Bill Maher to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Muslim Brotherhood): Qur’an is “hate-filled holy book”

Ellison trots out Qur’an 5:32, about how killing one innocent person is like killing the whole world. He doesn’t mention that it was addressed as a warning to the “Children of Israel,” or that many Muslims do not consider any non-Muslim to be innocent. Nor does he mention 5:33, which mandates crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides for those who make war against Allah and his messenger, or spread discord in the land.

Ellison also mentions Qur’an 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” without, of course, mentioning Qur’an 9:29, which stipulated that the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) must be fought against until they “pay the jizya [poll-tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” That is, they’re not compelled to become Muslims, but they’re denied equality of rights in the Islamic state.

Maher calls Ellison on the tired “out of context” excuse, but he isn’t ready with any illustrative passages from the Qur’an that would have proved his point, and he lets Ellison get away with the boldfaced lie that Islamic terrorists explain their motivation in political, not religious terms. See here and here for two recent proofs of the contrary, and there are many, many more where those came from.

MPAC chief comes out against blasphemy law, misrepresents Muhammad in the process
Rauf explains how "radicalization" happens, insulting Muslims in the process by implying they have no self control
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    I didn’t know Maher is an ex-Catholic,I thought maybe he was Jewish.I am amazed Maher had the guts to say what he said.Ellison is in denial about Islam.

    Must see Debate!

    When arguing with Muslims about women and Islam one has to know good arguments to counter the “No,it is just a cultural thing.”I said this before and the fact is the Koran has extremist passages that are of universal application.

    If you don’t know the arguments you will be called ignorant,a bigot,racist.

    Mary Jo Sharp vs Tabassum Hussain on “Women in the Koran and the Bible”:

    Her website is confidentchristianity.com

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK6ZVTQdoOs

    Part 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMm2jnpzRLg

    Part 3

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CARnVLr7LY

    Part 4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBAtDvJFLfc

    Also read:

    antisharia.com and:

    1.avraidire.com (in French and English),you can translate the French by copying and pasting with Google Translate:

    http://translate.google.com/#

    2.answeringmuslims.com

    3.answering-islam.org

    4.thereligionofconquest.com

    4.See the videos (click on “online videos”) of abnsat.com(like “Jihad Exposed”,”Debate”,”Jesus or Muhammad”).
    The videos are also on youtube,write “abnsat”.

    5.Also PYEM Ministry:

    http://pyemministry.blogspot.com/

    (very critical of Islam)

    6.The blog “Debunking Quranic Science”:

    http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/

    7.WIKISLAM(with 1,400 articles):

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

  2. says

    MSN’S LARRY O’DONNELL LIES ABOUT THE “SMEARING” OF 9/11 HERO SAL HAMDANI

    The lengths that the Left will go to smear America as a nation of anti-Moslem bigots to justify their hatred of this country is truly, truly astounding. It’s bad enough that Keith Ellison under oath lied at the King hearings about the epic smearing of Moslem hero Sal Hamdani-about the media, FBI and police defaming Hamdani as a possible accomplice in the 9/11 attack. But now joining the lie is empty, boring, insipid Larry O’Donnell of MSN; and regrettably the hero’s unworthy mother-and I mean “unworthy” as she appears to be a lying Islamist like Ellison with an ax to grind against this country.

    Last night I saw the segment on O’Donnell’s show where he interviewed Tilit Hamdani (the victim’s mother) and wacko leftist Russell Simmons about the media and law enforcement authorities defaming her son as a suspected terrorist because of his religion. And it was as bogus as Ellison’s emotional testimony. There was no smear campaign maligning her son. There was however a New York Post report about a mistaken Sal Hamdani siting by police near the Midtown Tunnel leading the FBI to question Mrs. Hamdani. And that was it. As the hero’s body wasn’t found yet and he was reported missing the FBI was doing its job in questioning his mother and family. This was seized upon by the American hating Ellison as evidence of our collective sins against Moslems; and to impugn Peter King and the terror hearings as motivated by irrational fear and bigotry.

