A "Muslim-American woman" spreads misinformation about Islam at Fox News

Saima Sheikh is media communications leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadiyya, of course, are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims for their belief in "the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani." Saima Sheikh doesn't mention this all-important fact here, but instead gives the impression to unwary and uninformed non-Muslims that some eminent Muslim authority has declared violent jihad un-Islamic. In reality, it is in part for that declaration that Ahmadis are being ferociously persecuted today in Pakistan and Indonesia, and the governing authorities do not even consider them to be true Muslims.

"A Muslim-American Woman Reacts to Obama's Ground Zero Visit and Bin Laden's Death," by Saima Sheikh for FoxNews.com, May 5:

It has been four days since we learned that the infamous Usama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda and the most wanted man in the world has been killed. I would like to thank the brave United States Navy SEALS. As an American-Muslim woman, I am happy that justice has finally been served....

So in the headline Saima Sheikh is a "Muslim-American," and in her first paragraph she is an "American-Muslim." Have you ever seen anyone refer to a "Christian-American" or a "Jewish-American"? Of course not. There are Americans who are Jews and Americans who are Christians, but neither group uses such terms, because there is nothing about either faith that precludes or qualifies one's allegiance to the United States. These hyphenated terms, all of which are corrosive to national unity, as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out long ago, are usually combinations of some other nationality with "American," not a religion with "American." By using these terms, Saima Sheikh, as well as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, imply that Islam is a kind of nationality, calling for a type of national allegiance, and so one may be a hybrid of Muslim and American, but one cannot be a Muslim and simply an "American."

I applauded President Bush’s remarks after 9/11 and President Obama’s remarks Sunday night that “America will never be at war with Islam. Our war is not with Islam. Osama was never a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer.”

The word "Islam" means peace and obedience.

Actually, no. It means "submission."

As Muslims we are taught not to create disorder and to respect each other regardless of our faith. No true Muslim can do what Osama Bin Laden had done. There is no place for extremism of any kind in Islam. The Holy Quran clearly states “Whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” (5:33) and “when he is in authority, he runs about in the land to create disorder in it and destroy the crops and the progeny of man; and Allah loves not disorder.” (2:206)

Actually Qur'an 5:32 (not 5:33, at least in most versions) doesn't say that "whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind." It says "We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." "Corruption in the earth," or the "disorder" that Saima Sheikh decries by invoking Qur'an 2:206, is punishable, according to the Qur'an, by crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides (5:33). Osama made his case among Muslims by charging that the United States was spreading corruption in the earth, and thus was fair game. The jihadist movement rejects the charge that it is creating disorder by pointing out that warfare against unbelievers is mandated in the Qur'an (cf. 9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193; etc.), and thus to pursue that war is not to create disorder.

This is not to say that bin Laden is wrong and Saima Sheikh is right, but it is an indication of why the jihadists have been able to make recruits within the larger Muslim community, in which their position is much better established in Islamic texts and teachings and more mainstream than Saima Sheikh's.

I am an America Muslim woman who believes in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, who declared emphatically over a century ago that an aggressive “Jihad by the Sword” has no place in Islam. In its place, he has taught his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual “Jihad of the Pen” to defend Islam.

Highly misleading. Even aside from their status as heretics, the Ahmadiyya are a small minority among Muslims. Groups recognized as orthodox have by no means rejected "Jihad by the Sword."

This is what I and others in my community are doing all across the United States. We want to tell our fellow Americans that there are moderate Muslims who are speaking up against extremism. I am a loyal American who is taught by my faith, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you…” (4:60) This is further reiterated by Prophet Muhammad, “Love of your homeland, your place of residence, is part of your faith.”

He also said, "I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah" (Sahih Muslim 30). It would have been refreshing for Saima Sheikh to explain why she rejects this mandate, if she does, and on what grounds.

But instead, it's the same old disingenuous presentation of half-truths (at best).

| 117 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

117 Comments

| Leave a comment

Robert,

As a stylistic practice, would it be possible to correct, at least in JW stories on the antics of Muslims, those Muslim who call themselves "Muslim Americans." At best they should only be called "Muslims who live in America."

Likewise if posters could begin to also follow this practice. Muslims are not Americans; they are not here for the opportunities and the freedoms that the concept of Americanism has given to so many. Rather, Muslims are here for colonization and conquest. They cannot be Americans because of their adoption of Islam. Sharia and American constitutional law couldn't be farther apart.

By their own admissions Muslims tell us repeatedly that their one and only allegiance is to Islam. On this score I believe them.

"Muslims who live in America" only.

As soon as she said there were moderate Muslims speaking up against extremism, I would have first laughed and asked her if she was really serious, then I would have asked her of the 17,000+ acts of extreme violence committed in the name of Islam worldwide since 9/11, can she name at least 10 of those 17,000+ where so called moderates congregated in numbers above 50 people in more than 2 or 3 places to show the world through actions that you so called moderates are against Islamic extremism in all it's forms. I suspect I would have received more Taqiyya. In the minds of these so called moderates, saying there are many Muslims speaking out against these atrocities automatically means that's true. I don't know who's more deluded and living in a fantasy, Muslims or the retarded left....

May be this "American-Muslim" woman should learn more about Islam-means-peace to ... the Ahmadyya sect.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/indonesia-lynching.html

On the 'Muslim-American/American-Muslim' thing: Why not put 'so-called' before such slippery terms? I always write 'so-called' when referring to the prophet of Islam, or to the religion of peace. Then it's clear these terms are called into question.

In any case the co-opting of the word 'American' is part of the pattern in Islam of co-opting anything or anyone that can help their cause of world domination; for example, co-opting Jewish prophets to appear in the Qur'an and co-opting Jewish holy sites as being sacred to Islam, etc.

You can be pretty sure they wouldn't co-opt a moniker like Icelandic-Muslim, or Falkland-Islands-Muslim. Only the important stuff is hijacked and made use of.

'muslim colonizers'.

FOX is getting more Islamobama every day...

OT - Sort of but for more 'misunderstanders' . .

From today's National Post:
Re: Geert Wilders
Anti-Islam politician to bring views to Canada
‘I’m shocked’
Jessica Hume http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Anti+Islam+politician+bring+views+Canada/4729019/story.html

Interesting the way all the proponents of Islam self-identify out of the woodwork when confronted by the truth about Islam. That's one way to find the enemies! And as a frequent reference . . the ‘moderates’ are where?


WE ARE AT WAR!

I guess you call title the Ahmadiyya the united methodist muslims of the world?

Hmmmm....

Why don't Nazis just start declaring Jew-hating/murdering "un-Nazi?"

"This is further reiterated by Prophet Muhammad, “Love of your homeland, your place of residence, is part of your faith.”

Robert,

Do you know if Muhammad was actually recorded as saying this in the ahadith or anywhere else? If so, where?

http://newstime.co.nz/another-example-of-the-violence-direct-from-allah-3357-61.html
Another example of the violence direct from Allah (33:57-61)
(thanks to a comment on Jihad Watch)

Qur’an 33:57 – 61
(61) “They [Muslims] shall have a curse on them [unbelievers]: wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without Mercy).”

And true Muslims follow “the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)” Qur’an 33:21 (or excellent example)

jihad talab (offensive jihad, e.g. the essence of Islamic teachings 9:29)
& the second type jihad al-daf’ (defensive jihad, e.g. 2:190 + 191)
cf. Question #26125

The city of Hamburg (9/11-cell) in its very strange wisdom has long time ago allowed an islamic council to set up shop. Of course it is called "Shura"; and one of its first exec. orders was: "No Ahmadiyyas allowed in here. And no Alawites and defenitely no Ba`hai either."

Outrageous: The City of Hamburg is as of now negotiating with this Umma-offshot called "Shura Hamburg" a state-treaty ("Staatsvertrag") between Mohammedans and Germans in Hamburg.

For anyone who reads German:
http://www.schura-hamburg.de/

Take note: The mosque on the starting page is the shiite mosque in Hamburg. Shiite Iran has a heavy hand on the Hamburg Shura.

Thank you, Robert! ...I always enjoy and learn from your spot on, and excellent analysis.

Anyone who claims the title american-muslim, muslim-american or in the case of my poor country british-muslim etc, clearly has no true allegiance to their host nation. It is utterly unnecessary to state your religion (or lack of) every time you describe your nationality.. You don't see me going around saying "as a British-Atheist, I believe that..."

OK you did then, but that just goes to prove my point :~)

OT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13299606

A fund-raiser for jihad arrested as part of an anti-terrorist raid gets slightly bruised during the arrest procedure then calls foul. He claims to have not resisted...

He was released without charge back then, but is currently in custody waiting for extradition to the states, so blatantly he got away with it once, and is now trying everything possible to get away with it again.

Unsurprisingly for the BBC, we have no reports on the police officers side of the story and have to follow a link at the bottom of the page to an older report on the case to find out what he was arrested for.

The Ahmadiya are peaceful but, like all Muslims, they're triumphalists. They consider themselves the only real Muslims. The other billion head-bangers don't count to the Ahmadiya, because the others are in error. Everyone in the parade is out of step but my boy Ahmed.

So an Ahmadiya speaker can go to the media and blandly claim that 'Muslims' follow whatever the Ahmadiya doctrine may be. He isn't intentionally lieing. He's blindly deluded. Like all of the rest of them.

SSL,

I will be attending this event featuring Geert Wilders and Ezra Levant (in Ottawa on May 10), another champion of free expression. He was brought up on "charges" for re-publishing the mohammed cartoons. I am really looking forward to this, and will report back to JWers next week.

Keep up the good fight.

Ima

Oh how I wish I could go with you!

But I'm out here in Nova Scotia. Please know, I'll be with you in spirit! I hope you'll share all the details.

Rather than "peace AND obedience" (to whom by the way??? answer - some Imam who claims to speak for Allah) she should have said "peace THROUGH obedience" which = "submission."

It is apparent that the lying will never end. Unlike some of you, I consider this to be kitman at it's finest.

Most of us here already know that muslims are liars and are encouraged to lie in the koran in order to support the prime mandate of islam, among other things.

Never trust what they say. Study their actions. Most of us already know where those actions are headed. Spread light on their lies with the truth every chance you get.

The word "Islam" means peace and obedience.

Actually, no. It means "submission."

--------------------------

OK Robert, as an expert in this would you say that it might equally be said to mean 'surrender' ?

Because to the Western mindset, American in particular maybe. the notion of 'surrender' is more unacceptable than the less familiar 'submission', a word we don't associate with defeat so much. If so ............ just wondering.

Even splinter-sect Muslims can't tell the truth. Islam and mendacity go hand in hand. And it's not something in the water. It's in the Koran---and the hadiths---and the sira---and the pronouncements of imams---and the doctrines promulgated by Islamic schools of theology---and---and---and---. Yep, the lying never ends. Pathetic. Tedious. Oh so very Muslim.

Yeah Mr Sanity. Saw that report this morning about the suspect who is pressing charges against the police. It included a photo of his face which didn't even sport a decent shiner, and a forearm with an imprint of handcuff and a couple of very minor scratches. When I read what the guy was saying happened to him at the hands of the arresting officers I knew straitway it was a crock of s**t. Anyone who's been through the mill knows.

Why is it that the approximate 164 jihad alas among the surahs are rarely if ever talked about with in the media? Its as if they are off limits for discussion or that the numerous talking heads in both the media and in the political world completely fail to address the obvious.

Sean Hannity or Bill O'reilly refer to jihadist actions as being part of radical Islam. How can it be just radical Islam when it is a fact that the teachings of Islam in the Quran, let alone the violence strewn Sira (biography of Mohamed) or the numerous hadiths that speak to jihad are followed by numerous Imans and clerics. Why are these jihadists alas continuously filtered out of discussions on Islam?

Just asking???

research the baha'i... the faith of the mahdi..

unity in diversity.. all will become clear once you understand the administrative framework of the new world order..

The politics of the Progressives comes directly from the revelations of baha'i dogma..

They are not benign..

buraq_is_dead,

The reference you gave in no way corroborates your claim:

"The city of Hamburg (9/11-cell) in its very strange wisdom has long time ago allowed an islamic council to set up shop. Of course it is called "Shura"; and one of its first exec. orders was: "No Ahmadiyyas allowed in here. And no Alawites and defenitely no Ba`hai either."

The Shura appears to be a community organization with no legal powers, other than its ability to muster votes. Also, there is no hint in its position paper of any sort of discrimination against the Baha'i, the Amadiya, or the Alewite sects.

You should probably get a more relevant reference if you want to back up your claims.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/05/casmo-no-mo.html

yes, evidence disappears... years later, nobody can find the reference..

it happens..

Nooks and crannies in American history:--
The word " melting pot " is a metaphor for the mixture of
diverse people JOINING THE COMMON PURPOSE in a new land
was first presented by a Jew, Israel Zangwill(1854-1926)who titled his play "The American Melting Pot" (1908).

Ironically, now the Muslims in America are the burning firewood under the Melting Pot to melt down all Americans !!!

Actually, Islam means berserk. Small letter islam is actually a pre-Islamic Arab pagan word. Both islam and berserk refer to the submersion of fear in order to be more fierce in battle.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/NathanIslamBerserk.htm


BTW, that this muslima would quote her Koran (Whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind.”) but excise a major part ("other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth") of the quote is utterly contemptible and mendacious. Is she ashamed or simply evil? I'll give her a slight break for being somewhat more peaceful Amadyi, a part of a branch that isn't even legally considered Islam in the land of its birth, Pakistan, where Amadiyyis are considered apostates.

Good question, Mackie. Very good question. Why indeed do ordinarily decent, intelligent, sensible and informed folks turn a blind eye to the many hateful, intolerant, downright disgusting verses in the Koran, hadiths and sira? The short answer here is that it is exceedingly difficult for people in general, whether in America, Canada, Britain, France, The Netherlands, Germany and so on to come to the conclusion that a major religion can be rotten to the core, can be a totalitarian ideology that does not have a Golden Rule for all, is a true enemy of liberty and is the only religion that calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever.

Of course, simple ignorance of Islamic texts is part of the reason, but the larger dimension of all this is not due to a lack of knowledge of Islam but rather the refusal, sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious, to arrive at the obvious that, oh my God, mankind really did get a major religion which is putrid throughout. Many folks just can't bring themselves to this conclusion even though it is the right conclusion. And when said folks are presented with the rot that Islam spews in its texts and schools of theology, invariably the response is a pathetic tu quoque reasoning (e.g., well, the Old Testament has violence in it) that actually reveals just how determined people are to not conclude that mankind finally got a major faith which is truly malevolent. Islam's greatest advantage is that most human beings can't bring themselves to conclude that Islam is evil.

