Skip to content

The Islamic War On Freedom At USC

November 3, 2009
Horowitz slanders

The libelous slanders a "progressive" campus group has been using in preparation for David Horowitz's speech tomorrow.

Editor’s Note: See David Horowitz’s previous blogs on the Islamist war on Freedom at America’s colleges here, here, here, and here.

Tomorrow I am scheduled to speak at the University of Southern California. The focus of my speech will be the genocidal incitement of the prophet Mohammed that calls on Muslims to exterminate the Jews as the condition of their redemption:

“The hour of judgment will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

The sayings of the prophet Mohammed — hadith — were complied 200 years after his death. A reasonable Muslim, a modern Muslim, could easily conclude that this hateful incitement is apocryphal and should be removed from the sacred canon. In fact there is a Turkish commission that has taken up the task of sorting out authentic sayings of the prophet from the inauthentic. Unfortunately, Turkey has become an Islamofascist state in full-throated support of the war against the Jews and it is too much to expect that the Islamic authorities in Turkey will do anything about this hadith.

Worse, this hateful incitement is posted on the official USC website. It was originally put there by the USC Muslim Student Union which, like other organizations affiliated with the Muslim Student Association (MSA) is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of the Islamic jihad against the infidels and specifically of its war against the Jews. When we became aware of the offensive posting of this saying of the prophet Mohammed we took steps that led to its removal by the USC provost who called it “disgusting.” The removal was met by a protest from the MSA and other organizations that are part of the terrorist network including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) who called its removal religious discrimination. But the USC administration held its ground. Recently, however, the hadith of hate reappeared on the USC website, this time put there by an organization called the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (CMJE).  USC College Republicans have petitioned the USC administration to remove the hadith.

Meanwhile, the supporters of Islamic terror at USC — Students for Justice in Palestine and the USC Progressive Alliance (fascist alliance would be more accurate) — have put out hate propaganda against me and are attempting to shut down my speech, thus repeating the war against free speech that the Muslim Brotherhood network conducted two weeks ago at Temple when we presented the film Fitna and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

The Progressive Alliance flier consists of a quote attributed to me which is entirely invented. It’s even written in Osama Bin Laden speak (“while having the body of the human being, a Moslem who unquestioningly follows the Quran behaves like a soulless beast.”) and in style alone represents nothing that I have ever written, said or believed.

Students for Justice in Palestine put out a similar smear sheet last week which was somewhat more (or is it less?) creative in presenting my alleged positions as the opposite of what I actually believe. I wrote a response to that attack and submitted it to the USC Daily Trojan, which has yet to print it:

To USC College Republicans, USC Hillel, USC Students for Justice in Palestine, and anyone concerned:

A campus activist by the name of Alex Sham, whose organization is a supporter of genocide against the Jewish state and of the Hamas terrorists and of the general terrorist jihad against Israel and the United States, has sent a malicious slander to Facebook, and apparently intends to conduct a campaign to demonize me in advance of my speech at USC. Sham’s disgraceful post makes a series of ugly charges against me — not a single one of which has any basis in anything I have ever actually said.

For example:

I have never said that blacks have benefited from slavery or that they should express gratitude for being enslaved. There is no such statement of mine to that effect anywhere which is why Sham does not quote an actual statement of mine but merely makes up what he thinks I said.

I have never said that “Muslim student groups are designed to bring jihad to America.” I have made statements about one such group and only one — the Muslim Students Association — which supports annual protests against the very existence of the Jewish state (an act in itself of genocide by any reasonable definition of the term,) and which regularly hosts speakers who support the terrorist jihad against Israel and the West, call for the execution of gays, and support regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran which executes gays.

I have never made a statement that “blacks slit throats.” I have made one remark about one black — O.J. Simpson — who did slit his wife’s throat.

And so on.

I am not a racist and I am not an Islamophobe. I have organized protests on more than 100 college campuses against the oppression of Muslim women. I have published booklets against the oppression of Muslim women and I have sponsored panels with Muslim speakers against the oppression of Muslim women. There are numerous videos of my campus speeches on the web where I can be seen saying that my efforts are not directed against all Muslims but are in fact conducted in behalf of most Muslims against the hijacking of their religion by totalitarian radicals (who are supported by Students for Justice in Palestine.) It is evil to pretend to speak in the name of all Muslims when you are conducting a campaign of hatred against Jews and gays and other minority groups.

In his email, Sham threatens to attack my speech by any means necessary. Presumably this is also a threat by Students for Justice in Palestine whose members at Berkeley and other places have been arrested on campus in the past for breaking the law. This kind of threat is an expression of the fascist mentality for which Students for Justice in Palestine is rightly famous.

I hope members of the USC community will appeal to university officials to see that civility and order are maintained around this event, and that Students for Justice in Palestine are put on notice that this kind of anti-intellectual and uncivil behavior is unacceptable.

