A query just came in from an interested Jihad Watch reader:
Since you keep calling people thug in chief, so I guess one call also call you "son of a bitch"? Fair and square, eh?
Dear Sir,
I don't call "people" Thug-In-Chief. I call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Thug-In-Chief. Unless you yourself are Mr. Ahmadinejad, please don't take it personally!
As for your question, that's fine. I've been called worse. You can call me anything you like. What you and your friends can't do, and never have done, is show that anything I have written about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism is false.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
To some, honesty in itself, is an insult.
To others, it is a compliment.
Take it the way that you want it.
A thug, is a thug, is a thug, is a.......
...thug.
Fair and square, eh?
Sort of like, we point out that Islam is a cult, and we point out that it is humanophobic and misogynistic and anti-semitic and intolerant, and we point out that Muhammad was a pedophile and a liar and the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning, and, by his own proud declaration, a terrorist. And we back it all up by quoting chapter and verse of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira!
And how do the Muhammadans react?
By pointing their finger at us and saying: "YOU'RE ONE TOO."
You see, the maturation level of Muhammadans is about that of a six-year-olds.
Dear Interested Jihad Watch Reader,
Go to dictionary.com and enter "thug." Among other entries you will see this:
1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims," from Marathi thag, thak "cheat, swindler," Hindi thag, perhaps from Skt. sthaga-s "cunning, fraudulent," possibly from sthagayati "(he) covers, conceals," from PIE base *(s)teg- "cover" (see stegosaurus). Transferred sense of "ruffian, cutthroat" first recorded 1839. The more correct Indian name is phanseegur, and the activity was described in Eng. as far back as c.1665. Rigorously prosecuted by the British from 1831, they were driven from existence, but the process extended over the rest of the 19c.
And this:
1. A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.
2. also Thug One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her.
Calling Ahmadinejad a "thug" is being colorfully accurate.
Furthermore, you sound like a young person who, through indoctrination, has lost the ability to understand the difference between good and evil. It seems as if you are saying that by NOT naming the evildoer, by being "nice," nothing bad will happen.
What is utterly unbelievable to me is how anyone can read the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira and then Robert's books (who is "just" reporting what Muslims write and say when they were powerful in the past or now when they think no one is listening) and then Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, Andrew Bostom or Ali Sina and NOT come to the conclusion that Muhammad, and hence Islam is pure evil and has been since its inception.
Ethelred
"Unless you yourself are Mr. Ahmadinejad, please don't take it personally!"....LOL HA HA HA!!!
I'm with you, call me anything you want, just dont call me late for dinner! :)))
If the shoe fits...
SOB -- how original.
lol
"LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!"
lmao
'I guess one call also call you "son of a bitch"?'
The plot thickens. I am learning all sorts of interesting new things on this website.
Firstly, I made the shocking discovery that Robert Spencer is Hugh Fitzgerald.
Now I learn that Robert Spencer is not only Jewish, but he has canine parentage.
But is he an Orthodog or non-Orthodog Jew?
[Sorry]
Why you gentleman! You; you; scholar! You; you; well educated author on the subject of islam!
How'd yah like them apples Spencer!
Wow. How have we let things come to this?
I must admit that today I've been very down about the Islamists' infiltrating our civilization - both in Europe and in America - and how a large number of our population in the U.S. (and Europe) are letting them.
Very down. I simply can't believe how stupid and blind so many Americans are.
Mr Spencer
"is show that anything I have written about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism is false"
False maybe, maybe not. Manipulative, definitely, false by omission , yes.
you write in your book that mohammed on coming across the body of his mutilated body and
Mohammed exclaims "we will mutilate them in turn"
Whereas the book you refer to continues and states after god's message, "so the apostle pardonned them and forbade mutilation"
See for e.g. this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQXaByQtZI
is one example enough?
"Thug" is a straightforward term, one easily verifed by facts.
"Son of a bitch" is a weak insult which strives by means of generational and gender extension to bring a man down by reference to the person (i.e., woman)who gave him birth. Its use hints at a lack of real evidence, and smacks of an archaic male proclivity to blame it all on the woman . . . which woman? It doesn't really matter, just pick one close to your target, and as if by osmosis, your insult of her will seep onto him. At least that's how the thinking used to go.
Trouble is, we Westerners have matured beyond the point of seeing male honour as being centred on the female. Unlike "SOB" the term "thug" is an honest term -- direct, verifiable,and refreshingly lacking in gender slurs.
Cerebate:
Thanks. Unfortunately the incidents at Fallujah a few years ago demonstrate that some Muslims missed Muhammad's prohibition of mutilation also.
Furthermore, footnote 42 on page 207 (of the paperback edition; this was inadvertently left out of the hardcover) says this: "Muhammad was immediately convinced to forbid mutilation; however, Islamic exegetes have justified it today (notably after the Fallujah incident in Iraq in 2004) by appealing to Qur'an 16:126: 'If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted.'"
Nice try. But it looks as if one example isn't enough.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Cerebate, with his intended moniker of "cerebrate" falls short early and often in his attempted rebuttals of Robert's work.
