed” by the FBI into wanting to blow up a bomb.  There is no explanation of how, at age 15 Mohamud prayed to Allah that he wanted to be a jihadists and either go to a foreign location to kill, or just stay here and kill Americans.  There is nothing on his statement to his pals at Beaverton High School that he hated Americans, and wanted to be a terrorist.  No reporting on Mohamud’s jihad video in which he is wearing the same clothing as bin-Laden, saying he wanted to look “Sheik Osama style”.  The entire article is emotionally framed with his entrapment by the FBI, not on the facts of his behavior and his own statements.
   Bob Welch, in his usual folksy way tries to explain what was driving Mohaud to murder, yet he ends up leading the reader down a primrose path of apologetics and spin.  Trying to acquaint Bruce and Josh Turnidge, who murdered two police officers with a bomb in Woodburn two years ago, with Mohamud is absurd.  Welch tries to make the religious relativism argument, yet he cannot point to any Christian doctrine or tenet accepted or practiced by any recognized authority which calls for the death of non-Christians.  He quotes local historian Doug Card who says “You hear it…Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim…the Turnidge case shows that’s just not true.”  To use just one case to prove the point, Card misses the salient nugget: over 16,000 attacks world-wide by Muslims since 9/11, and just one in Oregon.  Even taking into account McVeigh, Waco, Ruby Ridge, abortion clinics and doctors and others we have much less than one hundred attacks by non-Muslims.  Lets then say that not all Muslims are terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are Muslim.
   Welch ends with saying that the common trait of these murderers is a total disregard for the lives of others.  I agree, yet by dumbing it down and not exploring the doctrine by which Mohamud acted, we are left clueless as to motive and reason.
   The main editorial also whitewashes Mohamud’s actions, and offers no investigation on the driving force behind the attack.  The editors ask why would someone try to kill and maim thousands, they then answer their question with one word “Terrorism”.  Terrorism is a tactic, not a theology.  Terrorism is a means to an end, and in this case the end is murder of non-Muslims in the name of Islam.   
   The editors also assume that the fire at the Corvallis mosque must be deliberately set by Muslim haters.  It undoubtly was an arson fire, yet there has been at least one other arson fire against a mosque, but it turns out that fire was set by the mosque attendants themselves, in order to create a false “hate crime”.  The possibility is there, let us not forget to take that into account.
   Mohamud Osman Mohamud’s actions are being blamed on family problems, but if one looks at his past actions and words it is clear that he wanted to be a jihadist, and murder in the name of Allah.  The FBI, as bumbling as they can be at times, were in the right place at the right time and prevented a major catastrophe.  There is no doubt, given the time and space, Mohamud Osman Mohamud would have found those willing to help kill in the name of Allah, instead of being stung by the FBI.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Update on the Portland jihadist

UPDATE: Portland jihadist 
  The latest reports on Mohamud Osman Mohamud are not what you will find in the MSM.  There are many who believe that he was a dupe, led by the nose by the FBI and a victim of over-zealous law enforcement.  If this was true, I would be the first to complain.  However, the real story is one of a committed jihadist, a follower of Allah and the doctrines of Islamic law.  An innocent victim he is not, yet his intended victims were all innocent.
   Read this story from KGW on what his neighbors say abougt him and his family.  Pay particular attention to the student, Andy Stoll and his description of Mohamud when talking about how much he hated America.
   From KVAL there is this story, and read carefully how it is his "difficult childhood" which is the root cause of his misunderstanding of Islamic tenets.
   Th re-enforce the claim that he was just a confused youth, upset over family troubles, here is a story from the New York Daily News where he is portrayed as a victim of his parents breaking up, thus his decision to murder hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent men, women and children.  It is interesting to note that his father, after the divorce, re-married and moved to Minnesota, a hotbed of Somali jihadist activity.  Remember the 2 dozen or so Somali men who disappeared from Minneapolis for weeks, only to return and be found to have been training for jihad in Somalia?
   Now we have a possible arson fire at the Corvallis mosque, the FBI is offering a $10,000 reward for information on who set the fire.  I will not accuse anybody, yet there is a history of fake Muslim hate crimes and that should not be ruled out.  If this is arson, it is deplorable and the perpetrators must be held accountable.  Read the entire story at
   Lastly we have this story from the Washington Examiner where the city of Portland, angry at GW Bush and his policies on terrorism decided to not participate in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.  Ironically it was that very task force which saved Portland from almost certain carnage.  Read it all, and do so sittng down.
   Further updates as they come in.   