David Horowitz

What is taking place on our campuses is a jihad against our First Amendment freedom. It is an attempt to silence anyone critical of the Islamic war against the Jews. Responsible Muslims will condemn the unholy alliance of Muslim fascists and their left-wing collaborators which is conducting this war and which is led by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, the Muslim Students Assocation, Students for Justice in Paletine and the Progressive Alliance.

  1. F. Swemson permalink
    November 3, 2009 11:46 am

    Give em’ hell David…

    I listened to your interview with Hannity last night from 3.09.09, and I nearly plotzed !

    I had no idea things were as bad as they are in our colleges and universities.

    I’d love to hear you on Glenn Beck’s show talking about the same subject.

  2. In the Know permalink
    November 3, 2009 12:11 pm

    Lible perhaps?

  3. Rob H permalink
    November 3, 2009 1:32 pm

    Suing for libel would be effective and useful. You don’t need a lawyer, instructions on how to file a suit are available in every state. The best part is you can demand documents, videos, emails and everything else relevant to the slander and the defendant must produce them. That would be a book in itself.

  4. Ken permalink
    November 3, 2009 1:55 pm

    Big shocker there!! Trying to silence and/or intimidate someone if they even dare to criticize Islamic fanaticism. And it’s only going to get worse!!

    • LanceThruster permalink
      November 3, 2009 2:21 pm

      Happens to critics of the abuses of Israel all the time.

  5. LanceThruster permalink
    November 3, 2009 2:19 pm

    Would you be adverse to putting the Talmud (or the xian bible)under the same microscope? I am an atheist so I reject anyone’s so-called “revealed knowledge” but there are Talmudic and biblical passages that are easily as troublesome as the hadith referenced. That an actual hadith is listed on a university site is part of the mission statement of the whole project.



    Our mission at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement is to promote dialogue, understanding and grassroots, congregational and academic partnerships among the oldest and the newest of the Abrahamic faiths while generating a *contemporary* understanding in this understudied area and creating new tools for interfaith communities locally, nationally and beyond.

    It reminds me of xian apologetics that speaks of this passage:

    Psalm 137:8-9 (New American Standard Bible)

    8 O daughter of Babylon, you (A)devastated one,
    How blessed will be the one who (B)repays you
    With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
    9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and (C)dashes your little ones
    Against the rock.

    I’ve heard it explained that they’re not suggesting one should do this, just that they’d be justified if they did.

    “Holy” books are the product of human minds and should be interpretted accordingly. The fact that they claim divine origins only makes it less trustworthy.

    — So, David. When’s the lecxture tour on xian infanticide going to be?

    • November 3, 2009 2:26 pm

      So, David. When’s the lecxture tour on xian infanticide going to be?

      Maybe when Christians start citing that verse as justification to kill babies. No one does so it’s stupid to bring it up and try and make an equivalency argument.

      There’s all kinds of crazy crap in the Bible. The difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is that the former have grown out of the crazy crap and joined the modern world. Islam has not. It’s still the Middle Ages over in the Middle East.

      In the Bible it says that gays are supposed to be executed. But what government has put that into law? Only Islamic governments.

      • LanceThruster permalink
        November 3, 2009 4:18 pm

        They use their “sacred” texts as justification to kill health care practitoners (abortion and birth control providers/advocates), homosexuals, and anyone else they can convince themselves that their god hates. Should I feel better that the practices unquestioned in the past (witch burning, stonings, the tortures and murders of the Inquisition, the bloody conflicts over dogma, including open warfare between nation-states tied to differing god-views) have been reined in by secularism?

        They claimed to be true to the text as well, or were god’s own proxy; communicating god’s will to humanity. The church’s enlightenment came about partially because they no longer had the power to compel blind devotion; not out of choice.

        As has been said, “Religion changes with the times or it ceases to be.”

        Eternal truths my tailfeathers! More like go along to get along. Now that the radical xian elements are getting more bold, Dominionism is making a growth spurt. Same mindset as Sharia law. Lies with the imprimatur of their “god.”

        I think xians need to be honest enough to realize that the reformation was a long-time in coming and to attack Islamic belief in toto ignores peaceful practioners.

        If you want to talk about what is actually being practiced today, Talmudic beliefs of “choseness” (i.e. superiority, hence god’s favor) , come into play regarding interactions with gentiles. The text is in the books. Many prohibitions are based more on if it makes the group look bad outside the tribe.

        Like I said, I’d love to see everyone’s mythology deconstructed.

        The demonization of all of Islam helps serve the purpose of keeping the perception of Israel as blameless (i.e rational western concepts vs the scary primitive irrationalism of the “other”). I can reject their theology without making them the new global “boogie man.”

        Some biblical concepts *are*timeless such as –

        KJV – Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam [plank] out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

        • November 3, 2009 4:52 pm

          And you’re monologuing again, failing to respect me by addressing my points.

          • LanceThruster permalink
            November 3, 2009 6:49 pm

            You have to earn respect, not demand it. You’d go a long way to gaining some if you worked on your reading comprehension.

            You said –Maybe when Christians start citing that verse as justification to kill babies. No one does so it’s stupid to bring it up and try and make an equivalency argument.


            Stupid is as stupid does.

            I see you think you can somehow speak for “Christians” and feel you have the luxury of differentiating “mainstream” from non-mainstream theology. Theocrats would be the first to argue that their “truth” is not based on popular acceptance. One item below notes“either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.” Unless you know of a nation totally devoid of babies, this clearly illustrates that there is a strain of xianity that advocates via biblical doctrine that the killing of babies is justified if not outright mandated by biblical law.


            Christian Reconstructionism
            March/June 1994

            Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence

            by Frederick Clarkson
            Part 1

            Overview and Roots

            The Christian Right has shown impressive resilience and has rebounded dramatically after a series of embarrassing televangelist scandals of the late 1980s, the collapse of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, and the failed presidential bid of Pat Robertson. In the 1990s, Christian Right organizing went to the grassroots and exerted wide influence in American politics across the country.

            There is no doubt that Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition gets much of the credit for this successful strategic shift to the local level. But another largely overlooked reason for the persistent success of the Christian Right is a theological shift since the 1960s. The catalyst for the shift is Christian Reconstructionism–arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in the 1990s.

            The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of “Biblical Law.” Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.

            Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.

            For much of Reconstructionism’s short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders’ expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, “We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer.”

            What is Reconstructionism?

            Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

            Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: “The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.”

            More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God’s covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are “in submission” to him. In turn, the husband “submits” to Jesus and to God’s laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God’s laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called “theonomy.”


            Reconstructionists also believe that “the Christians” are the “new chosen people of God,” commanded to do what “Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do. . .create the society that God requires.” Further, Jews, once the “chosen people,” failed to live up to God’s covenant and therefore are no longer God’s chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are.


            Capital Punishment

            Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical “warfare” is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, “sodomy or homosexuality,” incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, “unchastity before marriage.”

            According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, “along with those who advised them to abort their children.” Rushdoony concludes: “God’s government prevails, and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.” Reconstructionists insist that “the death penalty is the maximum, not necessarily the mandatory penalty.” However, such judgments may depend less on Biblical Principles than on which faction gains power in the theocratic republic. The potential for bloodthirsty episodes on the order of the Salem witchcraft trials or the Spanish Inquisition is inadvertently revealed by Reconstructionist theologian Rev. Ray Sutton, who claims that the Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be “happy” places, to which people would flock because “capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.”


            A Covert Kingdom

            Much has been made of the “stealth tactics” practiced by the Christian Right. Whereas the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell, was overt about its Christian agenda, many contemporary Christian Rightists have lowered their religious profile or gone under cover. In fact, these tactics have been refined for years by the Reconstructionist movement, as Robert Thoburn’s education strategy suggests. Gary North proposed stealth tactics more than a decade ago in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (1981), urging “infiltration” of government to help “smooth the transition to Christian political leadership. . . .Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure, and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

            You said – There’s all kinds of crazy crap in the Bible. The difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is that the former have grown out of the crazy crap and joined the modern world. Islam has not. It’s still the Middle Ages over in the Middle East.

            I addressed your overgeneralizations with counter-examples.

            You said – In the Bible it says that gays are supposed to be executed. But what government has put that into law? Only Islamic governments.

            You act as if religious influence is frozen in time. Gay murders that occur due to hate spewed from the pulpits and treated as if of lesser importance thereby reinforcing the bigotry are practically de facto executions. That’s why in another era lynching of blacks/minorities was a common occurance because the perpetrators saw little or no risk in their actions. Even police forces could operate with impunity. Do you know so little about history?

            I quoted those religionists who carry much influence with the right that would love to put all Americans under theocratic rule. This is the “crazy crap” modern world xians have supposedly grown out of that modern world xians actively promote (with the help of modern political leadership – they’ll pretend to distance themselves but keep giving the various groups a big thumbs up by pushing legislation to appeal to/appease these religionists).

            Just because a group’s irrationalism is disregarded by adherents or outsiders does not make it any less irrational.

            Like I said (and *you* ignored), there’s plenty of “crazy crap” to go around.

            How about changing the slogan on our money to “IN CRAZY CRAP WE TRUST”?

            Hard to argue with that, I must say.

            BTW, even those secular leadership positions say assinine things – “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”
            ~ GWB

            That guy can make even a theocratic rule look almost preferable.

            • November 3, 2009 7:25 pm

              I’m sorry. My mistake. I thought discussing issues with you was actually worth my time. Silly me.

        • In the Know permalink
          November 4, 2009 5:43 am

          “They use their “sacred” texts as justification to kill health care practitoners (abortion and birth control providers/advocates), homosexuals, and anyone else they can convince themselves that their god hates. ”

          It’s comical the way you accuse others of having poor comprehension skills when you yourself can’t delineate the difference between ideological motivation and lawful protection. Tell where murder based upon biblical precedent is legal in the United States? I can list for a host of countries with islamist governments (some our “moderate” allies) in which simply being a homosexual is a crime punishable by death. Your attempt to morally equivocate the two is both logically fallicious and pathetic. I would say you were reaching but for the fact that there is no modicum of truth to your argument. Congratulations, you are the most intelligent person in your world.

      • Ez4moi permalink
        November 9, 2009 2:16 pm

        Mr. Swindle, I take issue with the statement of Christian/Judeo Religion growing out of all that crazy crap. Christianity is based upon Jesus’ life, teachings, and fulfillment of prophecy. Reading the Bible is like reading today’s news headlines.

        Christianity is based upon the example of Christ. In otherwords to be Christian. Show me any crazy crap He ever advocated.

        Islam is based upon the “perfect man” Mohammed. He did advocate, theft, pedaphillia, and genocide.

        Forgive me for seeing a difference.

        • November 9, 2009 2:30 pm

          By “crazy crap” I’m talking about stuff like burning witches, executing gay people, living in a theocracy, etc — things JC never advocated but religious fundamentalist Christians did in the Middle Ages inspired from the Old Testament.

          I’m in no way an anti-Christian bigot.

      • November 9, 2009 2:22 pm

        I don’t know what bible this guy is reading but in all my bible study I have never read that gays should be put to death

        • November 9, 2009 2:48 pm

          Look up Leviticus 20:13.

    • November 4, 2009 1:11 pm

      Thank you, “Lance Thruster”, for your postings. As noted at the Jewish Atheist blog, no God would condone the stories of mass murders by Jews in the Old Testament of Christian Bibles.
      For a thorough review of Jewish “sacred” literature from an intelligent Christian perspective, read Michael Hoffman’s book, Judaism Discovered.
      For an Israeli view of the Christian Holocaust in the Soviet Union by Jewish communists, read “Stalin’s Jews” by Sever Plocker.,7340,L-3342999,00.html
      A free book online has documented Jewish involvement in the Armenian Genocide:

      Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

      Moses Hess (“Communist Rabbi”) worked with Karl Marx on drafts of The Communist Manifesto. In 1862, he wrote a book on Zionism. Later, he was buried in Israel.

      Communists, Zionists, Neo-Conservatives (Neo-Trotskyites), and all other totalitarians of any label cannot deceive intelligent Christians or members of the political right wing.

      • November 9, 2009 4:17 pm

        Well there you go! Jews are responsible for the Armenian Genocide by Muslim Turks!!!

        Those Jews must be pretty evil, if you are right… and if no other religion had non-religious or hypocritical “sons” involved in any of those horrors.

        But, you say that there WERE former and/or pretend Christians involved in all of those events and movements?

        You say that there were people born of Christian parents who were so perverted by their grand parents’ “Christian-ness” that they joined groups that slaughtered millions? You are shaking your head now. What was that

        Oh, I get it. You say that THOSE Communists and Nazis and abettors of Armenian Genocide were not the same as the naturally evil Jewish ones who inspired them!!

        Oh, really? I say you sound anti-Semitic.

        I also find it a bit alarming when you state that only INTELLIGENT Christians are proof against totalitarian thought but, at the same time seem to feel that a stupid member of the “political Right-wing” shares the same level of protection. Or do you simply mean that no Christian can be intelligent unless they self-describe as “right-wing’?

        Can you elaborate on this theory for those of us who are stupid Christians and/or members of the “not Right-Wing” since we are not able to unmask all evil as automatically as you do?

        Do I have to send away for a secret decoder ring?

    • Stu permalink
      November 12, 2009 8:47 am

      You have taken 2 verses out of context. You must read the entire Psalm which deals with the captive Jewish people being marched into exile and their prayer for the destruction of their oppressors, in this case the ancient Babylonians. I don’t think there are any modern Babylonians who are concerned about their safety due to these 2 passages. However, attacks by Muslims against Jews are not difficult to find (e.g. The Mumbai massacre).

  6. LanceThruster permalink
    November 3, 2009 7:45 pm

    Geez, the old taking your bat and ball and going home again?!?! Don’t be a WATB.

    I addressed your points. When you said I didn’t I referenced those items that back my statements backing my points.

    And then you come back with the old reliable Eric Cartman, “Respect mah authoritah!”

    David Horowitz cites hadith verses, and says that is enough to declare Islamic doctrine contains vile hatred things that its followers accept. Then you say and they practice those vile hatred beliefs. You then say other religionists don’t practice their vile hatred beliefs. Even if some do, they get a pass.

    If Horowitz decries thought crimes (labeling speech you don’t like as “hate” speech), does he feel the laws governing what you can say about the Holocaust as unacceptable? Are you only a “revisionist” if you revise the numbers down but not up?

    Why isn’t there thought crime statutes against flat earthism or astrology or a myriad of other irrational beliefs? If it’s because of the danger continued demonization of a people might result in indiscriminate violence against them, how can he continue to spout the type of rhetoric that makes the less reflective individuals among us want to treat Muslims like the Jews of the Hitler era were treated (you know, the type of attitude that justifies dousing their kids in white phosphorus because, much like vermin, if they’re not the enemey now, they will be)?

    • November 4, 2009 7:39 am

      No, Lance you didn’t address my points, which is why I’m discouraged from even bothering to engage with you.

      Let me summarize the point you’re ignoring: The verse you cited about smashing babies on the rocks has no relevance today. No Christians or Jews are citing it as justification to kill babies. The hadith Horowitz cited is used by Muslims as the basis for violence against Jews.

      You ignored this point in pursuit of your attempt to paint an equivalency argument between Christianity/Judaism and Islam.

      • LanceThruster permalink
        November 4, 2009 4:25 pm

        Geez David, could you BE any more obtuse? Seriously.

        There are many examples of CONTEMPORARY hate speech based on alleged adherence to sacred texts by prominant sect members.


        In a statement to Moment Magazine Rabbi Manis Friedman, a Chabad Lubavitch Hassid, Torah scholar, author, counselor and speaker and dean of the Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies. was quoted as saying:

        “I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”[1]

        In response to the offense that Jews, Muslims, and others took to the statement Friedman responded:

        “It is obvious, I thought, that any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion. Fundamental to the Jewish faith is the concept that every human being was created in the image of G-d, and our sages instruct us to support the non-Jewish poor along with the poor of our own brethren.

        The sub-question I chose to address instead is: how should we act in time of war, when our neighbors attack us, using their women, children and religious holy places as shields. I attempted to briefly address some of the ethical issues related to forcing the military to withhold fire from certain people and places, at the unbearable cost of widespread bloodshed (on both sides!) — when one’s own family and nation is mercilessly targeted from those very people and places.”[2]

        He’s talking scorched earth policy, David.


        Whether dashing their heads against the rocks or rending their soft little bodies asunder with high explosives or setting their very flesh afire with white phosphorus.


        He said destroy and is not a member of a wholly inconsequential fringe group. He is contemporary. He is using the sacred text and the words he claims are of his god to justify the wanton slaughter of innocents.

        He is not the only one.


        Israeli Soldiers Say Army Rabbis Framed Gaza as Religious War
        by Cliff Churgin

        JERUSALEM — Rabbis affiliated with the Israeli army urged troops heading into Gaza to reclaim what they said was God-given land and “get rid of the gentiles” – effectively turning the 22-day Israeli intervention into a religious war, according to the testimony of a soldier who fought in Gaza.

        Soldier says rabbis pushed “religious war” in Gaza. Literature passed out to soldiers by the army’s rabbinate “had a clear message – we are the people of Israel, we came by a miracle to the land of Israel, God returned us to the land, now we need to struggle to get rid of the gentiles that are interfering with our conquest of the land,” the soldier told a forum of Gaza veterans in mid-February, just weeks after the conflict ended.

        A transcript of the testimony given at an Israeli military academy at the Oranim college on Feb. 13 was obtained on Friday by McClatchy and also published in Haaretz, one of Israel’s leading dailies. The soldier, identified as “Ram,” a pseudonym to protect his identity, gave a scathing description of the atmosphere as the Israeli army went to war.

        “The general atmosphere among people I spoke to was . . . the lives of Palestinians are . . . let’s say far, far less important from the lives of our soldiers,” Ram said. The religious literature gave “the feeling of almost a religious mission,” he said


        So David, if you continue in your denials of an established reality of those points I put forward, you’re either knowingly lying, or dense beyond redemption. Which is it? Do you even understand the question? How many ways can you pretend not to see what is right before you?

        These are contemporay religious leaders using their sacred texts as the basis for their exhortations to kill innocent human beings.

        It’s a pathetic application of the “My god can kick your god’s @ss” rule. Certain members of the Muslim faith have no monopoly on hypocrisy.

        • November 4, 2009 5:08 pm

          We’re talking about two different things and this is a waste of my time.

  7. Mark J. Koenig permalink
    November 3, 2009 10:08 pm

    LanceThruster, your attempted equation of the “Christian Right” with Islamofascists is not only patently absurd and factually incorrect, it is obscene. Christian theocrats and Reconstructionists comprise a tiny minority within Christianity. Not so with the violent jihadists within Islam. In stark contrast to Islamic jihadists, the Christians you condemn do not advocate killing infidels, nor do they explicitly support terrorist activities. Muslim leaders openly and loudly exhort their followers (numbered in the millions) to kill Christians and Jews. They further instruct their followers that they must fight in whatever ways necessary toward the goal of imposing Sharia law worldwide, including sacrificing themselves and their children in suicide missions against the unbelievers. There is simply no corollary to be found within modern Christianity. To quote Robert Spencer (from his book Religion of Peace?): “No nation has ever willingly converted to Islam. That fact speaks for itself. On the other hand, no nation has ever unwillingly been coerced into Christendom — and remained so for more than a generation. That too speaks for itself.”

  8. moonbat5515 permalink
    November 4, 2009 4:11 am

    I guess I could regale everyone with Shariamatic experiences from my time in N.J., but why bother? I’m sick of ALL organized religion. My Oh-So-Christian neighbors trespassed and stole private property last Sat. night (my Halloween display) for the SECOND year. ***holes didn’t know I caught them on video. So, IMHO, penetrate ALL religion heartily.

    • November 4, 2009 10:55 am

      I’m not accuing you of lying about Christians stealing Halloween stuff, but am curious as toat how you know that. I know it happens. Did they tell you? Did you get protests about your Halloween decorations?

      Also, where do you live (which state or city)?


  9. November 4, 2009 8:42 am

    As somebody who teaches at USC, I’m stunned that I have to read Frontpage to find information that I should find in the Daily Trojan. Perhaps this article will shame them into doing their job – including covering the reposting of the Hadith of Hate.

    Thank you for coming to USC tomorrow, and exposing the genocidal fantasies, lies, and delusions that are far too often politely overlooked under the framework of religious tolerance. When somebody declares that they want to murder you and all your relatives as in the Hadith of Hate, it’s quite fair to be sceptical about claims of religious tolerance.

    It’s also worth debunking the pervasive myth that attacking Islamic terrorists means attacking anyone who follows Islam. Good people come from all traditions, but Islamic texts have clearly generated more religious violence than all other religions combined in the 21st century. And the Hadith of Hate has no place on the USC campus as we build a 21st century citadel of tolerance, peace, and knowledge.

    • LanceThruster permalink
      November 4, 2009 10:14 am

      I think Western religious practicious were equally vile in their time and only by treating practioners of Islam fairly will the moderates and reformers have the opportunity to thrive. An Islamic reformation cannot be imposed from the outside (Ann Coulter’s convert them or kill them comments notwithstanding).

      • In the Know permalink
        November 4, 2009 10:47 am

        Perhaps, could you give us (yes us, no mouse in my pocket) a reason why a director was afraid to portray the destruction of the “Kabbah” but not christian icons? Could it be because your equivocation is a farce?

        • LanceThruster permalink
          November 4, 2009 3:21 pm

          I myself prefer the UK response to the Tube bombings with their “I am not afraid” campaign. The director made his choice as he saw fit (even though the destruction was not a result of mankind’s actions, many Muslims would feel it blasphemy to even suggest that such destruction is possible). It is certainly possible that fundamentalists would respond with violence as those who attacked and killed Dutch director Theo Van Gogh. As an atheist I feel all who commit violence thinking themselves god’s proxies are irrational cowards and fools.

          With other religionists, it’s a matter of degree. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue was apoplectic over Larry David’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode where he accidentally splatters urine on a bathroom pic of JC. Donohue has said previously that those mocking Christian icons were lucky xians do not respond as Muslims do, implying they would be justified regardless.

          The answer should be everyone standing united to reject religious demands to honor their iconography; but it has to be across the board – no sacred cows.

      • Trebuchet permalink
        November 21, 2009 7:07 am

        Lance the Limp,

        So what about the 100 million or so that atheistic regimes have rolled over on the Road to Utopia. And of course you know that those Fun French had such a good laugh as the heads rolled, 800,000 in a year in the name of equality. And they even committed genocide, nearly wiping out the Choulans of the Vendee Region because the fools continued to attend Mass and refused to renounce their beliefs. So Lance the Limp what have you in mind as you sit before your computer giggling as you spew your lame interpetations of Scripture? Do visions of Christians used as touches, or torn to pieces by Lions fill that pernicious pate of yours? It’s one thing to know enough Scripture to twist it’s meaning and another to understand the history in to which the Scripture fits and you know neither very well.

  10. amsron permalink
    November 4, 2009 10:06 am

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. The world has no use for fundamentalists, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish. That said, maybe you can destroy USC ( a service to mankind) and redeem yourself…lol

  11. November 5, 2009 6:52 am

    Islam’s “war on freedom”? What a joke. Who is passing to outlaw certain kinds of speech they don’t like? Jews, not muslims. Who’s responsible for getting people fired from their positions in academia, media, politics, etc, because of their exercising free speech? Jews, not Muslims. Who is pushing through legislation to take away our 2nd amendment rights? Jews, not Muslims. Who has staffed every congressional office with at least one spy to make sure Mr or Mrs Elected Official doesn’t ‘step out of line’ with regards to certain issues? Jews, not muslims.

    The list goes on and on…

    There is a priniciple in Jewish thinking, origniating in the Old Testament where an innocent animal is slaughtered for the “sins” of the people. The process goes like this–priest lays his hand on the head of the doomed animal and the sins are “transferred” on to it and then he is killed. This is EXACTLY what Horowitz and his cousins are and have been doing now with the Muslims–transferring on to them their own “sins” in the interests of propaganding stupid americans into going and doing their killing for them. The tragic part is that it has been working fabulously.

    Mark Glenn

    • In the Know permalink
      November 5, 2009 8:03 am

      Did you type that with a pointy sheet over your head?

      • November 5, 2009 6:34 pm

        Hold on, let me get this just right–


        Oh, how funny. You must have worked on THAT one a long, long time.

        Funny, (or rather, not funny) you people are so predictable. Instead of fighting fair–meaning using your brains and reasoned logic–you have to always ALWAYS pull out all the usual tricks, e, “racism” ‘KKK” ‘Hitler’ ‘Nazi’ ‘Holocaust’, etc, etc, etc while assiduously avoiding dealing with the facts as alleged.

        Whatsa matta? Having trouble arguing your way around the fact it is Jews and their goups such as ADL et al working behind the scenes to rob us of our freedoms, and not CAIR?

        Ok now, don’t disappoint us, make sure you fire back one of your typically inane comebacks dealing with one of the aforementioned stigmatizing epithets so as to further distance yourself from a fair fight.

        As predictable as a comic book.

        Mark Glenn

        • In the Know permalink
          November 7, 2009 9:22 am


          I pity you. I know the reality of the current situation in the world is difficult to deal with. I understand your fear of radical jihadists. I arm myself with knowledge to overcome it. The jews may act clueless (at least in this country) to the threat that wahabi’s pose; but they should not be made the target of your fear through the creation of fantastic grand conspiracies. Help us deal with the bully together. Don’t pick on the smaller guy with him because you are afraid he may pick on you if you don’t.

    • falco permalink
      November 25, 2009 12:50 am

      Hahaha. so weak. at least throw in some New York Slime articles. Hahahaha
      GOT to go. loud knocking at my door must be the white sheets coming to get me.

  12. PRCS permalink
    November 5, 2009 4:41 pm

    That prticular hadith is there as a part of an authentic collection by the cleric, Muslim.

    While certainly disgusting, it is just one of so very many, and its temporary removal from the USC website dd not change what Islam teaches. Instead, it amounted to just another instance of temporarily keeping the truth from the filthy Kuffar.

    And, anyway, as noted, it has been reposted and can also be found at the USC MSA’s renamed site: MSA West.

    The Ten Misconceptions About Islam section is quite an eyeopener.

    More importantly, as Islamic teachings are a compilation of documents that anyone can read or research for themselves (Qur’an, hadith and Sira’h), assertions that jihadists are practicing–or are the adherants of–a ‘radical Islam’ is pure nonsense and reflects an ignorance of Islam–as it’s written.

    Qur’an 5:38 says ‘As to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands…”.

    Every Qur’an–from UBL’s copy to Tony Bair’s–says the same thing; including 5:38.

    So, let’s stop pretending. Every Muslim on the planet is a member of the same Ummah–the same Islamic belief system.

    A ‘moderate’ Muslim’s selective compliance with the written teachings of Islam simply does not change what Islam teaches. The nicest Muslims you will ever meet know that Islam relegates a woman’s testimony to half that of a man.

    Not every Muslim will amputate a thief’s hands, but because no one forces them to explain that passage vis a vis the United States Constitution, they remain silent.

  13. Carol Mickle permalink
    November 6, 2009 11:12 pm

    “With other religionists, it’s a matter of degree.” Yes, degree. One religion has their founder depicted in cartoons, so its members on three continents riot, burn, rampage, destroy, vandalize, and kill others (re: the Mo-toons). The other religion has a depiction of their divine founder urinated on in a tv show, and its members on one continent appear on tv shows to decry it, and other members of said religion write and phone network/production companies about their displeasure.
    A matter of degree indeed.

    “Gay murders that occur due to hate spewed from the pulpits and treated as if of lesser importance thereby reinforcing the bigotry are practically de facto executions.” Bogus. Treated as if of lesser importance—than what? Did you miss the Matthew Shephard murder?It was big news everywhere. Don’t know if it was as big news as missing white blond girls, but it was big nonetheless. And really, it was only because he was gay. So I don’t think that gay murder is treated as if of lesser importance. You can’t link any gay murder to what someone heard in a house of worship. You would had to have interviewed the perp and CSI’d his/her attendance at houses of worship to prove the causality relationship to what they heard in said house of worship to the gay murder. So, no. I would postulate that more gays are probably murdered by people they know. Read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” for a liberal gay man’s look at Europe, whence he fled to get away from the rightwing Christians in the US, and the true rightwing fanaticism he found in Moslem Europe.

