"Islamophobia" filmmaker refuses to answer questions

As I noted here, Dean Obeidallah is making a film about the trumped-up concept of "Islamophobia," and he would really like to interview me for it. So after I wrote this yesterday, we had another exchange, and I thought there might be an opportunity for some honest dialogue. So I asked Obeidallah to answer these questions, and told him I'd be interviewed for his film if he did so:

1. True or false: No comedy show, no matter how clever or winning, is going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

2. True or false: The fact that there are other Muslims not fighting jihad is just great, but it doesn't mean that the jihad isn't happening. This comedy show simply doesn't address the problem of jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

3. What do you make of the fact that Islamic supremacists from the Muslim Brotherhood invented the term "Islamophobia" in order to deflect attention away from jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, and intimidate opponents thereof?

4. What do you have to say about the fact that FBI statistics show that there is no "Islamophobia"?

5. What do you have to say about the fact that many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and that Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

6. True or false? Since the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," one easy way to do that would be to guilt-trip non-Muslims into being ashamed of resisting jihad activity and Islamic supremacism, for fear of being accused of "Islamophobia."

7. True or false: Negin Farsad, with her "eye-catching mini dresses," etc., has more to worry about from observant Muslims than she does from "Islamophobes."

8. What do you think of this: When you call Geller (and by implication, me) a "Muslim hater," I believe that you are ascribing people's legitimate concerns about jihad and Islamic supremacism to "hate," and that the only effect of this will be to make people who have those legitimate concerns to be even more suspicious of Muslims, which will only lead to more of what you call "Islamophobia."

9. Is there a plan behind your demonizing and smearing of all anti-jihadists? Do you want to create "Islamophobia" in order to claim privileged victim status for Muslims and exempt them from reasonable law enforcement scrutiny?

10. What kind of work have you done to raise awareness about the escalating persecution of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim societies, which is far worse in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere than Muslims have it here? Why not?

11. On what basis do you imply that those who are defending freedom against jihad are "exhibiting behavior which is less than consistent with the values of this nation"? What have you done to resist the Muslim Brotherhood's stated agenda of "sabotaging" this nation "from within"?

12. Aside from the murder of a Sikh by an idiot shortly after 9/11, what evidence do you have of any backlash against Muslims to which you refer so off-handedly in the WaPo? Where are Muslims suffering violence, discrimination, harassment of any kind? Even you expected far worse than you got when you went to the South -- and the level of harassment you did get was no worse than what I get in my email every day. So why the overblown claims about it?

13. And yes, what do you think about these recommendations?

Do Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah really want to eradicate "Islamophobia"? As long as Islamic jihad and supremacism continue, a comedy tour will never do the trick. But here is an easy way. They can call on Muslims in the U.S. to do these things:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Obeidallah refused to answer the questions. And so I put it to you: why not? Is there something wrong with them? Why do Islamic supremacists and their enablers and allies always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?

UPDATE: Dean Obeidallah has just contacted me full of threats of lawsuits, demanding that I put up his full response to my request that he answer the questions above and take down the "Islamic supremacist" label as applied to him. While his genuine libels of Pamela Geller (see question 8, above) don't seem to trouble him, I am happy to comply: I've added "and their enablers and allies" to the paragraph above, as in fact I am not sure which category Dean Obeidallah fits into, and here is his email, below. It is, as you'll see, a claim that he is too busy to answer my questions and that he will meet me to discuss them privately. I am happy to meet him to discuss them privately, but I do not intend to be cast as the villain in some bogus "Islamophobia" victimhood presentation without getting public answers from the producers:

Robert - I dont have the time to answer all ur questions in the midst of editing a film and all the other projects Im working on - in fact I didnt even finish reading all of them.

You dont know me but Im a rather direct person so so let me make this easy: If you are interested in being interviewed for our film, I can assure you that we will not quote u out of context or play any games with you- we will ask u straightforward questions - most of which Im sure u have been asked before.

If ur interested then lets please lock in a date when u will be in NYC and conduct the interview. If you're not interested then lets not waste any more of each other's time-I know we are both busy people.

Thanks
Dean

| 125 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

125 Comments

| Leave a comment

Mr. Spencer:
To your question"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

Because the people the Islamic supremacists. disagree with are telling the truth and they cannot take the truth or do not want to hear it.

To Mr. Spencer:

I strongly recommend that you take back the word "Islamophobia" from those who are misapplying it, and instead use it frequently as follows:

The REAL ISLAMOPHOBES are people who are so afraid of retaliation by Muslims (either violently or economically or in some other way) if Muslims feel offended, that these REAL ISLAMOPHOBES would prefer to spread deceptions about Islam to keep Muslims from going berserk. The people who are stating facts about Islam, even if those facts are unpleasant, are NOT REAL ISLAMOPHOBES. The REAL ISLAMOPHOBES are people who have so little faith and confidence in the strength of American society as it is today that they are afraid that America will fall apart if the truth about Islam is widely known. What the REAL ISLAMOPHOBES don't realize is that after Muslims gain more strength, the unavoidable conflict that will later ensue will cause much more damage to the U.S. than whatever discomfort may be caused by telling the truth today.

For example, I think people like Obama and Eric Holder are REAL ISLAMOPHOBES.

I think that there are relatively few non-Muslim real Islamic supremacists, but there are lots of non-Muslim REAL ISLAMOPHOBES, including many in government and in control of the American media.


"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

Because the argument is lost before they even begin.


Chris Logan has already had a run-in with this "fellow". He's the typical mohammedan denier about the problems inherent in islam.

"Islamophobia" (baseless fear of Islam)

vs.

5:38 "(thiefs) cut off hands"
24:2 "(adulterers) flog with 100 stripes"

9:5 "KILL THE MUSHRIKUN (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM"

mushrikûn, "associators" actually were (Trinitarian) Christians

http://schnellmann.org/islamophobia-is-now-called-anti-muslim-racism.html
Islamophobia is now called "anti-Muslim racism"

Aiman Mazyek Central Council of Muslims in Germany
uses this new word already

… and Islamic terrorism now:
“anti-islamic activities”

Exactly, Robert. We should be interviewing them and publishing the results for the general public to read. A general policy here should be that we don't answer their questions unless they also agree to answer ours.

What have they got to hide? Why won't they answer any of the legitimate questions and concerns that the general public has? Why do they never allow these questions onto the table?

I would ask Dean Obeidallah the following:

Do you condemn
-sharia?
-jihad to establish sharia?
-Quran verses 4:34, 9:29, 9:30, 4:24, 24:2, 65:4, 5:54 etc.?
-various select hadiths that promote everything from rape of non-Muslims to supremacist slaughter and subjugation of non-Muslims?

I would ask him if he is disturbed by the fact that polls show that large percentages of Muslims worldwide want sharia, want apostates and adulterers to be put to death, want to punish severely those who merely criticize Islam, and so on.

My prediction is that he will not answer any such questions, and will dismiss even the asking of the questions as Islamophobia.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that this Dean Obeidallah character will either ignore Robert Spencer or demonize him further (the latter is more likely). I see no realistic third option here. Does anyone?

Nothing wrong with any of these questions, Robert. In fact, Obeidallah would undoubtedly learn a thing or two if he honestly contemplated any one of them. But he'll refuse to answer your questions because he wouldn't like the answers that the facts suggest. So he'll just be content calling you a hatemonger, Islamophobe, etc. He's just an intellectually bankrupt one trick pony, man. And we're wise to it.

Let's interview them. Let's put the questions to the Reza Aslan's et al. and see what kind of responses, or non-responses, they provide. Why do these Islamists never face anything except easy questions?