The worst kind of troll he is. Probably an Islamist without the intestinal fortitutde to proclaim openly as such, thinking his sophomoric words will carry more weight here, due to his obfuscation of who he actually is and who he represents from a point of view.
He wil tell you he is an atheist, or an agnostic, or "according to the test" a secular humanist. He will tel you most anything...except the truth.
Cerebate doesn't like to answer questions, nor does he like to deal in the truth, whatsoever.
Mr Spencer
"Unfortunately the incidents at Fallujah a few years ago demonstrate that some Muslims missed Muhammad's prohibition of mutilation also"
Umm are we debating whether muslims follow Mohammed or whether you have attempted to manipulate the people reading your book and hence the 'facts'?
Quite clearly , you ended your tale at Mohammed saying we will mutilate people in turn. Which is designed to convey a view about Mohammed to the people reading the book. You did not (and i assume intentionally because you claim to be a thorough researcher do you not?) mention that according to the Quran immediately , god sends a message , and Mohammed then understands, forgives and forbids anyone to mutilate the people. Which convey's a totally different view of Mohammed.
if this was a mistake(and was admitted as such), other examples would be needed(which can be found in the series of video). I think this was intentional and shows your motivations and bias. Perhaps it's just me , but I expect greater objectivity from people who claim to show me the truth.
Cerebate:
If the omission was intentional, why did I make sure the footnote was added in the paperback edition?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Offtopic
awake
Are you asleep when I say i chose my moniker intentionally as a pun(of cerebrate, celibate and celebrate)?
"Probably an Islamist .."
Ha ha. I dont believe in mohammed. I dont believe or like Islam , I dont believe in the Quran. I dont believe in heaven or hell. Anything else you wish me to say I dont believe (oh yes, add it to the long list of things you are wrong about)
Nope not an atheist, nor an agnostic.
You find that hard to believe so let me explain (and since you say I dont tell you anything.)
Any belief (islam, atheism etc) is static. I find that I discard beliefs I had when i find more data , or if I find they are wrong. there is no belief system that I agree 100% with, so I dont classify myself as any of them.
Your post amuses me quite a bit. I see that you dont comment on the point I raise, but indulge in trading insults(i always find it cool be insulted by people like yourself. it shows I am doing something right) which is a classic debating technique in Jihadwatch.
"If the omission was intentional, why did I make sure the footnote was added in the paperback edition?"
Avoiding the question Mr Spencer?
In my opinion, because you know fully well that most readers (especially those who are likely to believe whatever you are writing) are not going to cross reference each page. That the only people who would sit and reference and point it out, will be shouted down by the jihadwatch fans . That the air of authenticity that you could add by having those references outweighs the risks of people actually going and judging the paragraphs rationally (after all the rational people dont agree with you anyway).
All I would like an answer to is
Do you agree with the statement that the impression you give by stopping the tale where you do in your book is quite different from what it would be , if you had also included the passage where Mohammed says "dont mutilate"
A yes/no would suffice
As to whether some muslims have killed and mutilated people - yes. Whether they have used phrases in the Quran to justify their actions - yes. Now my answer , please.
Atta boy, Robert!
Cerebate:
No.
You are imputing motives and intentions to me that are false, and that at any rate you have no way of knowing. The references are included precisely so that people can check up on me and see that what I am saying is accurate. I would have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by intentionally misrepresenting the material.
If you had come in and asked why I left it out, and initiated an honest discussion, that would be one thing. But in your videos and posts here, you assume I am some kind of monster, because one footnote got mistakenly dropped from the book. This makes it hard for me to take you seriously as an honest inquirer, rather than someone who is intent to demonize me because you don't want the truths I'm telling to be known.
Remember: the references are there for other people to check, also. And people are checking them, and finding them to be accurate.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
I don't know if Fair and square, fits but it is typical of the valor of a jihadist, that rather than directly attacking a grown man they chose to attack your mother.
whether it's hiding behind the skirts of women or attacking women, they are at least consistent ;-)
"You are imputing motives and intentions to me that are false"
Perhaps. However you asked the question and I specifically said 'In my Opinion'(I was going to answer it with I dont have a crystal ball nor can I read minds but awake would say I dont answer questions)
"because one footnote got mistakenly dropped from the book"
Two points Mr Spencer
a. Why is it a footnote and not included with the tale?
b. The words used are "Muhammad was immediately convinced to forbid mutilation" again conveys a different impression from Mohammed supposedly got a message from god (which sounds the equivalent of do unto others as you would have others do unto you) and forbade his followers to mutilate them.
The two supposed insults that I have made about you are
a. You have a financial motivation (perhaps you have others)- True/Untrue?
b. You debate like a politician (A Matter of opinion and not a harsh insult)
I fail to see where I have portrayed you as a monster?Or maybe seeing the current state of Politicians calling someone a politician is demonizing them? Or are you referring to something else?
"And people are checking them, and finding them to be accurate."
There are a series of video's by the same guy where he find's your book anything but accurate.
cerebate,
As I predicted on the "other blog", I know you cannot resist. That being said:
Cerebate, the Islamist, or Islamist apologist, is weakly attempting to portary Robert as manipulative with the historical facts of Islam, specifically Muahammad, based on the ommision of a footnaote in the hardcover edition of his latest book.