    Unmentioned by Ellison, O’Donnell, Hamdani and Russell was that two weeks after the innocent Post story the Congress and Executive branch eulogized Sal Hamdani as a genuine 9/11 hero in the Patriot Act-this was prior to finding his body. It appears that Ellison, O’Donnell and Mrs. Hamdani conspired to focus on a bogus Islamophobic story (to smear America as a bigoted country) with the mother praising Ellison for, and get this, “bringing out the untold story of my son.” Untold story? What then do you call his honorable mention in the Patriot Act-no other hero was named in the Act? Why did Ellison, O’Donnell and the mother pass this over in silence? Are they anti-Patriot Act leftists who believe that it is an anti-Islamic law and that praising Hamdani in it was a profanation of his memory? Possibly. Be that as it may, it was insanely shameful nontheless to politicize this death and foster the Big Lie that America is an anti-Moslem “racist” nation. Ellison, O’Donnell and Talit Hamdani owe the American people an apology for smearing them.

  3. says

    Spencer, why don’t you appear on Bill Maher? I can’t remember if you were on years ago but… in any case, Maher sounds like he’d be extremely receptive to your message and he has a large left-wing audience that often gets exposed to Islamic criticism primarily through him.

  4. says

    Maher’s position logically SHOULD be the default position for left-leaning secularists, if they were loyal to their own self-proclaimed values—what’s striking about the whole Islam and the West conflict is that it’s not.

  5. says

    Ellison is rattled — you can tell by the rising pitch and volume of his voice.

    Dissapointing, but predictable, that the audience is buying his lines, though. If Maher could have quoted chapter and verse back at Ellison, that could have been groundbreaking for his studio audience and viewers.

    It is very telling how Ellison’s soul was snatched for Muhammad. He was lukewarm in the faith he was raised in, and many a Catholic school (I say this as a practicing Catholic and the product of Catholic schools from K-12) is culpable in leaving its students with a relativist outlook and intellectually unarmed to defend their faith, because, you know, it’s all good.

    And then he got the infomercial “social justice” Islam. Roland posted this extremely useful document in December, which shows how converts are deliberately shown a watered-down, sugar-coated version of Islam. It is “The Methodology of Dawah.”

    It says:

    The concept of Tawheed (Oneness of God) is explained to them in an academic fashion without telling what this Kalimah demands from a Muslim. Aqidah is explained without giving the details of the impact of Iman Billah and Iman Bil- Akhirah, and without telling what revolution it must bring in the life of an individual and the society in which he lives. … The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, as in most of the cases the Da’ee himself is not conversant with it.

    Once you’re in, you can admit you were wrong and face possible death for apostasy (or at least being shunned by all your new “friends” who “love-bombed” you at the start), or decide it’s Allah’s will and your new friends know best… and they wouldn’t lead you astray, would they?

  6. says

    I really wish Maher would bring specific, detailed research to the table, instead of just generalized, vague talking points. Maher could have easily made a fool out of Ellison and called attention to his deceptive “no compulsion” cherry-picking, simply by citing Mohammad’s views on apostasy. Although it’s always nice to know that someone is against Islam, it’s frustrating that Maher always wastes opportunities simply because he can’t be bothered to thoroughly educate himself.

  7. says

    Bob Gill:

    You can’t just go on these shows. You have to be asked. If Bill Maher ever asked me to be on, I would drop my teeth. Let’s just say I am not waiting by the phone.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  8. says

    Overall, I thought that Bill Maher offered a very succinct and accurate list of reasons why islam and company are in fact a threat …

    Yet in Ellison’s first response to Bill, he patronizes him by dismissing Bill’s list of assessments; and then basically told Bill to go back to the drawing board. Hey I think that Ellison needs to “investigate this further” himself, since Bill was spot on with his overall assessment of islam & co. IMO, Ellison’s response was tactical, as he attempted to discredit Maher’s short list of excellent reasons why islam has proven to be a threat. Ellison caught on tape lying, hey big surprise there, eh?

    Bill boldly referred to the qur’an as a hate filled holy book – although I would have to disagree with Bill on one point, since the qur’an is an UNHOLY hate filled book. And Bill unwittingly spoke an oxymoron with that statement, since how can anything be considered holy if it is “hate filled”? It can’t. I mean that doesn’t make sense. And I’m a little surprised that Bill didn’t tell it like it is and call the qur’an UNHOLY, since generally he is not afraid to be unpc.

    Anyway, I give Bill Maher points for stating that the qur’an is hate filled – AND, for stating that islam and company pose the greatest threat to our civilization – greater than any other threats that exist today, which is true.