But it is.

awesome..

I rank that right up with the 'American Dream' farce

"OK Robert, as an expert in this would you say that it might equally be said to mean 'surrender' ?"

The word Islam definitely does mean "Surrender." It means both - Surrender and Submission.

Robert, you wrote: 'So in the headline Saima Sheikh is a "Muslim-American," and in her first paragraph she is an "American-Muslim." Have you ever seen anyone refer to a "Christian-American" or a "Jewish-American"? Of course not. There are Americans who are Jews and Americans who are Christians, but neither group uses such terms, because there is nothing about either faith that precludes or qualifies one's allegiance to the United States.....'


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course you are right, there is nothing about either faith (Christianity or Judaism) that precludes or qualifies one's allegiance to the United States. Only Islam precludes one's allegiance to the United States. But on this I disagree with you Robert. I am a Jew first. I hope you are a Christian first, even before you are an American. NO? You are an American first? It was Germans who put "Fatherland" before their Christian faith (before their faith in God) that made for superlative Nazis! This is why, according to William Shirer, Adolf Hitler was Germany's savior. The Church served Hitler. Likewise it is nominal Christians - lukewarm Christians - who put the United States first before their Christian faith; those who say Barack Obama is "my" president or who say, Obama is "our" president. I hear this all the time on conservative talk radio. "Obama is MY president!" God help this nation. Obama is not my president. He is not my leader. He is not my Fuhrer. This is the problem when Christians and Jews put "STATE" before God; or Church before God. They will tell you sheepishly, "I respect the office."

Please.

I could not disagree with you (Robert) more on this.

Remember the First Commandment: "You shall have no other gods before Me."

No Obama gods. No nationalist gods.

islam = slavery..

To PETA a dog is a slave to a human.. right?

Then so too is a muslim a slave to allah..

http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanpitbullterriers.html
"Though some individuals live peacefully in a house full of pets, there is always the risk that dormant animal prey instincts may suddenly flare into deadly combat."

For advanced animals (humans), breeding is akin to indoctrination, in scale.. consanguinity serves to solidify the susceptibility..

on the positive side.. who knows what DNA secrets lie in the inbred genes of human pitbulls

"It would have been refreshing for Saima Sheikh to explain why she rejects this mandate, if she does, and on what grounds.
But instead, it's the same old disingenuous presentation of half-truths (at best)."

Right! Great article, a pleasure to read. She is an Ahmadiyya, believing in her Messiah, who advocated against violent Jihad. Sounds good. And if only she spoke clearly about what Ahmadiyya's believe and want, as opposed to what Muslims believe and want, well, perhaps we can do business with them, under that name. With strict conditions for using that name.

But she speaks about what Islam is and is not, and teaches. Very arrogant. She can speak about what her interpretation, version of Islam teaches, but she cannot speak about what Islam, or Islamic teachers still nowadays teaches. If she were honest, she would specify that.

These main Islamic texts; Quran-Hadiths-Sira are at their worst simply quite anti-Democratic, oppression and violence-promoting and at their best so ambiguous that they are much too vulnerable for anti-democratic, oppressive, violent use. So that it is criminally negligent to adhere to and support them unchanged, unclarified.

And she still worships the same prophet, follows the same holy texts and uses the same name, Muslim, as Usama Bin Laden and all other supremacist, tyrannical, oppressive, violent Muslims. Very unclear, misleading indeed.

And when it is clearly shown that Islamic laws and loyalties essentially differ from American ones, which ones will she really and openly choose?

She, and Muslims like her, should in future be held accountable for these choices, because these are choices.

And Muslims like her should be invited to:
Put their non-violent Islam-version in black and white, sign it, describe her organisation with a different name than Islam, members of it with a different name than Muslims, and put reasonable and accountable conditions on membership and use of name.

Saima Sheikh is media communications leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadiyya, of course, are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims for their belief in "the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani."
.................................

Not just that. Amadiyya are persecuted and murdered simply for rejecting the concept of violent Jihad.

Bunty Hoven wrote:

"This is further reiterated by Prophet Muhammad, “Love of your homeland, your place of residence, is part of your faith.”

Robert,

Do you know if Muhammad was actually recorded as saying this in the ahadith or anywhere else? If so, where?
.................................

This is purely an Ahmadi thing, Bunty. If you Google the phrase, Ahmadi references are the *only* ones that come up. This seems to have no basis whatsoever in canonical Islamic texts such as the Qu'ran and Hadith.

Here's just one example:

"Loyalty To One’s Country"

"Are we loyal to CANADA just because it is one of the best countries to live in? No, in addition to this, I and our Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and all Muslims are loyal to Canada because the Holy Qur’ān teaches us to be loyal and obedient to those in authority. We are loyal because our noble Prophet Muhammad [sa] (May the Peace and Blessings of Allāh be upon him) taught that love of your homeland is part of your faith. We will never stand by as silent spectators and see that a mischievous and misguided minority paint a distorted picture of this great faith, its noble Prophet, its history, its traditions and its values."

http://www.ahmadiyyagazette.ca/articles/114.html

The fact is that we see this all the time. Even though Amadiyya are threatened by their more orthodox coreligionists, they are all too happy to lead the trusting Infidels to believe that the Ahmadi creed is mainstream Islam—and hence leave them with no defense against Jihad.

Did you know that the Bible contains prescriptive, open-ended and universal commandments to wage holy war and enslave infidels?

Superstar blogger, Danios of LoonWatch.com, has made exactly this claim, in his latest swipe at the Bible.

Danios clears his throat and begins thusly:

"In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), anti-Muslim Catholic apologist Robert Spencer calls the Quran a “book of war” that is “violent and intransigent.” In contrast, he argues, “there is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Qur’an’s exhortations to violence.” This view is held by the general public as well; in the words of Prof. Philip Jenkins: “In the minds of ordinary Christians – and Jews – the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity.”

This viewpoint is used to promote bigotry against Muslims and Islam, and to fan the flames of Islamophobia. Fortunately, we’ve “utterly destroyed” this viewpoint and have categorically shown that the Bible is far more violent than the Quran. As Prof. Jenkins puts it: “In fact, the Bible overflows with “texts of terror,” to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery.”

Keenly aware of the horribly violent verses in the Bible sound far worse than anything in the Quran, Robert Spencer and other anti-Muslim ideologues have to explain why these Biblical passages “don’t count” (whereas the violent sounding Quranic verses always “count”).

Islamophobes argue that the violent passages in the Bible “don’t count” because “the Biblical verses are merely descriptive, not prescriptive like in the Quran.” In other words, the Bible only records and describes the violence committed by Judeo-Christian prophets, without prescribing believers of today to carry these acts out."

Danios goes on to debunk this claim in his own matchless, mesmerizing style with many more articles to be published over the next few days.

If you wish to read the full text of his latest piece and defend Robert Spencer, please click through the following link:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the-bibles-prescriptive-open-ended-and-universal-commandments-to-wage-holy-war-and-enslave-infidels/


Regards,

Patriot.

OT

but part of the regular modus operandi

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rudd-in-row-over-osama-allys-arrest/story-fn59niix-1226050795277

sling mud and drive wedges..

like a kid saying "well anyway HE/SHE almost blew it.
so there"

Hi, Marisol ...maybe it's time to break out your ginormous pooper scooper and haul out the piles of horse manure that are stinking up other threads. I'm kinda tired of wading through all that horseshit - not to mention those annoying, filthy flies.

don't go there without proper virtual prophylactics..

Of course the Bible is far more horribly violent than the Koran and far more prescriptive too. This should be obvious to everyone in light of the fact that Catholic suicide bombers are practically ubiquitous, Methodists taking hostages an everyday event, Lutherans hijacking airplanes a regular occurrence, Orthodox Jews stoning adultresses also a regular event and Baptists threatening death for anyone who dares criticize Christianity or Jesus something done on a weekly basis by millions of Baptist believers. And let's not forget the Presbyterians. What they do day in and day out, week in and week out, is just too horrible to mention even for hardened analysts of Judeo-Christian atrocities. Yes indeed, how ludicrous it is to argue that the Koran is a more troubling religious text than the Bible. One would really have to be one of those low-life Islamophobic haters to assert this.

Boy, can't put anything past Danios, that's for sure. He really has things figured out quite accurately. Allahu Akbar!

It seems that Danios is engaging in "Tu Quoque". The argument he writes about is between holy texts being "prescriptive or descriptive" and "counting or not counting".

Instead of arguing that the Quran-texts are only "descriptive" and "not counting" he argues that the Bible-texts are sort of also "prescriptive and counting". But that does not let Muslims of the hook for following the Quran.

Since a long time there is freedom of religion in the Western nations. And in the 20th century Islam was unknown and considered to be comparable with Christianity or just mysterious, neutral.

But Christians in many of their nations allowed and developed Democracy and I don't think very many people really consider Christianity threathening or detrimental towards the Democratic legal governing system. But Muslims???

Of course it is our hope and desire that Muslims worldwide follow the example of Christians to consider their holy texts more symbolically than literal (that is not coming linea recta from God), more descriptive than prescriptive, and not understood or used as some anti-democratic legal governing system.

But in case Muslims really prefer a different legal governing system from our Democratic one, it would be much better and much more honest and honourable if they openly proudly admitted it and took the consequences. Instead of always denying it and often using Tu Quoque-excuses.

Superstar blogger, Danios of LoonWatch.com,

That's my laugh of the day...Didn't you know, 'Dave's not here'?...

Some people say that loonwatch has bugs that jump...others say that Danios, Patriot, and Dave 742 are the same super blogger (s). Some people also claim that they are spammers from the Lunar god Allah...There is only one way to handle these spammers...
Delete to oblivion, or at least a rapid retreat to the safety of loonwatch...

Maududi wrote extensively on the "finality of prophethood," thus, the "qadianis" suffer persecution in his backwater.

As for mentalities, pak savages are now explaining away OBL's role in local terror campaigns. On pak's most influential "defense" website, OBL is accuse of being an "American employee," under the control of "the zionist-masonic order." To a maududist quranimal, truth belongs to allah, and deceit is the cardinal virtue in advancing toward global circumstances where "allah alone" is worshipped by medievalized beast-humans. Islam is terror and muslims are terrorists. Read for yourself,
http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=93545&st=1040&start=1040

Firstly, Pakistan Military was very well aware of and had played a pivotal role in the apprehension of (CIA Employee) Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan's Intelligence Organization was very much involved in this particular operation.

Now people would ask ..... 'well the Americans claim that Pakistan wasn't told about the raid and they only informed them after the US troops had left Pakistani territory!!! So how can you say that?'

The answer to that is fairly simple. For fear of sudden acceleration of suicide bombings within Pakistan by the American Sponsored TTP terrorists. Pakistan cannot afford to have a high intensity terrorism attack rate at such a critical juncture when the 'Traitor Ally' (U.S.A) is trying its best to destabilize Pakistan and when the enemy in the East (Hindustan) is waiting for an opportunity to attack when Pakistan is at its weakest.

Also, it doesn't surprise me to see how ignorant my fellow countrymen are to mourn the death of what can essentially be called an American Employee (Osama Bin Laden) who acted on behalf of the Zionist-Masonic Order, to commit the heinous crime of 9/11. Not only did Osama Bin Laden manage to perpetrate 9/11 under the guise of Jihad (which is illegal under the terms he carried it out). But also, that he managed to deceptively gain the trust of Taliban and be welcomed by them to take refuge in Afghanistan.

Pakistan Military has committed no crime, rather they did what any committed members of the State would do, to protect their country as best as possible.>>>>

------------
Reality dictates: while OBL was active in the terror war against marxist, South Yemen, he entered afghanistan as the Soviets left. He was subordinate to Abdullah Azzam, a onetime arab resident of Israel occupied Jordan, who was murdered when the ISI rejected his globalization of the local subcontinent jihad. He worked with taliban through their victory, afterwhich al-qaeda-ut-jihad (base of islamic-terror) set out to train muslim caliphists, to the end of establishing a global muslim tyranny. Clinton refused to target OBL's genocide-camps, until the terrorist released his infamous fatwah against "jews and crusaders." OBL was ALWAYS a US opponent. His fatwah centralizes his agenda on the removal of US troops from the saud terrorist entity. GWB quickly complied with same, and indulged the slaughter of US troops, to shield pak operatives of the "Pakistan in Depth" jihad strategy.

Islam is a cult.
Whether it was Muhammad or Ahmadiyya it is a cult, plain and simple.
The Arabs needed their own Messianic version to compete with the Jewish and Christian.

The Arab also realiized there was wealth to be made in inventing a prophet of their own.

When will these people ever come to realize this?

There is no comparison between th Torah and New Covenant and the teachings of the Arab prophets.

The Bible books are electrified with numerological and historical mystery that still baffle many theologians.
As Jesus said "In My Father's house are many mansions."--John 14:2".
In Islam's tent there is nothing but sand by comparison.

Alwaleed bin Talal (a saudi citizen) owns 7% of News Corp. the parent of Fox.

Enough said...

ot

At least eight killed in Quetta rocket attack, gunfire

QUETTA: At least eight people were killed and 15 wounded in rocket attack and gunfire by militants in Quetta’s Hazara Town on Friday, police said.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/06/blast-in-quetta-eight-killed-10-wounded.html


Here in the UK they call themselves British-Muslims, I have never heard of a British-Hindu, nor a British-Buddist neither of a British-Mormon. As professor of psychologist, this shows that Muslims are insecure, juvenile and self-centred.

British-Greek Orthodox Dr Andrew Michael

Chervil,

Islam is translated as either surrender or submission.

Patriot,

If Danios can condemn the violent passages in the Bible, why doesn't he condemn the violent passages in the Qur'an? I condemn and reject the violent passages in both books. Why can't Danios?

And what about the Hadith?

Is Danios afraid that his Muslim readers and fellow writers will boot him off the site if he condemns the Qur'an like he condemns the Bible? Is he so worried about their approval that he won't condemn the Quran's violent and intolerant passages? Danios is either a hypocritical Muslim, or he is a dishonest and compromised non-Muslim.

Hear, hear, Gayle Farrow! ...I love the way you think, "muslims who live in America", certainly gets my vote ...oh, and please use a lowercase m :)

Same rule applies for islam ...

To Kinana of Khaybar and Courreges W -
Thanks for your answers. Well, if the word 'surrender' can be used without risk of valid pedantic mockery, I suggest it would be effective to use it sometimes, more evocative in effect than the word 'submission' to us less academic types, more concrete.