Robert Spencer, who has no control about what was presented by the publisher, made a specific request to the publisher to make sure the erroneously omitted footnote was added to the papreback edition.
This is the basis of cerebate's argument, as sad as it is.
Cerebate is at least "cerebral" enough, not to use specific quotes from the Qur'an, for he would be foolish to do so.
Having "debated" cerebate in other forums, specifically on the basis of historical abrogation of the Qur'an, and the supposed penultimate revelation of the ninth sura, widely accepted in the scholarly Islamic community, and the effect that it had or still has on dealing with contradictions in the divine book of Allah, I came away with the reality that he has NEVER actually addressed the question. That question was posed about a week ago, but he would rather force an immediate response by Robert, right her, right now. Curious, to say the least.
Yes, yes, he and others have called me a bigot. That is expected since Robert deals with that unsubstantiated ad hominem all the time.
Cerebate, like others, some who are actual atheists, try to hide behind the religious moral equivalence defense. They are incorrect in their assumptions, but at least, they are understandable, given their position on deity belief.
Cerebate, is a whole different type of animal. He might just be Ali Eteraz, without the balls to admit it. Maybe not.
Regardless, cerebate is from an intentional postiton that Islam has no correlation to the jihadist activity that JW puts forth, with unfortunate consistency, each and every day. A proposition that we here at JW render as taqiyya-ridden nonsense.
Cerebate will gain no allies here who are not already predisposed to do so. He knows that already, but he will try and try again, in the same futile effort he displayed here tonight, to undermine our host, typically, with nothing substantial.
Remember, cerebate frequents sites that use the rationale that the problem is not Islam, but rather Islamism.
Laughable, to say the least.
Valueless, semantical nonsense.
Buffoon-like troll.
All adequate advectives, in my opinion.
Actually, there's plenty of sons o' bitches to watch out for, sublimate, er, cerebrate. Robert is a gentleman, and not one of them.
--John Doe
HerrMorgenholz
I do not believe I have used the term in relation to Robert.Whats your point?
You're a gas Robert! Loved your reply!!!
I read tonight the NUT is trying to get a photo op at the WTC which was denied. He actually wanted to place a wreath there, the hypocrite that he is. Although I do remember the Iranians holding a candlelight vigil after 9/11 which was a surprise and meant a lot to me personally, seeing that sight coming from the Muslim world.
What an OT discussion this is devolving into...
I can think of a more apt name for cerebrate, same suffix, let's just call him master.
If Islam allowed intellect, he could occupy his time poring over those texts. Just a thought.
Cerebate:
When I wrote the book, the mutilations at Fallujah were a fresh memory. I was highlighting something that I thought, and still think, has a connection to it. The prohibition, as I have explained above, has apparently not been as potent as the original example Muhammad gave.
As for Muhammad's messages from God, I deal with them abundantly in many other contexts. You are once again assuming that because I don't say just what you want just when you want it, I must be dishonest or manipulative.
I have a financial motivation -- you say this because my books were bestsellers. No one ever says this to a guy whose books sell 15 copies. The question here is, Would I say anything differently if I knew my books would only sell 15 copies? And the answer is no. People like to say this about me, that I'm just in it for the money, because they can't deal with me on the substance of what I say. But in life, this is the sort of thing that cuts both ways. The estimable Hussam Ayloush of CAIR, a thoroughly repugnant individual, once expounded on this at length in a radio "debate" with me. So I asked him: Does CAIR pay you? And if so, aren't you just in it for the money? Uh, yes, he stammered, CAIR does pay him.
I argue like a politician? I don't even know what that means. Which politician? Does Hillary argue like Ron Paul and Obama like Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich like Tom Tancredo? Come on. Why not show me where you think I'm wrong instead of playing games like this?
Regarding the videos, I didn't know the guy existed until you linked him here tonight. I will watch his videos when time permits, but if he has written this down somewhere, please let me know.
I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were he. And in his first one, after long and tedious theme music, he just heaps insults and wrongful imputations on me, without offering any substance. If he goes on to talk about mutilation, it's thin gruel, for the reasons explained above. When he explained that I put in the footnotes hoping that no one would look them up, he was really reaching. Check out Karen Armstrong's bio of Muhammad, or Yahiya Emerick's. If I recall correctly, there are few or no footnotes in either. Why not? Do they have something to hide about their use of the sources? By contrast, I mean my work to be transparent. Anyone is invited to check on me. Yet your friend there makes even that into something sinister.
Got anything better?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
cerebrate, could you explain why you chose a verb for a screen name? That's about as weird as naming a kid "jihad".
The person who sent the insult to Mr. Spencer is probably one of our peaceful muslim citizens with strong ties to his beloved homeland, Iran. He voluntarily left Iran and chose to live here, but like all muslims, his loyalties are to the umma and islam, and the islamofascist, blowhard, shi'ite religious fanatic and proxy for the demonic ayatollahs who really run the islamic republic of Iran. The thug-in-chief is nothing but a big mouth, from which an endless stream of typical islamic hyperbole and bravado spews.
"Robert Spencer, who has no control about what was presented by the publisher"
Ha ha , I wonder who wrote the book.
"This is the basis of cerebate's argument, as sad as it is."