I've had enough of Islamic propagandists calling the shots, controlling the dialogue by determining the questions, and controlling the final presentation by cutting out everything except the parts that make Islam look good and its critics look bad.

typo "Reza Aslan's". I meant Reza Aslans, plural, in reference to one of the most well-known Islam propagandists, Reza Aslan.

Kinana of Khaybar,
Would you contact me at traehnam@yahoo.com? I have a question for you.

If there was a loud, indignant chorus of Muslim voices protesting loudly in both English and heritage languages that Nidal Hassan and Nasser Abdo were horrid traitors to a country that did much for them and granted them and fellow Muslims freedom of worship, etc., the amount of Islamophobia in America would be next to nil.

Unfortunately, we've had Muslim clerics turning out to be terrorist wannabes themselves, stonewalling with local law enforcement, caching weapons, and saying 9/11 is all our fault for standing with the JOOOOOOOOOOOOZ (who were the real perps, blahblahblah). We've had supposedly "moderate" charity groups and lobbying groups turning out to be fronts for Hamas and the like. The Zudhi Jassers, Tashbih Sayyids, and Rebiya Kadeers out there aren't the easiest voices to hear.

Great questions, lets see if he answers them if he does please post them.

Yes, Arthur. In a nut shell. Unfortunately, islamism is an intractactble dogma. It cannot be any other way for (is it accurate to say?) any muslim. So, as the various islamic organizations in the states (you know them), and the OIC, are starting to realize that Americans are beginning to catch on to their (increasingly not so) stealthy, jihadist/islamization tactics, and are becoming more and more fed up with it all and are increasingly, and effectively, fighting back (Lowe's comes to mind), those muslim groups are pushing ever harder the UN 1618 resolution, hoping to ultimately criminalize virtually any criticism of islam and and anything to do with muslims.

I, for one, believe it's too late now, at least in America, for the OIC to get away with its outrageous, uncivilized designs. We Americans are seeing the light (or, the darkness) of islamic intentions. islam will be defeated. But, the means to that end will be ugly, likely deadly. This is, sadly, the price I believe will have to be paid for the free world, the civilized world, the humane world, to survive and flourish.

Questions, questions, questions, yes...questions about Islam. For starters, look at the origin of the term Islamophobia, a contrivance. Islamorealist is more accurate, again contrived, but truthful, as far as all non-Muslims should be concerned.

One need only put forth a modicum of effort to answer these questions about Islam. Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, with its past and present luminaries, has done that over these long years.

In reality, nothing has changed since day 1. Nothing. Robert, Marisol, Raymond, Roland and last, but certainly not least Hugh, have documented the words and deeds of Muslims behaving badly ad nauseum, if you will. The pedagogical and eloquent nature of select commentary here is also an invaluable resource.

The texts and central tenets of Islam, as they existed historically, continued through the geological accident of oil wealth benefitted by the wrong people, and still remain today with an increased voracity, is the biggest obstacle to world peace in my estimation.

Logically, an example of an established Islamic Republic contrary to this argument would effectively render the argument invalid. The rub is...none exists.

For newer readers, don't take my word for it. Enjoy the vast archives here at JW, and give thanks, and thank yourselves for reading the doctrinal Islamic texts of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira.

You'll be glad you did. After all, these are not classified documents.

Islam simply will not stop, ever. It is not permitted to do so. Be informed. Be ready. Lan Astaslem!

"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

Because they are increasingly realizing that infidels are reading their so called holy texts and that knowledgable infidels and ex muslims are disseminating the truth about taqiyya, kitman, abrogation and the disgusting, perverted, filthy murderous life of their profit moohamhead and there is no legitimate defence for the abominations of his behaviour and of their so called religion. We the people are on to them big time largely in thanks to the internet and there is nothing the muzlums can do to stop this. They know the jig is up so to speak and they are backed into the corner with no way out. So they lash out with indignant accusations of bigotry, racism, ad nausem because there is no refuting the truth of the sickening reality of the demon worshipping filth of their belief system.

I think the word taunt best describes those who wield the word Islmophobia.

Anyone with siblings should understand the concept from their early childhood experience. The sneaky jab provokes a less sneaky response, followed by escalating chaos observed by a parent and ever more insistent yells of he/she started it.

A recent guest on PBS NewsHour about the Boko Haram bombing of Christians noted that it was intended to provoke a government response, from which the Boko Haram folks could then claim to be merely defending themselves from oppressive evil secularist government.

The hijab is just a taunt too, a walking billboard containing "hyperbolic rhetoric" that can subjectively mean "Death to Secularists."

Are Islamists allowed to have individual identities, apart from Islam?

Is the Borg Collective funny or sad?

Valid questions, all.

"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

I don't know, but the same thing happens when asking liberals some of these same questions regarding Islam.

Valid questions, all.

"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

I don't know, but the same thing happens when asking liberals some of these same questions regarding Islam.


So they can say that they asked you and you weren't cooperative (in the manner they wanted)?

It is the “modern, moderate Muslims” such as Dean Obeidallah and Negin Farsad that are the real comedy show. But the time is fast running out when educated Muslims living the West can claim ignorance of the innumerable evils contained within Muhammad’s sick cult of Islam.

It is not possible for any sane person, having studying the Qur’an, the hadith collections, and Mad Moes’s original biographies, to respect, let alone defend or promote the Islamic religion. We ex-Muslims know that Islam is the exact opposite of what it claims to be.

If these two cultic dupes and others like them really want to clear their “perfect religions good name” lolllll, they need only accept and defeat ex-Muslim Ali Sina’s ongoing challenge to Muslims over at Faith Freedom.org:

>>>"If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay $50,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist
a misogynist
a rapist
a pedophile
a lecher
a torturer
a mass murderer
a cult leader
an assassin
a terrorist
a madman
a looter

I have debated with many Muslims. Their defense of Islam can be summarized in two categories:

a- Denial of the authenticity of Islamic sources that report the stories of crimes of Muhammad (example: debate with Edip Yukssel, a leader of the Submitters)

b- Moral relativism and situational ethics, e.g., “In those days, pedophilia, assassination, rape, raid, pillage, massacre and lying, were common practices, so Muhammad is innocent because he did what everyone else was doing.” Muslims even go as far as to question the legitimacy of the Golden Rule to claim I do not have any basis to condemn Muhammad. In other words, who can say what is good and what is evil? That is up to the messenger of God to decide.
(Example: debate with Yamin Zakaria)

These are the main two arguments that Muslims present in defense of Islam. Any rational person can see they are logical fallacies.

These charges are irrefutable. You simply can’t disprove them because they are reported in Islamic sources and as such they are as good as confession. You can’t acquit a criminal after he has confessed, unless you plead insanity, which is my point.

Muslims often ask: “Who will judge whether or not an attempt to disprove your accusations against Muhammad and Islam, was successful?” The readers will be the jury. It is not difficult to see which side is right once both arguments are presented without one side fearing the other. I will publish the debates in this site. My opponents are also encouraged to publish them in any Islamic site. Please note that I will not accept face to face debates. The debates must be in writing.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/the-challenge/

Indeed SaleemSmith, indeed.

In debates with Islamists and non-Muslim apologists, only three tools are commonly used by them:

1) Denial of facts (for example MEMRI clips of hate-mongering imams are some kind of forgeries). In that case you are dealing with someone who simply denies reality, and is not rational.

2) Deflection - careful not to take the bait! This one tends to blindside me more than the other two tactics they use. Keep 'em on topic! Then win.