Chervil,
"Surrender," in addition to the military meaning, of course has a very popular, spiritual meaning. For example, John Denver used the spiritual meaning of the word in his song "Sweet Surrender." So that would be a downside of translating "Islam" as "surrender." To many ears, "surrender" would put a sort of positive spiritual gloss onto the religion, and would not suggest the military meaning. Islam certainly is not spiritual surrender as that has often been understood in the West. Which is not to say that "surrender" might not be effective sometimes, as you suggest. But in general I prefer "submission" as a translation of "Islam." "Submission" is the most common translation anyway, probably for good reason.

You wrote:
"Muslims are insecure, juvenile and self-centred"
You are probably familiar with Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels's article "Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences"?
If not, please read it hear:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/63122/sec_id/63122

Wellington

A cursory knowledge of history - Muslim history in particular - and how Muslims overran lands from Spain to the East Indies would be just as helpful in recognizing that Muslims ain't benign. Yeah, the Qur'an does teach one about Islamic ideology, but even w/o it, a knowledge of history from 730AD up to now would still be adequate.

I followed Robert when he was blogging the Qur'an, and followed mainly the chapters that contained the most reprehensive ideas: the stuff about Biblical stories never interested me. Honestly, I found that Qur'an incredibly boring, and honestly, if you ask the public to read the Qur'an, you'll just draw yawns. Instead, being up to speed on history in most countries that @ any time fell under the Muslim sword is quite enough to educate people on what Muslims are all about. At the end of the day, that's even more important than the relatively nebulous question of what Islam is all about!

Hello demsci,
OT: Geert Wilders is visiting Canada. Could you give me a link to some source in a Dutch paper (just most commonly read one, political preferences do not matter) telling something about it? I want to see how your media portrays him, and the problem in general. Thank you in advance.
P.S. What's the percentage of Muslim population in Rotterdam? I remember having read somewhere it's the highest.

Marisol

I second Champ - you need to clean up the stables, and let the horse bolt!

Nina, I don't know the percentages for Rotterdam, Europe's largest port. However, if you Google 'Ahmed Aboutaleb' you might find the statistics and get a feel for the place:-(

Oh my God, I did.
Mayor with dual citizenship.
Ethnic minorities accounting for almost half of population in Rotterdam.
Seems like it's not a Dutch city anymore (I'd love JW demsci to appear and say that I'm wrong on that count)

From a discussion with an Ahmadiyya muslim a few years ago I ascertained that at least his goal remains women as first class slaves (subservient to and inferior to men) and sharia law here in the US.

So for me his branch or heresy (readers can have it their own way) is as ferociously evil as any other for its goals.

{^_^}

Sorry, once again OOT:

News from Indonesia: Muslims demonstrate at city Solo, claiming going to avenge Osama's death, they have a spanduk said: "100 youth of Solo Baiat Mati(Death), Ready to die to avenge Osama's Death"

Honestly I don't know what Baiat is, some arabic word obviously.

Wellington

The short answer here is that it is exceedingly difficult for people in general, whether in America, Canada, Britain, France, The Netherlands, Germany and so on to come to the conclusion that a major religion can be rotten to the core...

Think you've got this pretty much spot on! It's a very severe case of cognitive dissonance for PC liberals!

OOT Again, news from Indonesia.

Those 100 youth who want to avenge Osama write their statement in arabic, english and indonesia. They write "We, 100 the youth of Solo who are very loyal to Allah, ready to die demand the death of Usamah bin Laden", they seems to be using google translate for their english texts, no wonder the west never understand what they want :D

See the picture here.

"I am an America Muslim woman who believes in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani...."

Ahhh... I see, Ahmadiyah, they are not even recognized as muslim by the sunni and shi'ah, just in recent months three of them publicly killed in Indonesia, it is said some police officers involved in that crime. The ahmadiyah is so rejected by the muslim world they can't pay homage to Mecca city, so they move their holy city to London, the resting place of their prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. A few months ago there are pamphlets in London streets calling muslims to kill ahmadiyah, if I remember correctly.

Wellington is a wise person and reading his comments is a pleasure (except for his debates with Horse). This particular one was the best. I also noticed that people (not only PC-liberals, but Westerners in general, and Russians also) can't come to terms with the idea about 1+ billion people being wrong in practicing the religion which is about destruction, not creation. I couldn't believe it, either, until I started to read this site.
If the pieces of news this site displays on a daily basis were broadcasted with the same accuracy by MSM media, that attitude could be changed. But of course this will never happen.

Truly that's misleading.
My brain only captured "demand the death of Usama" part.

I just call them scum.

'In reality, it is in part for that declaration that Ahmadis are being ferociously persecuted today in Pakistan and Indonesia, and the governing authorities do not even consider them to be true Muslims.'

Indeed, that is just one part of it. The founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, proclaimed himself to be the “Reformer of the age” (Mujaddid), Promised Messiah and the Mahdi. He and his followers claim that his advent was foretold by Muhammad himself, the Prophet of Islam, and also by many other religious scriptures of the world.

Soon after the death of the first successor of Ghulam Ahmad, the movement split into two groups over the nature of Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood and his succession. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believed that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had indeed been a “non-law-bearing” prophet and that mainstream Muslims who categorically rejected his message were guilty of disbelief in Islamic prophecies. Which simply means that Ghulam Ahmad was considered the real final prophet of Islam, something that is in fact anathema to mainstream Sunni Islam, which considers Muhammad as 'the seal of the prophets' !

The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, however, affirmed the traditional Islamic interpretation that there could be no prophet after Muhammad and viewed itself as a reform movement within the broader Ummah.

However, both of these movements adhere to distinct practices not found in Sunni Islam, and seeing as they both claim to be reformist, this very assertion is enough of a reason to single them both out for persecution, alongside Shi'ites and Sufis, for instance.

In a nutshell, it basically means that whoever counteracts the core tenets of Sunni Islam, is in fact a non-believer. In order to justify such persecution, Sunni Islam in fact holds two key concepts that serve as a vital criterion to determine who is in fact a Muslim and who is a non-believer: shirk and bid'ah.

- rejecting the unity of Allah (called shirk) by turning to (pre-Islamic) idolatry/polytheism (like Hinduism) or accepting the idea of God as a Trinity (Christianity)

- claiming to be the Mahdi incarnate (something many Sufi figureheads have claimed throughout history) or even claiming to be the seal of the prophets. (the very core tenet Ahmadiyya Islam is founded on)

- introducing religious innovation (called Bid‘ah) in whatever form, like attributing divine status to imams (Shi'ism) and introducing particular ritual practices not found in Sunni Islam. (Shi'ism and Sufism)

The main idea is quite simple: whoever adheres to a distinct belief system according to its own concept of Divinity, rejecting Allah's Oneness, and attributing divinity to religious scholars, prophets or any other individual, practices shirk and therefore is a heretic !!

That is basically the wider issue and explains exactly why pre-Islamic belief systems, like animism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity have to be persecuted in Sunni Islam, alongside all reformist movements within Islam itself, who have introduced religious innovation (bid'ah), in accordance with their 'shirk' view of Divinity.

all reformism in Islam = bid'ah
all bid'ah is based on shirk
all shirk = heresy

So therefore, all reformism in Islam = heresy

And all pre-Islamic belief systems 'distort' divinity to suit their own needs and are considered heresy by default, not 'acknowledging' Allah as the one and only true divinity to have ever existed. But somehow, some people in the West (either Christian or atheist) still seem to assume that Christians have something in common with their 'Abrahamic' counterparts, the Muslims ??

From a Sunni type of religious 'logic', it is quite self-explanatory that Saima Sheikh can't possibly present herself as a spokesperson for the larger Muslim communities in this world. Only the stupid PC/MC spin doctors of the MSM would buy into such a thing. But those are not the smartest people around, are they ?

You can't seriously expect an Ahmaddiyya Muslim to designate Islam as a religion of "peace THROUGH obedience". (which = "submission")

And that's because these people, being the GENUINE Misunderstanders of Islam they are, actually believe what they say.

Being misunderstanders of Islam is exactly what makes Ahmaddiyya Muslims a persecuted minority. 'The truly guided' are a majority. If all Muslims were misguided like that, than Western civilizations would have nothing to fear.

Oh the irony !

" "Occupy Mexico for 10 years"

Ha,ha. Thanks for the reference and the laugh for this morning.

As it turns out, the reference given was active, and did have a description of the Shura council. In fact, the reference was to the website of the Hamburg Shura council.

Among the usual calls to interfaith relations, they included a bargaining point that local schools should employ Muslims to teach aspects of Islam to Muslim students. Remember: Hamburg was where the 9/11 attack was actually organized and planned.

But, the reference illustrates an important situation: Muslims who have been living in the US or Europe for generations (specifically, not including recent immigrants or converts) are not likely to be violent and are going to be integrated into the community. And, may not be bad fellows. However, as long as they advocate a religious government, even by non-violent means, they should still be considered dangerous and viewed with suspicion.

Once any Muslims renounce the idea, in thought and action, that Islam is anything but a personal religious preference, I don't see why they cannot become full members of the community.

Smart they most certainly ain't Anushirvan. .put a dummy in a suit and all that. .myoptic twits candyed-up for the cameras and broadcast to idle thinkers and indolent fools.

" Even though Amadiyya are threatened by their more orthodox coreligionists, they are all too happy to lead the trusting Infidels to believe that the Ahmadi creed is mainstream Islam—and hence leave them with no defense against Jihad."

There is another problem with the Amadiyya.
Although they are generally peaceful, I've noticed they tend to throw their support to the more mainstream Muslim organizations. Thus, when CAIR, or a mosque, takes active political measures against police surveillance of Muslim groups to detect terrorist recruiting, they can count on the support of the Amadiyya.

For this reason, I think the Amnadiyya should be considered as mainstream Muslim when the US decides to block further Muslim immigration.

As always, although the US should block further Muslim immigration, the Muslims already here and already citizens should have full privileges and rights of US citizenship.

This is the same Quran 5:32-33 distortion for deception that Rep Ellison spewed at Bill Maher. Seems to be standard Taqiyya excreted by Muslims who figure that not many infidels have read much of the Koran and are sappy enough to believe anything - and unfortunately they're largely right, though less & less so as time goes on.

See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/keith_ellisons_taqiyya.html

Everything Islam touches,it destroys. Including men, women children, peace, love, and countries.

Patriot,

"If you wish to read the full text of his latest piece and defend Robert Spencer, please click through the following link:"

Danios has several arguments. His main point is that for those people who argue that Islam is inherently violent because of the violent passages of the Koran, the same logic should be applied to the Bible, which also has violent passages.

His second argument is that empirically, Muslims are no more likely to to be violent than people of other religions, but that all the incidents we hear about represent cherry-picking. Proportionally, Muslims don't represent a larger threat (goes Danios' argument).

I haven't seen Danios' argument concerning the doctrine of Sharia by which the government is supposed to enforce religious law. I don't have any reason to suppose that Danios would not vote to institute Constitutional changes to allow the government to support Islamic law.

Danios' arguments apply best to established Muslim communities, which have been in the US a long time, and which represent a small proportion of the total population. He doesn't appear to address the problems of Europe, where the increase in population, isolation of recent Muslim immigrants, and the criminality of the immigrant population, presents a real threat to the culture and security of the host country.

One valid point is that Islam is not the only threat to the US, although if immigration continues, it is a potent threat (my conclusion, not necessarily Danios).

Anyway, I do recommend that readers go to Loonwatch and teach themselves to deconstruct the arguments there.

Looking up to, or worshipping Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, is a form of shirk...Only Allah can be looked up to and worshipped...It is also shirk to worship Mahound, but to do that you have to look down, not up...

Anyway, I do recommend that readers go to Loonwatch and teach themselves to deconstruct the arguments there.

My best advice is to never go to a web site recommended by a Mahound or a sympathizer...Some of them really do have bugs that jump...I have personal experience...

Rather, Muslims are here for colonization and conquest.

This is a conspiracy theory at best, based purely on conjecture. Yet you postulate it as a fact. This site must be full of psychics, or at the very least fools?

"muslims are liars and are encouraged to lie in the koran"

This is a very popular bullshit opinion held by many here. Can anyone provide me with a Koranic quote that says Muslims are encouraged to lie? I'm dying to see the infamous "Thou shalt lie" quote that I seemed to miss.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, in his quest to proclaim himself the seal of the prophets, probably would have genuinely thought he could gain a large enough following to reform Islam as a whole. Alas, he gleefully overlooked the basic core tenets of Islam itself that already had given rise to persecution of Shi'ites and Sufis. Now, I suppose that would be typical of just about any reformist movement within Islam, to naively assume that any individual can go against the grain, without Sunni Muslims coming down on them like a ton of bricks. The main irony is that he also emulated the behavior of Muhammed himself by assuming his self-proclaimed status, which earned the whole movement the heretical epithet to start with, which was to be expected.

Seeing as Saima Sheikh is media communications leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, her position is very congruent with the Ahmaddiyya belief itself. It only goes to show that as an adherent of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, it would probably come as a natural reaction to her to claim what she did, like quoting the peaceful snippets of the Quran. The really disingeneous aspect of this whole issue seems to be that Fox News executives deliberately set out to incorporate the views of a genuine believer of Misunderstood (non-mainstream) Islam to 'prove' the PC/MC point of making the whole of Islam look tolerant. How self-defeating and stupid can you get ?

A useful Ahmadiyya idiot serving the useful idiots' self-delusional utopias on Islam ??

I think Robert has raised a few good points on the nationality/patriotism issue also. No matter what we want to believe about Ahmadiyyas, I think it's indeed clear that no Muslim can ever think outside the Islamic box. Islamic universalism runs counter to the acknowledgement of modern nation-states, each with their own historical and linguistic roots, distinct cultural traditions and civilized legal systems that make them unique and worthwile to preserve. To make the distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans makes no sense, like Robert has pointed out. You are either American or you are not. To emphasize the difference is indeed divisive and will be frowned upon. At least to those who value the preservation of Western societies.

Hello Nina, and London Jim.

About Geert Wilders going to Canada, I as yet did not catch that in the news.

But I live in Rotterdam. approx. 5 years back there were approx. 80.000 Muslims on a population of approx. 600.000 citizens. So my guess is that now there are about 100.000 Muslims in Rotterdam. Indeed there are many so-called non-Western allochtones in Rotterdam, a little bit more than half. And the other half, the autochtones, western allochtones is shrinking. And in schools the non-western allochtones are perhaps 2/3. A new phenomenom are the approx. 30.000 people from Poland, Bulgaria (with Turkish Islamic and Orthodox Bulgars) and Romania, who seek work and residence here.

