This afternoon I spoke at the Heritage Foundation; you can find some remarks about the talk and its aftermath in the comments field here. You can watch or listen to an mp3 of the talk on the Heritage site here. (I can't tell from my laptop if these things are available yet, but I understand that if not, they will be within 24 hours.) The talk and Q-and-A was also filmed by C-Span, and should be broadcast in a few weeks.
There was one frivolous question, as detailed in the comments field linked above, but otherwise it was a good set of questions from a thoughtful group of people. At the end a number of plants in the audience began singing a song about me and Dick Cheney -- they turned out to be followers of cult leader Lyndon LaRouche. They also showed up at an event in Boston at which I spoke several weeks ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if I see them again soon. The song seems to have been a variant of the one they used to disrupt a debate between Lamont, Lieberman, and the Republican guy in Connecticut a few weeks ago, although I doubt they sang about me in front of Lieberman.
It is kind of them to think me so important as to write a song about me, but it is a pity that the only way the opposition sees fit to engage the points I bring forth is with scorn and ridicule, rather than substantive discussion. And that goes for many more people than today's singers.
One wonders: when the jihadists take these people's heads off, will they notice any difference?
Well, at least you will be forever immortalized in a song... I hear it's some sort of flattery or something...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
OT, but as others mentioned on yesterday's posting about whether their town libraries have copies (or complained there was only one copy) of "The Truth About Muhammad", let me just say this. I checked the New York Public Library catalog while there today; nada, zip, NO copies at all.
I will be asking about that.
Right, I commented already on the great talk by Robert Spencer here.
As a side note if you see this, Robert, I was wondering about your impression of how similar you are to the eastern orthodox churches and dissimilar to the mainline catholic churches. I see eastern christianity being far different from western anything, and for example, you have antiochian orthodox and maronites/melkites/syriac that are nearly exactly the same thing, but the the latter align themselves with the see of Rome, which makes little sense to me, seeing all the changes that the west underwent in christianity and as much in catholicism. It's odd to me that you would call yourself catholic and I would call myself eastern orthodox when if it were you, me and an american catholic in a row, anyone that knew anything about our theology or liturgy would clearly see that the (american/western etc.) "catholic" did not fit.
I apologize for straying from the purpose of this post on jihadwatch, I'm just very interested in your response and I'd love an email reply if this is inappropriate. Thanks
Palamas
A song? How lovely of them. The truth must really......distrub some.
Good work Robert!
RE: local libraries- sometimes it's as easy as just talking with the librarian and asking them to buy the book. Shouldn't be hard to convince them at this point, with the NYT bestseller status.
The Lyndon LaRouche political cult. I haven't heard from them in years. They used to be big on the Rockefellars, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, central banker conspiracy kind of thing. That and the House of Windsor and the House of Lords running the world heroin trade. That and fusion energy. They used to finance themselves on nitwits credit cards so they could get public election funds.
How did he wind up in the anti-anti-jihad camp? What is he doing for money these days? Hey! You don't think he is taking money from the ... oh. Things that make you go hum ...
Palamas, I am an american catholic.. I would say a conservative american catholic... I find your comments most interesting...
The LaRouche group was also the group that tried disrupting a Democrat Presidential Primary debate in 2004, and got a dressing down from Al Franken (of all people), since they were disrupting an event sponsored by the NAACP and FNC.
But Cheney is good - it's good to have yourself united with him in song. So what were the lyrics? Something we can try humming to ourselves? Sure, if it compares you with Nazis, we can substitute words accordingly. But I do think you deserve to be sung about. And you should practice your singing too. If you're bad, we can make audio tapes of your singing and send it to al Jazeera, something like BMG or Columbia Music House.
Lyndon LaRouche? I thought he was dead already!
His band of crackpots should be too.
Gary: very amusing.
I wonder - I hope these singers had a phrase about Prophet Geoff.