3) Personal insults: the most common labels are "racist", "bigot", "fascist", "islamophobe", except for the lower level insults such as "idiot", and the usual obscenities. A sure sign that you have won the debate.

Another Hugh Fitzgerald classic on the subject of 'Islamophobia".


http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/35926

Monday, 20 June 2011

Fitzgerald: Islamophobia? Not So Fast

[Re-posted from January 26, 2007]

QUOTES - "Analysts both in the Muslim and the Western world by and large agree that “fear” and lack of objective dialogue are the root cause of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism." – a statement by Abukar Arman in this article.

'Not so fast, buster. The word "Islamophobia" is not an acceptable term for intelligent apprehensions over Islam...'.

Click on the link and read it all. If you haven't read it before, and if you haven't yet read anything by 'Hugh Fitzgerald', you're in for a treat.

From that article, this paragraph is well worth copying and committing to memory, so that you can insert it into online talkbacks all over the web, and into conversations, and (suitably adapted) into Letters to the Editor, and into letters to politicians:

"The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has brought about a situation, for those indigenous Infidels (and also for other non-indigenous arrivals, non-Muslim immigrants), that is unpleasant, expensive (the costs of monitoring, the costs of security, spiralling ever upward), and physically dangerous."

I don't really care what Muslims say about Muhammad. Not interested. They can believe the moon is made of cheese or the sun shines out of Muhammad and I don't care. But if they try to force religious law on me then they have personally declared war on me. End of story. I will resist any and all attempts to impose any Islamic law on me or my family. I have a RIGHT to do so as long as I am not violent or break any democratic laws. Once those democratic laws are gone and replaced with Sharia then the country is lost.

It's pretty easy to figure out why obeidallah didn't return your questions! He can't answer the true happenings of the real world. So, they make fun of the fake 'Islamophobia'. It's in the book!

No one is responsible for how people feel about Muslims more than Muslims. Showing a friendly face or even making jokes about yourself is a nice start, but doesn't remove the threat at airports or the memory of jihad attacks. Somehow people need some definite sign that things have changed and we are not seeing that. In fact we see violence and bloodshed committed by Muslim against Muslim on a daily basis. Violence and threats of violence are how they live their lives. That's fact. It's sad actually.

I don't call that Islamophobia. What I feel towards Muslims is more pity than fear, except when confronted with their vile hatred and then I feel revulsion. Clearly the emphasis in Islam on submission, control, and fear of hell which lie at its core produce negative effects on the human psyche.

When it comes to Islam, there is only one rule to live by: Never, EVER trust a Muslim.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

I actually had an Indonesian muslim on my you tube site claiming that some Ahmadiyyas in his enlightened country had been killed because they had the temerity to own and sell coconuts. How can one hold a rational debate with people like this? The simple answer is that you can't. The time is rapidly approaching when force must be met with force.

lol, the "three tools used by them".

So true. I always give up on any discussion when they arrive at speculations concerning my mental state and motives. It is Denial of Facts (I hope!), Deflection, and Personal Insult. All in one.

"Obeidallah refused to answer the questions. And so I put it to you: why not? Is there something wrong with them? Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

Veritaphobia.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

In the UK an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia has been established to "investigate the forms, manifestations and extent of prejudice and discrimination against Muslims in the UK today. To review the effectiveness of all legislation with a view to improving the rate of success in the prosecution of hate crimes. To review existing mechanisms for the recording of anti-Muslim hate crimes both through police forces across the country and through third party reporting sites with a view to improving data quality and comprehensiveness. To investigate and review the role of the media in fostering mutual respect and tolerance and guarding against misrepresentations of Islam and intolerance towards Muslims."

Although this group held an AGM on 15/11/10 no documents or minutes of the meeting have been published.

I think everyone knows that "hate crimes" can only be committed by non-Muslims and white people. In several recent cases the police refused to prosecute Muslims for hate crimes which clearly had a racist element.

We must continue to monitor this group which is chaired by that prat Simon Hughes and Islamophobe Jack Straw.

Dean ObedienttoAllah will hack the recorded interview to pieces in the cutting room and then present a very skewed version of Mr Spencer's views on Islam.

To avoid this, take a film crew with you Mr Spencer and record the whole interview for yourself. Dean will then know that an uncut version of the whole interview exists. That'll keep him on his toes when it comes to editing.

"10. What kind of work have you done to raise awareness about the escalating persecution of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim societies, which is far worse in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere than Muslims have it here? Why not?"

Of course, you could go further than this and ask what kind of work they have done to raise awareness about the escalating persecution of Muslim minorities in Muslim societies - ahmadiyya, shias in sunni areas, hardline Muslims against less hardline Muslims, etc etc.

The killing of Muslims is apparently OK provided it's done by other Muslims and not by the kuffar.

Allah created the Quran, and then he laughed...Allah has a very dark sense of humor...

Watch out for wolves wearing sheep's clothing, especially if they are carrying a Quran...They will tell you lots of jokes, but none of them are funny...

All groups of people are sensitive about certain things and a tiny minority might even resort to violence if certain things are said or done.

Example :

If you are black and have a white girlfriend, you might not be able to attend a KKK fellowship with her

If you are white and say the "N" word among a group of black gang members, you might find yourself in great danger

If you are an American living in Israel and if people suspect you support the Palestinians, you might be subject to being harassed by stone throwing kids :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1nqlaL0KEA&feature=related

"Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?"

Because they're supremacists, not fellow-travellers.

Come on, Robert - if they engaged with people with who the disagree they would be thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of such people and that they are worthy of being engaged with.

Supremacists don't mix/engage with their future slaves. They spend their time seeking to rule over them not treat them like fellow human beings.

BUt of these supremacists - many of them are inbred, many of them are illiterate. How on earth can you communicate with them, when those who are devotees spend their whole "communication" time not on understanding others but on trying to convert others??

is there a study or survey to show how many extremists there are ?

I do not believe there are many extremists since Osama Bin Laden could only find 19 hijackers to kill Americans and he could not find any American muslims on 9/11/01 to commit any kind of violence.

I really feel statement #2 should be required to be sworn to, under penalty of law, by any Moslem seeking to enter this country for any reason.

Yes, mohammad acted appropriately for THOSE days. Unfortunately, he is held up as the "perfect man" to be imitated THESE days.

Some studies estimate that 20% of all world Muslims are extremest, i.e. ready to murder and die for Allahu Akbar. There are other estimates, including the one that is taught at various Islam 101 courses around USA. The claim is that "ONLY" 1% of Muslims are extremest.

If 20% is more accurate (which is very likely judging by conversation of American Muslims), than there are 320 MILLIONS of delusional, Jew-hating (mostly) men ready to murder and be killed for Allahu Akbar. 1% of the total of 1,600 MILLIONS of Muslims around the world is still 16 MILLIONS of delusional Jew-hating and West-hating crazed (mostly) men ready to murder and die for Allahu Akbar.

Islam itself is the problem, as long as its writings, Koran and Hadith, promote supremacist ideology of hate of non-Muslims, apartheid, pedophilia, polygamy, misogyny and murder for Allahu Akbar.

Phobia assumes a mental illness of irrational fear. IN the case of Islam, feat is rather reasonable, just as fear of Nazi ideology consequences was very reasonable and saved those who escaped based on this rational fear. Muslims MUST REFORM their religion in order to make it compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most Muslim countries refused to sign this Human Rights Declaration (1948) and should be kicked out of UN, rather then allowed to defame Jews and Israel at the UN in USA.