But among these Non-W-allochtones there is a huge variety, just like in all major cities in the West I suppose. And many of them here are from Surinam (with many Hindustan people), the Caribbean (From Curacao + the Antilles). And also there are many Caboverdians, with the Portuguese names, mostly half-breeds, if I may use that term. Then there are the Ghanese and Somali's etc.

Remarkably many of the Non-W allochtones are Christian, although the Christian-Democratic party is very small here.

Rotterdam is one of the biggest harbours in the world, and the Labor party has always been very strong here, but since 9/11 they get big competition with the Rotterdam variety of Freedom Party, Leefbaar Rotterdam, who are nearly equal with them. This is the Party of the in 2002 murdered very popular Pim Fortuyn. I vote for them.

But in the city council Labor + a few other parties rule and the mayor is from Labor too (but mayors are appointed, not chosen in Holland). This Mayor also happens to be a Moroccan Muslim; Ahmed Aboutaleb. He does have 2 passports and was duly heavily attacked for that by Wilders and Leefbaar. But IMO he is a very likable and conscientious mayor.

Headscarves are ubiquitous in Rotterdam. And there are extra criminality problems with both Moroccans and Antillians. But on the whole Rotterdam is peaceful enough.

Many Muslims participate in politics in Holland, they are in parliament, government, city-councils etc. And we also are always told that Turkey is both Islamic and Democratic and so are these politicians here too.

But .... perhaps in essence real Islam is in part at least incompatible with essential Democratic tenets + laws. And Turkey is by no means totally Democratic and IMO these Islamic Politicians are either confused or ignorant about their own faith or even dishonest.

And Muslims in Labor or the Green Party (there is only 1 very small Islamic party); well, perhaps this can be defended. But because of that many Muslims vote Labor and many non-Muslims do not trust and vote Labor any more.

But I think it is dead wrong that the Christian Democratic party (CDA) also welcomes Islamic members and politicians, which it does. And CDA was almost halved in the latest 2 nation-wide elections. Possibly as a result of it's position of being too anti-Wilders and Islam-appeasing for many Southern voters, who defected en masse to the Freedom Party or it's ally, the VVD. By the way, they are called Liberalen in Holland, but they seem not to be what the Americans and English call Liberals, but more like free market-adherents.

Oh, yeah, and a short while ago the largest Mosque in Westerb Europe opened in South Rotterdam, near the stadium of our great soccer club Feijenoord (which had an abysmal season).

Hello demsci,
Thank you for this response.
I'd still like to know what media source is most popular in Holland, in order to get some first-hand knowledge. Also, it's interesting what kind of impression your nephew had from his visit to Moscow (please write to my email as the subject is of no interest for anyone else on JW: ninavoron@rambler.ru)

Your challenge is amusing. It reminds me of all those Holocaust deniers out there that demand that a paper trail back to Hitler himself be produced to prove that the Holocaust was ordered by him, never mind that Hitler virtually never left any paper trail and only gave instructions orally. Only fools or wicked folks can come to the conclusion that Hitler knew nothing of the Final Solution, of the death camps set up exclusively for the Jews.

To deny that taqiyya is a feature of Islam, never mind that a specific passage in the Koran for it can't be found, is preposterous in light of the fact that non-Muslims (whether they know it or not) are faced with examples of it on virtually a daily basis from Muslims. Moreover, if one looks at the Bukhari Hadith or The Reliance of the Traveller, one will find numerous encouragements to tell lies when it benefits Islam. Mohammed himself in the Bukhari Hadith boasts of reneging on an oath when a better situation is in the offing. And let's not forget as well from Bukhari the famous "war is deceit" uttered by Mohammed.

You know, many significant individuals over the centuries have arrived at the conclusion that Islam is bad news. Thomas Jefferson described the Koran as "demonic." Bertrand Russell noted that Islam is the only major religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology and he compared it to Marxism and fascism. Winston Churchill said of Islam, "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." Churchill also compared Mein Kampf to the Koran. Ernest Renan described Islam as "the heaviest chains that ever shackled humanity." These men and so many more (e.g., Hume, Gibbon, Quincy Adams, de Tocqueville, Schopenhauer) knew that Islam was something malevolent and freedom crushing. And anyone with sense today can overwhelmingy see that almost all religious terrorism throughout the world is carried out by Muslims. Also, it is crystal clear that an inversely proportional relationship exists between Islam and liberty. The more Islam, the less liberty. This is a given. And yet still someone like you chastises others for suspecting Islam and Muslims. Yeah, right.

Your game is an old one and it's not working very well anymore. People are catching on to the fact that Islam is not just another religion. They're catching on big time.

Hi, Infidel Pride! ...lol :)

There's a proof of what you just said, as recommended by dumbledoresarmy: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14674/14674-h/14674-h.htm
(Ten Great Religions by James Freeman Clarke. Must-read for everyone interested in the subject, at least Islam-section)..
Written in 1871, mind you!
P.S. I talked some of my acquaintances (more educated than me) into reading the Qur'an, and their unianimous opinion was, - incoherent - repetitive- utterly boring - leaving no space for personal (spiritual) development. One of them said, "Reading Qur'an in German is a torture, but considering that so many people on our planet fell for it, it must be something of the kind of shamanic incantations in Arabic". And the relationship between a human being and Allah is utterly Master-slave only. No Pater Noster (God-our-father) in this case.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you bumbling about? I don't remember asking for irrelevant Hitler analogies, and random quotes from Thomas Jefferson and such. I asked a fairly simple question; one that you conveniently danced around.

War is deceit? Really now? Muhammad said "War is deceit", therefore Muslims are encouraged to lie? That's the logic, am I right. Never mind how absurd that reasoning is for now. Are you denying that war is in fact deceit? To put this into perspective, how about I refer you to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" which contains the Muslamic Jihadist quote:

All warfare is based on deception.

Oh, and just so you know "The Art of War" is the most influential war treatise in history. It is required by The Department of the Army in the US to be stocked in all military libraries, and is mandatory reading for all CIA officers.

Stealth Jihadists! They infiltrated our military too!

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you bumbling about? I don't remember asking for irrelevant Hitler analogies, and random quotes from Thomas Jefferson and such. I asked a fairly simple question; one that you conveniently danced around.

War is deceit? Really now? Muhammad said "War is deceit", therefore Muslims are encouraged to lie? That's the logic, am I right. Never mind how absurd that reasoning is for now. Are you denying that war is in fact deceit? To put this into perspective, how about I refer you to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" which contains the Muslamic Jihadist quote:

All warfare is based on deception.

Oh, and just so you know "The Art of War" is the most influential war treatise in history. It is required by The Department of the Army in the US to be stocked in all military libraries, and is mandatory reading for all CIA officers.

Stealth Jihadists! They infiltrated our military too!

I concur. Let's clean the stable out.
________________

Marisol,

As you may or may not know, I "banned myself" for a week from this sight, as an intellectual exercise, hoping to make a point re: Muslim trolls/apologists that have long since proved that the only thing they "understand" is supremacy.

Why not ban Horsey and his co-horts (co-horses?)for a period of one week, then allow them back in, to see if they respect the principles of free speech?

Think about it Marisol. I'm sure you will see the importance of considering our request.

Mirza ghulam was a conman. He liked to think of himself as Jesus/Mohammad/Krishna everybody rolled into one. His favorite tactic was to issue stupid challenges to prove his "prophethood". One of his "challenges" resulted in the death of a hindu man who had written about the "colorful prophet" mohammad. Whether mirza ghulam was involved or not I do not know. But he was not "peaceful" person. He reviled in the death and discomfort of his opponents. I doubt if ahmadiyas will be "peaceful" if they were in the majority

This particular JW reader - Horse - in my opinion, is a person with a kind of personality disorder desperately seeking for attention (ANY kind of attention).
Don't expect him to respect the principles of free speech.
(Even if his postings may contain some true information)

Thank you for that link, Nina. I had previously missed it from dda. After only a cursory reading of Clarke it is apparent to me that he was a serious and informed thinker. I relish his line, "Mohammedanism is a relapse." Will have to read more of this work of his to be sure.

Glad you encouraged people you know to read the Koran. I forced myself years ago to read all 114 suras. I found it to be the most desultory religious literature I have ever read. It is indeed repetitive, boring, often incoherent, sometimes just plain dumb (e.g., the talking baby Jesus episode) and very disturbing. More should read it if they can bear it. Doing so will open many eyes to the true nature of Islam. Hope you and yours are well.

I most definitely did not dance around your question. I acknowledged that there is no specific passage in the Koran encouraging lying (though there certainly are enough pasages calling for the killing or maiming of non-believers---care to deny this?). I invoked the Bukhari Hadith and The Reliance of the Traveller to buttress my claim and that of others that taqiyya is a regular feature of Muslim behavior. But, holy hell, one wouldn't need to resort to any texts to substantiate such. Just observing how many Muslims behave on a daily basis (like those wonderful folks at CAIR) is sufficient enough to realize that deceiving the kuffaar is standard practice.

And if you can't grasp the reason why I used the Hitler and Holocaust analogy, that's your problem. Your denseness is not my concern. Respecting Thomas Jefferson, there was a man far wiser than Mohammed. Ditto for others like de Tocqueville and Churchill. Mohammed, actually, is a repulsive figure, not to be admired by any sensible human being. Psychopath. Bandit. Pedophile. Killer. Some prophet.

Meanwhile, and the issue of taqiyya aside, Muslims worldwide continue to maim, kill, plot destruction and other barbaric things along these lines. Islam is a burden to the whole world. No other major religion is. Virtually all religious violence in the world is perpetrated by Muslims and yet you are out there trying to play a game of gotcha' with those sensible enough to know that liberty and Islam don't mix. Never have. Never will. You probably don't even realize this. Or is it the case that freedom doesn't really mean anything to you?

Many thanks for your fine post and reasoning, Wellington, a pleasure to read as always.

It seems to me that Muslims indeed value some other legal governing system, like that operating in Islamic countries, only somehow better.

Only they willfully deny this, and so lie about it, with the exception of Anjem Choudary, because admission of that would lose them the neutrality and support of large parts of citizens of democratic nations, who are now still political correct, slumbering and ignorant about real problematic Islamic tenets. And how serious many Muslims are about following them.

I wish to thank you, demsci, for your detailed post above about Dutch politics. Most instructive and much appreciated. I have come to count on you for not only your overall intelligent posts but also for your inside information on what is happening in The Netherlands. Thank you again, my friend.

"Why not ban Horsey and his co-horts (co-horses?)for a period of one week, then allow them back in, to see if they respect the principles of free speech?"

____________________________________________________________

Lets see deebartok's profanity laced, hateful death threats and rants - all of them unprovoked, I never said a word to him, and he asked my why i didn't "answer" his posts, when he never posted a single "question"

only in one of these posts, the first one, did I talk about Hui in thailand since gravenimage started OT about Thailand.

here is was responding to gravenimage who was the one who went OT on Thailand, then Deebartok jumps in


Just go die AND my wife is Filipina, asshole.

Here he threatens me with death, after i criticized assyrian chaldean and DDA for being elated at palestinians getting killed. I managed to do it without profanity, i wonder why deebartok can't

GO DIE! YOU AND YOUR DUMBASS "students"

Here, i was responding to DDA's offtopic comment that ancient greeks celebrated the human body, and deebartok sends another profanity laced death threat.

How 'bout you just don't post anymore AT ALL?!Bye Horseyboy. Go back to your shithole and please die.

(he somehow can't cohrently explain what exact problem he has with my post)
______________________________________________________________
Over here, he claims I made a comment that I never did- I never called robert spencer a "hooked nose ****", or sent that email message. I said whoever sent it might have been an arab christian

Put simply, Mohammedan, kiss my ass, because you need to, since I pay for your internet nonsense. I refuse to quote your BS, except this little snippet: "hook nosed Kike trying to pass yoursel of as a Christian Zionist"

Did you hear what he said? he said "I pay for your internet nonsense" If you don't like what I say, Don't read what I say! I'm very honored that you are paying some mysterious person money to see my comments, but I don't see how you can't see them for free.

______________________________________________________________
IS NOT A RACE, dumbass

DOI - you're an inbred idiot, obviously. Go have sex with Prince Naif's 10 year-old - daughter, why don't you?

______________________________________________________________

champ selectively remembers who or who did not post "manure", depending on whether they were islamophobic or not.

oddly differing reactions from champ regarding a user AJack who personally attacked me, claiming I ate human fetuses, when i responded that he was a hijra and asked him how cow urine tasted, Champ seems to think that claiming someone else eats fetuses isn't a personal attack

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/pakistan-warns-us-of-disastrous-consequences-for-any-more-bin-laden-style-raids.html#comment-785956

OT,

Patriot,

I see that you haven't responded here, but posters at Loonwatch have responded there.

TomThumb says "...Our old foe ‘Kinana of Khaybar’ demands to know why Danios cannot condemn the violent passages in the Qur’an if he can condemn the violent passages in the Bible. Kinana claims he condemns and rejects the violent passages in both books and ends with this ad hominem, “Danios is either a hypocritical Muslim, or he is a dishonest and compromised non-Muslim.”
So there you go folks, not a single substantive response to Danios’ epic article. The loons have been beaten at their own game and well they know it!"

My question stands, and still wasn't answered when I checked at Loonwatch. This only increases the conspicuousness of Danios' failure to condemn the violent passages in the Quran. Why can't he?

As I said, I criticize both the Bible and the Qur'an. This site happens to be called JihadWatch, so naturally you see me criticizing the Qur'an more on this site. But if someone asked me directly, "Aren't those violent Biblical verses bad too?" I'd say, "Yes." So now that the simple and clear question has been mentioned to Danios (thanks, TomThumb), why can't Danios simply answer that he thinks the violent verses of the Qur'an are bad too? Why doesn't he condemn those too? What's wrong with him? Or does he think the Qur'an's violent and intolerant verses are not bad?

I'm not sure why TomThumb thinks there is some kind of victory there in Danios studiously ignoring his stated topic, Jihad, and spending all his time talking about the Bible instead. It is Danios who has failed to provide a substantive defense of Jihad to date. When I first saw Danios' first article on this, which was basically a bunch of nasty Bible verses cut and pasted, my initial impression was that Danios hadn't done his homework on jihad at all and instead decided at the last minute to throw together a tu quoque (or an imagined tu quoque, since he imagines that his adversaries must be all Christians and Jews who literally believe and obey the passages he's citing) attacking the Judeo-Christian Bible. I still get the impression that there is something somehow difficult or troubling for Danios, that perhaps he doesn't quite feel comfortable in the role of apologist for Islamic jihad.