Umm no. Since you are quite slow and probably have a single digit IQ , let me spell it out for you
My argument is (with thanks to hugh)
Reference Book Version
Mohammed : We will mutilate them
God : Stop. Do unto others blah blah etc..
Mohammed : I forgive them. I forbid anyone to mutilate them
Robert's hardcover version
Mohammed : We will mutilate them
Robert's softcover version
Mohammed : We will mutilate them
Small print : Mohammed was 'convinced' not to mutilate them, but Islamic fundamentalists still mutilate people
(apostrophe's and simplicification mine)
Manipulation? I believe so
"specifically on the basis of historical abrogation of the Qur'an.."
I did reply. I said assume what you say is true. and that It doesnt matter, it only matters what the muslims actually do.
"Cerebate, is a whole different type of animal. He might just be Ali Eteraz, without the balls to admit it. Maybe not."
Heh , are you sure I am a man? sexism in this day and age... tsk tsk.
"Cerebate will gain no allies here who are not already predisposed to do so"
And thankfully so. Or to paraphrase a cliche, with allies like these , who needs enemies
"Remember, cerebate frequents sites that use the rationale that the problem is not Islam, but rather Islamism."
Like this one?
"Buffoon-like troll."
Thank you thank you(bows). And if i may say so, you sir are an ignorant schmuck.
Cerebate:
That book and all of my Regnery books are full of errors, some small, some large, that entered into the text when the books were typeset. (The latest book is the best so far from this angle; I know right now of only one big typographical problem.) The first edition of my Muhammad bio presents an entire paragraph of an Islamic apologist's fulmination against "Orientalists" as if it were my words.
If you had caught that one, you could be charging me with schizophrenia on top of everything else.
Other footnotes suffered also: only recently did someone notify me that nowhere in the Muhammad book does publication data appear for the edition of Bukhari that I used. Etc. etc. etc. All of these things were correct when I sent the book in, although of course I made other typos myself that the Regnery editors corrected, but it is a long process, and mistakes happen.
You clearly have no idea how common this sort of thing is in publishing.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"You are once again assuming that because I don't say just what you want just when you want it, "
Nope Im saying you stopped your tale, where you did knowing fully well the impact it would convey.
"No one ever says this to a guy whose books sell 15 copies."
I would :).
"I argue like a politician, I don't even know what that means"
Specifically the dinesh dsouza(he's worse) debate clips on youtube. It means instead of Stating your case, Rebuttals to your opponent, Defense of his rebuttals and conclusion, you'll go Stating your case, Stating your case, Stating your case.(Matter of opinion i suppose)
Yep skip the first clip, should have warned you. Im not aware of any collected writing. Only that there are other video's by other folks on youtube where people point out inaccuracies/manipulations
(and some who support you)
"Yet your friend there makes even that into something sinister. "
Perhaps. But most of the poster's here do prove that theory.
For the record , when I first saw your clip in some news interview , I told my better half you have some valid points, but that you wasted it in an attempt to appeal more to right wingers.
Seeing this site and the frequent commenters and their views , has only served to reinforce that impression.
You say your motive is to encourage discussion on Islam/Jihad in order to reform it. Can you please state with whom you wish to discuss Islam with? I would have assumed it's the muslims, but i see no chance of that happening on this site. Honest question :)
cerebate wrote as a response to my words:
"Remember, cerebate frequents sites that use the rationale that the problem is not Islam, but rather Islamism."
"Like this one?"
No, not like this one.
Man, woman, infidel, Islamist, liar...irrelevant.
By the way cerebate, your answer on abrogation was WWWEEAAKKK! to say the very least.
You said:
"assume what you say is true. and that It doesnt matter, it only matters what the muslims actually do."
Agreed on the latter part on that statement.
A direct question for you, cerebate:
Do you believe what I (Robert) say is true about abrogation in the Qur'an and do you see Muslims acting in kind, specifically sura 9?
If the answer is yes, then just thank Robert and politely move on.
Somehow, I think your ANSWER, if you give one, will be otherwise.
Mr spencer
Feel free to ignore any comment's made in retorts to Awake. We just trade ad-hominem insults. You can treat it as a comic interlude.
Im fully aware of publishing errors and again , even with the footnote, the impression is different, and as importantly why a footnote?
darcy, I hope you read this!
I (and I am guessing many of those who post here) have felt the way you're feeling today. Don't despair! I am reminded of Gideon's battle to save Israel with only a small number of troops. There was no hard feelings when people went home or when Gideon sent others home. The battle was the Lord's.
I believe we are in much the same situation today. We who have taken the time to study and become aware of what is really happening in our nations are like Gideon's band. (Judges 7) We are akin to the watchmen on the wall that spies the danger beyond (Ezekiel 3:17 and 33:2, 6, 7) ...not everyone is called to be a watchman. We are also those who are aware of the meaning of the signs of the times (Matt. 16:3). You like many here have a great calling! Sadly, I believe the day will come when others will search you (and us) out to have us explain to them the truth of the events of the day. Robert and those with him...and those who we have turned to to are the vanguards.
I pray you have a peaceful night's sleep and rest in the knowledge of the Lord's care of you and yours.
Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.
This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.