  9. says

    It was disgusting to see Maher back off as he did on Ellison’s response misquoting Q 5:32-33, which is clearly addressed to the Jews mocking their own words ripped from the their writings and warning them to behave or face torture and death. I suspect Maher was just afraid, like so many celebrities, of a possible murder threats for exposing Ellison’s garbage.

    Come on Maher, man-up fully if your going to challenge the likes of Ellison or just shut up.

    And I doubt Ellison is in denial about what the Koran says. I think he probably knows he’s lying but it’s only to infidels who are dammed anyway.

    And this “There is no compulsion in religion” just means you might not get killed for rejecting Islam but you must be then humiliated under Q 9:29. This is not something to compliment Islam about.

  10. says

    If I remember correctly, Bill Maher is Irish Catholic (Pater) and Jewish (Mater).

    Although he seems to be anti-Islamic, there are moments of ambivalence in his criticisms. I posted one example on another thread: the fact that he openly supported/supports the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque. How can one be against something, but for something else that would enable that something? Odd way of putting it, but I hope it’s understood. Another: Why does he give the likes of Ellison (including the dhimmi-like apologists) a forum in which to spew their views about Islam, without expressly refuting them? Even in the video, you get the sense that, although he’s anti-Islamic, he supports Ellison. My thoughts by the end of that segment: “Buddy, you can’t be both an opponent and proponent; you’re one or the other.”

    I agree with this:

    Eastview: “Bill Maher is a classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. His instincts tell him there is something wrong with Islam, but his lack of knowledge of its history that would allow the validation of those feelings leaves him open to attack.”

  11. says

    Bill Maher to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Muslim Brotherhood): Qur’an is “hate-filled holy book”
    ……………………

    Yes”I saw Maher’s show, “Real Time”, last night. He was getting a lot of “cheap pops” from his audience last night, so it did take some integrity for him to turn the conversation to matters his guest would hardly feel comfortable with.

    More:

    Maher calls Ellison on the tired “out of context” excuse, but he isn’t ready with any illustrative passages from the Qur’an that would have proved his point
    ……………………

    All too true. And yet, for a hard-left liberal like Maher to take this stance at all is *very* heartening. It’s not the first time, either. Maher, for all his twitting of religion in general, really seems beginning to grasp the threat from Islam.

    I’m glad to see it. Many people will *never* pay attention to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. If, however, they are hearing some of the same things from Bill Maher, it may make them think twice”especially if they have been having “politically incorrect” concerns of their own.

  12. says

    My email to Bill Maher – I know, not very ‘professionally’ or ‘eloquently’ stated but c’mon… its written to Bill Maher – not to an executive government official. Enjoy:

    Bill,
    Seriously, I could bow down at your feet and polish your shoes with my tongue!!!!

    Thank you for telling Keith Ellison what’s what about Islam and the Qu’ran!

    If you were well-versed in the Qu’ran, Sira and Hadith (a Mohammed ‘playbook’ of sorts LOL) you would have been able to show him how correct you are. You could have served his lying ass to him on a platter!

    Next time you host Ellison or any other Islam defender, please also invite an Islamic expert, as well, to back you up and debunk the “religion of peace” lies.

    I suggest Robert Spencer. Yeah, I know… I know… your leftist audience will hate you for it. But someday, once they’ve removed their PC blinders, they’ll thank you.

    You are right that Islamic supremacy is a huge threat to all of us.

    This is NOT a left-right thing. It is a knowledge-ignorance thing. Some of the biggest enablers of Islamic infiltration are so-called “conservatives”.

    Take NJ Gov Christie, for example… the conservatives’ love child:
    He is OWNED… bought and paid for by Islamic supremacists with terrorist ties. Little known in spite of a wealth of evidence. Yet, Ann Coulter and many others keep singing his praises and sounding off about what a great president he would make… and urging him to run.

    If you would like links to info about Christie’s ties to Islamic supremacists and terrorists, let me know. There’s a ton of info available. Info you will never find in the lame-stream-media including Fox.

    Christie is NOT the only “conservative” sucking up to Islam. These clowns are helping further the Islamic agenda whether by wimping out, SELLING out or willful involvement.