Prophet Geoff, Prophet Geoff
Inshallah, he's the best
Prophet Geoff
Prophet Geoff
I had the pleasure of running into two of their followers outside of a U.S. Post Office of all things where the were handing out their booklets of insanity. They think Bush is in some kind of cabal with jews, the DNC, and others. After a heated discussion with them I concluded they were insane. I am no fan of Bush but how the hell is Bush and DNC related to each other. It must be news to Dean and Bush that their is this love affair. They really are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel so I can see how they ended up in the Islamic camp. In fact before I ran into them I thought Lyndon LaRouche had already gone into the great beyond or was still in jail. It appears I was wrong. When I said their is worst things then Bush they became enraged at my suggestion and told me that Bush had learned everything from the "Nazi Zionest Confederation". When a broke laughing at such nonsense they told me I was a "tool". Man all I wanted to do mail out a package???
Greatcomet, I know you are not a believer in the Bush-Dean-Lizardoid-Rovian-Israeli connection, and that therefore the threefold choice must be put upon you, inshallah, for your express personal benefit through conversion, oppressive taxation or decapitation, praise Allah. But I swear, give me a picture of each, an AP journalist and ten minutes with Photoshop and you will be convinced.
Of something, anyway.
Geoff
Faux Prophet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
On October 23, 2006, a group of LaRouche Youth Movement members twice disrupted a Connecticut U.S. Senate debate between Alan Schlesinger, Ned Lamont and Joseph Lieberman. According to The Day, as Joe Lieberman spoke, the hecklers "sang a harmonized ode targeting Vice President Dick Cheney, which, according to the group's website, is unofficially titled 'The Fat-Ass Nazi Song'."
Geoff hahahahahahahaha
But they called me a "tool". How the hell can I be a tool if I don't know what I am tooling for???
I am sure when Mr. Spencer was getting into the anti-Jihad thing he had to have known there would be days like this. But Lyndon LaRouche followers singing songs??? God that is a really bad day.
I watched the last 30 minutes of Robert's talk and all of the Q & A session. Robert said one thing to the effect that words have the power to cloud mens minds, well I'm here to report that the power of Robert's words unclouded a lot of minds in that room today and I hope all of you make the effort to view it in some venue soon. I plan on getting a DVD copy of it.
During the Q & A someone asked Robert's opinion about the implications of Keith Ellison's recent election to Congress, and Robert smoothly inserted CAIR and their activities into the equation.
Re: the singing. It was soft kumbaya type singing, not loud disruptive chanting and the only words I could make out through my laptop speakers were "that's like Nazi genocide", so I googled that phrase and bingo got my answer to who those folks were -
escapees from an asylum.
Anyway, what remains is the powerful truth of Robert's words.
Good Lord, you are an excellent speaker! I've heard you on HotAir, but I've never heard anyone handle live questions with such alacrity.
I particularly enjoyed your answer to a question that Islam should have no place in government. What was missing is; how do we as non-muslims from a foreign country bring that ideal to reality?
AS WE ALL KNOW ISLAM IS ABOUT HATRED OF NONMUSLIMS
BUT WHAT OH WHAT IS A TYPICAL MUSLIM IN NORTH AMERICA SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT HIS HATRED IF HE IS NOT READY TO DO JIHAD YET?
WELL HE MUST SHOW PRACTICAL HATRED OF NONMUSLIMS OF COURSE!
Here is a link from one of THEIR pages telling you about practical hatred (no Im not making this up):
http://inshallahshaheed.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/al-walaa-wal-baraa-part-2-hating-all-non-muslims-for-their-shirk/
BUT The only SURE way to reach paradise for them is jihad so its the best way to be a muslim (notice they are 'forgiven' at the first spill of blood by Allah for all their sins. So instead of believing in Chrsit to be forgiven they are believing in killing others for it.
http://inshallahshaheed.wordpress.com/tag/muhammad-s/
Here's a good link on the "LaRouchan" opinion on Spencer.
http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2006/3344gestapo_for_war.html
I attended the Spencer lecture, and I posted my account of what went down on another forum. Here it is again:
Today, I attended a lecture at the headquarters of the Heritage Foundation by Robert Spencer, author of various books on the threat of radical Islam. His lecture lasted for about 40 minutes. As I've noticed on his website, Jihad Watch, in his columns, and in a recent interview with Brian Lamb on CSPAN, Mr. Spencer is very knowledgeable on Islamic theology, history, and radical groups. I truly enjoyed his discussion. (If you want to watch it, go to The Truth About Muhammad. It is available in streaming video, streaming mp3, and downloadable mp3.)
The lecture itself went on without incident. It was during the Q&A period that things started to unravel. The first few questions were on various topics, and Spencer gave insightful answers and commentary. It was one of the last questions that exposed the "infiltrators" amongst the audience.
