Former Leftist Eric Allen Bell: What is right about Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

GellerSpencerBell.jpg


In "What Is Right About Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer" at FrontPage today, Eric Allen Bell chronicles how his remarkable intellectual journey led him to reevaluate two people he had formerly despised: Pamela Geller and me.

[Editor's note: The article below is written by Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at  the “Daily Kos” because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” Don't miss Eric Bell on Frontpage's television program, The Glazov Gang.]

I write this mainly for the benefit of so many of my Liberal friends.  I know you have good hearts, but have been badly deceived by your peers and leaders when it comes to the threat of Jihad, and the character of those few brave individuals, who have had the courage to risk everything, to stand up for liberty and human rights…

BACKGROUND:

In the summer of 2010 I was invited to write an article for Michael Moore.  I was in production on a documentary I was calling “Not Welcome” regarding the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in the middle of the American Bible Belt.  His endorsement gave me a huge boost with the Hollywood crowd.  Having worked in the entertainment industry for years, this was not my first film, but it was to be my first documentary.  So when I went on to write a few more articles for MichaelMoore.com the wheels were greased for me to get into a room with the right people, and secure the finishing funds I needed to complete post production.  And if there is one thing Hollywood loves (almost as much as congratulating itself), it’s the story of an innocent minority group being wrongly persecuted, preferably in the South, especially if the antagonist happens to be the Religious Right.  And as my editor and I assembled the first 25 minutes, of the 300 hours of footage shot, this film promised to deliver just that.  “Wow, I really wasn’t expecting this.  I would like to thank the members of the Academy, Michael Moore and the Prophet Mohammed for making all of this possible…” 

But then the winds changed direction.  It seems that fate had issued a Fatwa against my perfect plan.  The Arab Spring sprang into action and ruined everything, as it degenerated disappointingly into the Islamist Winter.  It was as if I had been slapped upside the head by reality, thus knocking off my blinders and causing me to ask a lot of inconvenient questions.  I was left wondering if there was perhaps more to the story of so-called “revolution” than what had been portrayed on Al Jazeera and “Democracy Now with Amy Goodman”.  You can read more about this in an article I wrote for Front Page Magazine here: “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam”.

I took a second and more critical look inside Islamic scripture, comparing and contrasting the countless acts of Islamic terrorism, with specific commands to carry out these violent and barbaric attacks on innocent infidels as ordered in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah.  And after much difficult soul searching I had realized I was making more than just a documentary.  I was making a terrible mistake.   So I went back to my backers and told them how I had changed the outline of the documentary, to include a critical examination of the violent dimension that informed so much of the Islamic world today, and throughout history, and how desperately this story needed to be told, and I consequently lost the backing to my film.

As a writer who had written over a hundred articles for The Daily Kos, a liberal blog which receives about a million visitors a day, I wrote 3 articles outlining what I had learned about Islam, it’s execution of homosexuals and how hundreds of millions of women around the world were living under Islamic gender apartheid.  I called attention to this as a human rights issue, human rights being in theory a big concern among Liberal audiences.  The warm reception that followed included being labeled a “bigot” a “right winger” and an “Islamophobe” in the hundreds of subsequent reader comments, demanding that my “hate speech” be banned.  And after that the Islamophobia watchdog site, Loonwatch.com created a link for readers to write directly to the editors of DKOS, demanding my voice be silenced.  And I was immediately banned from ever writing for The Daily Kos.

In the weeks that passed I received many “goodbye” texts and emails from friends letting me know that we were no longer friends.  I saw my name get smeared in print – lies, misquotes, distortions, character assassination.  Loonwatch.com named me the “Loon At Large”

(UPDATE: Since appearing on the Michael Coren show and telling my story about how Loonwatch put my name out on the street in the Islamic world, Loonwatch has since pulled that article from their site.  Thank you very much Michael Coren!).

My friend count on Facebook took a hit.  My blog, which has had over 23 million visitors and  usually receives at least a million visitors per month, got hacked over and over for weeks before my traffic rebounded.   And, many of my subscribers left the site, telling me that I was “spreading intolerance and ignorance”.  On donations and ad revenue I took a massive financial hit.  For so many who had known me for so long, I had become nothing more than an “intolerant hate monger”

PAMELA GELLER:

In the process of defending myself from all of these accusations, in a desperate attempt to distance myself from those names that had become synonymous with “Islamophobia” at least in my circle, I made critical remarks about Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller – comments meant to distinguish myself from the real “hate mongers” but comments that turned out to be uninformed and just simply just not true.  I thought they were true at the time.  But having only recently sipped from the well of knowledge, I had not yet flushed all of the Kool Aid out of my system.

