Greg here. For those of you following the wider release of our DVD, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, you may be interested in this pair of videos featuring yours truly and my unindicted co-conspirator, Bryan Daly. It's tough to undo years of misinformation on Islam in ninety seconds, but, in the spirit of our intrepid captain, RS, we gave it a shot.
Bryan on Tucker Carlson
Greg on Fox News
lol...wow, Greg, didn't know that was you.
Glad to know we have a stellar heavyweight in our corner.
Nice job, too!
Keep it up.
Greg, I absolutely support you, but unfortunately it's simply impossible to get a proper debate on TV these days, even perhaps on a news station such as Fox News Channel which may be sympathetic to the anti-jihad cause. Six minutes does not do the film nor the scale of this debate justice. You and Robert are doing a fantastic service, but sadly, a few appearances here and there for a few minutes is not going to change many minds, especially when people like Imami Shamshi Ali can simply say "oh, it's out of context" and leave it at that. The scales are surely tipped heavily against us.
Kudos to Tucker Carlson for giving significant TV time to a subject that doesn't fit into TV time. At least it was possible to outline the major themes. And good job, Bryan.
Good job Greg. You shook the imam. They didn't think we'd do our homework.
So if we pretend Islam is something it's never been, and isn't heading towards, that will improve the situation? That's the plan apparently.
Greg
I agree with Jonas. Imam Shamsi's claim that daily Islamic practices like Salat and Zakat are Shariah was a major whopper, and FNC would do well to end those 5 minute debates between people since it's unlikely to be conclusive. For promotions like this, you would have done well to do what Bryan did, and make solo appearances.
The point that both of you made very well - that Islam is a political ideology in addition to a religion (something inadvertently admitted to by Hooper) is one that ought to be the central point in any promotions that you make of this video. It neatly sidesteps tu quoque arguments about the Crusades and McVeigh, and instead focuses on an aspect of Islam that isn't there in any religion.
This is fantastic. Both Bryan Daly and Greg Davis were superb. The fact that your point of view is being aired on major networks is a huge breakthrough. Both of you are courageous to publicly take on a challenge to a violent, worldwide totalitarian movement.
Excellent work, Greg and Byran!
Infidel, I wonder if short, snappy debates, with each side's time controlled by the host, are best for us: have you noticed that pro-islam debaters, when given the chance, deliberately waste time by blathering on in meaningless language, getting angry, going off on endless tangents, playing the race card, trying to befuddle the listeners and refusing to give a straight answer to questions like 'is it true that adulterers are stoned to death under sharia?'. Though they generally end up looking stupid, vicious and dishonest, they also achieve their main goal: taking up more time and confusing the listener.
A cool, calm and clear person on our side, such as Bryan, Greg and Ayaan looks and sounds sensible and can get their point across in a few words.
I think that Bryan and Greg did really brilliantly and will be waking a lot of people up by stating and backing up the one basic point: Islam is more an expansionist and oppressive political system than a religion.
Greg and Bryan both made the statement that Islam commands followers to spread the religion across the globe by warfare or force. They did not mention the other legitimate means by which Muslims carry out this work: conversion and subjugation. All three are sanctified and encouraged.
Regarding the suggestion that Islam is more a political ideology than a personal religion, it would be more accurate to portray Islam as an all-encompassing "program for life" that includes politics, religious practice, all "secular" matters, relations between the sexes, science, cooking, you name it. Everything conceivable (to Muslims) about human existence, as well as existential precepts, is embodied in Islam.
This needs to be fully understood by the West yet is not often enough plainly stated. I don't think many Muslims would argue with this practical definition of Islam.
Have only watched Bryan's stint so far. Good Job, and kudos to T.C. for having him on and giving him space to finish a few sentences (something Robert is rarely accorded in any TV appearance).
For those of you new to MSNBC, the clips run one after another to the end of time, so you can watch more of that same T.C. show if you want to laugh a little. Tucker and Willy have some entertaining banter and the bit about the Iranian giant carpet is worth playing on for.
MSNBC has turned left in the last two years and T.C. is one of the few bastions of conservative perspective remaining there. Too bad his ratings are so low, but anyone in the 6pm time slot is going to suffer. They need to find a better format for him and a better slot. Or maybe they've got him just where they want him now....
lycaste, you said:
There is something to what you say here, but at least for educational purposes, Greg and Bryan's approach may in some circumstances be better suited to Westerners. For Westerners religion equals personal, individual faith, something inward. Therefore if you refer to Islam as a religion, Westerners are automatically misled to some extent.