A young woman wearing a hat, named Megan ("from Boston"), brought up the subject of child marriage, which Spencer had mentioned when talking about the bad example Muhammad has given to his followers to this day. She asked him if "Republican Congressman Mark Foley was perhaps under the influence of the evil teachings of Muhammad." Spencer laughed at the question, and bluntly said "No." Members of the audience also laughed at her question, most likely because of its sheer absurdity. Spencer expanded on his answer, and said, "I never said that child molestation or pedophilia or anything of the kind was exclusively the province of Muslims.... I disapprove of it [this kind of conduct] from Mark Foley or anyone else" (If you want to hear this complete exhange, watch the streaming video on the link above, and using the scroll at the bottom of Windows Media Player, forward the time index to 58:01, and it follows from about 58:10 on.)
Spencer answered one more question about whether Islam could under go a reform movement like the Protestant Reformation (and made a slightly-veiled jab at Unitarian and Episcopalian "Christianity" and in the process - Spencer himself is a Catholic of the Melkite rite). After he finished his answer, the moderator for the lecture, the director of lectures and seminars for the Heritage Foundation, announced that the time for Q&A was up. As he was closing out the lecture, a young man who had has hand up for the entire latter half of the Q&A period stood up and whined loudly about how he hadn't been called on. The lecture director, in response, stated that he was welcome to talk to Spencer afterwards, and then thanked Mr. Spencer for his presentation, which started a round of applause.
Following the applause, people started to file out of the large auditorium at the Heritage Foundation. The man who had been complaining continued to shout, and as I made my way out to the lobby outside the auditorium to get my copies of Spencer's books signed, I started to hear singing. It sounded like some kind of protest song/jingle. I didn't really know what they were singing about at the time, but upon the reviewing the streaming video at the link above (starting at the 1:02:00 mark), the words were something like "Mr. Cheney, something something World War Three, one hundred thousand something die, that's like Nazi genocide." The song, of course, continued.) Between the Foley question and the jingle singers, it became pretty obvious that there were a handful of leftists that were bent on causing some kind of disruption at the lecture.
The disruption continued out in the lobby. A line formed in front of a table so Mr. Spencer could sign books. The man who hadn't been called on (and I have a feeling that lecture organizers had been warned in advance about this guy) came up to the side of the table, and started to rant about how Spencer supposedly supported the mass killing of Muslims, and how he couldn't see why so many people came out to hear him speak.
I was near the head of the line for the book signing, and in close proximity to the whiner, and I quickly got fed up with his rantings. I said to him that he basing his whole rant on a false premise, and that I was offended that he thought so poorly of the people who attended the lecture. The whiner, of course, came back with a lame retort (I can't remember the whole exchange word-for-word). Soon afterwards, Mr. Spencer signed my books. He asked him to personalize one book, and when he got to the other, I said he didn't have to personalize that one. He asked if I was sure, and I said I just didn't want to burden him and the people waiting in the line. He went ahead and personalized the second book as well. He was very friendly.
As I left the line, I noticed that the lecture director was escorting "Megan from Boston" from out of the auditorium. She left without incident. However, the young whiner continued his rant, and finally, he too was asked to leave. Some of the Heritage staff and the people who attended the event tried to get him to leave, and with some difficulty, he moved towards the hallway where the elevators were.
I wasn't paying complete attention to the whiner and his "escorts" as they moved towards the elevators, since I wanted to get some of the food and drinks that Heritage had on hand. Suddenly, I heard shouting from the hallway. I went over to see what was going on. I saw the whiner from before trying to hang on to a corner in the hallway as a Heritage staffer escorted him out. He kept on shouting that he was being hurt.
A few minutes later, the U.S. Capitol Police showed up (the Heritage Foundation is only a block and a half away from one of the Senate office buildings). They interviewed the whiner, the staffers involved, and probably some of the witnesses who saw the whole thing go down. After some time, he was finally escorted out of the building by the police.
Lyndon LaRouche is an idiot. What a tool.
Robert,
May I say it was a pleasure to meet you today and thanks for signing my book. I really like what you wrote and it reminds me why I like living in a society where there are still some chivalrous men, like you, and those other guys who got rid of the whiner today. I can fight on and on in this battle knowing people like you have got my back.