Extremists does not necessarily mean those who take up arms

just as 85% of Americans ( according to Gallup ) approved of the atom bombing of Japan, does not necessarily mean 85% of Americans would personally commit violence of any kind

20 terrorists are going to dominate the world ?

I was talking about the day of 9/11/01.

how come Osama Bin Laden could only get 19 muslims to commit murder on 9/11/01

and was not able to recruit any of the millions of American muslims on 9/11/01 to commit any kind of violence on that day ?

It is not a matter of who is an extremest or radical...All Mahoundians are obligated to jihad as a duty to Allah...
If they refuse, Allah will yank them out of line and replace them with another...not all jihad is violent, but it all has the same goal...The spread of Islam until the entire world is for Allah only...Mahoundians who refuse this duty will die hypocrites according to Islam's literature...There are no hypocrites in Allah's paradise...

Timothy,

10% of 1.5 billion is 150,000,000 worldwide and that is a conservative estimate. See the study in the link below:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/who-speaks-for-islam-how-esposito-and-mogahed-cooked-their-data-to-increase-the-number-of-muslim-mod.html

As far as minimizing the number of active jihadists on 9/11, I suggest you review the body count and number of global jihad attacks since 9/11, (over 18,000 to date I believe), lest you start to sound sillier than you do currently.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

and was not able to recruit any of the millions of American muslims on 9/11/01 to commit any kind of violence on that day ?

Do you have some indication that he tried? Would recruiting ahead of time give away the surprise? Did Binnie even have the infrastructure to recruit in the US at the time? If you are going to conduct a surprise attack, you don't tell a million people about it first...

who is going to get the entire world to become muslim ?

even the influential Hitler could not get all Germans to kill Jews

and the once powerful Caliphate had an empire much smaller than the US and could not expand beyond that.

So, how is a tiny group of muslims (probably numbering in the hundreds ) going to influence 1.5 billion muslims to conquer the world ?

So what you are saying is that Osama bin Laden was not as powerful as people think he was

since he was not able to have the infrastructure to mount a huge attack on 9/11/01

but could only mount an attack with only 19 people and not anymore.

The orders for world domination for Allah is given in the Quran 8:39/2:193, most of the other war verses are the how to do its...All pious Mahoundians are obligated as a duty to follow Allah's orders as given in Quran, the examples of Mahound and sharia...

I doubt that Binnie had much of a following or fame before 911...Most likely only a relative few ever heard of him...

@ Timothy S

You're a clown! It's not about 'extremists'. It's not about Muslims, per se. It's about the violent ideology called jihad which is unique to Islam and is current today. No other religion has this concept. Not one!

It's about Islam, full stop. Whether Osama could or couldn't find X number of so-called extremists to do the bidding of Al Qur'an is a decoy question because it pretends that the problem of terrorism is about people, not ideas.

Now, if you want to persuade me that you're right, explain how the 9/11 jihadists got Al Qur'an all wrong.

you are saying pious muslims want to conquer the world ?

with what ? ( even muslim Pakistan has its nuclear arsenal dismantled and in different places for fear that extremists or the CIA might get at them )

and with whom ?

muslims have had 1400 years to conquer the world

and all they managed was to conquer an area much smaller than the US

and after that the entire empire broke up into numerous states,

almost all of whom are allied to the US government today.

I visited a muslim country ( Malaysia ) and not once did a muslim ask me to convert to Islam

and the "christian" hospitality the muslims in malaysia showed me was quite remarkable.

I dont know whether they try to convert people by being hospitable but I dont believe their hospitality was due to a hidden agenda to convert with kindness

So, how is a tiny group of muslims (probably numbering in the hundreds ) going to influence 1.5 billion muslims to conquer the world ?

Maybe you haven't noticed that there is a world wide jihad going on...The US, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Indonesia, Philippines, China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Syria...did I leave anyone out? That's a lot of jihad for a tiny group of a few hundred jihadists...

Why did the US government support the jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union ?

Islam has already killed over 270 million people in it's history...Nearly 100 million in India alone...You are not educated enough to debate...get some Islamic knowledge and learn what perpetual warfare means...How many people murdered in Allah's name is acceptable to you?

it would help if you can give me numbers regarding jihadists in each country, thanks.

Are these jihadists as organized as the Caliphate was ?

so since islam has killed hundreds of millions, how come they have not conquered the world by now ?

Hitler killed 6 million Jews and he was able to conquer Europe, so why arent the jihadists holding an area at least as large as Europe ?

it would help if you can give me numbers regarding jihadists in each country, thanks.

Are you an idiot? If you want statistics, look them up yourself...The percentage is 100% jihadists among pious Mahoundians...I don't know the exact populations, but google does...

so since islam has killed hundreds of millions, how come they have not conquered the world by now ?

It's not because they don't try...But because they are stupid, ignorant, and disorganized...and kuffar fight back...

Since the jihadists are disorganized and stupid and they still have not conquered the world after 1400 years, do you really see them as a problem that law enforcement cannot handle ?

You asked: 'Why did the US government support the jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union ?'

Instead of answering my point that the problem is with Islam's unique concept of jihad, you switch to another topic. OK, let's go with that, for the moment.
The US government supported and armed the jihadists against the Soviet Union to set up a proxy armed force to defeat the Soviets. And it worked!
Now, what's that got to do with the concept of jihad - unique only to Islam?
If you're implying that the US or the West is responsible for jihad, then how do you explain that wars of jihad were being fought 850 years *before* the Columbus discovered America?
The West is blameless vis-a-vis jihad because jihad has been hard-wired into Islam from day one! Read Al Qur'an, which pre-dates the discovery of America.

Chronology trumps your argument, you clown!

Who's law enforcement? Russia's, China's, Indonesia's?

You need to stop asking stupid questions...So far you have offered nothing...I'm beginning to think you are a Mahoundian...

When you say Jihadists, are you talking about those who are wanting to violently turn a country into a islamic theocracy ?

and if so, i could not find anything on google regarding the number of violent jihadists in each country wanting to violently turn that country into a islamic theocracy.

if you have the links, send them to me, thanks.

here is my address : timothyjscarborough@gmail.com

He's a troll for sure, Swami. Statements like a few hundred jihadists, in direct conflict with the 18,000 plus global jihad attacks since 9/11 makes his estimation logically impossible, unless they traverse the Earth like Santa Claus.

Also, when the conservative estimate of 10% of the world's Muslims amount to approximately 150,000,000 jihadists world-wide, (about 1/2 of the US population), the "tiny minority" ruse evaporates in a hurry.

"Timothy" was provided this inforfmation in the thread above but chose not to acknowledge it.

If Ferdinand Marcos were alive today and invested 300 million dollars of his stolen money in Twitter would you stop using Twitter?

If Saudi Prince Alwaleed invested 300 million dollars of his stolen money in Twitter (or CAIR) would you stop using Twitter? (A title of nobility is indistinguishable from a license to steal.)

Is Twitter a terror sponsoring entity, or just a domestic tyrant sponsoring entity?

When Al-Qaeda of Saudi Arabia finally knocks down (or off) the House of Saud and President Obama delivers Saudi Prince Alwaleed's investment in Twitter to Al-Qaeda of Saudi Arabia who will be the butt of the joke?

Would Twitter then be recognized as a terror sponsoring entity?

Al-Qaeda knows the value of Twitter.

Note on TumbleWeed's terror ties (Projects Started by Saudi Prince Subvert Freedom and Democracy). It links to PJM Exclusive: Georgetown U. Received $325,000 Funneled Through Terror Front Group:

* * * documents reveal a scheme to pass $325,000 through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been identified by the FBI as a front for the Hamas terrorist organization. The money was paid to Georgetown by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to promote its "Islamophobia" agenda, which includes its stated international objective of criminalizing any criticism of Islam.