    Thanks again!
    [full name] xoxoxo

  13. says

    Naturally, if Keith Ellison believes that statements within documents should be taken within their entire context – and if those who agree with his Islam is Peace mantra also believe in the same (Muslims, non-Muslims, etc.) – then various references in the US Constitution regarding slavery “should not be taken out context” as well. In fact, it should therefore not bother these same people if the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution overturning slavery were itself overturned and slavery re-established formally, even if ignored in practice. Certainly, a re-institutionalization of slavery should bother no one if such legal wording were to be found within a greater Constitution whose other constituent parts spoke of the freedom of all *men*. If, however, “context” does not apply to slavery vis-a-vis the US Constitution, then the “context” argument must also not apply to the Quran… or the Sunnah… or the Hadeeth… or Shariah…

  14. says

    Thanks for the response Robert.

    Though…. would it be possible to send him a copy of one of your best books and hope for the best?

  15. says

    Typical pro-Jihad response by the misogynistic oppressive male muslim.
    Ellison shifts the blame and makes it someone elases job to defend the Quran and denounce the Muslims misquotingthe Quran.

    I’ve seen his kind before when I had stopped to help people in a bad car accident on a remote highway, Ellison was one of those people on the shoulder gawking at the blood
    covered victims and the twisted cars.
    While I was actually trying to save their lives or comfort them untilt help arrived…he and the crescent shaped crowds of grievers could be heard say ” Someone should help them,did someone call for a Ambulance” and on and on to shift the blame to “Someone Else” that should solve the crisis.

    So please Mr.Ellison, if you are not going to be part of the solution that you appear to be so upset at, then just shut-up about it because you end up convicting
    yourself and islam as guilty for condonming Suicde-bombers and murdering of Gays in Gaza.
    BTW
    How nice of Ellison to take his Quranic verses “Out Of Context” or doesn’t even have the confidence to carry the Quran with him and prentend we are fro Mosourri and “Show-Me” that verse from the Quran.
    NO…they won’t do that on TV or at a debate,so from now on Robert should challenge the Muslims on TV to produce the Quran and site that Peacful verses they speak of.

  16. says

    One more note about Ellison.

    I’m glad he admits that he is too ignorant of the Quran and Arabic to fully understand it, this explains why he was a ignorant Catholic with no solid roots to his belief and how his ignorance of Jesus got him to follow a Misogynistic/pedophile/warrior/homophobe like Muhammad.

    Ellison had issues long before going into a Church or Mosque,the fact that he rejects jesus and Christs message for equality and service to your enemies and neighbours speak volumes for how islam draws in the useful-idiots with the Taqqiyah crumbs that lead to the slaughter house.
    Ellison should speak-up about the African Muslims being slaughtered by the Ararb-Muslims since Muhammad accepted
    Slavery of Blacks but only if the owners were not White people.
    He’s in for a big surprise one day when the true Jihad starts and he can’t change his colour to look like a Arab-Muslim from the Super-race that Muhammad spoke about.
    Poor Bill,he’s consumed with blaming God for what man has done over the centuries as we saw with Muhammad who is now exalted to a Prophet status while not once making a prophecy to prove he was one.

  17. says

    Maher has come a long way. From his infamous 9/11 comment about the US being cowardly and lobbing missiles at the poor Middle Eastern countries (basically justifying 9/11), to now, he seems to understand how Islam is always at the root of all of these problems. The problem with Maher now is that he just doesn’t have the desire to learn the details. He’s comfortable in his anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-religious views, but he doesn’t understand why Islam is bad… he just knows that it is.

    If he could do a little more research and have ammo to use against Ellison and his ilk, Maher could be a very strong asset for the anti-jihad group. He could get into the minds of his liberal audience and do some real work.

  18. says

    We could always write him or try to talk to him while he’s on tour somewhere. (ie, go up to him after a comedy show and hand him a copy of P.I.G.)

  19. says

    Re countering the apologetic propagandistic use of 5:32 and 2:256, in the context of a brief media appearance, I think the most expedient means is to cut to the chase and talk about sharia and jihad. Talk about the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc. Talk about the jihad ultimatum, i.e., whereby non-Muslim are invited to (i) convert to Islam or to (ii) be subjugated under the dhimma, or else possibly (iii) be killed in warfare if the first two “options” are refused.

    The implication of 5:32 is that human life is very valuable and should not be taken, except in retaliation for (a) killing [q-t-l] or (b) spreading mischief/corruption [f-s-d] in the land.

    From this “mischief/corruption” exception we can conclude that in Islam there are crimes other than killing that are deemed to warrant the death penalty. And here is where sharia and jihad, which are based heavily on a combination of the Quran and accepted Hadith, come in to fill the gap.