    ??Christian Reconstructionism?? Look if the MSM ain’t even talking about it, you know it’s on no-one’s radar and is no threat. Do you realize that everything cited in those ‘snippings’ was from the early 80’s?? Thirty years ago? Come on, a college professor won’t even allow evidence that old to be cited in a term paper. So maybe a handful of people still believe it…but it’s not a worldwide movement causing problems on six continents CURRENTLY like a certain other religion I could name….

  14. R Hayes permalink
    November 7, 2009 1:52 pm

    As to what historical records I have encountered; the first three to four hundred years of Christianity seem to be portray in a positive light. The early Christians suffered persecution at the hand of the state but through courage, humility, and a dedication not to become involved in government in any fashion that would compromise their beliefs, had come to enjoy position, wealth and prestige from the state for nearly a century, since the conversion of Constantine.

    However, the city of Rome had bee invaded for the first time in more than seven hundred years and the other religions of the day blamed the non-patriotic practice of pacifism by the large Christian community and Augustine suffered the need to establish once and for all that Christians could in good conscience and with the blessings of Christ assume the full responsibilities of a patriotic citizen, and engage in warfare.

    In his determined zeal to prescribe a precedent which would pacify the pagans Augustine seemly forgot the advances Christians had made practicing the pacifism prescribed by Christ. Christians had endured the harsh, brutal persecution of the state by engaging in an other-world warfare against this present world which included the Roman state as an agent of Satan and therefore its principle enemy. And yes, this had been war, and yes, there had been many causalities on the side of the Christian, as is the nature of war, never the less, the Christians had endured and increased in number and were winning this war without the guilt associated with bloodletting. The Christians of the day had conquered the Roman Empire without shedding any blood of the enemy.

    As to why or to what influenced Augustine; one can only assume to imagine the political pressures, social influences and of course the fairly recent history of hardship and persecution endured by the Christians. Had these pressures obscured the obvious? Was not the political, social and economic gains made by the ever increasing number of Christians borne of faith strong, shouldered on the words of Christ and of the corresponding deeds of love, humility, compassion and forgiveness for all, including ones enemies.

    Although Christianity has undergone many bloody changes from then till now and some could be stated as encouraging, I do not think Christianity has evolved in a positive way from its roots till present except, maybe the Mennonites or Amish or any such like group.

  15. mariedevine permalink
    November 17, 2009 1:55 pm

    We are not without a defence. God always stirs up an enemy when His people reject His written commands. The escape is easy. Repent, and your sins will be washed white as snow. Leviticus 26, Leviticus 23, Exodus 20. God is not unfair. He is true to His word.

    So after we obey, how do we get the Islamists off our backs? That is easy. The primary message of the Qur’an is to follow the whole Bible. Muhammad was a prophet in 600+AD after the Catholic church did away with God’s word, as Daniel prophesied someone would. (Someone had to fulfill it.) He was a prophet to the Christians and Jews to say to follow the whole Bible which neither was. (Qur’an, Ahmad. #s: 5.68, 69; 5.43-49; 42.14-16)

    The Jews could not accept a Messiah who did away with the Torah; he would be the false prophet of Deuteronomy 13. The Christians need to follow the word of God through Jesus to live by EVERY word of God; (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4)and “If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they believe though one rise from the dead.” Luke 16:31. Then the Jews can see Jesus as the Messiah, the acceptable blood sacrifice to wash away their sins.

    That would make no difference between Muslim, Jew, Christian and others (God told all prophets to follow His law.) That is peace. God has told many recently, This is the Day of Judgment; and it sure looks like it; but God has given us an escape, Repentance, Mercy and Forgiveness.

    Marie Devine
    God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.

  16. Levi permalink
    November 29, 2009 9:14 pm

    Want a really different insight into Christian Zionists? Google “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism.” Levi


  1. USC Progressive Alliance Adds to Growing Radicalism in College Campuses «
  2. Campus Jihad-The Rage Continues at USC Ahead of Horowitz Event — The Dana Report
  3. Gee, what a Surprise: Leftist Profs and Student Groups Lie About David Horowitz « NewsReal Blog
  4. Our Brain Dead Country – by David Horowitz | FrontPage Magazine
  5. Hateful Comments Written by Horowitz | RPRQ
  6. Our Brain Dead Country « NewsReal Blog
  7. Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan!
  8. Why Do our Leaders Lie About the Fort Hood Jihad? : Classical Christianity
  9. Has The Fascist Campus Left Reached a New Low? Did an Arsonist Disrupt Anti-Jihad Activist Nonie Darwish’s Speech? « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.