Can Alwaleed renounce his noble title and still keep any of his personal investments? Oh, the farce of it all! Reality is comedy itself, or tragicomedy.

When you say Jihadists, are you talking about those who are wanting to violently turn a country into a islamic theocracy ?

No Tim, I'm talking about American Girl Scouts, who else?

You don't need link's Tim, you need to read the Quran and a few hundred hadith...Or visit a shrink...Either one can enlighten you...

Buraq, would you like to write to me at timothyjscarborough@gmail.com ?

Its easier to discuss in detail through e-mail

I wonder what happened to"D"? Was he banned? Is there a pattern developing here? Hmmmm. Is there a study or survey to show how many dumba-- posters get on Jihad Watch each day to promote their jihadist agenda?

Awake, 10% of muslims are jihadists ?

thats 150 million people ? what are they exactly doing ?

if you want to discuss in detail, write me at timothyjscarborough@gmail.com

Something I thought of last night... did anyone see the "Islamophobia" one hour special? It aired on the Learning Channel, or Green, or something. Anyway, it was your typical fare- Islamophobia is on the rise, American Muslims are persecuted for their race and faith, but Islam is peaceful, blah, blah, blah. There was a focus on Pamela Geller. Something struck me concerning the crickets Robert is now hearing in regard to his questions. The reporter, at the end of the special, says something to the effect of "Surprisingly, Ms. Geller agreed to be interviewed for this program." Surprisingly? What should be surprising about embracing an opportunity to lay out one's reasonable position in response to detractors that smear him/her? This reporter was shocked that she took the opportunity, because if he were asked to lay out his position before anti-jihadists, he would refuse, just as this filmmaker refuses to answer Robert's questions. You see, they can't muster the substance to engage in civil debate- most likely because the facts overwhelmingly suggest that their opinions regarding Islam are false. But their opinions sound really nice, so Americans will be more inclined to agree with them- IF anti-jihadists aren't around to muddle the strategy by referring to facts surrounding Islamic history, or to cite those books that Muslims use to set their moral compasses...

If you can discuss it in detail do it here or don't do it at all...

thats 150 million people ? what are they exactly doing ?

What they are doing is what all you Mahoundians do...Participate in jihad, either directly, or by financial and/or moral(?)support enabling jihad...In any war, not everyone fights in it, but everyone is encouraged to support it...Mahoundians support jihad because the Quran calls for it...But I suspect you already know that...

Islam at one time did try to take over the world but it failed.

It could only take over a very tiny part of the world ( an area much smaller than the US )

and soon after that, it broke up into numerous states, almost all of whom are allied with the US today.

The one muslim country I did visit ( Malaysia ) had a couple of states under Sharia but even then, in the Sharia states, I saw girls in skimpy shorts and no muslim tried to stop them

and the muslims in Malaysia are very hospitable ( I was pleasantly surprised ) and nobody tried to convert me and in fact, no muslim even talked to me about his faith.

Also, when Malaysia became independent, the government allowed everybody to vote, unlike our independence in which only white landowners could vote when America was liberated from the British

Warning!

Timothy Scarborough, as he calls himself, has just invited me to give him my e-mail address. No chance! And no one else should do so, either.

It's a first step in tracking you down to where you live.

So you are saying not everyone is a violent jihadists ?

so the problem should be pretty simple, have law enforcement deal with the violent jihadists.

There are millions of American muslims.

The FBI can work with muslims to find out who is violent and who is financially supporting the violent jihadists.

Mr. Spencer pointed out about 10 jihadists in America, thats a very manageable number that law enforcement can deal with

Conservatively, 10% support the core mandated tenet of Islamic domination, achievable through offensive jihad. It's actually more when you analyze the poll that was provided. Do you have any empirical evidence to the contrary? I doubt it.

Muslims aren't monolithic, so are you suggesting I try to explain what each of the 150 million are doing specifically?

Enough with the email bait game also.

The FBI can work with muslims to find out who is violent and who is financially supporting the violent jihadists.

If that was the case, the FBI would not need to infiltrate mosques and spy on individuals...In fact a 'respectable' Islamic organization put out the word for Mahoundians to not cooperate with the FBI...

You really need to stay in school Tim...Don't drop out in favor of losing debates to adults...

you say 10% of muslims are jihadists.

I do not know where you got that figure from.

According to the gallup poll, 85% of Americans supported the atom bombing of Japan in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were burned alive including children and babies.

Now, does that mean 85% of Americans will resort to violence?

I dont believe 85% of Americans are violent, even though 85% might believe that burning alive hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians( including children and babies ) was justified.

Belief or opinions is very different from actually committing an act of violence

So I do not believe 10% of muslims are violent, just as I do not believe 85% of Americans are violent

It's not just about jihad. It's also about how Islam looks upon non-Muslims, i.e., the equivalent of human waste. It's about Islam's lack of a Golden Rule for all. It's about the right of a Muslim to seek converts to Islam but someone from another religion is not allowed to attempt conversion of a Muslim to his faith of choice. It's about the pure second-class status women have under Islam (if Islam isn't a chauvinistic religion, then there's no such thing). It's about the inability to say anything critical of Islam or Mohammed lest bodily harm or death occur. It's about how Islam and the First Amendment to the American Constitution are completely at odds with one another. Oh yeah, and it's also about the many forms of jihad, not just the violent kind, including stealth-like, demographic jihad.

You're either naive or complicit. I'm voting with duh_swami here.

"The FBI can work with muslims to find out who is violent and who is financially supporting the violent jihadists."

That's the point. They can, but through Muslim advocacy groups, they are actively lobbying against that genuine cooperastion. You would know thatif you were genuinely interested and honest, which you are not.

If you were, you'd be well-versed in the dealings of nefarious groups like CAIR, who have publicly advised Muslims NOT to cooperate with law enforcement:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/sioa-exclusive-hamas-linked-cair-know-your-rights-workshop-in-brooklyn-tells-muslims-not-to-cooperat.html

and CAIR's ourage over law enforcement surveillance:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/muslims-in-new-york-dont-call-nypd.html

or this...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/30/us/new-york-bloomberg/index.html

Now, does that mean 85% of Americans will resort to violence?

Yes it does as a matter of fact...Americans will defend themselves...We were in a serious war with Japan that Japan started, and America took care of business...The Americans who could not fight directly supported the war effort, you probably don't remember 'Rosie the Riviter'...You probably don't remember lots of stuff...

Notice how 'Timothy Scarborough' will talk about Muslims being violent or non-violent 'til the cows come home, but there hasn't been a syllable about violent jihad as mandated by Al Qur'an - the text that justifies every act of violent jihad.

The argument centers around violent Islamic ideology, not Muslims. People come and go, people change then change back, but Al Qur'an and violent jihad have just sat there, implacable and unchanging for nigh on 1,400 years.

Whatcha gonna do 'bout that, Tim?

"So I do not believe 10% of muslims are violent, just as I do not believe 85% of Americans are violent"

And that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, in spite of the fact that your personal belief and no substantiating data is being offered to support your assertion.

Besides, the actual number of people who support jihad with physical action, material support, or simply internally is irrelevant as Islam fully supports and mandates jihad.

I agree that no one can know how many Muslims who subscribe to the obligation of jihad, or how many will become overtly violent, but that illusttrates another salient point. Without a reliable process to differentiate between peaceful and violent Muslims, what is the value in quibbling about numbers at all?