5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)
If this is not murderous torture and mutilation in the most perverted form, what is?
And Muhammad was the perfect man, for all mankind, for all time. How insane, how madly insane!
Susanp
I have no sympathies with people who choose to call other sob's and robert is quite capable of answering for himself :).
However I do believe that calling an elected representative of a country (however much of a nutcase he evidently is) a thug in chief is implying to some that the country is of thugs(I believe the thugs were meant by robert to represent other fundamentalists not the people of iran , but it isnt explicitly stated). This isnt a justification and i dont like people who use insults that insult someone's mother.
Offtopic
"cerebrate, could you explain why you chose a verb for a screen name? That's about as weird as naming a kid "jihad"."
Ah , but we are talking about anonymous nicknames arent we. I chose this nickname about three years ago when I wanted a title. Cerebrate because I was going to pontificate(pompously :) ) on philosophy , Celebrate because it was meant to be a celebration of my views and Celibate because I was single and had been so since i was born (oh and people who reply saying they know why, low blow and it was for me to meet the love of my life, which i did , so there). So i settled on the word cerebate which was a close appromixation to all three.
Cerebate, it may be debatable whether Mohammed, after mutilaing his enemies, at some point repented of this practice, What is *not* debatable is how common mutilation is as a terror tactic is in Jihad--citing Islam for justification.
Is one example enough? Why stop there when there are so many to choose from!
"Jihadist's Cut off Afghan's Ears, Noses"
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015708.php
"Mutilation of Victims and Muslim Law"
www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002230.php
"Mujahideen Desecration"
http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1202/muja07.htm
Of course, there are many more, such as the horrible murder and desecration of contract workers in Fallujah, as well as routine FGM done in the name of Islam, amputation of limbs for theft, and cutting off of noses of "unchaste" women.
Islam did not invent mutilation, certainly. But I know of no other modern faith where mutilation and desecration are used so commonly, and so often in the name of religion.
Just forgot to add something: The above hadith is of course the famous urine fatwa:
1.234: Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine).
Very recommendable for the followers of the profit to try it, how about you, cerebrate?
Pay this fool no mind Robert.
Just an egregious lack of class.
"Do you believe what I (Robert) say is true about abrogation in the Qur'an and do you see Muslims acting in kind, specifically sura 9?"
I(Robert)? What is this , some new movie?
Yes 4 guys came and abrogated verses that they felt were contradictory(some verses not all).
"do you see Muslims acting in kind, specifically sura 9"
Some of the muslim's do so - yes.
(Another thing to add to the list your wrong about)
I'd thank robert if I learnt anything new. I havent, so I'll withold my thanks for now.
By the way I have answered all your questions (whether you think it weak or otherwise). You haven't answered mine, yet. Are you going to take your own advice?
(For those not in the know, this is a snippet of Awake's comment to me on a different blog)
"The critical flaw in that argument is obviously, that you are NOT a Muslim, and quite frankly, not qualified to speak on behalf of Muslims ..."
http://eaglespearlsofwisdom.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/what-is-a-bigot-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-subject-at-hand/#comment-358
When I wrote the book, the mutilations at Fallujah were a fresh memory. Posted by Robert
OT: Someone very dear to me was given the task of gathering the belongings of those contractors massacred in Fallujah. As he was doing so, he looked at the letters and photos of the victims murdered that day and sobbed for 30 minutes, as he knew all of them. He took a small American flag and to this day, carries it with him on all of his missions. A memorial service was held there after the town was cleared by Marines and my friend went and again sobbed like a baby at the bridge where they were hung. It took him a long time to recover mentally from that incident, and he is the strongest person I've ever known.
sorry, the cruel torture & mutilation story above is from the hadith and of course not a fatwa.
Here's the link to Muhammdas excessive cruelty:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/cruelty.htm
gravenimage
"Cerebate, it may be debatable whether Mohammed, after mutilaing his enemies, at some point repented of this practice"
Uh huh. You didnt get the point. Supposedly mohammed saw his favorite uncle mutilated and said when he catches the people responsible he will mutilate them in turn. Immediately (not later) God's message stops him and he say's he forbids anyone mutilating them. There is no 'repents this practice afterwards' , it happens immediately.
Robert chose to stop after Mohammed says we will mutilate them in turn. He added a footnote stating that mohammed was convinced not to mutilate (and that muslims do still mutilate people). To me that is a clear case of an attempted manipulation. Your mileage may vary.
The rest of your post consists of examples of radical Muslims mutilating people and agreed it is horrifying and wrong and that some muslims do commit atrocities(on other muslims as well) and that some of them do justify it using the quran. However it isn't related to the above argument
dgene
"Pay this fool no mind Robert.Just an egregious lack of class."
Yes robert, please dont mind awake!
cerebate,
I stand by my comments to you on the "other blog". I think the worst I referred to you was, as you deem as "ad hominem", is unsavory, if I recall.
It appears that not only has Robert and others "eaten you lunch for you", but also proceeded to "eat your dinner for you" as well.
It happens, deal with it.
Your ignorance and willful disingenuous is apparent here, especially since the blog moderator on the site that you and the other 4 guys who comment there, is not here to protect and/or moderate for you.