Thank you so much,
Isabella
In my younger days, I used to make the world's lightest, and strongest artificial limbs and braces for a Rothschild. Located at Mill street in Salisbury Maryland. I remember his name as being, Vernon Rothschild. He took a seven year patent, upgraded his vision, and turned it into a monopoly of prostesis, and orthotics. Let alone geriatric and pediatric dropped foot and shoe inserts, prosthetic limbs and the likes. I always wanted that patent, and went to school to be a PT. Under his discretion. I came away with a discord for his efforts, and a bad taste of tire tread, that we use for third world countries, because of all the rice fields. While I was making limbs, he was making fishing lures. He always told me that, you have to be an amputee to understand.
Do your have to be a Muslim, to understand?
Keith Ellison is on Glenn Beck, as I write.
Slick; oh, so slick.
Glad to hear Robert addressed the issue of his election, and his CAIR connections, in the HF talk. I am saddened & dismayed at Ellison's election, despite the information about him having been widely available. Where is the America of my childhood? (Rhetorical question; I know the answer oh-so-well.) Sigh...
Glen Beck is on one more time this evening, at 9PM Pacific time.
I'll watch to find out what Ellison has to say, and don't forget tomorrow night, Beck's show will be devoted the 'The Extremist Agenda: Exposed'.
Should be required T.V.
Gosh. Leftist-types disrupting events? Who could have seen this coming? Next thing you know, they'll probably be holding violent demonstrations or something!
Mr. Spencer: Great speech. Thank you very much.
Regarding the song at the end of the video, I continue to be amazed at the outright obtuseness and disingeniousness of the left. How could someone sit through that speech and then go right ahead and compare Mr. Spencer with the NAZIs. Amazing.
The link for video keeps referring to an mp3 file, that is, wvx. Does anyone know how to get the video feed? I have recent versions of both Windows Media Player and Realplayer. Thanks
P
JCS,
It wasn't a group of boy scouts disrupting the event. And the reason they didn't get to hold a violent demonstration or something is because of the conservative guys who escorted them out.
Vince,
These boneheads were looking for an event so they could sing their little song. There probably wasn't an event for the young American Capitalists going on today so they had to settle for Robert's gig.
The thing that was so disturbing about it was their absolute lack of respect and consideration for the other people in the room. They remind me of a room full of spoiled five year olds, who have no business being in an important seminar like Robert's.
Palamas: A wvx file is a text file that redirects Windows Media Player to an URL that is really the location of the media content. In this case the URL is mms://a1716.v8468b.c8468.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1716/8468/v0001/multimedia.heritage.org/windowsmedia/Allison-111406.wmv
Thanks, Allies Shall Win, for that interesting link to the fire-breathing Islamist's site. Some VERY revealing stuff there. Some experiments I recommend: try doing a google site-search on various terms and see what this fellow and his ilk have to say on various things. They don't have much of a guard up -- rather they seem to despise Muslims who pretend at being "moderate".
In fact, speaking of Ellison, that same blogger has some choice words about him, the main one being "murtad"! Ellison, a murtad? Well, it seems he has transgressed by "helping" the kufirs in their evil government. Check it out:
http://inshallahshaheed.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/congratulations-keith-ellison-you-have-become-a-murtad/
Apparently this fellow lives in the U.S. I wonder if the authorities are tracking him down? Can anyone say "incitement to murder"? (All 5 schools of jurisprudence require the murtad to be killed). How about "high treason?" (Just read a few of his other posts...)
I'd rather see this guy stay around for a while, though, to keep Ellison on his toes. He's also pretty funny, if you can appreciate this sort of thing.
Funny thing about this guy, though: although he seems hyper-orthodox when it comes to hating non-muslims and secretly plotting against the infidel nation he's living in, he's got PICTURES OF MO on his site and he LIKES MUSIC. Go figure.
Oh, yes, while you're sifting through that site, don't forget to click through to some of the fellows who comment on his articles. Many of them link to their own sites, not all of them are particularly discrete...
