Expect that amiable stomach-stapled beekeeper, Honest Ibe Hooper, or Brave Ahmed Rehab, or some other possessor of the Secret Decoder Ring that helps them render "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) as "have interreligious dialogue and build bridges with the idolaters," to go to London forthwith to straighten Anjem Chaudary out about how he is misunderstanding Islam.
But of course, in reality they will not do that, and neither will any other self-professed "moderate Muslim." They reserve their ire for when the kuffar dare to note that Islam is not a Religion of Peace™. Then they rain down the charges of "Islamophobia," "hate," "bigotry" and the like. But when a Muslim says it, they utter nary a peep. Just as the Islamic apologists who claim that I have gotten Islamic doctrine all wrong, wrong, wrong, and write soporific refutations of my work, never seem to notice, or to mind, when Islamic supremacists misunderstand Islam in, lo and behold, exactly the same way I have. Nor do those Islamic supremacists seem to be beset by indignant moderates eager to refute them within their own communities.
Video thanks to Pamela Geller.
"Islam is not a Religion of Peace™" What? Is he some kind of islamophobe?
From RS above...'when Islamic supremacists misunderstand Islam in, lo and behold, exactly the same way I have'...
Well not exactly the same...I don't think RS has blown anything up. You have to misunderstand Islam a little more accurately to get to that level...
Re: UK jihadist misunderstands Islam, says it's not a Religion of Peace™
Islam is the state and Sharia Law via Islam must be violent.
The state is everywhere founded in violence. All states, empires etc., begin in violence. Violence is the essence of the state (Sharia etc.).
In Islam, as in Czarist Russia, the state is like a Russian doll, within a doll, within a doll, within a doll, etc., down to the father doll in the family under Sharia law. It is all a "doll" of state sanctioned violence.
(In America, we recognize that the state is based in violence, accept that the state has a monopoly on violence, but constitutionally limit and federate state power. We are wary of the state. We are individual persons in the state-and want to keep it that way.
We accept no "dolls" in between ourselves and state power, and insist that the individual has "rights" that are individual, and personal, and that transcend the state.)
Sharia is state power as "religion." Islam is by nature violent.
(There is an agument for the seperation of Mosque and State. But it will mean the end of Islam, and they know it. For them it's: "Jihad or bust.")
http://newstime.co.nz/smash-islam-into-pieces-and-pulverize-it-reforming-impossible.html
Ali Sina, ex-Muslim Page iv “… smash it (Islam) into pieces and pulverize it!” Reforming impossible!
Churchill, in 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force', refers to Islam as 'the religion of blood and war'.
And that is what it is.
The Religion of Blood and War.
"moderate Muslim"
In his book "The West's Last Chance," Tony Blankley refers to "moderate Muslims" as "covert Sympathizers."
How apt.
Terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck says, “We need to bring it (Islam) into the modern day.”
The learned “analyst” seems to have forgotten the gates of ijtihad are closed.
So, Mr. Erick Stakelbeck, terrorism analyst, what now?
All the The "Terrorism Analysts" I've ever seen don't know squat about Islam.
Check out NBC "Terrorism Analyst" Roger Cressey on the FT. Hood Islamic Jihad:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/11/06/nbc-analyst-unsure-ft-hood-shooting-was-terrorism
What a putz.
Just as the Islamic apologists who claim that I have gotten Islamic doctrine all wrong, wrong, wrong, and write soporific refutations of my work, never seem to notice, or to mind, when Islamic supremacists misunderstand Islam in, lo and behold, exactly the same way I have.
..............
Actually, certain critics *do* notice this on occasion—but then decide that this must mean not that you are correct in your analysis of Islam and its doctrines, but that your pointing out such things makes you—somehow—as "extreme" as Anjem Chaudary and his ilk.
The so called "moderate Muslims" who condemn terrorism are HYPOCRITES!!!
The "excellent example" (33:21) to follow, boasted,
"I have been made victorious with terror"
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
http://newstime.co.nz/uk-jihadist-misunderstands-islam-says-its-not-a-religion-of-peace.html
Robert - re the "Islamic apologists" writing "sophorific refutations" to your work, one of them is now challenging">http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/06/danios-of-loonwatch-accepts-robert-spencers-challenge-to-a-debate">challenging you to a debate.
Why not consider it? I for one am pretty sure you could refute all their "refutations".
ok, maybe my html skills are not quite up there yet :)
Actually, Stakelbeck is spot on. Regardless of how possible or impossible it is, it is exactly whats needed: reform islam into something peaceful.
To achieve this it must become more painful for muslims to not do it, than to do it. And this is where we, and all non-muslims can help. Making it more painful, increasing the pressure, untill it is pure force.
Oh, no, RS couldn't lower himself to "debate" the nasty, crude, vile, nutcase sociopaths that inhabit the infernal realm called "loonwatch."
Oh, no. That would be like accepting a debate with Charlie Manson. What's the point?
I clicked on your link and perused the page - which is how I feel perfectly confident in my assessment above.
Terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck says, “We need to bring it (Islam) into the modern day.”
Modern day, hell! Just bringing it up to about 1700 would be a vast improvement.
Islam is more a piece of a religion than a religion of peace.
Loonwatch is for loons who worship the moon...That guy Danio's, who someone said used to post here under another name, showed up on JW and issued that debate challenge...I'm happy to say that I was one of those who dumped tar and feathers on him, mounted him backwards on a jackass, and sent him down the road mumbling to himself...