Post the links all you want. I am confident it will only portray YOU in a worse light than has already been revealed here, not me.
There were a multitude of posts, mostly questions, by elric66 who regularly comments here, and was subsequently banned from that site. Similarly, none of his questions were answered either and he was dismissed as a bigot and an "islamophobe".
In your words as a response:
"I(Robert)? What is this , some new movie?"
No. It is actually a question posed by me. A question through the pedagogical diligence of Robert solely, was I able to formulate.
Also:
"I'd thank robert if I learnt anything new. I havent, so I'll withold my thanks for now."
In my opinion, you haven't learned anything, nor are you capable of doing so.
Also:
"By the way I have answered all your questions (whether you think it weak or otherwise)."
Oh, really? That's funny because I believe you didn't answer any of them. Once again, post all the links you deem relevant and wait for a response here that supports your position or your statements.
And wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait......
Cerebate,
Just so we have some understanding of your agenda: Do you wish to see the Constitution of the United States replaced by Sharia law?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I'm off to bed. I ask that my fellow JW community members, those who tend to lurk in the wee hours to deal with our "unsavory" visitor in my absence.
Thanks in advance.
We don't have any unsavory visitors...
we DO, however, have a few court jesters, does that count?
cerebate is only acting at the behest of his master
No answer will ever be good enough
Cerebate is not a Muslim, Christian or anything...not even an atheist yet goes on and on and on and on and on about a footnote? I finally gave up reading his/her as it is here to defend barbaric behaviour-Thug-In-Chief.
Racist
Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
Just because.
We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 3:151
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89
....Celebate alledges he is not a Muslim but I smell ""taqiyya and tu-quoque".
.....THe Islamic Puppet master Al-Zawahiri also exibits the ability to communicate using "tiqiyya and tu-quoque". If you were weak of mind and uninformed, you just may fall into the Islamic trap and convert....
...just my opinion, naturally....(probably not worth two cents)....
"However I do believe that calling an elected representative of a country (however much of a nutcase he evidently is) a thug in chief is implying to some that the country is of thugs."
[Posted by cerebate]
To be honest, I think you're inferring rather too much, my friend.
The epithet 'thug-in-chief' is clearly a play on words and is derived from the position of 'commander-in-chief'. It is stretching the imagination somewhat to assume that 'thug-in-chief' is not simply a mischievous variant of C-in-C but is a slight against the entire Iranian nation.
Muhammad himself was also thug in chief, and since he is uswa hasana al insan al kamil Amad-in-jihad and Nonny Nonny mouse are devoted followers to the abyss by the looks of it...
News from Indonesia:
Bali bomber now campaigns to stop terrorism
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/09/20/indonesia-allah-is-merciful-and-oft-forgiving-flying-pigs-sighted/
It used to be rare to find typographical errors and omissions in books but it has become common in the past 10-20 years. Publishing houses don't seem to invest in good proofreaders and editors anymore.
Once a person has read a book several times, s/he stops seeing the errors and is pretty much reading from memory: the eye glosses over the errors and the brain makes its own adjustments automatically.
An author cannot spot every typo and error in his/her own work after it has been sent to the publisher and proof pages have been printed and reprinted several times. It's just not possible.
(I used to work for a public relations firm and I was its best proofreader. I know how easy it is for people to miss errors after reading something numerous times.)
I guess these "militants" didn't get the memo re. mutilation not being okay with Allah:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/19/top2.htm
"Mutilated bodies of 15 soldiers brought to Miramshah
"MIRAMSHAH, Sept 18: Bodies of 15 soldiers who had gone missing during recent clashes with militants in the Shawal area of the North Waziristan Agency were brought to Miramshah on Tuesday.
"The bodies and two security personnel wounded in the clashes were brought from Pesh Ziarat area of Shawal in helicopters. Sources said that militants had captured these soldiers on Sunday night and killed all of them. One soldier was still missing, officials said.
"Eighteen militants were also killed in the clashes near the Afghan border.
"Witnesses told Dawn that the bodies of the soldiers had been badly mutilated and limbs of many of them had been chopped off.
"The sources said that the militants had initially refused to hand over the soldiers’ bodies..."
Hey Robert, I think it is an honor to be called a name by anybody who supports that iranian freak. So I hope you don't take his words to heart(sarc). Keep up the good work!
Begin Tallulah Bankhead voice:
Why dear Dr. Spenser, how tactless of that writer, I don't believe he ever had occasion to meet your Mamma, did he? I would think he'd be hard pressed to be able to comment on her character.
/voice
Shalom,
Theosebes
Thank You, eve_anne_gelical for your kind, empathetic, and supportive comment.
And thank you for reminding me of "our great calling." You are right. And, thanks to Robert Spencer, we are in the vanguard.
OT...Cerabate sez: Any belief (islam, atheism etc) is static. I find that I discard beliefs I had when i find more data , or if I find they are wrong. there is no belief system that I agree 100% with, so I dont classify myself as any of them.