    Islamic law has the death penalty for the following “crimes”:
    Apostasy (publicly expressed)
    Blasphemy
    A Non-Muslim Proselytizing to Muslims
    Adultery
    Homosexuality
    Marriage/sex between non-Muslim man and Muslim woman
    Sedition
    Witchcraft/Sorcery

    This list is not exhaustive.

    Islamic jihad policy has already been mentioned, but I will add that jihad can be waged on the grounds that a non-Muslim jurisdiction does not permit sharia or Islamic proselytizing, or does not accept some Islamic terms of a treaty. Under a Muslim jurisdiction, jihad can be waged if dhimma rules are being flouted.

    When you think about it, the creators and sustainers of Islam have come up with quite a lot of excuses for killing people who say or do things contrary to Islam.

    2:256 is severely limited in scope due to all the other rules and policies in the Quran and Hadith which do involve coercion in matters of religion [deen], even if this is explicitly denied in the descriptions of the policies. Every thing I’ve listed above can be cited again as an example of coercion in religion.

    One must note that most Islamic countries do not have the death penalty for every one of the above-listed crimes today, though many do have some legal punishments, and all are signatories to the Cairo Declaration and can reinstate classical sharia laws at any time. Even in places where the death penalty is not used for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, etc., polls and surveys by PEW, World Public Opinion, and others indicate there is widespread popular support among Muslims for such harsh punishments. The majority of the world’s Muslims want a strict application of sharia and even want some sort of Caliphate to be set up.

  20. says

    angel espinosa, you said:
    “Ellison is hopeless but I think you should send it to the others.”
    I agree. He is also totally disingenuous, totally insincere and willfully oblivious to knowledge and truth. You could show him that the arabs of islam were the greatest enslavers of blacks and that this continues to this day. You could point out what is going on in Darfur to black muslims from “arab” muslims. He might pro forma agree and quickly move to a thousand “but”..s. The essential overriding factor for him is that islam stands in opposition to and seeks to destroy the white man and his ways IMO.

  21. says

    http://newstime.co.nz/video-sharia-4-america.html
    No Compulsion in Religion” 2:256
    (early Mecca verse as “Mr. Love & Peaceâ„¢”
    was weak & still wore a mask to woo new converts
    and his preaching was sugary)

    Abrogated (Naskh, 2:106) “canceled” through the latest dictated chapter #9
    (Medina jihadi) “Verse of the Sword” 9:5
    Kill the infidels wherever you find them.”

    (9:1-4 grace period, 4 holy months, “treaty” granted by Muh.
    for Pagans pilgrimate to Mecca only in that year)

    9:29 additionally only for Jews & Christians
    (for “corrupting” the Bible) to live as dhimmis, and pay jizyah (protection tax, page 166 “…how the mafia operates”)
    (2nd class citizens under Islamic rule)

  22. says

    Why this guy has not changed his Christian name to some sort of Osama or Abdullah? He is an oppourtunist. The crocodile tears he shed the other day about one single muslim died in that September 11 destructions by his regionists makes us laugh our buts out. Just imagine- if any Muslim in Pakistan ,converting to Christianity, talking proudly to Muslims about his conversion- he will be shot dead then and there immediately. No wonder 99% of Americans detest and hate this guy like poison.

  23. says

    Here is what the Qur’an says in general:

    In the Name of God Most Gracious Most Merciful

    60.8 God does not forbid you from being just and kind to those (idolators) who did not fight you for your religion or drive you out from your homes. For God loves those who are just.

    2.190 And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not start the agression surely God does not love those who start the agression.

    8.61 And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

    2.62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

    5.69 Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in God and the last day and does good– they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

    The reason I started with the prefix

    “In the Name of God Most Gracious Most Merciful”

    is to distingiush the quoted verses from verses in surah or chapter 9 which does not start with that prefix.

  24. says

    I wonder what Ellison would say or react to if a 747 full of fuel was flown into the kabar rock during Hajj to slaughter 1000’s of people???

    Would he call for calm, would he avoid laying blame to a religion or ethnic group?

    I doubt it because the Mo-Toons showed us how crazy and predisposed to violence a large minority of Muslims are to riot and kill to protect Allah and Muhammad. That poor fragile Muhammad, he needs useful idiots and peons to protect him and kill people that question that man behind the curtain pulling the switches and yelling out Judgement.