Also, if you say that Islam is not a religion, at least not in the sense in which Westerners understand that term, you do an end run around the very stubborn Western assumption that all religions are basically the same. Instead of confronting that assumption headon, it may often be better to sidestep it entirely. For much of the world, there is a sense in which Islam really is not a religion, as most of the world understands that term. But Islam certainly is a form of collectivism.
Had some comments all typed up on Greg's appearance and somehow lost 'em before I could post. Grrrrrrr. Anyway, good work Greg. Your citation of Sura 9 had the Imam looking nervous and fumbling for an explanation (which wasn't very convincing when it finally came).
Great! Congratulations to both of you!
TV is so pathetic, where do they get these people. Did you see the interviewers face when he asked Greg if it was wise to point out the ground truth as opposed to the Bush truth? I thought he was going to heave. And how about those shifty eyes coming from mr. unintelligible the islamopologist? Was that the best faux news could do, cmon get somebody in there we can understand! But on the bright side, the interviewer pointed out that not all islamists are terrorists, well that’s a freaking relief brain surgeon! Greg is very professional, no shifty eyes, right on point, well dressed and mannered. The guy said it all in the end, yes fight those who kill you, fight those who resist you. The rest of it was nothing but roundabout bologna, trying to link islam with other great religions etc. Imho our President has done a grave disservice to our people by purporting to know the facts about islamist beliefs, he had no business becoming an apologist, that is not what he was hired to do. History will judge him cruelly if he ends his term holding his facts to be self-evident.
tgusa, I wouldnt be surprised if Bush converted after the '04 election.
Greg, just a word of advice,
Next time have the quotes memorized and say them specifically where to find. Saying "in surah 9" might seem a bit vague,
Secondly, direct some questions to the Muslim, and make him deny or afirm, for example, surah 9:5. Many times the mediator of such debates doesn't know (or doesn't want) how to knail important points.
Thirdly, keep the scholarly and calm aproach you showed in here! Good job.
Fourthly, the imam said
This is, of course, not the point Greg had in mind. The way the Judeo-Christisn Scriptures speak about wars is not with the same goal as the islamic wars. He is guilty of the false analogy, or bad comparation, fallacy.
By that logic, I can say "all holy books have words in them". Therefore, if one book says "kill those who leave religion X", and another book says "forgive those who persecute you", this means the same, since both statements are made with words, right?
why do I have a blank green screen while watching msnbc?
Excellent work Greg and Bryan.
I don't agree with some posters above who suggested that this sort of effort is lost in the torrent of falsehood. Most people in the west suspect something doesn't smell quite right when the President says Islam is a religion of peace, and when someone comes right out and says the President is wrong, and here's why, there will be a receptive audience ready to listen. It only takes a little bit of truth to cut through a mountain of BS.
Just a few points:
1) I think the debate format is the wrong way to go. That format allows a snake oil salesman like the diminutive, harmless-looking Jamaican to seemingly rebut the factual argument of someone like Greg. So the viewer is left no better off after viewing the exchange. One person says Islam is a religion of war, the other, a muslim, says, "Oh, no you have the wrong context." Because the average layman doesn't know one way or the other, he/she is predisposed to side with the imam only because believing that a quaint religion is fundamentally evil is unintuitive for the masses, familiar with only their own religion. In the Tucker interview, Bryan can make the same argument and leave the viewer not so fence-sitting in this regard. Whenever a muslim is given the chance to defend the facts, he/she will always say a) wrong context or b) tu quoque. Those arguments will always resonate with Joe Sixpack and people like Robert or Greg can never be given enough time on air to explore the fallacies of that argument. You can explain them in a book, but Joe Sixpack doesn't read books like that. Conclusion: Stay away from these tit-for-tat encounters that waste your efforts by allowing muslims to cancel them out with lies that can not be cross-examined in that venue.