Mr. Spencer:
I listened to the Heritage Foundation talk earlier this evening and was a bit surprised that you seemed to be saying, in response to a question from the audience, that a society like the United States could not bar Muslim immigrants because this would (if I remember correctly) violate church-state separation. This seems wrongheaded. Immigration systems are inherently discriminatory, for example with their arbitrary quotas for different nationalities. Why should such discrimination not be directed at foreign Muslims in general, when this is the most obvious way of keeping out future terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who are not otherwise identifiable, even by their own families?
In general, the refusal to consider discriminatory immigration policies may stem from a widespread impression that the same non-discriminatory principles that apply to citizens of liberal socieites must also apply to non-citizens. But this is an incoherent position. Non-citizens must be discriminated against by the very fact that they are non-citizens, unless you wish to open U.S. citizenship to everyone in the world who wants it. A nation, whether liberal or not, is free to choose its policies towards non-citizens according to its own interests (subject to international norms such as non-aggression, etc.) Many non-Western countries, as Peter Brimelow has pointed out, adopt ethnically-based immigration policies without anyone complaining about them. An immigration policy based on religion (which is a matter of individual choice) should not even be as objectionable as one based on ethnic background (which isn't).
Another audience asked about the prospect of a second Hiroshima. The best way of minimizing this possibility, since the project of democratizing Dar-al-Islam seems to have failed, would be to put up effective barriers between the Western and Muslim worlds. Shutting down most or all Muslim immigration is obviously a key step in this separation. Allowing large numbers of Muslims into the West at this point is a deeply irrational policy. Advocating putting an end to it is a taboo that needs to be broken.
Another audience MEMBER...
Hello.
I just heard Roberst Spencer on Laura Ingraham. It was quite informative.
Snowpea:
You say: "I listened to the Heritage Foundation talk earlier this evening and was a bit surprised that you seemed to be saying, in response to a question from the audience, that a society like the United States could not bar Muslim immigrants because this would (if I remember correctly) violate church-state separation."
I didn't say that, and didn't mean to say it. I was talking about strategies to use to keep jihadists from entering the U.S., while circumventing the inevitable objection about freedom of religion that would come from the proponents of unlimited immigration.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Thanks for posting the link to the video Vince.
I had to play with it a little and this one finally worked for me:
http://a1716.v8468b.c8468.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1716/8468/v0001/multimedia.heritage.org/windowsmedia/Allison-111406.wmv
Mr Spencer:
Well, I am happy you seem more or less to be in agreement with what I just wrote about immigration, but I still have the impression, after listening again to the relevant part of the audio record (at 57 mins.), that you were talking about not violating "the principles of freedom of religion that are enshrined in the Constitution" -- not merely the immigration proponents' distorted ideas about what those principles are. Thank you for the lecture in any case.
This is Germaninamerica. I haven't been able to comment under my former name and this is my new name [see below]
I just found this little tidbit online:
6) We will have as our guest the highest Muslim elected in the US government, c, from North Carolina. Closer to home we will have our very own Teacher of the Year, Patricia El-Kassir, from Texas.
who is this Senator Larry Shaw?
Sounds like this is a danger for our political future.
the principles of freedom of religion that are enshrined in the Constitution"
The laws of the U.S. are the Constitution, And I would think to be the Bill of Rights as well. And Islam, by it's own teachings, is in conflict with these documents of this country. Islam would indeed restrict the freedom to "Life, Liberty, and the presuit of happyness, that "All men are created equal". Islam places it's followers abouve others, being more worthy of all the U.S. can offer. It is islam, or the U.S.A., and can not be both. If this view is correct, could it be the way to stem islam's crawl into the west?
I was able to download the event, and find it very interesting that a group of people would organize a disruption of your talk. Perhaps this "left" leaning group(?) may explain a great deal, as to why your book is not being reviewed in the media, amoung other issues. Why are they against a honest, open talk about islam?
A fine talk, thank you.
I think it's true that the separation of church and state will prove a strong obstacle to exclusion of Muslim immigration to the U.S. Even if non-citizens have no rights, Muslim American citizens and others could challenge the legality of excluding Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. But there might be ways of getting around the church/state separation obstacle -- for example by finding grounds (security?) to exclude a nation rather than a religion. Of course, once a terrorist group detonates an atomic weapon in a U.S. city -- and a recent Foreign Affairs piece made it sound like it wouldn't be terribly hard to do -- everything will change, and then stopping Muslim immigration would seem likely. Alternatively, if a sufficiently large number of people became educated about Islam's many totalitarian aspects...
