U.S. Army grovels.

Army personnel at the Guantanomo Bay Islamic Fruitcake Detention and Reeducation Facility have orders to handle the Koran in possession of any detainee "as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art" while wearing white gloves and carrying It in a clean white towel.^[1]

Well, kiss my grits. This bit of servile buffoonery is founded on the Army's buying into the Islamic concept of the kafr or infidel (you and me, Dude) who is right down there with pigs, dead bodies, and other filth. As any non-Muslim troop is, per se, filthy, therefore we must have these special rules to shield the Koran from defilement by the merest low-life touch. The rules unequivocally validate the delicate sensibilities of the resident murderous thugs.

A culture that has any confidence in its own worth would tell these time travelers from centuries gone by that there aren't any untouchables or nonhumans in our way of thinking and that no special treatment of the Koran is necessary in the touch and transportation departments. But, no, even in the Army there must be obeisance to the "feelings" or jumbled thoughts of committed enemies of the United States.

Western civilization with its tradition of free inquiry; limited, representative government; freedom of conscience; equality before the law; and secularism is vastly superior to anything else. Period, period, period. Muslim rule throughout history for non-Muslims meant oppression, slavery, death, and backwardness.^[2]

Let us conduct an experiment. Imagine the outcry if the Washington Times or the Southern Baptist Convention were to publish an article entitled "Muslims are Filth."

But . . . every Muslim in the world today lives subject to religious authority that says non-Muslims are on the same level as pigs, dead bodies, and excretions.

Where is the outcry?

As evidence for the proposition that there is an execrable double standard where Muslim pronouncements about infidels [not to mention Muslim practice respecting non-Muslims], go to the web site of His Eminence Grand Ayatullah al-Sayyid Ali al-Hussani al-Sistani. According to his biography there,

Ayatullah Sistani has the highest rank among the mujtahids [jurists] and scholars throughout the Islamic World, and especially in the hawzahs [seminaries] of Najaf Ashraf and Qum. [Emphasis added.]

So by his own account Ayatollah al-Sistani is a man of major importance in Muslim thinking with international influence. The web site that this man publishes, which he's had plenty of time to think about and refine, clearly states the proposition that a kafir is najis. Find it yourself on his site under Islamic Laws-->Najis things.

What other conclusion is possible from the list you read there? I await your cards and letter bombs.

Col. Bunny will go out on a limb here and state unequivocally that Muslim teaching on this point is uniform: non-Muslims are filth.

So, the experiment is that this blob will list the submission of any who can cite written Muslim religious authority from anywhere in the world that unequivocally and publicly states that this Muslim teaching is anathema. For results so far see link this page, lower right, "Islam-->Abjure Kuffar as Najis."

---------------------------------------------------------
Notes
^[1]Source for Army policy: "Gonzo Gitmo charade," Diana West, Washington Times, June 10, 2005. (With thanks to Dhimmi Watch).
^[2]Backwardness for everyone, that is. For a view of modern Muslim governance, consider:

Set up by Muslims for Muslims, every Arab state is explicitly Islamic in confession. Religious and ethnic minorities have been persecuted everywhere. Nowhere is there participation in the political process corresponding to any conception of representative democracy. No parliament or assembly except by appointment of the power holder, no freedom of expression throughout rigidly state-controlled media, no opinion polls, nothing except a riot to determine what public opinion might be. Nowhere in the Arab world is there security guaranteed under the law for persons and property. The same is true for non-Arab and Shia Iran, where the difference between the rule of the late Shah and his successor Ayatollah Khhomeini may be posed as a question of who is persecuting whom and according to what principle. Lebanon, which until 1975 had maintained participatory institutions, has also become a truly Hobbesian example of social and political disintegration.

The Closed Circle. An Interpretation of the Arabs, David Pryce-Jones, HarperPerennial, 1991, p. 17.