More on Mohamud and the Christmas bombing in Portland

As the facts keep a'comin, I am attempting to stay on top of it all.  Here is my latest, with the newest info.


Ignoring the Words from those Wanting to Kill Us Will Get us Killed.

   He had "dreamed of carrying out an attack for years, and the city's
Pioneer Courthouse Square
would be packed with thousands. A huge mass that attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays."  His Islamic views were openly stated when he was age 15, and he was known to law enforcement as someone who, while attending Beaverton High School, had expressed his desire, through prayer to Allah of wanting to become a jihadists.  Mohamud Osman Mohamud, now 19 went from wanna-be jihadists to the real thing in four short years.  A case of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” as Dr. Daniel Pipes might say, or another example of how, through the texts and tenets of Islam another martyr for Allah is born?  Mohamud’s words say everything we need to know.
   He told FBI agents that he had prayed "about whether I should...go, you know, and make a jihad in a different country or to make like an operation here."  He was just following sura 9, verse 111 where it says to Muslims that they “…shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain.”  Rather than take the advice of the undercover FBI agent that he could be more helpful in the cause by praying five times a day and becoming a martyr, Mohamud said that he “…thought of putting an explosive together but that he needed help doing so.”  So instead of praying and killing himself, he opted for curtain #3 and went for mass casualty.  He would rather “slay” than be “slain”  Well, you cannot blame him for saving his own backside at the expense of innocent women, children and families.
   His martyr video has him dressed in what he calls “Sheik Osama style” which included a red and white headdress, camouflage jacket and a white, flowing robe.  His statement was mostly the usual Islamic babble: Israel, American foreign policy, occupation, Allah, Islam, but then we get to the personal part.  He said he dreamed of bringing a dark day on Americans through jihad, and laid blame for his failures on his parents.  His quote To my parents who held me back from Jihad in the cause of Allah. I say to them…if you – if you make allies with the enemy, then Allah’s power…will ask you about that on the day of judgment, and nothing that you do can hold me back.”  It is funny that people such as Mohamud Osman Mohamud keep misunderstanding the Qur’an and its peaceful intentions; “fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)", sura 9 verse 5. 
   Despite the words, and actions of Mohamud, we will hear about how Islamic doctrine has nothing to do with his attempted murder, that he is merely a misguided youth, ostracized by his adopted country and susceptible to extremist views.  Some will even say that because he was poor, his despair over poverty made him do it.  However, the articles on jihad, written by Mohamud and published on pro-Islamic website magazines such as “Jihad Recollections” and “Inspire” reflect the beliefs and doctrinal behavior demanded of Muslims in the Qur’an.  Mohamud was doing nothing more than emulating Muhammad as “al-insan al-kamil” or the perfect man, whose behavior is to be followed for all time. 
   His advice on working out without weights, in the April 2009 edition of “Jihad Recollections” is based in Islamic patriarchal doctrine, as he said that a Muslim should not work out at gyms because they are “…not Islamic environments, with their "music, semi-naked women [and] free mixing."  He tells future jihadists that they need to "…train as hard as possible in order to damage the enemies of Allah as much as possible."  His other articles were not identified, but one can be fairly sure they were not about knitting or restoring wood finishes on old cabinets.
   Mohamud knew exactly what he was doing, and why.  In August 2009, at a hotel meeting, he told the agents that he”…had found the perfect location for a terrorist attack: the city’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony..” and that he had “…dreamed of carrying out an attack for years.”  
    Merry Christmas, everyone.


Saturday, November 27, 2010

Oregon Jihad, Chapter Two, err three, no wait...

How many times are we to hear about the "religion of peace" and how there are just some Muslims who misunderstand the words of Muhammad?  Way too many, I fear.

Here is my take on the latest attempt to murder people in the name of Islam.