Not clear to me that La Rouche's people are left or right. They seem just creepy. They think secret cabals and conspiracies control everything. I suppose this would make them feel justified in taking over by force, if they could manage it.
Traeh: after I wrote my first comment on this thread I was unsure if the LaRouche's were actually Leftists, as I attributed them to be. A little googling confirms that they are.
Snowpea: How about giving Mr. Spencer a break? You should be gratefull that he has a platform from which to speak and that people with the means of distrubuting his ideas find him sane and reasonable.
What he says is troubling enough for people who are unaware/ignorant/in denial about what is going on in the world, there is no advantage in dwelling on aspects of hypothetical solutions that would only serve to distract from the main point... which is to get more awareness of the current threat to as many people as possible.
People won't listen if they think he's saying to slam the border shut and dont let only of those dark people in (that's how they would perceive it)
I listened to the mp3. One of the most startling things to me was in one of Robert's answers to a question as to why so many Muslims were brought into Europe: This was part of an agreement between Europe and the Arab Oil States, made during the oil crisis in the 70s as a part of a guarantee of supply, and that the Europeans agreed that they would not try to assimilate these immigrants, but allow them to live and remain in separate enclaves.
I have heard many commentators (including Mark Steyn) say how terrible it is that France puts these African immigrants into these ghettoes and no wonder there is ill feeling etc etc. Well, Robert says that was part of the agreement. That's what the Arab states wanted.
I guess that the European people didn't get a say in this.
Be sure to let all your fan out here know (if/when you know) when the c-span reprise of your Heritage Fdn lecture is scheduled. It's amazing what one sometimes (but not often, sad to say) finds on c-span in the nature of our current civilizational war...
Snowpea:
Right. I was talking about not violating the Constitution. I didn't say that the U.S. could not stop Muslim immigrants because to do so would violate the Constitution.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
For all those with potential media problems. The video can be accessed, but just make sure that in the options menu of windows media player, you to go FILE TYPES, and then select all of the windows media files, specifically windows media video file, which includes the corresponding link up from .wvx (as such on the heritage site). This should clear things up. For some reason earlier I had my winamp mp3 player come up, as it was trying to read it probably due to the fact that these were not fully highlighted in my new windows media player (I just got version 11). Good luck and best wishes to all. Hopefully, the truth will set us free (or at least protect us).
Palamas
"I was unsure if the LaRouche's were actually Leftists, as I attributed them to be. A little googling confirms that they are."
Think of the continuum of political ideologies as a circle: there is a certain point at which the polar extremes of Left and Right meet as more or less one and indistinguishable. In the same vein, McVeigh was at that point where ultra-Left and ultra-Right meet.
Some reflections after this event:
What's the difference between Spencer and Goebbels?
With Goebbels, it was the Jews. With Spencer, it is the Muslims.
What's the similarity?
They organize brainless mobs to cheer for them, and in case there should be some opposition, they both have a private Gestapo to take care of these disturbing elements.
Frustrating the plan of God?
I must congratulate Robert Spencer for the exposition; of his highly venerated book; Truth about Muhammad, at the conservatives club known as, The Heritage Foundation.
This seems to be the fulfilment of his earnest desire to put forward his grotesque views that he feels so flamboyant about to slander the world most revered person Prophet Muhammad*,
It can be taken as a show of his personal opinion expressed at the forum. With what ever his angle of mind set or perception that claims to carry out a detailed study of word of Islam; I must appreciate and thank him for pointing out that; at least he admitted:
a. That Prophet Muhammad* spread Islam with peaceful means and did not use sword to coerced people into Islam.
b. He also admitted that It happened later on; that sword was only used by the rulers to even out the ‘Islamic laws’.
He gave a very denunciatory speech. He was obviously expressing hate; he gave out malignant; malevolent: and hateful remarks. It was a mere mix up; he was chirpy and kept on bouncing gleefully. Swinging; like a pendulum and trying to grapple at both the ends.
His this show is over; now he needs to declare and come clear on the very basics of the issue that;
a. Either Islam is religion bestowed to mankind by God Almighty and Prophet Muhammad* is the divinely prophet of Islam.
b. Or…he thinks… otherwise?