If you read loonwatch, be sure and run your virus scanner after, and it wouldn't hurt to take a shower...
Kim - "what's the point?"... Loonwatch's point is perfectly clear. As Danios said on one of his posts - he's out there to gain the "middle 80%" over to LW's side of the argument. That would be the apolitical, moderate left/rightists, and young students... And many of them might just be persuaded by LW's "refutations", and appeal to ridicule, before they've even had a look at Jihadwatch with a neutral mind.
The sad truth is, if we don't take on those who are against us, we may always remain that 10% or less out on the fringes. And things being as they currently are, can we afford for that to happen?
Six of one, a half dozen of another. I am with Chaudary on one point - tell it like it is. The sugar coating is just as disjusting on our side as well. Islam IS 100% incompatible with the US Constitution. Islam IS seditious and to act on it politically or with violence IS treason. We ALREADY have laws to deal with it and it could be shut down TOMORROW. IF you see the US Constitution as your "secular bible", so to speak, I consider you my brother regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, legal or illegal immigration status. If you don't, you are my enemy. I don't care if you were born next door to me and went to the same grade school. We drove over 10% of the population out of the country after the Revolutionary War and I am all for doing it again. This "kiss ass" political correctness disgusts me.
Well, why don't you ask RS why he doesn't "debate" the sociopaths at "loonwatch?"
Why doesn't he just "debate" Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot?
If anyone is so stupid and evil to be a "loonwatch" fan - go for it.
"Loonwatch is for loons who worship the moon...That guy "Danios," who someone said used to post here under another name, showed up on JW and issued that debate challenge...I'm happy to say that I was one of those who dumped tar and feathers on him, mounted him backwards on a jackass, and sent him down the road mumbling to himself...
If you read loonwatch, be sure and run your virus scanner after, and it wouldn't hurt to take a shower..."
Exactly. RS doesn't lower himself to reply to evil "Danios."
Kim, you ain't wrong. I just had a read of the loonwatchers' torrents of Belial. Almost without exception the commenters purse their bitter lips on 'Danio's butt-cheeks while hissing at R.S outta the corner of their mouths. The confidence they exude as they cast the gauntlet for 'scholarly' bebate about the minutae of a blatant falsification lends me to think that, as Muhammed did, they covet earthly power and not spiritual wisdom.
I agree Loonwatch are nowhere near as nice and fair-minded as they make out to be... but could newbies who come across them not be taken-in by what they read? And as shown in a previous post, there are already groups distributing leaflets in some campuses advertising Loonwatch's website - they are doing their best to get the "Spencer is a loon" message out.
"Kim, you ain't wrong. I just had a read of the loonwatchers' torrents of Belial."
Right, they are nasty. I felt dirty just reading the slime on that site. I can even go so far as to say they're evil.
"...but could newbies who come across them not be taken-in by what they read?"
I think that anyone who can be "taken in" by this foul group already doesn't have their head screwed on straight...
Wow!!! Yes, Anjem Chaudari is honest but what a frightening scenario!!!! How British Government can allow such a man to freely roam on the streets of London???
I thought that only the Indian Government is afraid of radical Muslims but now I see that they have august company of the US & UK Governments.
I should have understood this when US Government refused visa to the chief Minister of Gujarat Mr. Narendra Modi, alleging that he is anti Muslim and was responsible for So called massacre of Muslims in western Indian state of Gujarat in 2002.
But haven't so many people already been "taken-in" by similar Loonwatch-style slime? The teacher who you mentioned on another thread comes to mind...
In any case, stay tuned... I'll be responding to Danios as soon as I have a free moment. (already did on Loonwatch - but strangely 5 out of 8 comments weren't accepted)
Green Infidel,
For the most part, I agree with you. At least in this case, Loonwatch's claims should be refuted. It's not that we should take the site itself seriously. The problem is that other naive people might take the site seriously.
I can't speak for Robert, but I've already refuted Danios' fabrications, false accusations, and irrelevancies in the "debate" over the word dhimmis (both his Part 2 "intellectual huckster" article June 6 and his June 17 "challenge" to Spencer) in the original "The dhimmis: guilty people" thread here at JihadWatch. It is Danios who has failed to respond since my later responses (June 8 through June 27).
Rebuttals will expose their errors and false allegations. In his Part 2 article on the word dhimmis, for example, Danios claimed that only the Muslim side, not the non-Muslim dhimmis, could be guilty of violating the dhimma. That is false. (Indeed, it is a whopper of an error). Yet it seems no one there has noticed the error. Nor did they detect anything wrong with the false allegation he made against me, an allegation stemming from his own error. At the very least, Danios should issue a retraction on this point, and correct his article, and withdraw his false accusation, accordingly.
Your experience of having most of your attempted posts blocked at Loonwatch is not unusual; many people who've posted critical comments there have reported the same experience. That's why I would not recommend wasting time trying to post your rebuttals there, but instead post them somewhere else where it's possible to have a discussion or debate (if that's what you want), or at least where you can post a rebuttal that will be read by others.
Kinana,
I read that thread... altogether different from the "complete shattering" of your and Spencer's arguments that Danios talks about. I just hope that any readers of that thread can also read JW, although Loonwatch don't link to it. (Quoting without linking... is that normal?)
Yes, a "protected" dhimmi sounds as wonderful as a "protected" shopkeeper in Southern Italy, simply paying his dues to the people being so nice as to not burn down his shop. Which may help explain why the country with the largest population of Christian Arabs is... Brazil. Not that I'll be holding my breath for Loonwatch to address this.