My last comment about Danios was not ad hominem. Ad hominem is where you try to support a substantive claim that is not about the person by attacking some (irrelevant) characteristics of the person. For example, if I were to say "Danios is wrong about the Bible, Jihad, etc., because he is either a hypocritical Muslim or a dishonest and compromised non-Muslim," that would be ad hominem, since, even if my statement about him were true, it would be irrelevant to challenging his claim. But that's not at all what I said. I first pointed out his double standard, then (based on this and other past evidence which I didn't mention) I gave my opinion that he was either a hypocritical Muslim or dishonest and compromised non-Muslim, take your pick. There is no ad hominem in any of that. The evidence I've seen to date indicates that Danios is at the very least dishonest and a particularly vicious liar (e.g., see his fabrications about my claims about the word dhimma), so I was understating matters by merely calling him "dishonest."

OT,

Continuing in reply to Loonwatch messenger "Patriot"

Another poster on Loonwatch, "NassirH," Says:
May 6th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
"Lol, looks like the Birthers (unsurprisingly, some of those commentators mentioned by @Tom have openly claimed that Obama wasn’t born in the United States) over at JihadWatch are suffering from tantrums. Of course, JihadWatch is a hate site/echo chamber, so that gullible, angry people are posting rants there shouldn’t be surprising at all."

He then goes on to mention me, though it's not clear he's accusing me of believing "birther" nonsense and all the rest of it. Anyways, I'll address each of these subtly conflated accusations.

Birther stuff...is nonsense. I believe Obama was born in the U.S. I don't even agree with the technical rule in the U.S. that a president must be born in that country. And no, I don't believe he is a Muslim.

Obama. While I disagree with Obama's fluffy Karen Armstrong-style presentation of Islam, that's the standard for most politicians. Bush was the same. It's all part of the political rhetoric; you aren't going to see a mainstream politician get up and start sharply criticizing any of the main religions per se. I don't see him as any "worse" than Bush on any of the issues that JWers are usually concerned about. In fact, I like Obama, and think some of the claims about him made by some commenters are pretty wild and biased.

Tantrums, angry rants. A question plus a mild but justified insult (calling Danios "dishonest" etc.) from me does not constitute a tantrum, angry rant, etc.

Hate site. Some (most?) Loonwatchers like Danios and NassirH think anyone who criticizes Islam is a hater and a bigot and so on. Thus, in their view, a website that specializes in criticizing the problems in Islam (esp. sharia and jihad) must be a hate site. By their logic, Danios must be a "hater" for citing all those Bible verses. Needless to say, I disagree with them. Unlike NassirH and Danios, I think it's okay to criticize Islam, the Quran, sharia, jihad, etc., or the Bible, or any other religious or political ideology.

Echo chamber. There's an element of truth to this, though I'm not sure JW is more of an echo chamber than Loonwatch or other partisan websites on average. Indeed, from what I've seen at Loonwatch, with their policy of blocking out many critical comments, it seems like they have no qualms about encouraging the echo chamber phenomenon there. Perhaps NassirH should complain to Loonwatch about their policy of blocking out many critical comments. For that matter, NasserH is free to come here and complain. At JW, in almost any thread, you do see some very critical comments against the site's point of view, and some very harsh allegations, that remain up on the site. There are even sometimes reasonable debates that do occur.

Gullible. My way of thinking is that if an argument is sound and is backed up by empirical evidence, and the author has taken the trouble to consider alternative explanations, and so on, I will afford some credibility to that person's argument. If someone doesn't present evidence, or their claims seem contrary to what I know or what seems likely, then I'll question it or possibly reject it. What I know, believe, or suspect about Islam, jihad, and sharia is based on several years of research in my spare time, looking at everything from the Islamic texts to the history to the current trends and statistics as well as many conversations with Muslims and with non-Muslims who've lived in Muslim majority countries.

NassirH continues:
"Sounds like Kinana is displaying what in psychology is called projection. It’s clear that he doesn’t treat Islamic scriptures the same way he treats Judeo-Christian scriptures. And he can’t either, because many, if not most, of his fellow Islamophobes are fanatical Christians or Jews. Their hatred of Islam and Muslims is religious, literally."

It would be "projection," in that sense, if in fact I had not condemned or criticized the violent and intolerant passages in the Bible. But in fact I did condemn, clearly and directly, those Biblical passages. I condemned the violent intolerant passages in both the Bible and the Quran, even though in doing so, many Christians, Jews, and Muslims will probably tend to be at least annoyed with me for saying this. (Others might ignore me, still others might pray for me). So my question is, Why doesn't Danios condemn the violent and intolerant passages of the Quran?

As for which texts are worse, I think they're both pretty bad, but there is someone who has actually done a more rigorous assessment of this issue. I'd like to see Danios address this:

Andrew Bostom, Mar 15
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2010/03/25/all-islamic-things-not-considered-at-npr/

Tina Magaard
Here is a Google translation of part of a news article about her work:

"Islam is the most bellicose religion

By Orla Borg

Published at 10.09.2005. 22:30

A Danish linguist has over three years analyzed 10 religions basic texts and concludes that the texts of Islam stands out by encouraging terror and violence to a greater extent than other religions [...]"

"Islam's text invites a much greater extent than other religions' basic texts for terror and warfare, concludes Tina Magaard, who graduated from the Sorbonne in Paris as a PhD in text analysis and intercultural communication, and as a three-year research project has compared 10 religions basic texts [...]"

http://jp.dk/indland/article223091.ece

NassirH:
"I’ve actually read some of Kinana’s comments on JihadWatch. I remember one in which he said an amazing 270 million people have been killed by jihadists (i.e. Muslims) in the last century and half. I think Loonwatchers know that these numbers are extremely spurious; only a credulous bigot would actually take them as fact."

First of all, I didn't say "in the last century and a half"! The 270 million estimate refers to the sum of killings for most of the historical period, but doesn't include recent atrocities, genocides, etc.

And, no, I've never said that the 270 million estimate is an established hard and certain fact, like say, in the sense that the U.S. population is currently estimated to be about 308 million. The historical figures, whether concerning Islam-related killings, killings related to the Crusades, and so on, are basically estimates, guesses. We are dealing with huge, rounded numbers, and large margins of error. I believe I've called the 270 million figure, which was suggested by Bill Warner, an estimate, which I think is not unreasonable if you look at the total period of Islamic invasion and conquest in what is now India and South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Mediterranean region, and Africa. It may be an overestimate, it may be an underestimate, but I've never thought of it as anything other than an estimate, and a gross, ballpark estimate at that.

I recently (April 29, 2011 5:56 PM) wrote this: "If the death toll due to Muslims killing non-Muslims in jihad is at minimum about 270 million historically, I would infer from that that Islam's rape toll in jihad would be about as high."

Clearly, NassirH is either distorting or ignoring what I said. I've presented this as an estimate or even a hypothetical "If", whereas he is trying to allege that I presented as a statement of clearly established and exact fact, from an area of historical research that can only give rather loose estimates.

The point, which NassirH seems to want to avoid in his quibbling, is that an awful lot of innocent people--millions upon millions of them--have been slaughtered (and raped) by pious Muslims acting in accordance with a straightforward interpretation of the violent and imperialistic instructions in the Quran and Hadith, instructions which he, and Danios, and Loonwatch overall, refuse to condemn.

NasserH says:
"I think Loonwatchers know that these numbers are extremely spurious; only a credulous bigot would actually take them as fact."

The credulous bigot here is clearly NasserH for dismissing, without solid evidence to the contrary, the estimate as completely spurious and using the lack of critical perspective among his fellow commenters as a comfort pillow so that he doesn't have to do any critical thinking or research on his own. Clearly, NasserH is attempting to deny the sheer scale of the atrocities and slaughters committed in the name of Islam over the past centuries since Muslims conquered Arabia and surrounding regions.

NassirH:
"Even Samuel Huntington, who is adored by Islamophobes, said “I don’t think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims.”

Whether he is "adored" by "Islamophobes" (gee, there's an objective term, no bias at all there!) or not, this quote tells us nothing about the 270 million estimate. It is a very loose casual statement by Huntington, where he says that he "suspects" that "if" you added it all up, over the centuries, Christians would have killed more people than Muslims. This quote isn't evidence of anything other than the sheer mental laziness of NassirH. For one thing, Christians have been around a lot longer than Muslims. Secondly, if the criteria are so loose that killers are simply counted based on their nominal or presumed religious affiliation and not on their likely cause or motives for killing, then indeed there may be a larger number of people killed by Christians. For example, the Western Allies in WWII who defeated the Nazis and the Axis powers were predominantly "Christian" in this sense, who, partly due to population sizes and the military technology of the times, racked up (and suffered) a very large body count--which shows just how useless and misleading this suggested loose classification and loose comparison would be. The Islamic invasions and conquests (such as of India) were significantly motivated and justified by Islamic precepts based in the Quran and Sunnah, and the weaponry was much more primitive.

NassirH:
"Here’s a website by Matthew White in which he compiles the numbers of killed by wars throughout history, according to the estimates of scholars. As you can, Europeans have killed far more than any other people by an extraordinary amount."

Where does White actually make this comparison and state this conclusion? I checked the website, compiled by a librarian (not a historian), and it is filled with all kinds of disclaimers and caveats about the amount of guesswork and error in producing the estimates. This is not surprising; such is the nature of the type of evidence and estimation we are dealing with, and certainly White himself has done the responsible thing by noting that. However, on the question of the number slaughtered in or around what is now India, I'm more inclined to accept the statements of a historian like Will Durant, or the statements of those like Koenraad Elst or K.S. Lal who have examined the issue in more detail.

On Michael White's site, he quotes Will Durant: "The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: I - Our Oriental Heritage (1935) page 459.

Yet this is not reflected in White's ranking of the numbers posted in his list (which would make it the highest up until 1935). Why not?

White has used a rather bizarre and arbitrary calculation. He takes what he calls an "outrageously" low and outrageously high estimate of the numbers killed, and then takes the "geometric average" of the two extreme numbers--an odd and inappropriate choice of average here. He provides no justification for not using the arithmetic mean, which is normally what is used. The arithmetic mean, not the geometric mean, is appropriate here, though with only two numbers that is still pretty crude. Why not take several estimates and then take the mean (i.e., the arithmetic mean) of them? White has taken 80 million as the outrageously high, and 2 million as the outrageously low, estimate. The geometric mean of those two numbers is 12.7 million. However, even using White's numbers, the arithmetic mean--which is almost always what is used when someone says they are using the "mean"--is 41 million.

Further opinions on the scale of slaughter in India historically:

K.S. Lal. "Growth of Muslim population in India",
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_India
Professor Lal estimated that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 Million.

http://www.indians-abroad.com/hindus.html
b. Forcible conversions:
“This was an important factor in the spread of Islam in South Asia. Often, the invading Muslims offered a choice between Islam and death to the inhabitants of subjugated Hindu areas31. The stories of cruelty and barbarianism of Islamic rulers are folklore among the Hindu masses of India. Similarly, in the Portuguese ruled part of Goa32, Catholicism was often forced upon the Hindus and Muslims there. It is estimated that the 8 century long Islamic rule witnessed the massacre of 80 million Hindus26. This is the root cause of the on-going Hindu-Muslim feud in South Asia.”

Next source:
"Gautier: "Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." "

Gautier cites Alain Danielou in Histoire de la Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." "
http://www.cincinnatitemple.com/articles/AriseIndia.pdf

I most definitely did not dance around your question. I acknowledged that there is no specific passage in the Koran encouraging lying (though there certainly are enough pasages calling for the killing or maiming of non-believers---care to deny this?).

If you know there are no such passages in the Koran, why bother responding to my question? If you can't prove that lying is not only permitted but encouraged in Islam, then kindly stfu. Anything to do with something other than the discussion at hand (ie: lying) is completely irrelevant, and is a red herring at best.

But, holy hell, one wouldn't need to resort to any texts to substantiate such.

What nonsense. Of course you would need to resort to texts in order to prove that Islam encourages lying. Otherwise, your evidence amounts to nothing more than conjecture, and wishful thinking. Which is exactly the m.o. of Robert Spencer and his minions on this site.

I totally understand why Robert Spencer would create his false narrative of taqiyya and other bullshit. $130k+ for blogging alone is a pretty tempting incentive. What I can't understand however, is how people are so inclined to believe such nonsense, without corroborating with other sources. It totally boggles my mind, how people can be so foolish and bigoted.

TAQQIYAH/DECEPTION IN ISLAM

"We [Muslims] smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them."

-- Muhammad's companion and pupil Abu Darda talking, according to Al-Bukhari (compiler of the most canonical hadith collection) as quoted by Ibn Kathir, the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an expositor.

The Qur'an says Muslims must not be friends with unbelievers, except if it is necessary to pretend friendship with them, as a form of self-defense

For example, Qur'an 3:28

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Here's what Ibn Kathir, perhaps the Muslim world's most respected Quran expositor of all time, has to say about the Qur'an's teachings on friendship with non-Muslims:

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,

(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way)[Qur'an 3:28]
meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said,
(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them),
until,
(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) [Qur'an 60:1].
Allah said,
(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [Qur'an 4:144],
and,
(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.)[Qur'an 5:51].
Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin [those who emigrated with Muhammad from Mecca to Medina], Ansar [citizens from Medina who helped Muhammad] and Bedouins,
(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.) [Qur'an 8:73].
Allah said next [in Qur'an 3:28]
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them)
meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari [compiler of the most canonical hadith collection] recorded that Abu Ad-Darda [a companion and pupil of Muhammad] said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah [or taqqiyah, deception on behalf of Islam] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." A deception "allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Thus you have a mainstream pious Islamic idea of "friendship" with non-believers.

From the essay "Communism and Islam" in International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12, here is Bernard Lewis on Islam's inherent authoritarianism:

I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition...Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical -- attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both...In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy...[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God's vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as "tyranny is better than anarchy" and "whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent."
...Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as "There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!" was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith -- a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy -- might well strike a responsive note.

Huh? I did resort to texts. Islamic texts. The Bukhari Hadith and The Reliance of the Traveller. Moreover, actions speak as loud as words or haven't you noticed? Just this one question for you: Do you deny that almost all religious terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims? A simple yes or no will do.

Be careful what you ask for . . . Muslim "reformers" are used as tagiyya by the global jihad. It is still a divide (non-Muslims) and conquer strategy.

OT

Continuing in reply to some Loonwatch commenters, Mosizzle and NassirH.

First, they both say they were banned at JW. If that's correct, I still don't know why they were banned. There may have been good reason. From what I've seen here, it takes a lot to get banned.