If his reply is yes to ‘a.’… above here then I am with him and also admit that some of the radicalized class of followers; on some compelling grounds or otherwise; may be interpreting some of the commandments of Koran for their own vested interests. They may be resorting to the use of Jihad to create anarchy and chaos in the name of Islam. This possibility can not be ruled out. It this case; it is more than essential that these awesome ripples must be smoothed out. But at the same time; we have to see that what are the root causes and why there is always a chaos and anarchy like the one that we experience in Iraq and Afghanistan; or where ever there are US forces in operation; or in occupation?
In view of above and also in the light of his claim of studies of Islamic world; terms of fairness of the business from an intellectual of his stature demands; that his book name should have been; ‘Truth about Jihad.’ and not the ‘Truth about Muhammad?’
Any how; in his deliberations at The Heritage Foundation; he was quit adamant to malign the Holy Prophet which is on the record and did not show any remorse or signs of compromise or reconciliations.
He is playing a game of false hood and mere following; a conjecture. Misleading others and pitching the different societies against each.
Who has ever been able to frustrate the plan of God? Robert Spencer and his websites—NAY.
Love for all, Hatred for none
Here you go, A Khokar. Wrap your mind around this.
Press Release
Non-Muslims Need To Unite Against Islam
August 10, 2005
Robert Spencer, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)," Regnery Publishing, 2005, calls for non-Muslim individuals and nations to unite against Islam and terrorism.
"This is something that people in the western world just can't get their minds around. And can't accept. They cannot believe that there could possibly be a religion that doesn't teach, 'the Fatherhood of God, and the Brotherhood of Man.' But the fact is that it's not just a matter of cherry picking a few verses here and there. It is a strain that runs all the way through Quran, the holy book of Islam; the Hadith, the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed that are second only to the Quran in authority for Muslims; and Islamic law and jurisprudence, as well as Islamic history," said Spencer.
"As a matter of fact, in the book, I call for a crusade. Not a crusade in the old fashioned way, of the church calling it, and it being undertaken by knights. But a crusade in the sense that we are not going to apologize anymore for our own heritage and history. We are going to take pride in our heritage and history that has given the world the greatest civilization that the world has ever known. We need to unite: believers, unbelievers, Christians, Jews, atheist, Buddhists, Hindus. Unite together. Without denying our differences or glossing over them, but, nonetheless, understanding that this is something that threatens us all. And that we need to defend ourselves against it. And, unashamedly, call that a crusade, because we are not ashamed of our Fathers, and who we have been," he concluded.
Spencer was interviewed on the RIGHT HOUR, an Internet based radio program, hosted by the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation Paul M. Weyrich. In addition to being the director of Jihad Watch, a Website and e-mail service that monitors the activities of Islamists, Spencer is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. The program was carried live on the Rightalk.com network and is available to listeners worldwide, who have up-to-date computers.
Further, he pointed out that Islam is not a religion of peace in spite of what is said in its regard. "This is a phenomenon that the mainstream media has been unable to or unwilling to note. But the fact is that, story after story, again and again, when we see stories of the London suicide bombers, when we see stories of the 9/11 hijackers, and of Islamic terrorists the world over, there is one recurring element in all of the stories. And one only. And that is that, in every case, they are Muslims, who, at a certain point in their lives, became more religious. And began to get serious about their Faith. And when they began to get serious about their Faith, they turned to terrorism."
Spencer further noted, "The Quran says in chapter 9, verse 29 that Muslims must make war against even, 'the people of the book,' which is the Quranic term for Jews and Christians. And all the schools of Islamic law all say the same thing, that it is part of the responsibility of Muslims to wage war against Jews and Christians and other groups until they either become Muslims or pay the non-Muslim pole tax that is specified in Islamic law. This is, as I said before, mainstream Islam. And it has never been renounced or rejected by any Islamic sect. They have always been set against Christianity and have always acted violently against Christianity, except when it was not within their physical power to do so.
"…the Jihad terrorists around the world have many times explained that they do not consider civilians in America, in Britain, in Israel or elsewhere as being innocent. And, as a matter of fact, one London Islamic authority recently said, there is no category of 'civilian' in Islamic law, which is true. And so, for them to condemn attacks on innocent civilians is just, 'window dressing for westerners.' It really does nothing whatsoever to deter Islamic terrorists from continuing to do violence in the name of Islam," he explained.