But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (Sura at Tawba 9:5).[1]

Although there are over a hundred ayat (verses) in the Qur’an that that pertain to jihad and warfare against the unbelievers, Sura 9:5 is perhaps the most well known among these. For this reason, it has often been called the “Ayah of the Sword.” This comes right in the heels of Sura 9:1-4, which declares the cancellation of any treaties between the Muslims and the Pagans (except those who cooperate with the Muslims), as shown in the preceding four verses:

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous (Sura at Tawba 9:1-4),

Read the rest of this entry

The Principal of a public school in my neck of the woods has tried to ban the word Easter from the Easter Hat Parade in the name of religious “tolerance.”

The story comes from today’s Daily Telegraph:

Bondi Public School principal Michael Jones wrote to parents about the decision, saying Easter was just one of many religious celebrations at this time of year.

“As we are an inclusive community which celebrates our diverse range of cultures and beliefs, I have not called it an Easter Hat parade,” Mr Jones wrote in the school’s latest newsletter.

“Many religious celebrations occur at this time of year but we want to include all students in any celebration at school. Teachers will talk to students about the different celebrations and the emphasis will be on tolerance and understanding.”

Sounds like a job for Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo. Perhaps he can come and hand out chocolate brown treats and sing songs about tolerance and love.

Or here’s something novel. They can get real about religious tolerance and teach children what real tolerance is by educating them about the religious view that grounds the holiday (and the parade) in the first place.

Here’s the thing. True tolerance is not about censoring particular points of view so as not to offend others. But is about respecting another person, even if you disagree with their view. Under the classical definition of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with them. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

But notice the irony. In attempting to promote this false brand of tolerance and understanding, Principal Jones must, by necessity, be “intolerant” of Easter.

It’s almost too obvious to have to point out: (1) It’s a hat parade. (2) It’s held at Easter time. (3) Ergo, it’s an Easter Hat Parade.

Thankfully, the Telegraph reports, there was a swift end to the insanity:

However the ruling on Friday’s fundraising event was overturned yesterday, after parents from the school in Sydney’s east expressed anger.

“This was done very quietly,” Helen Robson – who represented a group of outraged parents – said.

“Up until last month’s newsletter, these events were referred to as ‘Easter’ events.

“Without warning, the recent newsletter deleted all reference and children came home with news their Hats and Raffle tickets were not to be called ‘Easter’ anymore.”

Principal Jones could not be contacted yesterday.

Federation of Parents and Citizens Organisations Sharryn Brownlee said she was disappointed by the original decision to dump Easter.

“The Department of Education has a very clear direction, a very strong policy that Christian activities such as celebrating Easter and Christmas go ahead,” she said.

“These are long-held traditions. Categorically the parade should go ahead as an Easter function.”

Bill Muehlenberg also wrote briefly on this politically correct nonsense earlier today:

“… do you think for one moment this guy would ever even consider trying to ban something to do … with Aboriginal dreamtime spirituality? Not on your life buster. These secularist crusaders wouldn’t have the guts to try to do such a thing. But as always it is open season on Christianity.”

Check out his full article here.

This is my own transcription of a conversation between Greg Koukl and a caller (Pat) to his radio show back in March, 2007. And seeing as it’s  that time of year again, I thought perhaps revisiting this conversation would be instructive for some who have to deal with this increasingly popular and insidious philosophy in their own communities.

Pat wanted to address the philosophy behind Diversity Week – and the way in which the school system was advocating participation by students – by confronting and opening dialogue with the organiser, whom Pat suspected was a lesbian. He begins:

Pat: In Massachusetts we have the regional high school systems. And Diversity Week is coming up. Basically this is the advancement of the homosexual agenda.

One of the things they’re doing [to promote participation in Diversity Week] is the day of silence. By participating in the day of silence you’re saying that you are protesting the brutality against gays, lesbians and trans-gender people. And if you participate in this, at the end of the day… you get to go to an ice-cream social in the cafeteria. If you didn’t participate, you don’t [get to go and have ice-cream in the cafeteria]. What this tells me is they’ve decided that to take the position of being silent in the form of protest is the morally superior position.

Greg: I would ask this question. Why are you buying the students votes?

Pat: Why are you buying the students votes? It’s not a vote.

Greg: Well it is kind of. They’re participating aren’t they? They’re making a statement with, what?

Pat: Ice-cream?

Greg: No. They’re making a statement with their silence. The purchase price for the silence is ice-cream. Why do you have to bribe kids to participate? Why are you rewarding them [for] agreeing with your parochial point of view?

 

Read the rest of this entry

According to a recent (Dec 13, 2009) WorldNetDaily article following President Obama’s signing of the expanded “hate crimes” law, Canadian law practioner Gerald Chipeur believes that this legislation will have far worse ramifications for America than the mess it has already caused in Canada.

“I would be shocked if you did not have 100 times more problems with this legislation than we are. Your system is set up to encourage lawyers to do this, and you have so many more people, there is more opportunity for people to take offense,” he said.
…
“There are certain people in society who look to the government for everything, including to help them with their hurt feelings. The government was never made for that,” he said.
Regardless, “there are those who want the government to bless their approach to life, whatever it is, because they have this view. They come to the point they want the government to say … you are right.”
…
Then those interests want the “power of the state to punish anyone who disagrees,” he said. The result is, “doing exactly what we did 500 years ago. They will be going on a witch hunt, [repeating] the Spanish Inquisition.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118710

I’m not exactly sure how comparative Australian legislation is on this issue, although I am aware of the trial of two Pastors in Victoria who were charged under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 a few years ago simply for teaching their congregation the history of Islam. I’ll stand corrected on the details, but as I understand it no-one was claiming that what they taught was false, simply that they taught it was considered sufficient grounds to arrest them for vilification of another religious group. (Read the preamble on page one of the Act – and the first link below – and you’ll get the gist of it)

Now while the focus of the WorldNetDaily article was more about what certain homosexual activists may do in light of such laws, this is neither here nor there, because as Benjamin Bull alluded to in the WorldNetDaily article, there is nothing tolerant about silencing your opponents point of view, whatever that may be. In the marketplace of ideas, certain views are being censored, and that is exactly what the pseudo-tolerance mongers have in mind.

Religious vilification in Australia
The Intolerance of Tolerance
When Tolerance Is Intolerant