As for my own case at Loonwatch, a post of mine (I was not using my current JW moniker there) was held in moderation for some weeks at least, as I recall (this was in early 2010, and was long before the debate over the word dhimma), and it never appeared, even though several other posts praising the author were allowed through. I have kept a copy of that comment. There was nothing insulting or off-topic in my post; it was a critique and disagreement with the author, who had participated in a discussion in the thread. Now I know that many others have reported the same problem at Loonwatch. I've also seen Danios for example abuse his power as a moderator by doing some pretty nasty and dirty things to people who try to post criticisms or counterexamples, like typing in words that they clearly never would have written. Until these issues are dealt with, there's no point in my attempting to post at Loonwatch. I don't imagine they're in a hurry to fix these problems, or even that they necessarily view these as "problems."

BTW, another thing about Loonwatch or Spencerwatch--I can't recall if I determined which one it was, but it was one of the two--was listed as a "known bad site" by my internet security software. I also find that various tracking cookies etc are put on my computer software whenever I go to Loonwatch, some of which may be harmless but others which my software clearly marks as threats that should be removed. I don't have any such problems with the news and blog sites that I often look at. Loonwatch might want to look into that issue as well.

Re Mosizzle's post, I had made the point that some Loonwatchers including Danios show an attitude or view wherein anyone who criticizes Islam, the Quran, etc., is a "hater", bigot and so on.

Mosizzle then gave a quote from Danios which Mosizzle thinks counters my claim:

Danios: “I would nonetheless strongly caution overzealous Muslim readers from using these articles to stir hatred against Jews and Christians, noting that Islam has no shortage of “problematic” texts.”

I had read that quote originally, but I don't view it as a clear condemnation of the Qur'an's violent and intolerant passages. It would be entirely reasonable for me to believe, based on what I've read of Danios, that what he means by "problematic" could mean that the verses in question may look bad to the uninitiated, but with contextual enhancement from the Hadith and other such sources, they are not so bad at all. That is, "problematic" can imply difficult or complicated, or puzzling, or challenging, or in need of explanation, but it doesn't necessarily mean "bad" in the moral sense.

What Danios said there isn't a clear condemnation or criticism. If the most he's said is that there are "problematic" texts, then this underlines my point that he hasn't condemned or criticized the Quran's violent and intolerant passages.

My objection stands on the criticism issue also: Danios, NassirH, and others have never given any indication as to what they consider to be acceptable criticism or an acceptable critic, of Islam, the Quran, etc. This is highly conspicuous, and it leads to the hypothesis that they don't consider any criticism of Islam and the Quran per se to be acceptable to them. If they do consider some criticism (and some critics) acceptable, they have yet to share these thoughts with readers, as far as I've seen.

My question remains: Why doesn't Danios condemn the violent and intolerant passages in the Quran like he does for those in the Bible?

NassirH has given a more detailed reply, and I plan to come back and respond to it this evening.

Thank you for the information about, and analysis of, Loonwatch, Kinana. I've only gone to the site one time to look it over and I came to the conclusion that virtually any criticism of Islam is verboten. It struck me as a cheap shot site too toward any who would dare hold Islam up to criticism. And I think the hatred of Robert Spencer there is evidence of the fact that he's getting to the kind of folks who think Loonwatch is objective and correct. Didn't know about the cookies tracking but now I do thanks to you.

Speaking of rape in Islam, a poster by the handle of 'Greenforest' has extensively discussed the issue of rape allowed to Muslims during Jihad warfare in the comments section:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4385205961037530446&postID=8681945739847640841

I also see Muslims have resorted to the tried-and-true method of using adjectives (Danios himself would be dead in the water in any debate if he didn't have access to adjectives) to attach labels to their opponents that have little or nothing to address the actual substance of their opponent's arguments or, indeed, improve the argument of any Muslim using extensively using adjectives in a debate. For a good reason to stop using adjectives in debate, consider the following link:

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2010/09/war-on-adjectives.html

Speaking of rape in Islam, a poster by the handle of 'Greenforest' has extensively discussed the issue of rape allowed to Muslims during Jihad warfare in the comments section:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4385205961037530446&postID=8681945739847640841

I also see Muslims have resorted to the tried-and-true method of using adjectives (Danios himself would be dead in the water in any debate if he didn't have access to adjectives) to attach labels to their opponents that have little or nothing to address the actual substance of their opponent's arguments or, indeed, improve the argument of any Muslim using extensively using adjectives in a debate. For a good reason to stop using adjectives in debate, consider the following link:

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2010/09/war-on-adjectives.html

Thank you for bringing that up as it is most relevant to our discussion here. Actually, it was not Muhammad that ordered it. The Jews at the time picked Sa’ad Ibn Mu’adh as their judge.

Actually, it was Muhammad who selected the mortally wounded Sa’d - the same Sa'd who had previously expressed his desire to punish the Jews he was mortally wounded by. And the same Muhammad who previously fully intended to massacre the Banu Quaynuqa tribe.

Muhammad's decision to appoint Sa'd was at the insistence of his co-religionists who were allies with the Qurayza.
Muhammad therefore presented the Jews with the choice of allowing Muhammad to decide on a punishment(and they were aware from a previous encounter with a Muslim who entered their compound that Muhammad intended to kill them just as he intended to massacre the Banu Qaynuqa by a gesture to his throat) or have Sa’d arbitrate for them.

Naturally, the Jews would not have picked Muhammad but their other option was a devout follower of Muhammad, mortally wounded by the people he would be judging. On top of that, as already mentioned, we know Sa’d had expressed his intentions to punish the Jews. It’s perhaps more than a coincidence that Muhammad just so happened to choose Sa’d to judge the Jews.

We also learn of Muhammad's approval immediately after the ruling by his expressed praise for the decision to execute and enslave the Banu Qurayza tribe, not that Muhammad's silence on the judgement would have left anyone guessing where Muhammad stood on the issue.

Continuing reply to NassirH,

NassirH (NH): "Ah, but as an uncritical follower of Robert Spencer, Kinana likely believes Spencer’s assertion that “if Obama was a Muslim he would not be behaving in any way differently.” Again, the belief that Obama is secretly Muslim is held by many Islamophobes."

No, the short answer is that, while I think I understand the point Robert was making, I don’t believe this statement is literally correct. But note how NassirH simply makes up a false premise, i.e., that I am “an uncritical follower” of Robert, and then tries to use that bogus premise to make a claim about what I “likely believe” about some irrelevant issue related to whether Obama is a Muslim, or is acting like one in his policies.

The claim that I am an “uncritical follower” of Robert is not correct. It would mean that I accept whatever Robert says without question or having or expressing differing views. In fact, I have differed from Robert on several occasions over the years, and I have expressed this freely in the comment section (as have many other commenters, BTW). I differ from Robert on a number of issues, some minor, some major, e.g., we differ on some political issues and obviously we differ on religion (i.e., Robert is a Christian, I am an atheist). But the relevant point which brings me back to JihadWatch as a reader is that Robert is quite a good expert and is, as far as I can judge, correct and reliable to a high degree in what he says about Islam, jihad, and sharia, and is doing important work with JihadWatch and related projects such as his books. Not only that, but I have a great deal of respect for Robert in light of the risk he faces from violent jihadists on the one hand, and from propaganda jihad smear artists and Islam apologists on the other (e.g., Loonwatch, etc.). Certainly, Robert is shouldering way more than his share of the burden in bringing to light the problems in Islam, jihad, and sharia. Many others ought to be standing up a lot more.

NH: "Firstly, I don’t think that “anyone who criticizes Islam is a hater.” This is a common argument thrown around by Islamophobes in order to dismiss anyone who points out holes in their arguments. If Spencer only wanted to criticize extremist Muslims and their version of Islam, then I would have no problem with him."

This comment by NassirH is in fact consistent with my hypothesis. Note he says “extremist Muslims” and their “version of Islam”. Why can’t people like me, or Spencer, or anyone else criticize the Quran itself? Why can’t we criticize not only the “extremist” (i.e., violent) Muslims, but also those among the majority worldwide who support sharia? What if we find that an allegedly moderate Islamic spokesman who has said something false, or was being misleading or, worse, was not being honest? That all would seem to be off limits for NassirH, who wants to limit us to criticizing those he deems to be "extremists". Fortunately, NassirH has no control over our freedom of expression, which allows us to criticize religious and political beliefs, policies, and actions.

NH: "However, Spencer relentless attacks all Muslims and Islam; even something as benign as Ramadan isn’t free from his bigotry."

He doesn’t “attack” “all Muslims.” What dangerous hyperbole from NassirH. Danios made a similar dangerous false allegation, but the book Danios said he was reading, the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, clearly shows that Robert is not against all Muslims. Robert actually said this: "Moreover, it would be silly for anyone to treat "all conflicts involving Muslims...as the fault of Muslims themselves," or to incite "war against Islam as a whole." To go to war with Islam as a whole--grizzled shepherds in Kazakhstan and giggly secretaries in Jakarta as well as bin Laden and Zarqawi--would be absurd and unnecessary." (P.I.G to Islam, pp. 198-199). More information on these sorts of questions can be found on "About Robert Spencer" at the JW site.

NH: "Again, there is a difference between robust criticism and lying. Spencer’s work is clearly part of the latter."

There is no evidence that Spencer lied about anything in his statements or criticisms. As for robust criticism, it’s clear enough that NassirH and Danios don’t accept what others consider to robust and fair criticism of Islam. Note that they’ve never cited a criticism, or critic, of Islam per se that, or who, they accept. It’s all Islamophobia, “hate,” and so on, as far as they are concerned. The fact that NassirH and Danios themselves refuse to criticize and condemn anything in the Quran also reinforces this point: They don’t accept any criticism of Islam, period.

Certainly, Danios and other have discovered numerous factual errors and misrepresentations in Spencer’s work. Kinana can simply read the above article for another example—Spencer omitted and edited Biblical verses that went counter to his argument (he specifically cut out lines from certain passages).
I don’t agree that Danios has discovered “numerous factual errors.” I've seen Danios apparently try to take ambiguous cases that could be interpreted either way. He then jumps to some conclusion and insists that one of the interpretations is correct and the other is lies, ignorance, Islamophobia, etc., then does a victory dance and praises himself while blocking or ignoring critical responses.

If you study the best and most honest of writers, eventually you will come across some errors. I agree that the verse in question should have been included. I’m not going to defend that, because I reject the contextual apologetic entirely there, but I would at least like to know a bit more about that before jumping to conclusions. I’m not convinced that this omitted verse is an example of what Danios and NassirH are alleging. First, who cut the quote, Robert or the editor? If Robert, what did he believe about the verse that was cut? (Perhaps Robert would still view it as contextually limited). These sorts of questions, and others, would have to be answered before reaching conclusions.

NH: "This is why Islamophobes dislike Loonwatch, not because, as Kinana says, falsely, that “NassirH think anyone who criticizes Islam is a hater.” I think he will find that there are plenty of Loonwatch readers who are critical of certain aspects of traditional Islamic law while still disliking Islamophobia."

I don’t see much of that at Loonwatch, though that’s not my point. Again, NassirH is steering away from the core of Islam itself and is only accepting criticism of “certain aspects of traditional Islamic law.” Why not open all of it up to criticism and analysis? My point is that Danios, NassirH, and most at Loonwatch won’t accept criticism of Islam per se, e.g., the Quran.

Again, I challenge NassirH (and Danios, if he is up to it) to provide me the name of one non-Muslim Islam critic alive today who he thinks is not an “Islamophobe.” I challenge him to cite me one criticism of the Quran’s statements, policies, or claims, made by a non-Muslim alive today, which he considers to be valid and not Islamophobia. If he can do this, I would thank him, and then ask “What took you so long?”

NH: "Secondly, it’s undeniable that JihadWatch is a hate site, just like most of the sites on its blogroll. I wonder what’s Kinana’s explanation for the genocidal sentiment that abounds among both JihadWatch readers and writers (though, admittedly the mods have increasingly been deleting genocidal comments lately).
I don’t agree that JihadWatch is a hate site. Again, do you accept critical presentations about Islam, sharia, and jihad, or not?

As for the objectionable comments, I haven’t seen all the comments NassirH is talking about, but I do know that there are indeed some unhinged comments, though rarely genocidal. While I don’t have the time or the interest to monitor the comment section here or at other sites I visit as a reader, I have notified JihadWatch when I’ve seen particularly unhinged or violent comments, and in most cases as I recall these have been removed and/or the poster has been banned. I’ve also taken other posters to task over these sorts of comments, though again as a reader I have limited time and generally choose not to spend it on monitoring the comments section, most of which I do not read except some posters I consider reasonable.

Re the comments you quote from Hugh and Roland Shirk, I too disagree with, and condemn, those comments. Now, why can’t you, (NassirH) and Danios and others at LW, condemn the much worse and much more influential violent and intolerant statements in the Quran?

Response to continue...

Kinana, I'm following your responses to Danios et al. You make an admirable effort to be objective.

OT

Response to NassirH (NH) from Loonwatch...

NH: "Re Tina Magaard: This is a bit off-topic, but I’ve noticed that loons have been gloating about this “study” for some time so I’ll respond. Magaard doesn’t seem to be aware of the concept of asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions for revelation), which needs to be taken into consideration before anyone makes assertions about the Qur’an. Why is it that context applies to the Bible but not the Qur’an? Predictably, it will be argued that the Bible is descriptive while the Qur’an is prescriptive. However, as Danios has shown, this is not the case regardless of how many times Robert Spencer edits lines out of the Bible."

A brief refresher: Tina Magaard is the researcher who did her PhD work at the Sorbonne (and who continues to do research on Islam), and compared the Islamic texts with the texts of ten other religions using textual analysis and quantitative methods, and found that Islamic texts called for or promoted more violence and terror than any of the others. Here is a link where Bostom briefly discusses this:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2010/03/25/all-islamic-things-not-considered-at-npr/

Note what has happened here in NassirH's response to the Tina Magaard reference. He puts the word "study" like that in sneer marks, as if he somehow knows better than the scholars on Magaard's dissertation committee (or whatever they call it at the Sorbonne), and the reviewers of the journal in which she later published some of this work. Without any assessment of the study whatsoever, NassirH comes up with the allegation that Magaard didn't consider the context or occasions of the revelations in evaluating the verses. He then seems to shift topics--it's not clear if he's even still talking about the Magaard study--and then complains about the context issue, as if the Qur'an is being treated unfairly. Really? Where? By whom? And what does any of this have to do with Magaard's study?

NH: "If you want to compare the “body count” Prophet Muhammad to the Bible’s prophet’s then take your pick: Moses, Joshua, David, etc. Again, we find that the Bible is far more violent."