2) Spreading islam by the sword is a misnomer in the 21st century. That is key and yet that was missing from both Bryan's and Greg's arguments. Spreading islam by political action and demography is the way of islam in the modern west. We need to warn of that. It is therefore important to separate terrorism from jihad and the greater war of islam on the west. Tucker and the other interviewer asked why most muslims aren't terrorists. It is important at that juncture to state that terrorism is the sideshow provided only the impatient muslims. The real danger of islam is in the 99% of muslims who are patient, and their completely legal measures of jihad to turn our country into a sharia-compliant state. If you acknowledge that islam seeks to bring sharia to our land, they can't do that with terrorism. Terrorism is, in fact, counterproductive to that aim, so it is important to point out that it makes only good political sense for muslims to denounce terrorism as unislamic. It is the measures of lawsuits to silence critics, it is the measure of Saudi-funded mosques to inculcate the young, it is the measure of political organizations like CAIR to apply pressure on institutions to bend to muslim interests, it is the measure of demographic conquest to slowly turn the west into a numerically islamic entity, it is these measures that we need to fear. And these measures are completely peaceful and legal. So experts like Greg and Bryan need to drive the discussion into that territory, thereby destroying the significance of the oft-observed reality that "most muslims are not terrorists". Indeed, that correct observation is what we need to fear the most. Intuitively, Joe Sixpack feels that observation must put the lie to idea that islam is dangerous. If we can get across the idea that the danger is not from the radicals, but actually from the demographic and political conquest to which every peaceful muslim can, and does, subscribe, then the 99% of peaceful muslims will no longer appear so innocuous. This is where jihad is at now. That observation must be hammered home.
Good news is that the internet is going to be the new weapon against the spread of Islam in the 21st century. It is the internet in which the truth about Islam is getting out and the fact that there are a lot of sites out there that are standing up to CAIR and the likes is a good sign.
You must admire the demonstration of Taqiyya by the Imam....wonderful performance....of course the ignorant reporter had no idea who was telling the truth and didn't care about finding out who was telling the truth and who wasn't......typical nonsense but in the limited time given it's great to see someone speaking up.
Now to get those people onto CNN and other MSM orgs.....Robert when are you going to be on Wolf Blitzers show eh?
I think that if you ask the Sauds they will tell you that Bush is bought and paid for. Same with Fox news. After all who paid a small fortune to Mr. Murdoch for the privilege to tell him how to report on Islam. I remember a report from Tony Snow when he was still on the radio during the first French summer car roast. He almost got it right when reporting the who, what, where, and why. He did get the when in late. Next night it was back to reporting the youth of France went nuts. That did wonders for his career. Dhimmi or Dimwits it don't matter. Except for MM fox may fair and balanced as long as you ignore who has a thumb on the scale.
Two comments, on the interview where the imam was participating.
(1) We know already what imams and apologists will say. And we must have the answer ready. "Out of context"? Under what context a godly man can behead 800 prisoners? "All religious books talk about war"? Show such a thing in the Gospel.
(2) And then comes the issue of Sharia, which for me is the most important one. The imam says that Sharia simple tell Muslims things pertaining to the religion. Obviously not, but we must tell everyone else that Sharia prescribes, e.g., the subjugation of women.
If one says that Sharia does not prescribe this or that, how can we prove him wrong? I mean, a law, as we understand it, consists of a list of articles. Is Sharia law like that? Or is it just "tradition" following the trilogy?
..Great job, fellas..measured and eloquent..love seeing them immams sweat bullets..
WOnderful work all around. Kudos to JW on this fab interview!
The topic on media distortions and the use of photographs has already been archived (ms gallant wears a hijab) so I'll post this here.
The media use photographs to not only make, but to exaggerate their stories.
Another example from today's msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102713/
It shows part of the bridge which collapsed in Minneapolis.
And there it is, broken and shifted downward. But look at the angle; impossible. If it were so steeply set would people be standing on it so? Would the cars not have slid off into the river? Would a Port-A-Potty be standing there ready for use?
The photograph was chosen (maybe even taken as such) to DRAMATISE the incident. And that's what the media does best. Did a bridge collapse and fall into the river? Yes. But then the media take over and milk it for all it's worth; to make the best possible drama they can out of it. And to that end they will manipulate, manipulat, manipulate.
CNN likes the same "angle" for this story:
http://www.cnn.com/
Here's the actual situation on that bridge section:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/03/bridge.collapse/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto
You can see it's the same section because it has the crushed train underneath and the white truck with the picker at top.
Not dramatic enough? Apparently not.
Click on picture 29 on the last link to see what the actual "angle" on that bridge section is.