For example, in a Daily Kos piece (before my excommunication for blasphemy) I wrongly lumped Pamela Geller in with Pastor Terry Jones, a religious zealot who preaches burning the Koran.  A simple YouTube search will yield no shortage of remarks made by Geller, stating she opposes the burning of books, all books, and that furthermore she is not anti-Muslim, does not advocate persecution or hatred of Muslims, and even goes so far as to point out that it is in fact Muslims themselves, who are the biggest victims of Islamic violence.  The number of times she has spoken out for the hundreds of millions of Muslim women, who suffer under gender apartheid alone, is evidence that Pamela Geller is not a hate monger, but rather a fearless advocate for human rights – including the rights of Muslims.

It is amazing, the human capacity for seeing only what we want to see.  And it is especially humbling, I can tell you, when one identifies that unattractive quality within oneself.  But the freedom that comes with trading in your cozy conclusions for difficult questions is well worth the cost.  Everything is up for grabs.  You evolve.

In taking the time to really get to know who Pamela Geller is and what she has done to earn this sensational media status, as some sort of evil hate monger, this intolerant fanatic who opposes religious freedom, I finally did some long overdue research of my own.  And soon after simply scratching the surface, it was immediately clear that the bold stance Pamela Geller took publicly against the Ground Zero Mosque was absolutely right.  Spot on, in fact damned near clairvoyant.

This shameless shrine, this 13 story Islamic gloating tower was to be financed with $100 million from the “Cordoba Initiative” an organization with very questionable ties to Jihadi interests – to be run by Imam Rauf and promoted by his wife Daisy Khan (pronounced “Con”).

Cordoba, by the way was at one time the capital of an Islamic Caliphate and the city where Muslims had converted a Cordoba church into the third largest mosque in the world – an inconvenient truth that those of us in the Liberal world were told was simply misunderstood.  But when the spin doctors at CAIR failed to convince the skeptics, this mysterious $100 million Islamic fund rebranded the name of the victory mosque, to simply “Park 51”.  It kind of sounds like an exclusive night club from the seventies, except without the liquor or cocaine, and where the women must throw a sheet over their heads and keep their mouths shut.

No matter how the Cordoba Initiative tried to spin this story, Pamela Geller kept on insisting this was a mosque.  According to press releases parroted by left leaning media outlets, “Park 51” was more like a YMCA, where old people could play bingo or shuffle board or whatever they do.  There would be Mommy and Me classes and the center just happened to have a prayer room on the top two floors for Muslims to pray.  (also known as a mosque).  Never mind that this mosque would overlook the site of the collapsed World Trade Center, where thousands of innocent people lost their lives after Islamic terrorists struck on 9/11.  And never mind that construction of a mosque this close to Ground Zero was perfectly consistent with 1,400 years of Islamic conquest.  This was to be a victory mosque the whole family could enjoy.  And if you don’t like it, then you’re a racist and a bigot and a right wing Islamophobe.  Did I mention that the new facility was designed to “bring the whole community together”?

As an advocate for cultural sensitivity for the American people (we could use more of those), Pamela Geller gave numerous television interviews.  She was hammered and grilled mercilessly as an intolerant fanatic by a highly biased media, but she did not back down.  She kept her cool and she stuck to the facts.  For instance, fragments of a hijacked airliner had reportedly landed on the Burlington Coat Factory (the piece of Ground Zero real estate which was swooped up using questionable sources, to become the Victory Mosque).  She asserted that the proposed site was in fact sacred ground, a war memorial, and not at all an appropriate place to build a $100 million “shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11”.

I used to think that this was too broad a statement to make.  I used to think that connecting Islam to 9/11 was somehow unfair.  I used to not think, and think that I was thinking.  And it seems for many of us Gen X’ers “educated” in government run schools, this type of not thinking was how we were taught to think.  And the institutions of “education” told us that this type of not thinking was called “tolerance”.  Applied evenly, one could learn to tolerate Communism, Nazism or even the President of Iran.   See Oliver Stone’s son and recent convert to Shia Islam as Exhibit “A”.