Yet he presents no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. (Sure the Bible has lots of violence, but no evidence is presented to support the particular claim that it is more violent when comparing Islam's prophet with the Biblical prophets. What was the body count due to Muhammad's jihads? That's a good question. I suspect to answer that you'd have to look at the Hadith and Sira, because the Quran simply doesn't contain that level of detail).

NH: "Furthermore, citing a scholar to buttress your views isn’t particularly special. I can simply cite Prof. Philp Jenkins, who affirms that the Bible “contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran.”

Affirms? He claims it, but where's his study? Is he talking about simple count, or percentage? Note that the Bible is a much longer book, and has much more graphic detail than the Qur'an alone.

An informal comparison suggests, as I suspected, that while the Bible has a larger number of violent verses, the Quran has a higher percentage of violent verses.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

NH: "What’s funny is that Bostom calls Jenkins—a scholar of far more repute than Magaard—dishonest."

"Repute"? I don't think there's any issue of repute here, and don't see how this would be relevant. Magaard is a published author and researcher.

I don't think Jenkins is being dishonest. Between his (unpublished) assessment and Magaard's peer-reviewed and published one, there are probably some differences in methods that would reasonably explain the difference in reported results. We'd have to see exactly what they did before drawing conclusions as to which one had the better or more relevant results.

NH: "We’ve had a loon cite Bostom in order to buttress his arguments on a Loonwatch thread once. Apparently, after checking Bostom’s citations of a medieval Islamic text, it was revealed that he quoted a mere 3 paragraphs out of 17 pages, using ellipses (…) to hide key information from his readers. Bostom, like most Islamophobes, is projecting his traits on to others."

I wouldn't accept that claim at face value, but it's not really relevant to Magaard's study or whether the Bible is more violent than the Quran (or "Islamic texts"--apparently Magaard looked at the Hadith and Quran).

[my brackets] NH: "...the extraordinary number [270 million killed] purported by Bill Warner is spurious. I’ve seen Warner’s estimates and interviews and he makes basic factual errors. For example, in one FrontPageMag interview he claims Zoroastrianism “was eliminated from Persia” despite the fact it still exists in Iran and was the religion of most of the population for centuries after the original conquests. Warner makes completely outlandish claims like “Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey” [1] (were there even Buddhists in Anatolia before modern times?) and simply repeats them until other Islamophobes take them as fact, which of course is the modus operandi of other loons including Spencer or Geller. He doesn’t have any academic credentials in anything related to Islam and most of the numbers he gives are entirely his “estimates.”

1. While Zoroastrianism has not been eliminated in the sense of there now being zero (0) Zoroastrians in Iran, it has been drastically reduced and almost eliminated. There are estimated to be only about 200,000 Zorastrians in the entire world today, and the Iranian portion is only a small fraction of that, and only a fraction of a percentage of the Iranian population which is now about 98% Muslim. This drastic reduction especially since Zoroastrians were originally the majority before Muslims invaded. There near-elimination of the Zoroastrians is probably mainly due to Islamic invasion, and then centuries of persecution, as is suggested by Mary Boyce's research.

2. Asking a rhetorical question and expressing subjective incredulity does not establish anything about Buddhists in Turkey. If NassirH has some evidence on this, he should present it. If he thinks he knows the answer, he should say it.

3. All of the figures in question are estimates. Why does NassirH put sneer marks around "estimates"? Estimates are what are used in this type of assessment. If Warner or his sources are wrong, prove it.

NH: "One has to wonder why the population of many of those regions increased after the Islamic conquests if the Muslims were responsible for such amazing destruction. In reality, “no systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little change to the patterns of religious and communal life. There were no massed or forced conversions.” [2]

2. Brown, Daniel W. A New Introduction to Islam. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 109. Print.


Speaking of misleading cutting of quotes, NassirH provides an example right here. Here's what Brown said, after describing accounts of conquests, where he then turns to what the archaeological evidence, in contrast, suggests (p. 109):

Brown: "Archaeological data tell a somewhat different tale. If we look for evidence of the burning, looting, or destruction described by Bishop Sophronius in 635, we find none. No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious and communal life. There were no massed or forced conversions."

NassirH misrepresented this by introducing this quote (remember NassirH's complaint about deceptive use of ellipses by those nasty Islamophobes?) with his presumptuous "In reality," and by cutting out the framing statements. Brown was showing that different sources of evidence suggest different pictures of what life was like. On page 111, Brown writes:

Brown: "So which will it be? Were the conquests a decisive turning point, or more of the same? A historical watershed or just the culmination of forces long at work? The best answer is both. [...]"

http://books.google.com/books?id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+new+introduction+to+islam&hl=en&ei=enPGTbvTB5G5tgfihbiMBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sacking&f=false

What does any of this prove about the issue at hand? Nothing, as far as I can tell. But it does suggest that NassirH has misrepresented the quote.

NH:"Again, how could the Islamic conquests possibly have been as destructive and extensively murderous as the loons claim when regions such as Iran and Syria experienced a dramatic increase in the urban population? Nishapur, for example, “grew from than 10,000 pre-Islamic inhabitants to between 100,000 and 200,000 in the year 1000. Other Iranian cities experienced similar growth. In Iraq, Baghdad and Mosul joined Kufa and Basra as major cities. In Syria, Aleppo and Damascus flourished under Muslim rule.” [3] This was despite the fact the Muslims inherited certain regions, such as Syria, that had experienced a significant decline under Byzantine rule. Did all these Mooslims emerge from the underworld?"

I'm not sure of the relevance of any of this. The populations could have increased in these few cases he cites for any number of reasons. Does NassirH expect us to believe that the centuries-long holocaust of the Hindus and other non-Muslims did not occur?

NH: "Lal’s “estimates,” like Warner’s, are blatantly politically motivated and he has received a lot of criticism from other historians such as Irfan Habib and Simon Digby. Also, telling from Kinana’s assertion, he says the Hindu population decreased; that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were killed."

I didn't assert that. In any case, as I showed, a reasonable use of the (standard, arithmetic) mean using NassirH's own source, Michael White, gives an estimate of 41 million Hindus killed in India. That's still quite a lot. It's a holocaust. NassirH can quibble over the estimates all he wants but he should not deny the holocaust of the Hindus at the hands of the Muslims.

Quoting from my source: "Gautier cites Alain Danielou in Histoire de la Inde: “From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions.It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races.”"

NassirH replies:

"Is this guy really a historian? The first Muslim armies arrived in india in 711, not 632. They conquered Sind, which is at India’s extreme northwest, not its heartland. Centuries passed before Muslims made any significant attempt to attack the sub-continent, with Mahmud of Ghazni adding Punjab to his kingdom in the 10th century. Clearly, his “analysis” is extremely biased, as evidenced by his sloppy research, basic factual errors, and hostility against Muslims."

Again, a bunch of angry allegations, denials, and dismissals don't really amount to anything substantive here. Danielou didn't say the heartland; he said India. The "about 632" seems reasonable, because as K.S. Lal writes, the caliph Umar sent a military expedition in 636-637 to "pillage Thana [or Thane] on the coast of Mahurasta", and subsequently Uthman and later Ali sent military expeditions to India as well. Lal mentions several jihad attacks before the 700 AD mark. (see p. 434 in Andrew Bostom's edited volume, The Legacy of Jihad, Chapter 40 by K.S Lal, Muslims Invade India pp. 433-455).

NH: "Complete nonsense, Muslim jurists without fail stipulated that those who committed rape be punished. Jurists even considered the “rapist liable to hudud while at war.” [4] Danios discussed a few of Spencer’s assertions about rape; and he responded by saying Danios deserved 101 lashes. The same people who are upset at something that they assume happened centuries ago attempt to palliate cases of rape committed by American soldiers in Iraq."

This is irrelevant. I was referring to rape of non-Muslim female captives by Muslim males who become their Islamically-lawful masters/owners through jihad warfare. The reference NassirH cites says nothing about a Muslim master raping his own captive female non-Muslim slave as being illegal. Islam permits sex in two contexts: in marriage and (for Muslim males) outside of marriage with those whom his right hand possesses, as clearly established in the Quran and Hadith. Muslim male jihadists are permitted to have sex with non-Muslimm female war captives, and that constitutes rape.

"(Sahih Muslim) "Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE"

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end)."

"Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."

Ibn Kathir, 4:24:

"Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves

Allah said,

[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

[إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, e

[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah's statement,

[كِتَـبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ]

(Thus has Allah ordained for you) means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah's Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees."

Al-Jalalayn, 4:24:

"And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you (kitāba is in the accusative because it is the verbal noun). Lawful for you (read passive wa-uhilla, or active wa-ahalla), beyond all that, that is, except what He has forbidden you of women, is that you seek, women, using your wealth, by way of a dowry or a price, in wedlock and not, fornicating, in illicitly. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, and have had sexual intercourse with, give them their wages, the dowries that you have assigned them, as an obligation; you are not at fault in agreeing together, you and they, after the obligation, is waived, decreased or increased. God is ever Knowing, of His creatures, Wise, in what He has ordained for them."

Asbab Al-Nuzul Al Wahidi, 4:24:

"(And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…) [4:24]. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Bunani informed us> Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Hamdan> Abu Ya‘la> ‘Amr al-Naqid> Abu Ahmad al-Zubayri> Sufyan> ‘Uthman al-Batti> Abu’l-Khalil> Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who said: “We had captured female prisoners of war on the day of Awtas and because they were already married we disliked having any physical relationship with them. Then we asked the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, about them. And the verse (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) was then revealed, as a result of which we consider it lawful to have a physical relationship with them”. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Harith informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja‘far> Abu Yahya> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> ‘Abd al-Rahim> Ash‘ath ibn Sawwar> ‘Uthman al-Batti> Abu’l-Khalil> Abu Sa‘id who said: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, captured the people of Awtas as prisoners of war we said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! How can we possibly have physical relationships with women whose lineage and husband we know very well?’ And so this verse was revealed (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess)”. Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Farisi informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Amrawayh> Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sufyan> Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj> ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar al-Qawariri> Yazid ibn Zuray‘> Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Arubah> Qatadah> Abu Salih Abu Khalil> Abu ‘Alqamah al-Hashimi> Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who reported that on the day of Hunayn the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, sent an army to Awtas. This army met the enemy in a battle, defeated them and captured many female prisoners from them. But some of the Companions of the Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, were uncomfortable about having physical relations with these prisoners because they had husbands who were idolaters, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed about this (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess)."


(These next two examples, from "Greenforest" from the thread JihadBob cites above--thanks JihadBob):

Ibn Qayyim, in (chapter) Zad al- Ma’ad, Regarding His Guidance With Respect to Prisoners of War
p.319
“And the correct opinion which is based upon his guidance and that of his companions is that the Arabs may be taken as slaves and it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the slave women from among them without it being conditional upon their embracing Islam.”
[cites Malik and Bukhari]

The Reliance of the Traveller:
O-9.13
"When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."


Muslim husbands are permitted to rape their wives according to Hanafi jurisprudence, at the very least (as mentioned in the Hedayah, he may under some circumstances "enjoy her by force"). A recent example of this policy in Islam came to the surface in Afghanistan and thus came to the attention of the Western media.

Bernard Lewis notes:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html
Bernard Lewis. Race and Slavery in the Middle East
Oxford Univ Press 1994.
Chpt. 1 Slavery
Lewis: “A Muslim slaveowner was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. While free women might own male slaves, they had of course no equivalent right.”

typo correction to my previous post: "Michael White" should be "Matthew White", as indicated earlier.

Kinana, I have been reading your response to NassirH and Danios with deep awe and gratitude. For me they seem formidable opponents, but you stand up well to them.

It is still uncertain for me if they play the game honestly in the sense that they do permit all dissenting comments or not. it struck me that there should be a Loonwatch-watch and also some concerted effort by Jihad Watchers to investigate whether or not dissenting comments were allowed on LW or not or only limited and selectively.

Or perhaps there should be a agreement negotiated between the 2 websites, JW and LW, that both allow dissenting comments and enough checking to ascertain that.

One of the things that struck me was that you took Loonwatch to task for being totally intolerant to any and all criticism on Islam itself, not just on so-called extremist versions of Islam. If LW can't reasonably refute this, it deminishes LW's credibility a lot. Just like their judgment of any and all critics on Islam itself as being Loons and Islamophobes.

It struck me also that NassirH thus admitted that there seem to be different versions of Islam. That reminds me that when Muslims, as they do so often, speak about what Islam is or is not, teaches or does not teach etc, that that only is true for their version of Islam. Something they should stipulate humbly IMO.

And precisely because it seems like there are so many versions of Islam, but still they all emanate from Quran-Hadith-Sira, it seems to me that Muslims lose much normal trustworthyness and credibility because this means that those mentioned Islamic Holy texts are highly ambiguous, vaque, incomplete, obsolete and thus highly prone, vulnerable to misunderstanding, misuse, or simply many possible interpretations.

And that is something I think society must in the end hold Muslims accountable for somehow. And not only in national context, but in global context.

demsci,

Thanks, though all I show is that if someone is willing to put in some of their spare time to check the claims of the Islam propagandists, these claims often don't hold up. When in doubt, call their bluff. It often turns out that they are gambling and bluffing. They are often speaking with great confidence giving definite opinions on issues about which they know little or about which there is ambiguity and difference in interpretation.

I can definitely testify that Danios doesn't play the game honestly. I've seen several instances of this myself. For example, in the debate over the word dhimma (see the "dhimmis guilty" thread at Jihadwatch), Danios simply fabricated a bunch of allegations about me and my claims, fabrications which he posted on Loonwatch, but never posted at JW, where they could be debated freely.

It would appear that NassirH hasn't been able to yet address my more recent posts, including my rebuttal to his misleading claim that Islam forbade rape. In fact, Islam permitted rape of non-Muslim female war captives and slaves, as I initially claimed, and as I showed above. It is also interesting that Danios has never refuted this.

(Nor has NassirH explained his misleading use of "In reality" to describe Brown's presentation of one possible interpretation among others. I point this out not only because NassirH misrepresented the quote, because he and Danios and other jihad apologists love to try to cry foul over removed material in quotes).