If you follow the path of sublimation, that is, replacing lesser ideas with better ones, you eventually arrive at the ultimate truth, or reality, which some people call God. Sublimation with the end result being the reality of God, is a religion in itself. Part of the process of sublimation, is the achievement of wisdom. In order to eliminate the 'static', the ego has to be moved aside because the ego is in the habit of being stuck on stupid. Stupid people have a difficult time sublimating, but have no problem going off on thumb sucking egotism. This is the opposite of wisdom...So Cerebate, while you obviously can read, and you are not stupid, it is clear that your ego is still in control. So while you have some knowledge, you are not wise and you are not using your knowledge wisely. However, if you stay on the path of sublimation, you will eventually come out of the darkness of ego pollution, and into the light of the ultimate reality. True wisdom...
Thank God Amighty that we have people like Robert who
speak the truth! Thank God Amighty that we have been
blessed to live in a free nation, where we are not forbidden to think, act, and speak our minds; where our every movement through society is not checked or censored by some idiotic immam, or folks like what's his name.....Cerebate, Cerebrate, Masturbate...funny; the names all seem to merge into one.
Regarding the word "Thug." --Paul Elliott, in his book "Warrior Cults," notes that although the practice of thugee as an act of sacrifice to the Hindu goddess Kali Durga, most of the practioners were actually Moslem. I don't have the book, so I cannot provide his explanation of how this came to be. However, the epithet for the President of Iran seems apropos.
Regarding the assertion of a poster that Mohammed's revelation that one is not to mutilate bodies is a form of the Golden Rule --How can such a statement be equated with the commandment to "Love one's neighbor as oneself?" The minimal decency expessed in Mohammed's revelation falls far short of fulfilling the Golden Rule and the attempted connection between the two statements should in all honesty be withdrawn.
hardball
"Cerebate, Cerebrate, Masturbate.."
Now I wonder why you associate my nickname with masturbation. are you a closet admirer?
duh swami
"If you follow the path of sublimation, that is, replacing lesser ideas with better ones, you eventually arrive at the ultimate truth, or reality, which some people call God..."
There are some problems with your statement, i believe
a. You are under the impression I do not believe in god. I do (it is religion that I do not believe)
b. You think that the ultimate truth or reality can be 'eventually arrived at' - life's too short
c. You believe that the conclusion you have reached, is what others will reach in their quest.
d. You confuse ego with egoism and egotism.
"So Cerebate, while you obviously can read, and you are not stupid, it is clear that your ego is still in control"
Thank you. Who is in control for you :)?
CapitalistGig
Thanks. I prefer cerebate though. And Im not a muslim nor do I believe or follow Islam
Awake
"I think the worst I referred to you was, as you deem as "ad hominem", is unsavory, if I recall"
You can see your first post addressed to me , on any recent topic in jihadwatch. You do not address the topic. You throw insults towards me, which i dutifully return to you. Ad-hominem.
"It appears that not only has Robert and others "eaten you lunch for you", but also proceeded to "eat your dinner for you" as well.It happens, deal with it."
Ha ha. From where I stand things are pretty clear. Your response and of others quite clearly show , that irrespective of the facts, you will stick to whatever preconceived biases you have. Your loss. I see you request to the member's to respond to me ? whats the matter? lost your appetite with all that eating my lunch and dinner.?
USBeast
No
herself
Nope , never defended Ahmedijinad. Please reread.
exsgtbrown
"Celebate alledges he is not a Muslim but I smell ""taqiyya and tu-quoque"."
Get your nose checked.
A Nonny Nonny
Agreed. I merely point out that insulting a commander in chief, will not be well received by citizens(irrespective of how true the statement is). Its similar to calling Bush Idiot in chief (chief of dick and co or of the american citizens?)
Josephine
Typo's spelling mistakes are publishing errors. I repeat, robert stopped his tale where he did. He could have included the next few lines he didnt. There was a small footnote, which still doesnt convey the next few lines. If his contention was that the next few lines were dropped by mistake, then you have a fair point. His contention is the footnote was dropped by mistake. That isn't my point.
jcom972
I quite like a court jester's job. Im sure you would have been rejected, seeing an absolute absence of a sense of humor, and you would probably have to beg for alms.
Im off for 3-4 days so i wont be able to respond to the profound views that will undoubtedly be expressed in response.
cerebate,
Hurry back. I don't know how long I can stand to dwell in intellectual stagnation during your absence.
Why, Robert! *gasp!*
You left out a footnote??? Horror of all HORRORS!!!
I studied most of this topic before I found your site, and have verified all your work, but no matter!!! You left out a footnote!!!
Our fair Reprobate is right, you are a total sham! Off to the chopping block with you, Sir!!!
3-4 days?
Probably doesn't have any classes over the next 3 days so can't use the school's computer...lol
...so Cerebate still claims not to be a Muslim....but I do not believe him....
....moveon.org moonbat?.....
cerebate,
Your central claim above, as I understand it, was that Robert misrepresented Muhammad's/Allah's policy re mutilation. Robert has already addressed this, but I will address it from a different angle.
Are you claiming that Islamic policy generally forbids mutilation? If you are claiming that, and you are correct, then perhaps you could pursue the claim that Robert had misrepresented this policy. The problem for you is that mutilation is not only permitted as standard Islamic policy, Muslims are ordered to carry out mutilation (e.g., Koran 5:33). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that Robert has misrepresented Islamic policy re mutilation. 5:33 is a Quranic injunction, it is final, not abrogated. It is contained in Islamic jurisprudence, and it is still implemented today in some Islamic jurisdictions (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc). The only way apologists can avoid it is by ignoring it, like you avoided sheik yer mammi's quote of 5:33.