  25. says

    p.s. I forgot to mention, re the apologist quote of 60:8, above, that the verses 60:1-4 pretty much extinguish the misleading impression that apologists are trying to create by citing 60:8 in isolation.

  26. says

    I saw that segment with Lawrence O’Donnell and forced myself to sit through it to see the lengths to which O’Donnell would go to malign King and the hearings. It was exactly as you described. Quite disgusting.

    Is it just me, or is MSNBC becoming even more shrilly Leftist in its postures?

  27. says

    Bill Maher is a classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. His instincts tell him there is something wrong with Islam, but his lack of knowledge of its history that would allow the validation of those feelings leaves him open to attack.

    Bill Maher is a bright guy and could be a wonderful spokesman for the antijihad movement. But like a lot of intellectuals, he’s narcissistic and too entranced by the buzz going on in his own head and the sound of his own voice to be bothered with spending time looking for enlightenment from others who may be brighter and have a deeper understanding of history than he.

    Maher happens to be right about Islam in this case but it isn’t clear it goes beyond the superficial. Even a clock is right twice a day. I’ll become convinced he has seen the light when he starts inveighing against Islam on a regular basis and buttresses his opinions with solid historical data. He wouldn’t necessarily have to quote chapter and verse from the Qur’an, in fact that might even be counterproductive except as rebuttal to fatuous claims that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” since it would open the door to diversionary moral equivalence arguments using counter-citations from Deuteronomy and Leviticus. (I’d be even happier if he joined the Tea Party movement, but since that would alienate him from his support base in the entertainment industry it may be too much to ask for. But once step at a time.)

  28. says

    This reluctance to ally is what bothers me the most, and it’s what driving the other Catholic & Protestant Christian pastors away from this situation.

    Bill Maher just doesn’t see the threat well enough, and his inability to cite Quranic passages demonstrate this.

    Of course, he’d probably cite some Israeli massacre of Canaanites with the exact verse & chapter.

    Before you know it, he’s attacking Christians & Jews again on an equal basis. And that’s his problem; the equating of Islam with other religions.

    And that’s why so far so few Christians in this country give a crap about this dire situation, because as far as they can see, Bill Maher is attacking Islam the way he attacks Christianity, and they’ll have none of either.

  29. says

    I think you’ve made good points, and at least he isn’t like Jon Stewart; who, considering his ignorant and foolish comments on mahoundianism, can’t make me stop thinking that he’s about to recite the shahahahahahahahada everty time I see his face.

  30. says

    Why don’t you send it to them? I doubt they’ll be droppin’ in to see it here.

    Ellison is hopeless but I think you should send it to the others.

  31. says

    [QUOTE] “Thanks for the response Robert.
    Though…. would it be possible to send him a copy of one of your best books and hope for the best?” [/QUOTE]

    Bob Gill,

    I think one of Robert’s books would be better-received by Maher if it were sent by one of us. He might view at as somewhat self-serving if Robert were to send it.

    So, have at it. That would be great. Chances of getting close enough to him at one of his shows is pretty slim. US Postal Service or UPS would be much faster and easier.

  32. says

    Given that Mr Maher has already pegged the Qur’an as a ‘hate-filled holy book’, I think it might be worthwhile sending him a copy of Wafa Sultan’s book “A God Who Hates”.

    Maybe even suggest that you’d tune in quicksmart and so would all your friends, were he to invite Ms Sultan onto his show to discuss her book and why she wrote it, and why *she* thinks that the ‘allah’ of the Muslims is a hateful god (who, among other things, ‘hates women’).

    We know that Ms Sultan is eloquent and intelligent and brave.

    And – she knows the Islamic texts in their original language. She’s fluent in Arabic. She knows all about the Sira, and the Horrible Hadiths, as well as the Quran.

    She could educate him, and all his viewers too.

    Other people he could profitably interview would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel. Give him their names and *dare* him to interview them…hey, ask him to have them all on *together*…four formidably intelligent women, three of them former Muslims (two now atheists, one a Christian) and one a Christian who knows what it’s like to live as a Christian in a country that Muslims have taken over by a mix of force, fraud and over-breeding.

    Nonie, like Wafa, has left Islam; Nonie, like Wafa, lived *inside* Islam for thirty years; Nonie in her book on sharia is pretty blunt – ‘sharia is Islam and Islam is sharia’… and then she proceeds to unpack just how ugly sharia is, both in the domestic and in the political spheres.