So why did Pamela Geller call Islam an “Ideology” and not a religion?  Perhaps this was because Islam is only a small part religion.  In large part Islam is a tyrannical political system, and very much a barbaric legal system (the Sharia) practiced by hundreds of millions of Muslims in Islamic countries around the world and growing.  And all three components go together to form what is known as “Islam” the so-called “religion of peace”.   And yet so many in the mainstream media twisted Ms. Geller’s words to make it sound as if she were a crackpot, who actually thought that a mosque was going to be built on the site of the actual Twin Towers, while ignoring her valid points, or else cutting her off before she could finish making a valid point.  And this is what so many of us wanted to believe, what we needed to believe – because the alternative meant that maybe she was right, and this went against a culture that raised us to believe all belief systems are of equal value and must be respected equally because anything less was unfair.

A huge portion of American culture is dominated by a naïve and usually well-intentioned view – that one must always side with the perceived victim in any conflict.  And terrorist-linked organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have done a masterful job of manipulating this predisposition in painting a picture of Islam in America as the victim.  Never mind the fact that Islam itself is perhaps the greatest victimizer in the world today.  The perception that Islam is the underdog in America has allowed CAIR to bully and infiltrate the media, either by calling them out whenever they feel that Islam has been slighted or, more recently, creating an atmosphere where media outlets such as the New York Times are voluntarily censoring themselves.

For a religion that is so easily offended by the simplest slight, such as drawing a cartoon or burning a book, one would hope that a Muslim cleric with a hundred million dollars behind him could find another location – one that does not offend millions of Americans.  And this was a point that Pamela Geller never backed down from, even though she knew that she could be risking her life.

ROBERT SPENCER:

There were two defining incidents that caused me to eventually do a full 180 on my views concerning Islam as a mostly peaceful religion with a few bad apples.  The first one I have already mentioned in “The High Cost of Telling the Truth About Islam”.  Briefly:

“I flew back to Nashville to shoot a conference on whether or not Islam was conducive with Democratic Values and on the way to my hotel room I learned that my cab driver was from Egypt.  I asked him how he felt about the fall of Mubarak, a dictator worth over $70 billion dollars while so much of his country was living in poverty and he told me he was concerned.  Concerned?  Wasn’t this good news?  The cab driver was a Coptic Christian and he told me that he feared for his family back home.  “If the Muslims take control, and they will, it will be very dangerous for my parents and my sisters.  I’m scared for them right now”.  After that conversation, I started to pay more attention to the news coming from the Islamic world in the Middle East. Over the coming months I watched as the Muslim Brotherhood gained political power in Egypt.  I saw that cab driver’s worst fears come true as Coptic Christians were attacked by Islamic mobs.  I saw Tunisia institute Sharia, the brutal Islamic Law.  After Libya fell, the Transitional Council also instituted Islamic Law.  The nuclear armed Islamic government of Pakistan arrested and punished those who cooperated with the United States in killing Osama Bin Laden.  A woman under the Islamic government of Afghanistan faced execution for the crime of being raped.  Similar news stories emerged from Iran.  A man who typed “there is no god” as his Facebook status in Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, was arrested for blasphemy.”

Also, I read a book by Robert Spencer called “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion”.  I knew his reputation for being an “Islamophobe” as I had been a reader of Loonwatch.com for over a year – a site which is obsessed with Robert Spencer, and is aligned with another site called SpencerWatch.com – both of which go to great lengths to depict him as the worst human being in the world.

When I picked up “The Truth About Mohammed” I kept waiting for that moment when he would reveal himself to be the “Loon” they said he was and I could stop reading.  But that moment never came.  As it turns out, all of these horrible things I was reading about Mohammed could not possibly be “Islamophobic” because they were all coming directly from Islamic scripture.  Everything he said was based on what Islamic sources, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah, were saying about Mohammed.  There was very little editorializing.  Spencer was merely reporting in a very non-sensational way, what Muslims are taught about the life of their prophet.