Oregon Jihad, Revisited

   Jihad in Oregon is not a new phenomenon, nor will it end by the latest arrest of Mohamud Osman Mohamud in Portland last Friday, Nov 26 after trying to detonate a bomb during a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony. 
  In 2009 we saw the arrest and conviction of Oussama Kassir, a Lebanese born Swede, on charges of providing material support to terrorists by setting up a jihadists training camp outside Bly.  He and two co-horts wanted to have a training facility geared for those devoted to practicing jihad against the infidels.  The charges referred to, among other things a faxed letter from one conspirator to another in which the Bly property “…looks just like Afghanistan” and that the state of Oregon was a “…pro-militia and firearms state…” and that the group was “stockpiling weapons and ammunition…”  I have never been to Afghanistan, and don’t know if Bly fits that bill.  If it does, shouldn’t law enforcement be watching a little closer what goes on in that area?  Seems a prudent move to me, given past actions.
   Then we have Pete Seda, just recently convicted for money-laundering and tax evasion.  His charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Ashland was found to have moved $150,000 to the jihadists in Chechnya, using Saudi Arabia as a transit point.  His sentencing is on hold, the judge over-seeing the case is taking time to review the evidence and sentencing guidelines before making a decision.  Both Seda and Kassir have shown, through their arrest and conviction, that the doctrine of Islam, as laid down by Muhammad 1400 years ago is alive and thriving.
  As Mohamud Osman Mohamud illustrates, the thrill of the kill means so much to the budding jihadists.  Even when presented with the reality that what he wanted to do would, in fact leave carnage on a massive scale, he replied with the coldness of a contract killer “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.”  Knowing he would gaze upon the bodies of his enemies he casually remarked that he had no problem detonating a bomb that will create a "huge mass that will ... be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays…," 
  The media, pundits, leaders and voices of tolerance will claim that Mohamud Osman Mohamud “misunderstands Islam”, and is just confused.  Pete Seda, it is claimed is a “peace activist” who wants nothing more than interfaith dialogue and bridge-building.  Oussama Kassir just needed a place to “get away from it all” and play paintball with his buddies.  Yet when the evidence came to light, it was clear these “misunderstanders of Islam” were far from it, they all were shown to believe in the dominance of Islam, the superiority of Muslims over infidels and the desire to see Islam rule in every country on the globe.
   Prosecution documents show that in the summer of 2009 Mohamud was in email contact with a suspected terrorist in Pakistan's lawless northwest frontier province, currently a haven for al Qaeda cells. After discussing the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to engage in jihad, or holy war, the contact allegedly gave Mohamud details of a terrorist cell overseas with whom a terror plot could be hatched.  After repeated attempts by Mohamud to get in touch with the jihadist cell failed, he was then contacted by the FBI, posing as an associate of his Pakistani connection.  From there, the FBI gave him enough rope to hang himself.
   Again, as we have seen many times before, this would-be murderer in the name of Islam shouted out “Allahu Akbar” as he was being arrested, using that phrase we are told means nothing.  Standard boiler-plate says there is nothing to see here, and if we try to see anything other than one mans folly in regards to a religion, we are the ones with a problem.  The perpetrator of attempted murder says, as a Muslim he wanted to be a jihadists since age 15, yet we are told that Islam has nothing to do with jihad.  Mohamud Osman Mohamud had written articles that were published in "Jihad Recollections," an online magazine that advocated violence against non-Muslims, yet we are told he just misunderstands his religion. 
   Lastly, watch for the claims of “Muslim backlash” wherein any criticism of Muslims or Islam will be cast as dangerous.  Remember, we are responsible for the feelings of Muslims, and if Mohamud Osman Mohamud feels insulted, it is up to us to make it all better.  Please, no cartoons, we know what happens when we draw cartoons, don’t we? 

Oregon jihad, revisited

 As I have said, this will continue until the powers that be, as well as
the American people understand that these attacks are driven by Islamic
doctrine, 1400 years worth.  This has nothing to do woth Jews, or Israel,
or the refugees, or American foreign policy, or poverty, or Christians, or
Zionism, or Islamophobia, or........
This latest attempt at blowing up things (and people) for Allah is the
symptom.  The disease is Islam.
See the entire story here.

"Feds: Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Ore.," by William McCall
for Associated Press, November 27
PORTLAND, Ore. - Federal agents in a sting operation arrested a
Somali-born teenager just as he tried blowing up a van he believed was
loaded with explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony in
Portland, authorities said.
The bomb was an elaborate fake supplied by the agents and the public was
never in danger, authorities said.
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested at 5:40 p.m. Friday just after he
dialed a cell phone that he thought would set off the blast but instead
brought federal agents and police swooping down on him.
Yelling "Allahu Akbar!" -- Arabic for "God is great!" -- Mohamud tried to
kick agents and police after he was taken into custody, according to
"The threat was very real," said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge
of the FBI in Oregon. "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely
committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale," [sic]...
It said Mohamud was warned several times about the seriousness of his
plan, that women and children could be killed, and that he could back out,
but he told agents: "Since I was 15 I thought about all this;" and "It's
gonna be a fireworks show ... a spectacular show."
Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Corvallis, was charged with
attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a maximum
sentence of life in prison. A court appearance was set for Monday. Few
details were available about him late Friday. [...]
U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton released federal court documents to The
Associated Press and the Oregonian newspaper that show the sting operation
began in June after an undercover agent learned that Mohamud had been in
regular e-mail contact with an "unindicted associate" in Pakistan's
northwest, a frontier region where al-Qaida and Afghanistan's Taliban
insurgents are strong.
The two used coded language in which the FBI believes Mohamud discussed
traveling to Pakistan to prepare for "violent jihad," the documents
An undercover agent met with him a month later in Portland, where they
"discussed violent jihad," according to the court documents....
"This defendant's chilling determination is a stark reminder that there
are people -- even here in Oregon -- who are determined to kill
Americans," Holton said....