    And Ayaan could educate him about the Muslim Brotherhood, because she knows *exactly* how they turn slack Muslims-in-name-only, ‘cultural Muslims’ , into full-on veil-wearing sharia-pushing 100 % proof Muslims. She nearly went that way herself, as a teenager in Kenya; she was saved by the merest whisker, by her own strong native intelligence and will that, when push came to shove, just couldn’t submit as they were demanding.

  33. says

    dumbledoresarmy, you said:
    “because she knows *exactly* how they turn slack Muslims-in-name-only, ‘cultural Muslims’…
    I call these cultural muslims MUSHlims.

  34. says

    Dumbledore’s Army wrote:

    Other people he could profitably interview would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali…
    ……………………

    Actually, Dumbeldore’s Army, Maher had Ayaan Hirsi Ali on his show two years ago. She is a bit soft-spoken for his format, and he has to get in his usual digs about Judaism and Christianity”but over all, this is *very* powerful stuff”and seen by an audience that will not likely see this sort of thing anywhere else. Check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyYZulIxNCE

  35. says

    I agree with your disgust at Maher’s probably holding a “tu quoque” to the Jews and Christians when they cite the violtent texts of the Qur’an and Hadith. People like him apply the term “fundamentalist” to Muslim bigots simply to make serious Christians appear un-American.

    There are many dimensions to the anti-Jihad struggle. Here in America, there is a movement away from Islam among many immigrants and their offspring, and it is happening to some extent in Europe, too. Hence, a lot of us Evangelicals are a bit wary of spoiling something that appears to be a God-given harvest that we really weren’t prepared for (although we rejoice that those long-barren fields are yielding something). That’s why I, for one, believe that it is very important that Muslims (especially in free countries) see the Gospel of Christ as a gate through which they are invited to pass rather than as a club held over their heads. If we allow the anti-Jihad movement to become purely political, it will be hijacked by those with a purely political ideology, and the 20th century is a horrific tale of what purely political ideologies do.

    And, I doubt that the anti-Islam of a man like Maher is really helpful. He hates God and Christ first; and hates Islam only because he thinks it’s a continuation of the same tradition represented by the Old and New Testaments. He is the sort of person who thinks like a dog–if you can’t eat or have s*x with it, you urin@#e on it.

  36. says

    Amro wrote:

    Here is what the Qur’an says in general
    ……………………..

    Not so. Those are a few quotes from the Qu’ran, with the following verses quietly omitted and no indication of abrogation.

    No mention that “inclining to peace” for the Infidels means paying the Jizya and submitting to the terrible permanent second-class status of dhimmi. Islam *never* regards Infidels as equals.

    More:

    The reason I started with the prefix

    “In the Name of God Most Gracious Most Merciful”

    is to distingiush the quoted verses from verses in surah or chapter 9 which does not start with that prefix.
    ……………………..

    Amro, your savage coreligionists would have your head were you to suggest that Sura 9 is”somehow”not a legitimate Qu’ranic verse because it does not begin with the same incantation.

    Besides, the Qu’ran, Hadith, and Sira are *full* of the most terrible passages lauding the murder, oppression, and enslaving of Infidels. Sura 9 merely resents some of the gaudiest verses.

    The basic barbaric tenets of Islam would change not a whit were that Sura somehow expunged.

  37. says

    Amro,

    I have read the Quran multiple times. You select a few quotes, and claim those represent the Quran in general. The superficial impression they convey does not give a representative view of what’s in the Quran. That said, if you look closely at the wording of the verses you quoted, and read the surrounding context, it turns out that all of them are either quite bad for non-Muslims, or provide no reliable protections for non-Muslims.

    “60.8 God does not forbid you from being just and kind to those (idolators) who did not fight you for your religion or drive you out from your homes. For God loves those who are just.”