Cerebrate,
Some more mutilation from Muhammad and his companions. (This time it is not the old stand-by of beheading).
From
http://www.islamundressed.com/
Excerpt:
INCIDENT #11 - The Murder of the Old Woman from Fazara
The incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Muslims were initially defeated in their first encounter with the Fazara. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, and page 665:
"....and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.) "
Here, Muhammad's companions went out and attacked people, took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! One wonders how many Muslims are intimately acquainted with the record of brutal killings Muhammad himself did or explicitly ordered, sanctioned, and justified. Muhammad and his followers seemed every bit as brutal as the worst humanity has ever produced.
-----------------------------------
--Zayd/Zaid raided [the Fazara]. --Umm Qirfah was an elderly lady who was the leader of the tribe. --She was killed very cruelly by having each leg tied to a camel. al-Tabari vol.8 p.95-96.
Personaly, I do not think it is a good idea to refer to Ahmadinejad as " The thug-in-chief."
Please stick to the facts, Mr Spencer, that's usually the best approach.
Cerebrate,
Some more mutilation from Muhammad and his companions.
......The Religion of Peace sez it all....
"So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking what was once the property of others for his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and killed those whom he could take prisoner. He inspired his followers to battle even when they did not feel it was right to fight, threatening them with Hell if they did not, promising them slaves and booty if they did. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle. Neither did he leave a clear line of succession, which resulted in internal war after his death and a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.
It is important to emphasize that Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and it was the companions of Muhammad who made the most dramatic military gains in the decades following his death. The principle set in motion early on was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern Muslim apologists often claim that Islam only attacked in self-defense, this is not only an oxymoron, but it is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Muslim historians and others going back to the time of Muhammad.
The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, women's rights, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be absolutely devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet never open to critical examination.
This is what makes the verses of violence so dangerous. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in the Qur'an, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, others do little to contradict them. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.
In fact, many Muslims are simply unaware of the Qur'an's near absence of verses that preach non-violence. This is because their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for Muslims to come to believe that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Qur'an and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.
For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice judgment and distinction on the altar of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.
There are just too many Muslims who take the Qur'an literally... and too many others who couldn't care less."
So let me see the central point I tried to raise was
did the implied meaning/context change with robert stopping his story at Mohammed saying we will mutilate them in turn and adding a footnote which didn't represent the story accurately in my opinion.
My answer obviously is Yes. Roberts answer was No.
I can see that inspite of 4 days to think about it , none of you have addressed this , even if it was only to say , we agree with Robert, and its No. And this is fairly typical of the way most of the folk's on this forum argue. You'd rather trade insults or presume to tell me how to spell my chosen nickname or divert the topic endlessly.(see below). In the video posted the guy has mentioned that all the references would make you believe everything is authentic and he add's that most people wouldn't check. You'll are further proof that even if things are pointed out , you'll wont bother to check or think, you'd rather let your prejudices beat reason.
awake
"I don't know how long I can stand to dwell in intellectual stagnation during your absence"
Im sure you'll manage, you have lots of experience(i.e. your entire life) with intellectual stagnation
Miss_Anthrope
No the point is the meaning changed to serve Robert's purposes, even with the footnote. And Robert can still claim nothing is false.In my opinion this is sneaky and cunning and manipulative
Kind of like dennis the menace
Mom - Did you touch the wet cement
Dennis - No I didnt!(and out of earshot) I used a stick.
(the childish example too is intentional)
jcom972
I'm flattered you think I'm young enough to be studying. You are wrong and i would bet i earn more than you.
exsgtbrown
Isnt in fairly typical of the way you (and others on this forum) think? you presume to know more about my beliefs than I do. Not only that you have to keep insisting that, what you think is accurate about my beliefs, even if i flat out deny it, even if there is no evidence to support your claims. Whatever makes you think I am a muslim, please point out some evidence or do you think that everyone who disagrees with jihadwatch must be a muslim?
Khaybar Oasis
"Your central claim above, as I understand it, was that Robert misrepresented Muhammad's/Allah's policy re mutilation"
No my central claim is that Robert misrepresented an incident to support his (perhaps implied) contention that Mohammed supports mutilation(even with the footnote). You can answer whether you believe that is the case instead of approaching it from another angle or using the weasel answer "robert has answered you". (His contention was that he added the footnote and he ended there, mine is that even with the footnote the misrepresentation is present)
Whether or not the rest of the quran and mohammed support mutilation, doesnt change this one misrepresentation(and there are others , if you have seen the series of videos and other articles) - something most of you'll will not admit to.
You state Islam allows mutilation as standard policy - my answer is perhaps(im not a quran expert). As before for me this particular question is not as relevant as, do Muslims mutilate others?. The answer obviously is yes, some do so. The majority of muslims? My answer is no. You and I will probably draw different conclusions from the last two answers.
exsgtbrown
Again more examples doesn't change the manipulation of the incident pointed out.
True , there are muslims who have mutilated people and should be stopped.But that isnt the point raised.