Yes, there are "people" who are "determined to kill Americans," even "here
in Oregon"! If only there were some way to figure out who they are, or
where they might congregate!

Monday, November 22, 2010

Readin, Writin, Arithmatic and Hatred

For those who have that belief that as long as it doesn't happen here, it can't happen comes this.  From the "So you Think it can't Happen here" file is this story out of the British Isle.  Seems that Muslims continue to misunderstand Islam, and pass this misinformation along to the kids.

   "PUPILS at Islamic schools across Britain are being taught how to chop off a criminal's hand and that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, a BBC investigation has found."

Whatever happened to spitballs and dipping pigtails in inkwells?

   "The schools are part of the "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland" organisation. The BBC investigation claimed that one school in London is owned by the Saudi government."

Whenever you see that the Saudis are involved, remember that the Wahabbi version of Islam is at work in everything they do.  Virulently anti-semetic and racist, Wahabbi Islam is your worst nightmare

Read the entire article here

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Muslims search themselves at airports....wait, what?

I saw this story and was aghast.  If this is how our administration sees fit to protect us, we are doomed.  Outrageous, and possibly criminal.

DHS considers allowing Muslim women to pat themselves down at airports

Janet Napolitano and DHS, in considering a technique for Muslim women in which they “pat themselves down in the head and neck area” are proving, once again that political correctness is running amok regarding Islamic sensibilities.  Airline passengers, already reeling from the numerous and constant barrage of security measures, now must contend with seeing a class of people, women in particular, being given special treatment because of their religion. 
   One wonders whether this method will do anything to increase our feelings of security and safety, and begs the question on why the reverse profiling.  First, the whole point of a search is to discover anything concealed on the person which is dangerous or illegal.  A “self pat-down” defeats the purpose of a search, as well as being a grievous lapse of security protocols.  The stakes are high: if something goes wrong in airport security, people will die.  Adding another variable into the system only adds to the margin of error. 
   Second, it is as if the TSA and DHS are deliberately bending over backwards to show Muslims are NOT a threat, that there is nothing to see behind the niqab or burqa except tolerance and diversity, and it is all being done in the name of “don’t insult Muslims or Islam”.  Will orthodox Jews be allowed to self-pat their hats or curly locks, will Mennonite women be allowed to self-pat their lace caps, will Sikhs be allowed to self-pat their head wrappings, and will old men be allowed to self-pat their golf caps?  To single out a religion for special treatment, and exclude all other religions from this treatment smacks of cognitive dissonance.  If Islamic doctrine is that scary to where we allow a breach of security, questions need to be asked as to why this is so.
   We hear time and again how Muslims in America just want to be equal and be treated like everyone else.  If this is so, then Muslim women must participate in their social responsibilities to American society and law, even when it is awkward or inconvenient.  Instead of acting like some kind of ideological demigoddess whose head and neck cannot be touched by dirty human hands in the screening line, join the mainstream and suffer the indignities of security screenings we all must endure. Your head and neck no more special than that of the non-Muslim lady in line behind you who is just as unhappy as you are.
   It would be fair to require everyone to endure the new security measures, no matter what the individual belief.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and for the safety of all a few must give way.  This Muslim waiver is being proposed, and considered by DHS and the TSA by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  A travel advisory has been issued by CAIR which says, in part that if a Muslim woman feels she has been exposed to any “disturbing incidents” that a complaint should be filed with CAIR.  It makes a special recommendation for Muslim women who wear the face veil, saying women are to inform the officer they are only to pat down the head and neck and that "They should not subject you to a full-body or partial body pat-down." They also recommend that women should be permitted to pat themselves down and "have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands."
   If the TSA and Homeland Security institutes this CAIR-supported plan, it will be another example of how we in America would rather bow to Muslim demands than examine critically the texts and tenets which drive the acts, causing our game of “catch-up” in security measures.  Allowing Muslim women to “self-pat”, at the urging of CAIR makes us less safe, promotes the Islamic agenda and untimately undermines the principals of fairness, equality and responsibility to ones homeland.
   There should not even be a debate about this: it is wrong, against our principals and an affront to every other religion.  We, the American people deserve better than Napolitano and DHS to look out for our safety.