I checked this out for myself.  Not only did I want to disbelieve what I was reading, but I needed to disbelieve it.  If what Robert Spencer was saying about Mohammed was true, then I had to rework my entire documentary, rethink my entire worldview, possibly lose backing (that hurt) and even have to go back and admit to my readers that I had it all wrong.  I really, really wanted Robert Spencer to turn out to be a “Loon”.  But he simply is not.

In fact, Robert Spencer is one of the only people out there telling the truth about Mohammed and successfully getting through to a significant number of people.  And although I had seen him appear on news shows that I don’t like, being interviewed by people that I don’t agree with, there was absolutely nothing in his book that promoted his religion or promoted a partisan political point of view.  He was simply stating the facts.  And if I could detect any kind of agenda from this at all, any hint of this being in any way personal for him, it was pretty clear that his concerns had to do with protecting human rights.

From there I watched a documentary that Robert Spencer was featured prominently in (which I very highly recommend) called “Islam: What the West Needs to Know”.  Again, I did my homework and it all checks out.  From that point I watched nearly everything I could find on YouTube with Robert Spencer in it.  Then I read “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”.

Since first sharing my change in perspective on Daily Kos and later on Front Page Magazine, I had the honor of speaking with Robert Spencer on a number of occasions.  In fact it was he who reached out to me when my articles on Daily Kos got me banned.   We have since been on radio programs together and I receive his JihadWatch.com email regularly.  In keeping with the style of his books, Jihad Watch merely reports the facts concerning all the many acts of Jihad that have happened that day or week, with plenty of links to independent news sources from around the world, to substantiate what is being said.  JihadWatch.com more than anything has been, and continues to be, incredibly eye-opening and an excellent source of reference material, for anyone who is serious about understanding the very real threat of Jihad – including Stealth Jihad, both here at home and around the world.

Countless millions of people fall victim to Jihadists every single day.  This is perhaps the worst human rights nightmare facing the world in our time.  And, there are tragically so very few people out there who are risking their neck, quite literally, to bring us accurate information concerning this.  Quite frankly I find most (but certainly not all) of the sites that are critical of Islam to be either hateful or else too religiously motivated for me.  And my sense is that this has a lot to do with maintaining the false perception that the Counter Jihad movement is partisan or religiously motivated.  JihadWatch.com is the best, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to getting the facts in a reliable, non-partisan, non-proselytizing format.

Read it all.

| 72 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

72 Comments

| Leave a comment

You are a principled man, Mr. Bell.

EAB is rude to women.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi,

It is with good reason that the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is so powerful. Each person is capable of experiencing personal redemption if he/she will open the eyes to the truth.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” Winston S. Churchill,

I hope that EAB makes a contribution in steering the counter-Jihad movement towards being more inclusive of the entire political spectrum, including liberals. To be taken seriously as a human rights movement, it's better not to be perceived as partisans, I believe, and also to deliver a consistent message of love and not animosity. I realize this isn't easy when receiving a steady stream of death threats and slanders, however.

(I think Robert generally does a good job of this at JihadWatch. I have had concerns about some of the others at times.)

Islam can't stand the sound of bells...especially if it's an Eric Allen Bell!

I take my hat off to a man with moral courage.

Welcome to sanity, Mr Bell.

A missionary to the far left.

Agreed: JW is the best info center on JIHAD with TRUTH and only TRUTH. That is why it hurts the ENEMY most and that is why they will do their best to shut it down. ERIC you are a great man too to be able to see the truth and change your opinion. I am happy that we are learning who (what) the enemy is although it is going very, very slow. Hope America wakes up soon before it is too late.

and that furthermore she is not anti-Muslim, does not advocate persecution or hatred of Muslims, and even goes so far as to point out that it is in fact Muslims themselves, who are the biggest victims of Islamic violence.

Pamela Geller is a better person than me. I'd like to see them encouraged to leave

What an outstanding and inspirational piece Mr. Allan Bell has once again penned.!

In a very short time, it has been quite amazing and admirable to witness such a great warrior arise in the person of Allan Bell, who possess so many talents and such high gifts.
He is the creator of the "acid test" (the now famous Kos questionnaire) which reveals the actual state of a "liberals" assumed sense of fairness and justice versus a complicit support for the contrary, cruelty oppression and injustice.
He is also a reminder to all of us that when it comes to deciding what is right and what is wrong, what divides us are our hearts and our conscience, an not our political party or religion.