Muslims follow Islam. Islam prescribes jihad. Muslims commit jihad. The correlation is established and undeniable. Are we supposed to be assuaged by only having a few poisonous snakes in the bathtub as opposed to many?

All religoius texts have violent words within them.

Some christians interpret Jesus words as being for war and violence when Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)"

Deuteronomy 20:16 is all about genocide and violence : "However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes"

This is an old, failed argument. It fails when one considers that The Bible describes events that took place in history: for example; God said to X, 'Go and trash that tribe 'cos their sinning, ..etc..' So, X went and trashed the sinning tribe and fulfilled God's Will.'
So, then, The Bible is descriptive. It describes past events.

Al Qur'an, on the other hand, is 'descriptive'. It tells Muslims what to do at all times and places. (That's the basis for the claim that Islam is Universal - it applies to all times and places)

So, your comment that 'all religious texts have violent words within them is true, but the violence in The Bible was directed at specific people(s) at specific times in the distant past, the Qur'an directs violent acts against non-Muslims NOW!

The difference is 'descriptive'(The Bible) versus 'prescriptive'.(Al Qur'an)


Violence does not come naturally to a muslim, just as Americans have to be practically brainwashed in humiliating military training in order to be soldiers who can kill.

Without the brainwashing in military training it would be hard for Americans or muslims to kill.


As for supporting terrorism, both muslims and Americans are similar according to the following Gallup report :

When we (Gallup) asked Americans, we found that 6 percent thought it was completely justifiable to deliberately target civilians and 24 percent said that bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are often or sometimes justified.


We (Gallup) asked how many people ( muslims ) condone the 9/11 attacks and found that the vast majority condemn the attacks; only 7 percent thought it was completely justified.

We also asked about attacks on civilians in general, the moral justifiability of sacrificing one's life, and about the moral justifiability of attacking civilians as an individual or as a military. We asked those 7 percent about why they felt the attacks were justified and, surprisingly, not a single one offered a religious justification. Instead, the responses sounded like revolutionaries; they talked about American imperialism. Instead of piety motivating their responses, it was politics.

(end of the Gallup report )

Just as the overwhelming majority of Christians do not follow the pacifism of Jesus, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not able to commit murder.

A non-criminal muslim will look at the "encouragement" to kill infidels as a historical event when Muhammad did kill treacherous Jews for treason

but not as a commandment for today.

But a criminal muslim will look at the "encouragement" to kill infidels as a ruling for today

and even then you do not find great numbers of American muslims killing "infidels" in America today

Its not possible for 10% of American muslims to be violent criminals since, according to the FBI, hate crimes were committed by 7,330 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 20.6 percent were black (in 2006 )

and since 10% of American muslims is about 700,000, there were only 7,330 hate crime offenders, most of whom were white

Deuteronomy 20 does not end, its supposed to be followed today because the verses never said its for a time in history.

Notice the verse below does not have an ending because israel can keep conquering new territory and the following verse applies

Deuteronomy 20:15 :This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

That entire comment made little sense. You made assertions while providing non-linked support via a Gallup poll that you did not provide.

In addition, to conflate Muslims following Islam to American soldiers following military orders as required is a flase comparison. Compare military regimes if you like, but that will not likely produce the results you are looking for.

What you did just prior to that, the moral equivalence argument by lazily referring to weak associations between violence in the Qur'an and the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, that comparison was also debunked by Duh-Swami who aptly pointed out the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible being prescriptive and descriptive, respectively.

"Its not possible for 10% of American muslims to be violent criminals since, according to the FBI, hate crimes were committed by 7,330 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 20.6 percent were black (in 2006 )"

Again, 10% globally does not imply 10% of American Muslims and it is not limited to overt physical offensive jihad.

Your use of "hate crime" statistics is way off target here as well in my estimation. What do hate crime statistics have to do with anything in this discussion?

like your screen name, the content of your posts is gobbledygook...
..."Violence does not come naturally to a muslim, "....
well.
if this does not say it all, then i don't know what does.
violence..does not...
come....
naturally, to a ...m
mu...
muslim.....
...can you read what you wrote with a straight face?

it has been brought to my attention long time ago that an idiot does not like to be called an idiot, especially when he *is* an idiot...so i am definitely not going to call you an idiot.

buraq, swami, he's all yours.

You wrote: Notice the verse below does not have an ending because israel (sic) can keep conquering new territory and the following verse applies

Deuteronomy 20:15 :This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Just one big hole in your argument: the verses that follow Deuteronomy 20:15. To wit:

Verse 16: However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
Verse 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

So, where are the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites etc now? They have disappeared into history. They no longer exist. See? The Bible is essentially an historical document. It's 'descriptive'!

However, Al Qur'an says 'slay the unbeliever' -- that's any unbeliever, in the past, now and in the future! Al Qur'an is 'prescriptive'!

As a footnote, I wish that Islam did have stronger arguments. But knocking down the stuff that's regularly advanced by Muslims like you is like taking candy from a baby.

You stated :" So, where are the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites etc now? They have disappeared into history. They no longer exist. See? The Bible is essentially an historical document. It's 'descriptive'!"

Comment : but war does exist so the rules of war according to Deuteronomy 20 apply.

So tell me, what commandments from the Old Testament should Israel today obey when it comes to war ?

What about Jesus saying "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)" how can that be historic when Jesus never took up the sword ?

So is it possible for some christians to interpret Jesus words to mean, war is permissible today ?

Robert wrote:
"It is, as you'll see, a claim that he is too busy to answer my questions and that he will meet me to discuss them privately. I am happy to meet him to discuss them privately, but I do not intend to be cast as the villain in some bogus "Islamophobia" victimhood presentation without getting public answers from the producers"

Robert, please do not agree to this "private" interview.

Only if
...the interview is recorded (on audio and/or video),
...you have at least one trustworthy witness with you,
...they agree to answer your questions,
...and they agree to let you publish their answers

should you agree to such an interview, and only when the terms are laid out in writing and signed.

The verbal assurances of these full-time liars are worth nothing. If they don't agree to the above reasonable and minimal terms, then it is reasonable to refuse any involvement with them. They need you a lot more than you need them.

According to Gallup : Muslim Americans are more likely than Christians or Jews to believe that targeting and killing civilians is never justified, whether it is done by the military or an individual.

Put another way, Christians and Jews are more comfortable with civilians being targeted and killed by a wide margin.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/

To the obfuscationist quoting softball question results above:

Are the following people civilians according to the Muslims in the survey:

Israelis?
American non-Muslims?
Any person of any country (U.K., Australia, etc.) currently at war against Muslim groups?
Islam critics?
Ex-Muslims?
Christians and others who proselytize to Muslims?
Muslim adulterers?
Homosexuals?

And did the survey specifically ask about support for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, etc., (and keeping track of Sunni-Shi'ite divisions on these questions), as well as for leaders such as Qaradawi? If not, why not? Why would they avoid such specifics? Why even bother to do a study that is so vague as to be meaningless while making Muslims look more peaceful than others?

Now you're really struggling to justify your assertion that The Bible applies to today by saying: 'but war does exist so the rules of war according to Deuteronomy 20 apply.'
And then you add a trap for the unwary: 'So tell me, what commandments from the Old Testament should Israel today obey when it comes to war?'

The war/jihad that exists to annihilate the Jews was declared by Islam around 1,400 years ago. Israel is defending herself from a 'religion' that mandates her total destruction and the murder of every Jew on the planet.

To her credit, Israel has not used her massive military power to annihilate enemies who have sworn to destroy her. She limits herself to judicious pruning of the more immediate dangers from time to time. Furthermore, she allows her sworn enemies in Gaza to receive more than 100 trucks of goods every day, and treats sick Gazans at her own expense.

This is a demonstration of restrained, humane behavior in the face of the implacable, savage brutality of Islam's teachings.

how come Osama Bin Laden could only get 19 muslims to commit murder on 9/11/01
Because that's all he needed to successfully (almost, flt 93 didn't achieve their objective) complete the mission?


Ever hear of the term "Operational Security"?

obfuscationist asks: "how come Osama Bin Laden could only get 19 muslims to commit murder on 9/11/01"

False premise in the question. Bin Laden had many more offers than the 19; the 19 were a hand-selected from a much larger set of eager would-be participants.

All Muslims are jihadists. They don't need violence to propagate their doctrine of evil.

Islam IS evil. Just as evil: its tools, fools, and apologists. You're a sorry sort. The only good that could ever come out of Islam is its death.

"just as 85% of Americans ( according to Gallup ) approved of the atom bombing of Japan, does not necessarily mean 85% of Americans would personally commit violence of any kind"

Americans aren't subscribed to an evil ideology. The bombings of Japan were a responsive act. It wasn't based on or prescribed by some evil doctrine (Islam).

Islam is evil. If you don't see it that way, it's because you're a part of it.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

I think Dean is looking over these posts to see if any are incendiary enough to include in his doc.

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are Gallup polls taken in the United Arab Emirates. Sure, loads of Muslims object to the killing of civilians just as they object to the killing of innocents, but so many here at JW know full well that Muslims play all kinds of word games and so Muslims being against the killing of "civilians" or "innocents" doesn't mean didly shit. You will fool no one here who knows what Islam really is about. Now get lost.

Should Jews still obey the commandments in the bible such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21 regarding the stoning to death of disobedient children ?


I still find it funny and amazing that some Imam's
still try to promote islam as having fewer mass-murders than the other faiths.

Often I hear an Imam respond to the claim by someone that there was a vicious attack by muslims gangs in Africa that torched the homes of Christians and burend down a Church , and the Imam responds with "Yes, BUT, blah blah blah blah hundered years ago the ____ (fill in the blank) attack muslims and killed twice as many as you just cited.

Just imagine a Mexican Hotel Chain boasting on a Tourism
Ad that "Our Hotels have the fewest Guests murdered by drug gangs than any other Hotel Chain".

I'd prefer that nobody died from Islam or in the Mexican Hotels.


Hey Dean Obeidallah , pretend I'm from Missouri...the SHOW ME State .
Show me the facts and don't take a big lie about one iota of an event and wrap it up with a thin veneer of truth to fool the people as if islamophobia is rampant and dead muslim bodies are strewn all of the nations streets.

i am not sure whether your comment is a sick attempt at humour (it is *not* funny at all) or you're some kind of a smart aleck antisemite....
regardless.
understand this:
judaism has undergone numerous reforms and interpretations to the 'laws of moses'. the mishnah and g'marrah are testaments to a humane religion that sanctifies LIFE.
show me ONE incident of such a stoning to have taken place in the last 2000 years!
do not try the equivalence bullshit...
you know full well that the only place in the world where this form of punishment is practiced (with glee i might add) is in muslim countries!

'Timothy Scarborough' - and the other 'string of digits and letters' that just popped up - sound just like one '45ch' or 'loveverybody' who made a great nuisance of himself in this forum some time ago.

Kind of a suspicious question especially because it originated in the Middle East, Gallup based in the United Arab Emirates -- in other words meanings vary.

For instance, in the Middle East if someone is a terrorist attacking a non-Muslim the attacker is considered an innocent civilian or a freedom fighter. A suicide bomber is called a martyr, and schools are named after them, etc.

Americans recognize that terrorists are civilians and must be targeted whereas Muslim call them jihadis, claim innocence and feign outrage when their "civilians" are targets.

An interesting finding from that same poll showed that in the US, Muslims were more closely identified with their religion compared to their national identity than any other religious group: Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormon, or no religion.

thank you CGW your comments are always informative

Aqqxuytghj?//lpsqqush**(urprdOJeDf//?3390]{zzman%@!#88p*^pisurql%&!!//awwwk?!!//uf.com

You asked: 'Should Jews still obey the commandments in the bible such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21 regarding the stoning to death of disobedient children?'

Google 'Haskalah' and you'll find that the Jews experienced the Enlightenment, as we did in the West. To prove it, give one instance of Jews stoning a child to death in the last 1,000 years. (This point underlines, once more, that The Bible is an historical document and is 'descriptive', not 'prescriptive' like Al Qur'an.)

My question for you is: Should the Sharia law that states that Muslims can murder their children be ignored by Muslims? I refer to the tsunami of 'honor' killings where Muslim offspring are routinely murdered for various 'offenses' - like being too Western, having non-Muslim boyfriends, or being raped by male relatives and then murdered to cleanse the family honor.


PS This reference should bring up to speed vis-a-vis The Haskalah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskalah

'David Peters'. .Oh yeah, your adopted psudonym is as transparent as your mo-tive.

Dalia Mogahed, you got the bit between ya teeth today, aint'cha?

Before Islam came into existence, what doctrine or ideology or belief motivated a person like Cain to kill Abel ?

You ask: 'Before Islam came into existence, what doctrine or ideology or belief motivated a person like Cain to kill Abel?'

Cain killed his brother Abel because he was jealous. God accepted Abel's offering, but not Cain's. There was no doctrine, ideology or belief as a motive; just anger and jealousy.

But, oddly enough, hatred and jealousy are formalized in the ideology of Islam. Islam came a distant third in the advent of monotheism. (Judaism was first, then Christianity) And so Islam is jealous of these two forerunners and would like to destroy them.

But remember what happened to Cain! Islam won't get away with its plan to commit genocide against the Jews. The Jews are God's people. Islam is an outcast.

Timothy Scarborough wrote:

is there a study or survey to show how many extremists there are ?

I do not believe there are many extremists since Osama Bin Laden could only find 19 hijackers to kill Americans and he could not find any American muslims on 9/11/01 to commit any kind of violence.
...........................

It has taken considerably more than just the "Magnificent Nineteen" to pull off over 18,000 Jihad terror attacks around the world since 9/11...

How do you explain that?

More:

who is going to get the entire world to become muslim ?

even the influential Hitler could not get all Germans to kill Jews
...........................

Odd you should mention the Nazis. It's true—Hitler *wasn't* able to completely wipe out the Jews.

Nor, in fact, was he able to establish a "Thousand-Year Reich".

And yet, all decent people regard the Holocaust and other depredations of the Fascists—which killed *over 60 million people*—as the greatest horror of the 20th-century.

In other words, even if Jihad falls somewhat short of "getting the entire world to become Muslim", the suffering and body count are already huge and only likely to skyrocket.

Most people find themselves unable to just laugh this off...

More:

so since islam has killed hundreds of millions, how come they have not conquered the world by now ?

Hitler killed 6 million Jews and he was able to conquer Europe, so why arent the jihadists holding an area at least as large as Europe ?
...........................

Actually, the original Jihadists conquered the Arabian peninsula, the Levant, the Mahgreb, the Anatolian peninsula, the Middle East, much of the Indian sub-continent, swaths of Western Asia, swaths of southern Asia, swaths of subsaharan Africa, and made incursions into China, Russia, and a many parts of southern Europe, including the Balkans, Greece, Spain, Sicily, and southern Italy.

This is an area considerably larger than Europe itself.

And, while our brave ancestors were able to retake most of southern and eastern Europe, most of these other lands are still part of the oppressive Muslim world—a fact that you may not have noticed.

More:

Since the jihadists are disorganized and stupid and they still have not conquered the world after 1400 years, do you really see them as a problem that law enforcement cannot handle ?
...........................

Was "law enforcement" able to handle Jihadists in all those lands that fell to the sword of Islam? Hmmmm....it seems not...

More:

When you say Jihadists, are you talking about those who are wanting to violently turn a country into a islamic theocracy ?
...........................

Violent Jihadists are certainly the most alarming aspect of Jihad—but they are hardly the only one.

As much as Jihadists enjoy murdering Infidels, Jihad *is not* an end in itself. Violent Jihad is a tactic for imposing Shari'ah law—but it is not the only one. A disturbingly large percentage of Muslims both in Dar-al-Islam and in the West are in favor of the imposition of Shari'ah law—this is *hardly* a "tiny minority of extremists".

More:

Islam at one time did try to take over the world but it failed.
...........................

I'm sure this makes the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula, the Zoarostrians of Iran, the Hindus and Buddhists of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Copts of Egypt, and the Armenians of Turkey feel so, so much better...sarc/off

More:

...and soon after that, it broke up into numerous states, almost all of whom are allied with the US today.
...........................

You mean like Pakistan? *That* certainly reassures me...sarc/off

More:

The one muslim country I did visit ( Malaysia ) had a couple of states under Sharia but even then, in the Sharia states, I saw girls in skimpy shorts and no muslim tried to stop them
...........................

See? Shari'ah—with its blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, amputations, floggings, and stonings is *nothing* to worry about...sarc/off

ladies and gentlemen

in vocabulary, in writing style and 'tone', and in the types of rote 'talking points' and deflections (all of same, being the sorts of things that *every* dhimmi water-carrier for Muslims, or outright Mohammedan dementor deploys) that they bring up, the posters in this thread calling themselves 'timothy scarborough', 'david peters' and [unintelligible string of digits and letters] are dead ringers for the Islamopologists called '45ch' and 'loveverybody' who appeared on this forum and wasted a great deal of time and bandwidth Defending Islam, many moons ago.

Pursuant to my posting above.

I invite duhswami, gravenimage, buraq, logdon, guide inside, Wellington, and everyone else here who has risen to the bait proffered by 'Timothy Scarborough' and 'david peters' and [gibberish] to click on the following jihadwatch link, dated December 2009 (and I will note, by the way, that by a curious coincidence that like the one we are currently engaged in, it was a thread discussing something that appeared in the Hate Mail Bag)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/you-are-in-any-way-the-most-ugliest-hateful-creaturemost-cases-your-father-is-a-ugly-pig.html

and read the Comments. Scroll down. You will see that there are many, many comments; and you will also see that most of them were produced by a Mohammedan dementor - at least, that is *my diagnosis* - and bandersnatch calling itself '45ch';

Don't bother reading all of its postings; just read three or four; and then hop back to this thread and read the postings by our three (or is it just one?) Islamopologists/ obfuscationists who have been stealing bandwidth in *this* thread.

I'd *swear* that 45ch and these other three are one and the same. The tone, the 'voice', and the talking points (or, more correctly, deflections/ distractions/ red herrings/ confusions) deployed, are precisely the same.

I have informed Marisol.


Correction. Scrub the phrase 'and I will note, by the way, that by a curious coincidence that like the one we are currently engaged in, it was a thread discussing something that appeared in the Hate Mail Bag'. I was looking at the wrong e-file when I drew that conclusion.

Doesn't affect my main point.

Before the advent of Islam, 100% of mankind sinned ( Adam and Eve ) and 1/4 of mankind was terrorized and murdered ( Cain terrorized and murdered Abel )

The world has improved since then, since we do not see 100% of mankind in sin and a 1/4 mankind murdered.

@ David Peters

You wrote: 'Before the advent of Islam, 100% of mankind sinned (Adam and Eve) and 1/4 of mankind was terrorized and murdered (Cain terrorized and murdered Abel)'


And since the advent of Islam, all the non-Muslim world is being threatened and terrorized by Jihad. Is that an improvement?

You're off your chump! Clown!

Dumbledore's Army wrote:

I invite duhswami, gravenimage, buraq, logdon, guide inside, Wellington, and everyone else here who has risen to the bait proffered by 'Timothy Scarborough' ...
........................................

This is always a tough one, Dumbledore's Army.

I am well acquainted with the usually good advice to simply ignore the trolls—and sometimes I do just that.

The problem with wily trolls such as "Timothy Scarborough" or "45ch" is that they initially sound at least plausibly reasonable, especially to new readers here who may not be familiar with the species. Then, over the course of a long thread, they get uglier and more anti-Western and shovel on more apologetics for Jihad.

The depths of the moral equivalence for "Timothy Scarborough" was something that I did not even address: his conflating American support for having resisted Fascist aggression during WWII with unprovoked Jihad savagery—and considering Americans less civilized than the average Jihadist in the bargain.

Also insanely misleading, from "45ch" on that thread from two years ago:

"How do you explain the fact that there are 6.3 times less number of muslims in the American prison population as compared to non-muslims ?"

Someone who is not very knowledgeable or who is not paying attention might actually consider this an indication that Muslims are much less violent and criminally-inclined than the majority population—when, even given their own statistics—it is anything but.

Muslims make up less than 1% of the population in the United States—yet account for about *17% of the prison population* by that poster's own figures—meaning Muslims are far *more* violent than the average American or other Westerner.

I would likely have pointed that out if I had not missed that story.

But yes—one troll can derail an entire thread—that happened with "45ch", and it happened here with "Timothy Scarborough" and "David Peters" (what good, solid Western names those are! sarc/off) and the string of google letters.

But *not* addressing their bs can mean that some unwary readers might consider their misleading or nasty posts thoughtful Jihad Watch comments.

This is, of course, hardly something we only encounter online—one of the great problems in addressing the terrible threat of Jihad is that there are all too many—Taqiyya artists, Muslim apologists, the "Politically Correct", and even well-meaning "useful idiots" who have swallowed some of these talking points who regularly muddy the waters.

So, yes—I did "rise to the bait" regarding this troll. Was that wise or foolish? I'm rarely sure. I believe Robert Spencer and other serious anti-Jihadists wrestle with this all the time.

Do you just ignore these creeps? If so, do you risk appearing to give tacit agreement to their crap? Or is it important to set the record straight? Do you risk giving them a bigger platform for their lies and obfuscations if you address them at all?

I wish there was a single answer to this. I try to make the best descision on a case by case basis, but it is always a tough call...

Actually, I probably should have worded my post differently - I didn't meant to come across as twitting you or others or replying to the Dementor/s. Especially since I have from time to time *also* replied to such creatures, whether directly or in the third person, and for much the same reason as you have already given - the need to make sure that unwary non-Muslims lobbing in here either now or in the future, are not confused or distracted or deceived by the dementors' specious arguments.

The main point I meant to convey was that I was becoming convinced that those who had appeared in this thread - or, in particular, 'Timothy Scarborough' and 'David Peters', were one and the same as '45ch'.

Small rewording to my posting above.

"those who had appeared in this thread" = "those dementor/s who had appeared in this thread".

Thanks, DDA.

And as for these posters being one and the same—and popping up in different guises—I think that is quite likely.

Certainly, the very distinctive Muslim apologist "Horse" showed up here under four or five different user names after he was initially banned.

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