The latest from John Q Public

Here is the next installment from my old friend.  We can call him Jake now.  He seems to enjoy making long-winded accusations, with little to back it up.  What do, you think?

Hi, Bob!

I didn't realize that the forwarded email came from Barry.  But I see that the quiz portion, at least, is actually on his website, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that he endorses its message.
"How is it transparent cherry-picking when each example on the test is the truth?"

You know, I tend to assume that people understand standard English phrases, or, if not, that they'd take the ten seconds necessary to look them up on their own.  Here, Barry.  Let me Google that for you.  Yes, each item on the quiz may be precisely factual, but that doesn't rule out cherry-picking, since that's part of the definition of cherry picking.  The quiz ignores similar incidents not perpetrated by Muslims,(so what?) and then pretends there's a stronger pattern that emerges as a result.(there is, but obviously not evident to you)  It's the equivalent of compiling a list of several dozen women who live in Cottage Grove, and then trying to use that as evidence to prove that "almost everyone in Cottage Grove is a woman."(disingenuous analogy, proves nothing)  It's silly and misleading.

The Nobel prize list as presented is simply wrong (it omits a number of Nobel prize winners from Muslim countries).(show them)  It seems to me that either a) Barry knows this, but passed it along anyway (in which case I think we can conclude that Barry is dishonest and should not be considered a reliable source on matters of fact), or b) he didn't know this, despite the trivial amount of research required to show its falsity (in which case I think we can conclude that he is incompetent, and thus should not be considered a reliable source on matters of fact).(accusations are empty without back-up)

Furthermore, the conclusion to be drawn from the global distribution of Nobel prizes is not "Muslim countries produce very few Nobel prize winners," but "third world countries produce very few Nobel prize winners."(virtually all 57 Islamic countries are 3rd world)  It would also be true to state that "Ashkenazi Jews (in particular) produce a disproportionately high number of Nobel prize winners."(disproportionate in what way?  Because they are Jews?  What is the underlying reason behind this phrase?)  The attempt to spin these facts into a deficiency unique to Muslims is dishonest and simply rank bigotry.(no spin, just fact.  You seem to dislike facts when they disagree with your personal views and opinions.)

Finally, consider this statement from the email:
"Muslims must ask what they can do for humankind before they demand that humankind respects them."

I think Barry -- just like you or I -- is damned lucky that nobody holds him to that standard.
As you cannot dispute this statement you assume the standard for us(non-Muslim) must be higher than that for Muslims.  It is Islam which demands acceptance of their dogma, over and above any other prevailing, accepted doctrine.  In other words, when a non-Muslim is in a Muslim country he is expected to conform to Muslim norms.  When a non-Muslim is in a non-Muslim country he is expected to conform to Muslim norms.  I hope this clears that up for you.

 -- Jake


Hi, Bob!

Frankly, I'm losing hope that engaging with Barry will ever be productive; he seems entirely uninterested in honest debate.  Remember the Jefferson discussion?  Barry originally wrote this on his site:
"He said of the Qur’an and Muslims 'Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear'. So he thought the Qur’an, and Islam was a religion of 'blindfolded fear' after studying the relevant texts."

When called on the fact that this was in no way a true statement, he claimed he didn't "research that particular quote accurately," which sounds to me like a fancy way of getting out of the real question: Is Barry an utterly incompetent researcher, or merely a deliberately dishonest one?  My money's on the latter, considering his most recent justification for what he wrote:
"My point was that as Jefferson had no direct interaction with Islam or Muslims up to that time, as a fan of Voltaire he was obviously exposed to Voltaire’s opinions on Islam and Muhammad, thus his opinions and his views on Christianity would be, at least tinged with what he had read from Voltaire.  I merely want to point that out."

Compare those two quotes... since he didn't even so much as hint at Voltaire originally, are we really meant to accept this claim with a straight face?  Also consider that, despite the amount of time elapsed since Barry was notified of the inaccuracy of his Jefferson claim, that claim is still out there on his blog.(I posted your reply and my response, that is a sufficient explanation)  He's had time to post on his blog more than once since then, but apparently has no interest in retracting his false claims.  That's a huge red flag for me; it's strong evidence for intellectual dishonesty on Barry's part.

The rest of the response (as usual) carefully avoids addressing the specific objections I raised.  I said that Ali Goma'a is not the "top guy" for all of Islam, and that there's no proof that he said the hateful things Barry ascribed to him.  I never denied that he was important, influential, or associated with Al-Azhar University.  But Barry ignores what I said, and instead puts forth arguments to counter claims I never made.  His claim that he once had proof of Ali Goma'a saying those things, but it's all been carefully "scrubbed" from the Internet by some shadowy Islamic cabal, is pathetic.  Either he's way off into tinfoil hat territory, or he thinks that his audience is so stupid as to believe it (the Internet Wayback Machine would allow Barry to show us his claimed evidence, if it ever actually existed; it's an archive of the Internet, searchable by date.  I won't hold my breath).(I tried that but there was nothing, and you don’t say that the internet, and all info there is subject to all types of scrubbings, and changes, and editing which erase history or past writings.  It is false to ignore that, and pretend that the ‘net is all things to all people, and that it can never be anything but what it is: a repository for all things great and small.  I guess that is why you use Wikipaedia as a primary source)  Barry's not showing any signs of being a serious researcher, but he is showing numerous signs of being a mendacious crank.

His long, long list of terrible things Muslims have done is unsourced and thus unreliable, and is therefore utterly worthless as evidence for anything other than "Barry uses unsourced information and either considers it authoritative or expects others to."( I sourced it, you evidentially did not do your research.  All those listed can be traced and sourced, it takes time, time which you don’t want to spend.  I did the sourcing, I spent the time.  If you choose to ignore what is factual, and merely toss out empty objections, that is not my problem)

He lays to rest any chance of being considered anything like an objective source with this:
"As a rule of thumb, though, Barry apparently believes 'if they say bad, hateful things, they speak for Islam as a whole, but if they say good, reasonable things, they are either lying or speak for only a tiny minority.'"

"Yep, that’s right.  My belief exactly."
(based in the words and deeds of those leading Islam today)
Hmm, incapable of objectivity.  Interesting accusation.  Since Islam, as defined today by its leaders and practiced by millions and millions of Muslims shows those bad, hateful things to be the norm, and that those who speak of moderation are either lying or only speaking for a tiny minority, how is it my objectivity holds no water?  You have offered NO proof at all that what I say in regards to Islamic doctrine, tenets or theology is incorrect or a lie, only that you are capable of invective, hollow accusations and false moral equivalence.  I ask again, show any recognized, accepted or “rightly guided” Islamic scholar or school, or even any accepted hadith or sunna which disputes what I say.  Since it is obvious you have never even read the hadiths of Bukhari, nor understand the importance of the sunna in interpreting Islamic doctrine, you are in no position to say what is correct within Islam.    

That's where debate ends.  Barry has, here, effectively admitted that he is incapable of objectivity, and has no intention of ever honestly evaluating any evidence whatsoever.  If there's no possible evidence that can change his mind, there's little point in continuing to pretend that I'm engaged in a debate with a reasonable adult.(you cannot engage in a debate on a subject you know little, if anything about.  Your lack of knowledge and study on Islam is only exceeded by your bias against truth and fact.  What flavor Kool-ade are you drinking?)

From this point forward, please let me know what specific portions of Barry's claims you find compelling, and I'll happily address those.  But I'm gobsmacked by Barry's continuous display of open contempt for little things like evidence, honesty, and truth; if he is going to refuse to argue in good faith, I fear I can see little reason to continue wasting my limited time in the fruitless attempt to engage Barry on an intellectual level.

Lets do this: once you have actually read the Qur’an, studied the hadiths, read the fatwas issued each day, listened to the words of those who kill in the name of Allah, then we can have a civilized narrative.  Until then, it is my time wasted trying to understand what is, essentially the ramblings of an uninformed pseudo-intellectual.  You have no credence when it comes to Islam, I fear you are just another Islamic apologist, a dupe in the ever-present politically correct atmosphere of obfuscation, mis-information, spin and deceit.  You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Be well, be safe.
PS, let me recommend a book: The Al-Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim.  If no other, this should give you some honest insight into Islam.  If you want to read the words of those trying to kill you, and understand where they come from, this is a great place to start.