The American Communist Party would banner a Lincoln portrait with Stalin, to create the fiction that they shared American values. Similarly, the islamonazi menace claims to value tolerance, even as they support oppression of non-muz in their homelands.

Kos-creep, Marcus the liar, does anything but balance security and liberty. He has his own notions of both, that are at variance with civilized values. Kos is a fiction factory, where only liars may work.

Bravo! A man, who with his intelligence, overcame cognitive dissonance, and finally saw the left for what they really are, fascist, totalitarians, who project their failings onto the very people who fight fascist totalitarians, or otherwise known as, neoliberals.

Countless millions of people fall victim to Jihadists every single day. This is perhaps the worst human rights nightmare facing the world in our time.

Mr Bell, you are going to get flack for that comment. Our opponents will write 'Eric Bell thinks millions are attacked by jihadists every day! What a joke!' Anyone with a brain, however, will fully understand that to "fall victim" includes all those under the oppression of Islam as well as those of us who are being lulled by stealth jihad.

Quite frankly I find most (but certainly not all) of the sites that are critical of Islam to be either hateful or else too religiously motivated for me.

Mr. Bell, you have earned a great amount of credibility to us. While the religious web sites are their own world, you could do a great service by helping the sites that you perceive as 'hateful' clean up their act with some gentle persuasion. Please consider this.

Whether or not he receives flack or not, his statement is correct but perhaps many of us in the anti-jihad are so accustomed with Islam-as-usual that we do not see it ourselves: the millions of oppressed women (everyday) and bigotry against non-Muslims minorities, FGM, sharia laws against free speech, proselyting, building new churches, and the daily suppression of millions and it is millions of cultural Muslims (estimates of a million secret Christians in Saudi alone) who have secretly disposed of Islamic beliefs but are still passing themselves off as faithful, all because of the jihadist and their constant stealth and at times violent jihad against millions wherever Islam comes in contact.

May I once again welcome you to the fight of fights in our time, Mr. Bell. Since I have been an educator for some thirty years now, I can confirm that modern education has become, for the most part, modern indoctrination. Students are not instructed as to how to think but rather what to think. And what they have been taught to think in the humanities realm amounts to romanticizing "the other" and demonizing Western Civilization. Hence the masochistic treatment of the West by indoctrinated Westerners and the exculpation of any pathologies perpetrated by "the other."

No better example of letting "the other" off the hook could be found than the current excuse making for Islam. But you have come to know this and I applaud you for your capacity to question most everything and for your courage to state it quite publicly. But, as I already know you know, it's important, invoking Bette Davis here as Margo Channing, to fasten your seatbelt because it's going to be a bumpy century. My best to you and yours, Mr. Bell.

It takes some courage to be willing to really investigate the other side of your world view.

It takes more courage to be willing to admit to yourself that it was not what you thought it was.

It takes a lot more courage to tell others (people you think of as your friends, co-workers) that your world view has changed ... as as you continue to lose contact with people you thought well of, that you maintain your new view.

We are a diverse lot and are just glad when someone is able to recognize the problems within Islam.

Welcome to the neighborhood. We're glad you are here.

Precisely right.

I, too, was a liberal at one time, Mr. Bell. I lived in uber liberal San Francisco, and was drunk on the kool-aid they serve there. Fortunately, once I moved away from the Bay Area, I discovered that I could actually think for myself. I started looking at everything I believed with a critical eye, and discovered I was -- gasp -- duped by the Left. I now put my critical thinking skills to work every day, and know that the so-called tolerant liberals are really neither. Conservatives are far more tolerant of the opinions and lifestyles of those we disagree with because we understand, support and promote freedom of thought and expression and conscience, as well as human rights. I, too, lost many friends because of my shift in politics and priorities, which broke my heart. The fact that I had the attitude of let's just agree to disagree and remain friends while they coukd not tolerate my about-face proves who the tolerant person is -- me! I continue to tolerate those who are intolerant, but I cannot tolerate an ideology that wants me dead because I refuse to submit to their "god."

Yes, Robert and Pamela are indefatigable warriors against Islamic Supremacism.

Another truth-teller who does not sugarcoat what needs to be said about Islam is Pat Condell on youtube.

Honesty means being humble before the facts of reality, and courage means doing so even when it costs you, and Eric Allen Bell is thus both honest and courageous. Thank you sir for your principled defense of Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, no one I know deserves it more than they.

And thank you, Mr. Bell, for bringing a sense of optimism and hope to a day that began so horribly with the death of Andrew Breitbart. Your "conversion" echoes to me that of our great playwright David Mamet as documented in his book "The Secret Knowledge". It is inspiring to read about your discovery of the truth concerning this hideous, violent ideology of Islam that threatens us all.

I hope people will pay attention to your comments about the religious obsessions of some anti-Islam sites. Striving to impose ones own supernaturalist beliefs on others may be satisfying to believers, but it is fighting apples with oranges. Freedom is at stake here, not the parsing of which is the proper form of submission to imaginary gods.

However I beg discrimination as to which sites might be characterized as "hateful" -- some which stress satire, mockery, and abundant photographic and video reminders of the viciousness of Islam provide us with a desperately needed outlet for our frustration over the galloping dhimmitude of the mainstream libtard media. The more daring sites are often the ones most subject to harassment and threats, as witness the continued hacking of BareNakedIslam, a site which demonstrates utter fearlessness in its commitment to exposing Islamic savagery.

Thank you Mr. Bell for defending Pam and Robert, and welcome to this fight for our lives.

For whom does Eric Allen Bell toll? Why he tolls for Spencer, for Geller and for human rights. Thank you, Eric!

Just information all shold know:

Muhammad in many different hadiths says Most in Hell are Women

Here are the hadiths:

http://answering-islam.org/Women/in-hell.html

AND ALSO

"Is Muhammad in the Bible?The 3rd Great Nakdimon Video about It"

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/12/09/is-muhammad-in-the-biblethe-3rd-great-nakdimon-video-about-it/

"Does the Koran confuse Miriam/Mary,the Mother of Jesus,with Miriam,the Sister of Moses?"

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/11/30/does-the-koran-confuse-miriammarythe-mother-of-jesuswith-miriamthe-sister-of-moses/



All must be counted and brought into this fight. What matters if one is considered left, right, or anything else?

We must include all who are willing to hear and see what is clear, it is not hidden from any who look to find the truth.

The truth will set you free.

We are stronger because another has seen the light.

Welcome Eric Allen Bell.

What a great read. It was serendipity that Mr Bell got in the cab with the Coptic Christian driver. One more has seen the light to join the freedom fight, hopefully more and more will follow daily.
Two years ago I was truly in ignorance about Islam and Israel, and if it wasn't for Robert's Books, The Truth about Mohammed, and the Infidels Guide to the Quran, and reading Jihad watch and Atlas Shrugs, I still would be. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are true freedom fighting angels for all humanity.

"Pamela Geller is a better person than me. I'd like to see them encouraged to leave."

And you, in turn, are a better person than me. I'd like to see them forced to leave.

No amount of "encouragement" is going to get them to leave.

Well done Cranky. .for getting your footing on Jacobs ladder.

. .blast it, missed an apostrophy. . Jacob's ladder.

. .blast it, missed an apostrophy. . Jacob's ladder.

Apologies for the double-up an' my lousy spellin'.

One great post-9/11 shock that happened to me when I was studying up on Islam was that people near and dear to me who were on the Left often came to the "they're all enemies" conclusion about Muslim people (as opposed to Islam as a faith)--a position I still refuse to take. Unhappily, I suppose, many of these same friends and kin are also quick to take the moral equivalence route about Christian fundamentalism, and look at me as a strange exception.

Eric Allen Bell is a case of another post-9/11 awakening. I'm glad he's become aware of the violence, hair-trigger reaction, and unabashed supremacism of Muslim cultures; and that he has backed off a bit and has come to see the Christian objectors to the Tennessee mosque as "people making their point badly", or something like that.

I would still urge Mr. Bell to remain appreciative of Muslims seeking a way out of their faith, those for whom it is merely cultural baggage, and those, who while devout, are adept at finding ways to prolong the "truce" with the Harbis. And I'd also urge him to consider that strong Christian convictions have a number of ways of working themselves out that are diametrically opposed to the ways that strong Islamic conviction work themselves out in these days.

Nobody will want for nothing who keeps their mind. . .the birds keep singing, long-after the bubble-gum craze has passed.

Yrs truely, Forrest Gump.

Congratulations, Mr. Bell, on your intellectual honesty and courage.

As for the 'friends' you have lost because you have investigated islam and found it to be what it is - a vicious, murderous, power crazy cult; consider that they were never really *friends* at all.

Glad to read that you, Mr. Bell follow the path of fact finding not fiending. Why has it taken you so long with your level of intelligence? It could be the others have the same problem that you had.

It's reassuring to know that people like Eric Allen Bell can still distance themselves from the the intellectual indolence and moralist complacency of the circles he used to frequent. Which shows a degree of independent thinking and the ability to base insights with regards to Islam on fact rather than PC fiction. If anything, he shows us that PC MC thinking can be turned around.

Welcome to you, Eric Allen Bell.

Excellent post from Mr Bell, and a highly intelligent and refreshing read.

The only bit that bothered me was this:

"Countless millions of people fall victim to Jihadists every single day."

Not sure about that. A slight exaggeration I think.

"former left" unnecessary comment IMO

a judaic virtue toward converts, not to remind converts their previous affiliation.

although i'm not religious, yet I find it, nonetheless wise.

Kepha,

"I would still urge Mr. Bell to remain appreciative of Muslims seeking a way out of their faith, those for whom it is merely cultural baggage, and those, who while devout, are adept at finding ways to prolong the "truce" with the Harbis."

Oh, I don't think you need to worry about that. Bell is quite "appreciative" of all the millions of Muslims who remain decent and harmless (at least in his mind).

Although my conversion from modern liberalism was quite a few years ago, and took place over a long time, I took a similar journey as Mr. Bell. And I think particularly on the subject of Islam, as I started reading more about it after 9/11, I came to gradually see that it was the horrible, intolerant, far-right extremist, hate-mongering, xenophobic, worse-than-Hitler Islamophobes (namely, Robert Spencer:) )..who actually had studied and were steeped in Islamic history FROM Islamic sources, and who were able to provide massive amounts of factual proof and primary source material to substantiate their positions. And conversely, I came to see that it was the liberal apologists for Islam, in the throes of their own religion of cultural relativism and multiculturalism, who painted the Muslim world with inaccurately broad brushes, who were completely unfamiliar with Islamic source material and jurisprudence, who took Koranic verses wildly out of context, and who substituted emotion, ideology and sentiment over scholarly, historical facts and assessments.

Lilredbird - no Christians here are "forcing" their beliefs on anyone else Mr. Spencer is a self-avowed Christian as are MANY posters here.

Please refrain from insulting Christians. Freedom is very important to us - 1 Corinthians 10:29 "For why should my freedom (in this particular case the subject is food choices) be judged by another persons conscience?" further is verse 31 "But keep from becoming causes for stumbling Jews, Greeks and congregation of God (Christians)" Christians have wide range of freedom of choice in their lives as long as they exercise moderation and do not infringe on the rights of others. They also do not let themselves become slaves to bad habits, such as smoking, excessive drinking, drug abuse, gambling, fits of anger, sexual degradation etc. this is an important aspect of being free (from the harmful consequences of these).

2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now Jehovah is the Spirit and where the spirit is, there is freedom"

To us our God is very much real and we see His workings all around us every day. Believe what you will, that is also your God-given freedom, but denigrating Christians here is not appreciated and counter-productive.

Stay focused and save your contempt for izlum and those who refuse to leave it despite many knowing deep down it is futile and nonsensical.

Lemonlime, please understand that I am an unabashed Christian fundamentalist who believes that everyone's better off for believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Some people like me have been in our own peculiar kind of counter-jihad for quite a while, namely, support of cross-cultural mission.

And, in recent years, missions-minded Christians have been caught flat-footed in a way that leaves us a humbly grateful to Almighty God as we are surprised: more Muslims are turning to Jesus Christ as he is offered in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (NOT as he is portrayed in the Qur'an) than at any time in history. There are new churches appearing in Turkish Kurdistan and Algerian Kabylia where there haven't been any for some time. In Western lands, we are having to make room for new Christians from Muslim backgrounds.