    What this means in context of the surrounding passage and the rest of the Quran is that Muslims are “not forbidden” from acting, temporarily, “as though” they are friendly with those non-Muslims who respond positively, without resistance or objection, to Islam. The Quran is clear that non-Muslims must not resist or oppose Islam in any way. This particular short sura (60:1-13) does not comment directly on what is to be done with non-Muslims who (a) refuse to convert to Islam, and (b) question or criticize Islam. 60:2 does mention “those who extend their tongues” against Islam, and 60:13 warns Muslims against befriending those with whom Allah is angry (i.e., all non-Muslims who reject Islam). But other parts of the Quran combined with the Hadith lay down penalties and policies which came to be used in Islamic law and jihad policy, i.e., killing of apostates, blasphemers, adulterers; and waging military warfare against non-Muslim peoples who refused to allow the spread of full sharia in their societies, or who refused to accept Islam as their official religion. When the invitation to embrace Islam was sent by the Muslim leadership to neighboring non-Muslim leaders, the invitation proposition was that all the non-Muslim people in that society, not just the ruler, had to convert to Islam. If they refused, they would have to accept the dhimma pact of surrender, pay the jizya, and submit to Islamic rule as second-class citizens (dhimmis) and slaves. If the non-Muslims refused that, the Muslims waged war on them. Sometimes, such as with polytheists, no dhimma “option” was on the table; all of the community would collectively have to declare conversion to Islam and accept sharia rule and pay the zakat, or be slaughtered (in the case of the men), raped (in the case of the women and girls), and enslaved.

    “2.190 And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not start the agression surely God does not love those who start the agression.”

    Although there is often disagreement over whether any particular verse is abrogated, 2:190 is regarded by mainstream Islamic scholars as being abrogated by verses in Sura 9. That’s because verses such as 9:5 clearly do call for aggression and forced conversion.

    However, even if some regard the verse as not abrogated, that passage around it is quite bad. 2:191 states that fitnah is worse than killing, and mainstream commentators describe this fitnah as not only religious persecution but also the influence of polytheism per se, i.e., any thing that tempts a Muslim away from belief in Islam and striving to establish Islam. The Quran itself states numerous times that the worst crime is disbelief of Islam. 2:192 indicates that Muslims should not let up in fighting the non-Muslims unless and until they “desist,” that is, desist from resisting Islam and Islamic law, desist from polytheism, desist from whatever un-Islamic beliefs and practices they are engaged in. 2:193 says Muslims should fight the non-Muslims until fitnah (see above) is no more, and “all religion is for Allah.” 2:194 says that in war, any method–no matter how abhorrent–the non-Muslims use against Muslims, Muslims can use the same method. Thus rape, torture, killing of women and children and non-combatants generally, is permitted if non-Muslims do this to Muslims. (This is, BTW, one of the “justifications” groups such as Al-Qaeda today use when they attack non-Muslim civilians). 2:195 warns Muslims about casting themselves into ruin or destruction, but it never tells them to refrain from casting non-Muslims into ruin or destruction.

    Define “aggression.” Clearly, in Islam, even the Islam of the majority of Muslims today, the mere criticism of Islam is deemed to be aggression. Most Muslims today want those who criticize Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished. The majority of Muslims want sharia, as the poling shows. Significant minorities to large majorities of Muslims today want apostates to be put to death.

    “8.61 And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

    Yes, they have to accept Islamic terms of peace, i.e., they have to accept Islam, or Islamic rule, or Islamic terms of a treaty (which generally includes the forbidding of any opposition to Islam).

    “2.62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”

    They have to believe as Muhammad believes (2:136-137). After Muhammad came with the message, all non-Muslims had to accept Islam (3:85). Muhammad and the Muslims tried to preach to the Christians and Jews, not just the tribal polytheists, and implored them to believe in Islam and Muhammad. If Muhammad and Islam were okay with Christians and Jews, then why did Muhammad and the Muslims preach to them, trying to convert them, inviting them to Islam? And, when Muhammad, and his successors, had the military power to do so, why did they wage war on all the Jews and Christians around them, demanding that they convert to Islam, or accept subjugation, pay jizya to Muslims, and obey Islamic law? (9:29-33). Why did “Allah himself” “fight (q-t-l) against them”?

    “5.69 Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in God and the last day and does good– they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”

    (See above). Also, check the context. In this passage, Muhammad does refer to some Christians who converted to Islam. As for those who don’t, see 9:29.

    So, taking into account my above notes, yes, the verses you present, despite superficial impressions, are indeed not contrary to the overall message of the Quran. That overall message is that non-Muslims who don’t accept Islam are bad and are going to burn in hell, and that in this world they must be punished and fought, and either be forced to convert to Islam or be forced to comply with Islamic law. The Quran leaves no other options for non-Muslims who simply want to be left alone and want nothing to do with the Islam that they are “invited” to embrace.