Nevertheless, perhaps, at some level, disturbed by the idea that Muslims historically did quite a bit of jihad killing of Hindus, NassirH did provide some later comments about that, after his earlier comments. I will address these later additions, though I would note again that both he and Danios have failed to meet my challenge, and both have failed to admit that Muslim jihadists killed quite a lot of Hindus. Note that I'm not asking that they accept the estimates I provided--obviously there's a lot of room for speculation and debate around the estimates. I'm simply asking them to acknowledge that jihadists historically killed massive numbers of Hindus over the centuries. They haven't admitted that. Why not? Why can't they just say "Well, I don't accept Bill Warner's estimates, but, yes, massive numbers of Hindus were killed in jihads over the centuries?" Even NassirH's source, Matthew White, doesn't deny this. So why is NassirH refusing to acknowledge this? As far as I'm aware, they have never even acknowledged that any Muslim jihadist at any time has ever murdered someone based on a clear reading of Islamic texts. If any killing occurs at all, it is due to misunderstanding, twisting, not following true Islam, etc.

OT

Continuing reply re Loonwatch...

Before replying to NassirH's (NH's) more recent comment, I'd like to add, for those who are still following this discussion, this link to Bill Warner's "270 million deaths" estimate, for which he provides references and his reasoning:
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

Warner indicates that "these figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad."

Next, NassirH (NH) Says (May 7th, 2011 at 2:34 pm)

NH: "Haroon Moghul has written about the spurious claim that 270 million have been killed by “jihadists” (i.e. Muslims) in the last millennium and half."

Here is the link provided by NassirH to the Haroon Moghal article in question:
http://avari.typepad.com/avari/2010/10/jihadis-killed-270-million-people.html

Yet Haroon Moghul [i.e., the presumed author of that article] provides no evidence that the 270 million estimate is unjustified. Instead, his response is, in substance, speculative and misleading, yet makes sweepingly certain conclusions. Like NassirH, at no time in the article does he even admit explicitly that any Hindus were killed in jihad historically. Why is it so difficult for them to admit this? It would be perfectly normal and reasonable for someone to say something like, "Yes, vast numbers of Hindus were killed in the jihads historically, but I disagree with the relatively higher estimates, and here's why..." Why don't they ever say anything like that?

Note the sneer marks around "jihadists". Is NassirH denying that jihadists exist? Does he have a problem with the use of an English suffix? Does he think those labelled jihadists are not following true Islam? Exactly what is his problem with the word jihadists? Again, he appears to be unwilling to give a sober no-nonsense acknowledgement that there are some people waging jihad motivated by Islamic texts.

And Moghul didn't refer to the "last millennium and half." He referred to a 1000 year period between 600 and 1600 AD. (The reason for this range appears to be based on his misreading of a statement by Pamela Geller, which I address later in this reply). It would not seem reasonable to start the body count until Muhammad (in Medina) reportedly started ordering raids, battles, assassinations, etc., i.e., about 623 AD. And it would not seem reasonable to end it at 1600 AD, since jihad killing has gone on after that time and continues to this day).

NH: "The simple fact is that the number is impossible, especially when one considers how many areas subject to Islamic rule are mostly non-Muslim, including Russia, India, Iberia and the Balkans. The Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, and Spain took hundreds of years to attain a solid Muslim majority."

Note how NassirH's vague and self-serving, subjective impressions are now being presented as "simple fact"; he says "the number [270 million] is impossible." It would be one thing for him to say he disagrees with what he deems to be an improbably or implausibly high estimate. It's quite another to say that it is a "fact" that it is "impossible."

The idea that some regions took a long time to become Muslim majority, despite strikingly persistent attempts by waves of jihadists over the centuries to bring them more fully under Islam, doesn't tell us much about the extent of the slaughter in these regions. Many in these regions were also subjugated and persecuted under the dhimma and the whims of Islamically-inspired infidel-hating Muslim rulers. Millions upon millions of non-Muslims could have been slaughtered without Muslim invaders, or conquerors, etc., achieving a majority of the population. Islam conquered multiple powerful empires militarily, and this occurred in multiple centuries on a large scale, and that involved killing of lots and lots of people.

NH: "If you do the math, it makes even less sense—Muslims would have to kill about 196,000 every year since 632."

The starting date for the body count is not the time of Muhammad's death (632), but rather the time, after he reached Medina, when he began launching raids, battles, etc. in the cause of Islam (about 623). While this wouldn't make much difference relative to the total estimate, the wording does make a big difference, because NassirH, with his use of 632, has excluded the acknowledgement that Muhammad was a military leader who ordered raids, battles, assassinations, etc. Even the Quran--often quite a vague book--talks about the killings of the non-Muslims by Muslims in battle. Jihad killings under Muhammad's rule are important in terms of their inspiration for more and more such jihad-related killings in many regions, over many centuries.

An average of 196,000 killed per year by those acting in the name of jihad and Islam, for the past 1378 years (which seems approximately the number NassirH used) doesn't seem implausible to me. There are reports of Muslim jihadists in India killing 100,000 (or "lakh," in Indian numbering) in one day. There are Muslim jurists who argued that jihad warfare had to be waged "at least once a year" (see Bostom for references). If we take into account that Islam and Islamic empires have been spreading, often through military force, sometimes on multiple frontiers at the same time, and that a great deal of killing would also be needed to maintain their power, and to obtain slaves, and other non-Muslims seized and forced into service of jihad warfare, and so on, over almost 1400 years, and when we look at the vast geographic territory conquered and maintained by Islam, this is not unreasonable. I highly recommend Andrew Bostom's (2005) edited volume The Legacy of Jihad, which includes some of the history of jihad killings and massacres, documented extensively with references and quotes from original sources.

NH: "Furthermore, Muslims are prohibited from killing non-combatants, as enumerated by numerous ahadith."

Misleading. There are hadiths which say that Muslims can kill non-combatants such as women and children in night-time battles or where it is otherwise unavoidable in jihad. (See Muhammad's "they are from them" quote). The Hidayah indicates that there is no penalty for killing non-Muslim women and children in jihad warfare. Moreover, jurists used Muhammad's example conduct as a precedent to allow killing of women and children, as could occur for example with the use of catapults against enemies, such as in Muhammad's attack on the people of Ta'if. Indeed, Muhammad ordered the assassinations of two singing girls who had sung mocking lyrics about him, and he allowed the slaughter of a woman who had allegedly verbally abused him in his absence. Muslim jihadists during Muhammad's time also killed a non-Muslim woman leader by having her ripped apart by typing her limbs to camels and making the camels go in opposite directions. In another case, Muhammad allowed the killing of an apparently traumatized or possibly mentally disturbed woman who was having fits of nervous or uncontrollable laughter.

In jihad...

*Averroes wrote: "Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta'if."

*Al-Ghazali: "...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them..."

*Ibn Taymiyya [my emphasis]: "As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."

*These quotes are from Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad or from some of his articles at FrontPage and elsewhere.

NH: "Even if you accept Kinana’s/Lal’s outlandish claim that 80 million Hindus were killed between 1000 and 1500 (note that Hindu exremists, who have been responsible for the murder of thousands in modern India, use the numbers for propaganda),"

Once again, I didn't claim that. My claim is that the estimate of 80 million Hindus killed by Muslims in jihad or jihad-related activity, from the earliest attacks (e.g., starting at about 636-637 AD, under "rightly-guided" caliph Umar) right up until modern times, is not unreasonable.

Whether Hindu extremists use these or other numbers for propaganda tells us nothing as to whether or not the numbers are true. Historian Will Durant called the Muslim slaughters of the Hindus the bloodiest in history, and he was neither a Hindu nor an extremist. (And, for the record, I'm neither Hindu nor an extremist).

But note what NassirH has done here, once again. He is trying to associate my claims with various extremists, lunatics, wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, etc. He does this while for the most part neglecting the empirical question as to the plausibility of the estimates.

NH: "the number still falls short of 270 million. If you add all the highest estimates on White’s website and throw in the Mideast slave trade to further satiate Kinana’s bigotry, the number you get is still over a hundred million less than Bill Warner’s “estimate.”"

What does NassirH think the estimated number is, then? Why doesn't he venture one? Would that involve too much of an implied admission of the scale of the cumulative slaughters and deaths over the centuries, or indeed, that they occurred at all--something NassirH and Danios have not yet admitted?

No, the highest estimates on White's website involving the Mideast slave trade included some that were higher (e.g., 200:1, 50:1) than Warner's (apparently about 10:1) in terms of the proportion of deaths per one slave taken alive. White takes the median of the estimates to be about 3 to 5 death per slave taken. How he arrives at his result (mentioned below) isn't entirely clear, but there is at least one glaring problem with his estimate, which is evident in his quote here:

White: "How many people died in all the slave harvesting by Moslems over the centuries? I hesitate to estimate, but I think we can safely assume that at least 3 people died for every 2 living slaves delivered (similar to the death rate in the Atlantic trade), which comes to about 19M deaths. Keep in mind that the data is so spotty and the margin of error so wide that we can't honestly or definitively accuse either the Christian or Moslem slave trade of being worse than the other."
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm#ISlave

Strangely, White ignores his own calculated median of 3-5 to 1 (i.e., about 4:1) for the estimated deaths:slave ratio applicable to the Mideast (Islamic) slave trade and goes with the estimated Atlantic ratio of 3:2. That's how he arrived at 19 million deaths! Had he used his own median of 4:1, based on the sources he listed for the Mideast (Islamic) slave trade, his estimate would have been approximately 50 million deaths.

The other obvious problem here is that Islamic slavery included a demand for eunuchs for various reasons, including guarding of the harems (because Muslim masters were allowed by the Quran to have four wives simultaneously plus an unlimited number of female "right hand possessions"--slaves and captives, thus leading to harems and the need to guard them, the guards being "men who lack sexual desire") and other duties. It is this demand for castrated male slaves that would have been one of the factors leading to many more deaths in or related to the Islamic slave system as compared to the Atlantic side of it--which, BTW, some Muslims were also involved with. There are also other factors that need to be considered that would tend to increase the deaths estimate, but the castration factor alone would have made the death rate higher on the Islamic side. White should have known these things; anyway he didn't take them into account.

Lacking a solid argument, NassirH apparently tries to compensate for this by accusing me of bigotry. (Yes, now objecting to slavery, and deaths associated with it, is also "bigotry" in NassirH's view. In other words, he has turned morality upside down in order to lash out and defend Islam). Again, Is there a critic, or a criticism, of historical Islam for its slave trade and jihad, and massive numbers of non-Muslims killed, that NassirH would accept as not bigoted? If there is, he has yet to share it with us, as far as I have seen.

White himself "threw in" the Mideast slave trade in his list of the 20 worst things people have done to each other (at number 8). Is NassirH also applying the bigot label to White?
See
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm


Now, to NassirH's reference to Haroon Moghul's article.
http://avari.typepad.com/avari/2010/10/jihadis-killed-270-million-people.html

Apparently Moghul is unaware of the origin (Bill Warner) of the "270 million" estimate, which he cites indirectly by linking to a NYTimes article involving Pamela Geller (whom Moghul doesn't name). In it, Geller refers to "...the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements..."

Note, my emphasis, on "of over a" millennium. Throughout his article, Moghul refers to only a 1000 year segment (600-1600 AD), whereas Pamela was clearly referring to a period longer than that, presumably almost up to the present. (This is despite the fact that Moghul himself quoted the "of over a" part too). That is what was Bill Warner considered in his estimate, which Geller was likely using. Thus, Geller appears to be referring to the whole history of Islam or almost all of it, since that's what the 270 million estimate was based on.

Moghul states: "From the year 600 AD to 1600 AD, which covers the "classical period" of Islam, what we might identify as the phase when Muslim dynasties were world powers and not on the receiving end of conquest, the world population was significantly less than a billion."

Note that, contra Moghul, the 270 million figure is a sum for the whole period almost up to the present.

In about 623 AD, the closest estimate (for 600 AD) would put the world population at about 200-300 million people (according to White's figures), or 300-400 million people (according to Moghul). Let's use 200 million, for the estimated world population at 623. I will here include low-end estimates based on the following source:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

600 AD, 200 million
700 AD, 207 million
800 AD, 220 million
900 AD, 226 million
1000 AD, 254 million
1100 AD, 301 million
1200 AD, 360 million
1300 AD, 360 million
1400 AD, 350 million
1500 AD, 425 million
1600 AD, 545 million
1700 AD, 600 million
1800 AD, 813 million
1900 AD, 1550 million
2000 AD, 6060 million*

*This last score is based on a U.N. estimate from another source.

The proper calculations become too complex and time-consuming to carry out here, given that numerous variables would have to be taken into account, and would constitute a study in its own right. But it is clear that the population total between 600 and 1600 AD inclusive would be much higher than one billion. (Simply adding the snapshot figure for each century in the range 600 to 1600 AD inclusive gives a sum of about 3.5 billion, and summing to 2000 AD inclusive it is about 12.5 billion, and these sums of the snapshot figures are clearly gross underestimates). Note that Moghul was suggesting that the percentage of people killed by jihad is wildly overestimated in the 270 million figure. That is, he was suggesting that the percentage of the population killed in jihad would seem way too high by that estimate. However, 270 million deaths would only be a tiny percentage of the population total.

It is reasonable for Moghul to challenge the 270 million figure, but it is not reasonable for him to engage in such sweeping denials and dismissals, and reach such hasty conclusions. Obviously, his assumption about the total population was incorrect, as I have shown.

typo correction to my previous post [in brackets]:
"Muslim jihadists during Muhammad's time also killed a non-Muslim woman leader by having her ripped apart by [tying] her limbs to camels and making the camels go in opposite directions."

OT,

There was another poster at Loonwatch called "Cynic" who used foul language when notifying NassirH about my reply. Cynic is able to throw in an insult to express hostility, but is apparently unable to provide any substantive arguments or evidence relevant to the exchange.

Anyways, I hereby extend my challenges to Cynic. Can he/she criticize or condemn the violent and intolerant passages of the Quran, or not? Can he/she find a criticism, or name a non-Muslim critic, of Islam per se (e.g., of any of the objectionable contents of the Quran) that he/she does not consider to be bigoted, Islamophobic, etc.?

OT,

And then there is this post from Mosizzle, which speaks for itself:

Mosizzle Says: February 19th, 2011 at 5:56 am Zuhdi Jasser had to learn the hard way that Islamophobes don’t play nice. They didn’t care about his aggressive reformation of Islam plan that included stripping out anything that was even remotely controversial. Nor did they care about his plan to revive the extinct Mutaazili school of thought. All they wanted was a Muslim person to carry their ideas and, despite the fact that he was willing to give up anything in his faith to please them, they found someway to fire him from their circle. And once they slyly get rid of this liberal Muslim, they can shout the usual “there is no moderate Muslim” crap, that Islam is evil and imply that the only way they can save themselves is to leave it. They don’t want Islam to be reformed, they want it to be destroyed, or “crushed” as Wafa Sultan said. Jasser could have saved a lot of time if he had read the Quran: “And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.” If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.” [2:120]

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter