Spencer: Funny-looking, and therefore wrong
Jihad Watch reader Eric has alerted me to a review of the documentary film Islam: What the West Needs to Know, in which I appear. It's a silly, largely substanceless and poorly reasoned review by Ian Arbuckle on a silly-looking site called Cinematic Happenings Under Development, mostly on the pie-throwing level of the caption above that he placed underneath a photo of me, but it does provide an opportunity to clarify some things.
Interviews with noted anti-Islam folks such as Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic, along with scholars of Islam like Bat Ye'or, Abdullah al-Araby, and former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat.
"Anti-Islam folks" like me. Now, this is simply false. I am not "anti-Islam." I am against supremacism and subjugation, I am against the denial of human rights to women and religious minorities. As I say here, any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources I quote, not from me....It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology....Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."
In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I make no apologies: it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.
Over the course of six segments, the filmmakers work to convince you that Muslims are bad and the West is foolish to suppose that those Muslims who are not terrorists are members of a religion of peace.
This is a misstatement of the documentary's intent. The film does not state or imply or try to convince anyone that "Muslims are bad." It is an investigation of Islamic theology, which (as you will see) even this reviewer acknowledges to be accurate. But the content of Islamic theology doesn't say anything whatsoever about any individual Muslim, any more than the Catholic Church's prohibition of contraception means that all Catholics oppose contraception. The teachings of a religion are one thing and the thoughts of the people who identify themselves as adherents of that religion are quite another. The documentary does not confuse the two.
I'm not even sure why this movie exists. It has to be a propaganda piece. Why else would people sacrifice time and effort to produce a documentary with such an intellectually corrupt thesis? The terrorists have scriptural backing for their actions, goes the argument. Those millions of Muslims who are not terrorists are members of the same violent religion.That's the whole thesis. It's not even a proper argument. It just gives you those two facts and winks and gestures at them a bit going, "Eh? Eh? See?"
"I do not see."
Leave aside for a moment that the thing looks to have been constructed on iMovie, or maybe PowerPoint, with static images and dreadful voiceovers intercut with black-background interviews with its subjects. The argument they're trying to make isn't even necessary. The West already knows that the Islamic terrorist organizations use scripture to justify their actions. This is not news. Yet the film spends almost an hour minutely detailing how Qu'ranic scripture supports terrorist actions.
Actually, the West does not know that the Islamic terrorist organizations use scripture to justify their actions. On the contrary, the mainstream media and even the allegedly fearless politically incorrect conservative talking heads and publications frequently hasten to assure us that the Islamic terrorist organizations do not have Islamic scripture on their side, and are hijacking a religion that teaches peace. The fact that the Islamic terrorist organizations use Islamic scripture to justify their actions is the inconvenient truth that virtually no one dares to acknowledge, despite the fact that acknowledging it is the only genuine path to Islamic reform and true Islamic moderation: you cannot reform what you won't admit needs reform.
The cognitive stretch that the filmmakers are hoping the audience will make is absurd. They want the audience to equate Muslim terrorists with practitioners of Islam the world over. The stance is morally repugnant. How does it even follow logically that we shold approach all of Islam as if it were a giant, violent hive of men and women eager to convert the unbeliever through any means necessary? There's is a weight of evidence to the contrary, millions of humans deep.
Here the cognitive stretch that Ian Arbuckle is hoping his readers will make is absurd. He wants his readers to believe that the documentary equates Muslim terrorists with practitioners of Islam the world over, when it doesn't do any such thing. He also demonstrates that he hasn't even grasped what the documentary says about Islamic teachings when he suggests that it intends to compel us to "approach all of Islam as if it were a giant, violent hive of men and women eager to convert the unbeliever through any means necessary." There is no imperative within Islam to convert the unbeliever through any means necessary, and the film doesn't say there is.
In reality, within Islamic teaching there is an imperative to offer conversion to the unbeliever or to subjugate him as an inferior under the rule of Islamic law -- an inferior, but free within limits to practice his religion. This is made clear in the documentary. Does this mean that every Muslim is intent on implementing this imperative? Of course not, any more than every Catholic is intent on eschewing contraception. But Catholics' rejecting that teaching does not mean it is not Church teaching, and Muslims doing nothing about jihad and Islamic supremacism does not mean that those things don't exist. In reality, peaceful Muslims must confront and reject these aspects of Islam in order to stop their use by jihadist recruiters; this cannot and will not be done if they continue to ignore these teachings or deny they exist.
For most of the film, I thought that the fearmongering was an end to itself, that the filmmakers just wanted to play at having revelations. It gets worse than that, though. The nadir of this mess is when the term jihad, meaning struggle, is equated with Mein Kampf, which also translates to "my struggle." Yes, that's right, the filmmakers have invoked Hitler, and as a result the holocaust, in their little project.
Shoebat does this in the film. His point is that simply to point out that jihad means "struggle" does not render it innocuous. It is a point confirmed by every day's headlines.
This shit makes me angry. I'm a passive kind of guy, but the dissemination of idiocy boils my blood. It's not that the factual and textual references are incorrect. On the contrary, the readings from the Qur'an and attendant texts seem to be accurate and well-researched. It's the context they're placed in that makes the film so worthless as an academic piece, or successful as a propaganda piece. (Although Leni Riefenstahl the filmmakers ain't.) Instead of using the thesis: "Terrorists have textual support for their actions. Isn't that interesting?" the filmmakers have extended it to the ill-connected mess of theses that they hope will breed together just by being placed in proximity.
"They're right, but wrong." Arbuckle seems to be saying that even though what the film says is correct, it is just too fearful a prospect to contemplate, and therefore must be rejected.
The West doesn't need to know any of this. The West already knows that religion can be used as justification for the most inhumane acts on the planet. But to devote an entire documentary to casting Islam as a ticking time bomb of violence and hysteria? The West needs only to ignore that kind of shrill, illegitimate work.
Really? Then what will keep Islam from being used as justification for the most inhumane acts on the planet? If we just ignore it, it will go away?
I may be funny looking, but at least I am not as befuddled, confused, and willfully ignorant as Ian Arbuckle.
ADDENDUM: It is worth emphasizing that I post such things in order to use them as an opportunity to clarify matters and respond to common objections to points that I raise. I may have clouded the issue here by mentioning Ian Arbuckle's snarkiness regarding my picture, but in reality this is not personal at all. This is about issues that Arbuckle raises, which are unexamined assumptions that many people have. His review just provided an opportunity to discuss them and offer some responses that you may find useful in other contexts.
Here we go again. It's gonna take millions of dead innocents ( ala WWII) and hindsight to once again show the world they are and were wrong , this time about about Islam. they will have to live with the fact that their apathy and denial made things worse for all . the fear to face the truth makes me sick.
was there a picture of ian arbuckle?
Dean Esmay clone?
For the life of me I don't understand the resistance to self preservation.
Ian states:
And Ian provides exactly no evidence for the imaginary 'context' he finds acceptable. Let me try to provide a few . . .
* historic context of women as breeding chattel.
* historic context of cutting off the opposing hand and foot of an offender.
* historic context of murdering those that would commit the capital offense of apostacy.
* historic context of "dar ul-islam" and "dar ul-harb".
* historic context of the jihad conquest of Moorish Spain, or better yet . . .Pakistan, Bangladesh, and soon to be Kosovo.
Pure hysteria - simply peaceful RoP . . .eh, Arbuckle?
Arbuckle know's little or nothing. He ignore's the fact that the people involved in the film, KNOW what they are talking about.
Also he ignore's the jihadi prone cleric's who spout threat's against the west daily. If you want to know where the viciousness lay's, listen to them.
People like Arbuckle are blind in one eye and cant see out of the other one.
Your review of his review, is better than his review. What's wrong with the picture?
He only put that caption there to announce his intention of derailing you, and the film. He did not do a good job of it, but it doe's give us a picture of his mentality...
I wonder if he is any relation to 'Fatty Arbuckle', the silent movie star.
The fact that Fartbuckle had to make fun of Spencer's (Peace Be Upon Him) appearance tells me everything I need to know about Iam Fartbuckle.
One the one hand we have the MSM that is oblivious to the Jihadi foundation of Islam
On the other hand, we have idiots like Iam Fartbuckle who say: Jihadi ideology permeates Islam, but SO WHAT?
So what?
Arbuckle wrote: "The West already knows that religion can be used as justification for the most inhumane acts on the planet."
This phrase tells me everything I need to know about where he is coming from. He was raised, no steeped, in a culture of moral relativism and her twin, moral equivalency. He does not say Islam can be used but the moral equivalent "religion" with the subtext being that Byzantine Catholics, Hassidic Jews and Amish are all purveyors of terror. I bet he would stoutly deny that those people murdered under atheistic communism or National Socialism count at all.
QUOTE:
""Anti-Islam folks" like me. Now, this is simply false. I am not "anti-Islam." I am against supremacism and subjugation, I am against the denial of human rights to women and religious minorities. As I say here, any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts."
Well I AM "anti-Islam" for the very nature of Islam is supremiscist and preaches subjugation. I've read the Quran and excerpts from the Hadith. If you are to believe the text of the very foundation of Islam, i.e. Islamic writings, then you have to be "anti-Islam". The very term itself means "submission". In the Hadith, it refers to its followers as "slaves".
Perhaps this is an attempt to "divide & conquer", but such approach won't work. It hasn't work.
Islam by its VERY NATURE and to its core is evil.
Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude does so contrary to Islamic writings, i.e. the Quran & Hadith, and is not a "good Muslim". They are in fact apostates of the sword weilding prophet Mohammad and take a position contrary to the vile & violent Quran/Hadith writings.
The BIG LIE is that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" for it is not.
The "ticking bomb" of jihadists Islam tends to go off daily, in case Ian A. hadn't noticed the news lately.
"The West Doesn't Need to Know" is apparently the documentary he want to make.
As if that isn't already the majority of the news we get through dhimmified sources and delusional politicians constantly about Islam, "the relgion of peace".
Time to crack the history books, Ian.
Start with the Khaybar Oasis.
You can stop at Theo Van Gogh.
Barf bag optional.
Professor Spencer!
As I have said here before what you are doing has a very heroic aspect to it. You are helping to spearhead the anti-Islamic thought in Western civilization, the existence of which intellectual forces are a prerequisite to educating the masses. We will beat Islam, but hopefully before any continental conflagration is necessary.
All detractions from your efforts are signs pointing to your and Western Civilizations ultimate victory. In a certain respect Muslims are dumb as door nails, if they believe that the West will roll over at some point. They will be annihilated first. Read history, inasmuch as Muslims are now trying to repeat it!
'Does this mean that every Muslim is intent on implementing this imperative? Of course not, any more than every Catholic is intent on eschewing contraception.'
The difference here is that contraception is a thing that the Pope came up with, it isn't in the Bible. Christ never mentioned contraception. Preventing the egg and sperm from ever uniting is far superior to killing them afterwards! I don't know what the Pope(s) are thinking on this, but a guess would be that premarital sex is wrong could be one thought. Muslims haven't even approached the subject of contraception, they have yet to deal with vaccinations to prevent polio! They have approached premarital sex though. If they don't get one of those types of marriages that last for a day or two - then the woman, if caught, will be put to death. Even so, this doesn't talk about jihad - just some islamic vs Catholic idea of sex and conception.
The Pope and the mullahs/clerics probably could be considered the same in that they tell their followers what is to be and not to be sanctioned by their religion. The terrorists are justifying their actions or jihad, not only from their mullahs/clerics, but also from their koran and hadiths. That is one major difference between comparing the Catholic idea of contraception to jihad.
What we have are masses of 'moderate' muslims who don't do anything about the radicals killing because yes, they could be ignorant of their own religion, but many others are not and know that they are to support jihad even if they do not fight. Which is which - how do we tell the difference between these muslims? The ignorant ones vs the ones who deceive us and support the jihadists 'under the covers'? Accepting any part of that religion is dangerous from my viewpoint. I am aware of individuals that try to change things, but I am also aware of the downside which means a fatwa against those types, unless they are practicing deception. So, I would say that self preservation says to not trust any of them until they start stopping their own radicals. And that means doing something about the mullahs, Saudi Arabia, and all the other little organizations such as hamas, hezbollah, etc. They have to do something to stop all of them.
I have the DVD that this article mentions. Of course the muslims will be offended - anything that tells the truth about their islam offends them.
I know that Mr. Spencer has to tow a fine line and cannot alienate people anymore than they would get alienated just by pointing out the problems in islam. And dealing with people who
insult others because they have nothing else to argue. Look at some from the left wing - the name calling of nazi, facist, hitler, etc when anyone disagrees with them on many blogs. And calling Mr. Spencer funny looking is just that type of argument, or calling Jews pigs and the West, Satan. Nothing else comes from all of this except base human instincts to hate just because of a debasing of the one who disagrees with them.
Compare this DVD to the videos of the jihadists of their ghastly deeds such as a beheading. They dance and ulalate over those poor quality videos while nitpick over a technique on this DVD.
By the way, I think everyone should view the DVD. I have passed it on to members of my family for now and will pass it on to others to view when they are finished. We probably should ask all these 'moderates', why do you follow a prophet that fought in over 35 of the 78 battles waged against non-muslims, and who taught rape, torture, death, theft, slavery, kidnapping, etc?
Muslims won't do anything to stop their ways. Look at what happened to the promise to stop slavery. It is still going on. They tell us one thing and do another. Why should they change? Infidels have no rights - how dare they even suggest that they change their prophet did it and they are only following their prophet. In fact, infidels should not say anything bad about their ways because infidels are going to hades anyway. They bring their polygamy, prearranged marriages, child marriages, sharia law, etc to our country and practice it anyway and some idiots who run our cities let it all happen. They feel superior to our laws, and only use our laws when it is convenient for them. And they are following their koran and hadiths.
Elias:
See the addendum to the original post. Who cares about Chud.com? No one. But the views Ian Arbuckle expresses are common, and warrant refutation.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
This is the moron who wrote the review, complete with mug shot :
http://www.sewerchewer.com/component/option,com_comprofiler/task,userProfile/user,103/Itemid,39/
He apparently has literary leanings and likes to think he is an author. This is a how he is described :
Dead Generation and Others is a collection of stories by Saltboy founder Ian Donnell Arbuckle. Roughly half of the stories have been previously published in such fine journals as Bewildering Stories, Full-Unit Hookup, Speculative.ca, Kenoma, Lost in the Dark, Wanderings, and The Drabbler. Ian has haad an illustrious career writing fiction such as this sentence. He started out as a child, narrating tales of vicious bears that tip over family vans when he was three. There is taped proof of this. The same year, he volunteered to play the bear at his church's nativity, possibly becoming Jesus' first and only ursine witness.
Since then, Ian has removed his bear suit except for at parties and writes about vicious ghosts, zombies, dogs, gods, astronomical phenomena, fates, and parents, and just now realizes that he hasn't written about the family van in quite some time.
The collected stories are written to entertain, and have done so a few times. There is no ulterior motive, except for greed of recognition, so they are provided free-of-charge in PDF. You can also buy a printed copy in pocket paperback format, which is pretty and suitable for leaving on park benches, for the simple cost of printing.
http://www.saltboy.com/dg.php
Funny how Arbuckle is so willing to get critical and furious with the actions of the film makers message.
Cognitive dissonance I suspect. Common malady among those who have no concept of what evil is.
Most of us get critical and furious with the actions of Islamic terrorists.
This little boy is just another ignorant critic with his head either in the sand or sitting on his back.
He'll make for a nice dhimmi pet.
Re: above links. It's quite obvious Ian Arbuckle is from La La Land.
"I do not see."
Like the song says, there is none so blind as he who will not see.
Islam is, in its very essence, a criminal organization.
Arab imperialism which glorifies conquest of infidel lands, robbery, enslavement, blackmail and sujugation is exactly what makes Islam undeniably criminal. Especially the idea that 'Allah made booty lawful'- and that rape of infidel women is just and good since they're 'war-booty'- makes Islam undeniably a criminal cult.
Are we anti-Islam? Of course we are. We cannot coexist. To deny it is mere wordplay.
A while ago on Andrew Bolts blog somebody wrote something similar and also called Islam a 'criminal organization'- Bolt called him 'an idiot'- but the poster was right.
Mr. Spencer's disclaimer above is wordplay, I can't see it any other way. The Muhammedans certainly see it my way because 'resisting Islam' is a heinous crime and since the Koran is the 'immutable word of Allah' the Muslim is our mortal enemy.
Sorry, but I have no illusions. There cannot and will not be 'reform' or a major overhaul of this mad cult, the only choice we have is to dig our heels in, to oppose and ridicule it and finally destroy it before it destroys us.
I just made my opinion of Ian Arbuckle's "review" known to the people at the link provided by Mr. Spencer in their "Feedback" found at the bottom of their page. I urge everyone to do the same.
You know this guy Arbuckle is an uninformed Dhimmi nitwit when he's incredulous that the film compares Islam "jihad" to "Mein Kampf." Poor misguided PC moron.
Ian Arbuckle: "I'm not even sure why this movie exists."
This self-admitted clueless man Arbuckle epitomizes the term "willfull ignorance."
He is presented with facts about Islam and resurgent Islamic jihad in a no frills documentary and complains that the authors do not provide entertaining visuals and choose to let the facts speak for themselves rather than making some kind of condensed, puerile argument for him to frontally attack. Reflexively, he finds this sober, exploratory approach "propagandistic," and evidence of nefarious intent.
Instead of being stimulated by the presented evidence to research deeper, on a subject of obvious importance to the nation and to the world, he lapses into rage: "This shit makes me angry." Instead of thoughtfully considering the implied challenge that perhaps not all religions are morally equivalent, he spouts his own propagandistic and shallow dogma: "The West already knows that religion can be used as justification for the most inhumane acts on the planet."
His arrogant arguments, in effect are "How dare you confuse me with the facts!" and, "How dare you waste my precious time with comparative religious lunacy--all religions are disgusting!" and "How dare you interrupt the splendor of my normal ignorant passivity!"
As Arbuckle himself said:
"I do not see."
Of course, as the saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.
It wasn't a review - it was a hit piece.
But then again what did anyone expect from a uber liberal secularist type that eqivocates all religion past and present with terrorism.
But its more than that as well. See if Mr.Spencer did a video bashing modern Christianity which is a favorite topic among the liberal left, Arbuckle would have written a glowing review.
The sad fact is liberals in this country and the west in general see themselves as natural allies of Islam. You can see this with the PBS piece on Radical Islam where they deliberately censored the piece on moderate Muslims and tried to fire the conservative who produced the piece.
islam means surrender and Mein Kampf means my surrender.
hhhmmm, and I bet Ian didn't read either. (I will admit I didn't read mein kampf, but have read some articles on the comparison of them.
And we all know that Hitler was in cahoots with the Arabs, and there were Arab troops fighting for Hitler. There are websites out there that show the ties between Hitler and his nazis with the muslims.
Arbuckle is a 24-year-old little boy who thinks he's Jack Kerouac. He's a know-nothing pseudo-intellectual who pats himself on the back for being a PC Conformist. It's funny how you see by his bio that he aspires to be a "rugged individualist" but is in reality a PC Conformist running with the pack, afraid to dissent.
It's your opinion of the film that is of "no worth," you little misguided moron, not the film.
Ian sounds like an utter twerp who spent half his life with a KICK ME sign on his back.
Yeah, shiek, I hate Islam, too. For so MANY reasons!
It can't be "reformed" because since the Koran is the literal, immutable, and unchanging Word of God, then it would no longer be Islam (say the Muslims). OK. Well, then, the whole insane kit and kaboodle must go. All of a piece. Good Riddance!
Islam is about supremacy and subjugation (Q2:190-193, 8:39, 9:5,33). It is about denial of human rights of religious minorities (9:111), unless you consider dhimmi status to be human rights. It is about denigration of women (4:3,11-12,34,176).
You may not be 'anti-Islam'. You may be against supremacy and subjugation of Infidels, and against denigration of women. I honestly am at a loss to see how you or anyone else can simultaneously be both.
It's like claiming 'I'm not anti-Nazi, but I oppose the holocaust' or 'I'm not anti-Communist, but I oppose the gulag and the purges'. Anybody who supports equality before the law in an Islamic setting is in fact anti-Islam.
Without necessarily knowing it!
Robert said
Suppose, just hypothetically of course, that the correspondent was correct, that Islam requires the man to be superior to woman in legal testimony, employment, etc. Suppose Islam really did make a distinction between Believers and non-Believers, and suppose that Islam does allow (and even encourage) violence against non-Believers. Would you describe yourself as "anti-Islam" in that hypothetical case?
Because, I have to say, based on my (admittedly non-scholarly) reading of the Qur'an and ahadith, that I believe the correspondent is correct. I think the hoped-for changes to Islam would fundamentally alter it in a way that renders it no longer Islam. That is, I share those hopes, but I am willing to admit that what I'm hoping for would necessarily mean the end of Islam as it has existed since its inception.
C.H.U.D Cannibalistic - Humanoid - Underground - Dwellers . That is where Chud.com got it's name. I find it fitting that we are literally dealing with bottom feeders who want to tear us limb from limb and drink our blood for their God.
Also the opinion of a reviewer at a site that takes it's name from one of the WORST movies ever is also fitting.
These peple are uneducated , Ignorant and grosly uninformed. maybe if they would stop watching so much crap and open their eyes they might learn something.
Robert--
You probably haven't had time or opportunity to notice the "lolcats" Internet phenomenon.
But in light of that, one might replace their unfunny caption with: "I'm in ur Islamic textz, watchin' ur jihadz."
""Anti-Islam folks" like me. Now, this is simply false. I am not "anti-Islam." I am against supremacism and subjugation, I am against the denial of human rights to women and religious minorities"
Correct! We are freedom fighters that are defending women's rights, defending freedom of thought, defending freedom of religion, defending logical and scientific inquiry and defending the democratic and western style secular government of our founding fathers and of the enlightenment thinkers!
We defend these ideals of the west from a 7th century style of government and way of thinking where women are abused, where freedom of religion is a joke, where blind obedience is approved and discorse is subdued, and where the tyranny of a religious elite rule the lives under their care with an iron fist and where the collective is more important then individual freedom.
If that makes me anti-Islamic well who is to blame? Who needs to reform? Who needs to change?
Arbuckle's a funny name innit?
"They want the audience to equate Muslim terrorists with practitioners of Islam the world over. The stance is morally repugnant. How does it even follow logically that we shold approach all of Islam as if it were a giant, violent hive of men and women eager to convert the unbeliever through any means necessary?"
And that's the crux, isn't it? People should realize that this is a continuation of the struggle with Nazism. Why do you think Mein Kamf was the second best selling book in Turkey recently? What's really morally repugnant is not to take that stance. Ignorance and irreverence will not save you from the scorn and contempt of Islam. Islam didn't just become a problem, it has always been a problem.
I have a hunch that "Cinematic Happenings Under Development" may be owned by US-based jihadists with lots of mula to open disingenuous webpages.
Seriously, one of the worldwide network of Islamists' goals is to conquer the United States by the year 2020 and one of the 20 primary means of accomplishing this is to get heavily-monied Muslims to take over Hollywood and the US media conglomerates by purchasing stocks and controlling stocks in the US communications industry. I am already suspisious of this site.
Thus, the pie-throwing mentality evinced by 'reviewers' at Cinematic Happenings Under Development may indicate that this site is really jihadist happenings "under development". The reviewers are going to deny this--but do THEY know who is at the top of the money trail on the internet? And would they tell us the truth if they did?
Robert, please throw a few pies at these so-called reviewers for me please! I'll even reimburse you for the coconut cream ones (they splatter best).
It is a good idea these days not to trust ANYONE these days. Certainly not in cyberspace which has already been proven to be a jihad battlefield.
How do we avoid linking, if not equating, Muslim terrorists with practitioners of Islam the world over? The "silent majority", as Brigitte Gabriel calls them, are the ones who in many ways make the violence possible. They say the same prayers. They go to the same mosques. They hear the same imams. They read the same holy book. Most, if not all, know who the radicals are because they are their parents, children or siblings. The "silent majority" support the Muslim charities and they know who is involved in terrorist planning but they stay silent. Silence is one form of approval. They will live with the benefits of a Muslim victory over the West. They will gladly accept the jizya and live off the fruits of non-Muslim labor. Peace exists between Muslims, not between Muslims and others.
Israel is being raked over the coals because it won't accept a ten year ceasefire offer from Hamas. Peace is not on the Islamic menu.
Just read the English converts comments. His sickening sneering attitude about anyone CHOSING to be a dhimmi exposes the real thoughts of muslims toward others/non-muslims. A convert no-less. I wonder if he consideres himself a moderate?
Ban muslim immigration before the future of the west is destroyed. And we may need to exile converts.
greatcometof1577:
Core Islamic doctrines in the Kuran include violence and are believed to be the word of al-lah-- and, as such these teachings are non-negotiable and MAY NOT be changed.
Islam can only be eliminated if Muslims are to be pacified.
Since violence against "unbelievers" is built into Islamic doctrines, it is not possible to legitimize Islam WITHOUT also legitimizing the violence Islam contains as the two are inseparable.
As Islam contains violence at its core doctrines, violence aimed directly at non-Muslims why should anyone apologize for being anti-Islam (I don't)???
And why on earth should anyone confer the mantle of legitmacy on Islam (which includes unlimited violence against the 'unbelievers'). (Again, I don't). Why would anyone do that? especially as Muslims have absolutely NO proof confirming ANY Islamic teachings.
And why apologize to people who legitimize violence rooted in Islamic ideology which is built into Islam? (I'll bet these same folks blindly legitimizing Islam are unaware that the Kuran refers to THEM as the "descendants of apes and pigs--imagine their reactions when they find THAT out!).
pmk, thanks - good post!
That 10 year peace with Hamas - is just as their prophet told them to do. But, they cannot go longer than 10 years and it can be broken at any time by the muslims (according to the big MO) and while they are in a peace the big Mo tells them to regroup and rearm - I suppose so they can break the peace even sooner and start their murdering rampage up again.
This young man was born in 1983
Date of Birth: 05/02/1983
Good Lord, I have shoes older than that.
Where are this guy's arguements? I can't find a single one worth retorting against. It reads like the guy is a complete amateur movie-critic. It's a very informative and eye-opening documentary, and the guy gives it a 0/10? Not even 1/10?? - That sounds awfully fishy to me. As if the review is written out of purposeful intent to attack the movie and the topics it raises and discusses. It just sounds awfully fishy.
PS: Don't worry Robert. I thought the movie rocked :)
I actually think that this critic probably had a well-established PC/Dhimmi/Ignorant mindset about Islam, and that this movie attacked his fundamental beliefs about Islam 'so' much, that he couldn't take it, it 'had' to be wrong, because it was 'so' different from what he believed. He probably even has a load of Muslim friends. This wasn't just an eye-opener, this was 'too much' of an eye-opener, such that the light was blinding him to the point where he went into denial and simply gave it a 0/10 out of sheer anger. Yeah, that sounds more like what happened here.
It seems to me the distinction between "convert the unbeliever through any means necessary" and "offer the unbeliever conversion, dhimmitude, or death" is, in the long run, no distinction at all. With respect to its subject populations, Islam is prone to periods, offical and unofficial, of purging them. Even if the threat of "convert by any means necessary" doesn't befall you, it will almost certainly befall your descendants. That's assuming you're given the option of dhimmitude. Muslims have historically taken millions of people as slaves, and as I understand it slaves are given only one choice: conversion or death.
R_not,
Don't they say war is deceit? What is more deceitful than offering your adversary an agreement that you yourself have no intention of abiding by?
He is stuck with what he signed, but you are not obligated to observe it fully and instead can break it at a time and place of your own choosing.
pythagoras
I agree...
Who the hell amongst us wants to be anti-women or anti-secular or anti-science or anti-free thought or anti-freedom of religion?
If somebody ignores those aspects about Islam what does that make them?
I say an enabler of Islamic tyranny....
If those amongst us don't ignore it but instead speak out about it does it make us Anti-Islamic?
So be it! I prefer that to being an enabler of Islamic tyranny.
So Ian is 24 year's old. I dont hold that against him, I wish I was 24...again. What he us lacking is knowledge, understanding, and experience. These three, in a powerful balance, create wisdom.
You can see where he has little or none of these three, and it show's in his review/hit piece.
He was not wise to choose to review a film that he doe's not understand. He was not wise to display his utter lack of knowledge of the subject. He was not wise to display his lack of experience, by comming off as a bumbling idiot. He was not wise to try and pick a fight with Robert, who obviously outclasses him. Ian has no wisdom...that's ok give him about sity year's and he may develope some...
R. Spencer is funny looking? Gimme a break. Just compare Spencer's pic with:
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Mullah Omar
Muqtada al-Sadr
Yasser Arafat
Ayatollah Khamenei
(any number of Islamic personalities)
Robert Spencer is the epitome of a dapper, well dressed, intellectual, gentleman. (Has anyone ever seen him without a suit and tie?)
Any of us would be lucky to be so "funny-looking".
But the tie is funny-looking. Admit it.
No, it's just the wrinkle beneath the knot ;-)
This tie isn't too bad, but I have thought that some of the others must have had some sentimental significance; that was the only possible explanation.
Don't look now, but the jihadist movement could be behind this website "Cinematic Happenings Under Development". Islam has already officially targeted the US communications industry (including Hollywood) as a source to brainwash the American people in its jihad drive to conquer the United States.
Don't count the possibility out.