Considering the way much of God's fruit has been spoiled by our own sinful behaviors, I believe that it is important that Muslims don't perceive the Gospel as a club held over their heads, but as a gate through which they (and any other "whosoever will") may enter. Peace--whether you agree with me or not.

J_not_a ...

I completely agree with your above comment. And the comment by "lilredbird" was indeed insulting to Christians and very pointless. Here it is:

"I hope people will pay attention to your comments about the religious obsessions of some anti-Islam sites. Striving to impose ones own supernaturalist beliefs on others may be satisfying to believers, but it is fighting apples with oranges. Freedom is at stake here, not the parsing of which is the proper form of submission to imaginary gods."

Good catch; and imagine the response if similar comments were made about atheists? I mean hold on to your computer!


For the record, though I am an agnostic, I wish to register my full support to champ, Kepha and j_not_a to the effect that I have never felt imposed upon by Christians. Never.

Quite the contray in fact. Many Christians have intelligently and decently challenged my world-view from time to time, something I definitely appreciate, and I have not ever, not even once, even remotely, felt threatened by a Christian. Contra Muslims, eh?

Christians do not jeopardize my liberty in the least. Indeed, their ethic advances the human condition and thus is in no way a menace, in fact it is a support, to the American Constitution, a document I cherish.

So tired of attacks on Christians. What a wasted effort. Meanwhile, the great monster of a religion, which begins with "I," is waiting in the wings to destroy Western freedom if only given the opportunity. Time to focus on priorities---exclusively. Big time.

"more Muslims are turning to Jesus Christ as he is offered in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (NOT as he is portrayed in the Qur'an) than at any time in history."

That's an interesting statement. If it's accurate, it seems rather odd, because for at least three centuries, the West maintained an intensely intrusive presence throughout the Muslim world (with one exception, the center of Arabia) and had far more control over the people and institutions than they allow themselves to have now, since now the West is ashamed of its Colonial past. And during that long Colonial era, missionizing was also widespread and intense. So you would think that millions of Muslims would have already converted by the end of the 19th century. But this isn't the case. In fact, Muslims mostly resisted conversion, hunkered down stewing in their hatred of the intrusive, humiliaitingly dominant Infidel on their lands and controlling their economies and often even their politics, and waited for the day they could revive again.

Which is exactly what they have been able to do throughout the 20th century.

And with our colossal mistakes of

1) dismantling Colonialism (administratively, psychologically and culturally)

and

2) admitting millions and millions of Muslims into the West (an unprecedented disaster that had never been done before).

Muslims have only become more able to wreak their terroristic jihad, not less. I don't see Christian missionizing as a solution to the problem of Muslims. I see it as an unrelated virtue which we should allow to continue as long as it does not hamper our #1 priority: protecting our societies from the dangerous Muslims (whose numbers are legion and which -- I have to repeat for the umpteenth time -- we have no way of of distinguishing from the harmless Muslims even if they do exist, somewhere out there.

Mr. Bell you praised your cronies Spencer and Geller. The fact remains that none of you visited a single muslim majority state. I tell you that men and women there in muslim majority state live thier lives to fullest . None of them are immersed in black sea of sorrow. If you sympathize with women's right you begin with women in USA. go visit women shelter. See the statistics of crimes against women. Find out the number of chlidren raised by single mother. you will find who are the vicitms.
if you raeally want to know the plight of Muslim without chanting the mantra of terrorism see what the havac american invasion under false pretext did to iraqi civilians. about half a million civilains are dead as a direct result of invasion of America. Two millions are dispalced. you shed the tears about the plight of muslims men and women your tears are of crocodile. Go talk to John Major of England he had the courage to tell the world that he and his budies knew Saddam did not have WMD and yet Iraq was attacked.
You think Islam is barberic read bible that calls for war agaisnt Ameliktes men women children to be killed. It is the bible that tells you to stone adulteres.
Mr Bell if you follow Bible there will not be enough stones to pelt at the adulteres in USA. Bible tells you how the homosexuals were destroyed. Your cronies Spencer and Gellr are zealots disguised you do not expect them to show their true colors in public.
Mr. Bell your children are not safe. Do not send them to churches they may be somdomized.
Read Bible
Glory be to Allah and his Messenger

So Lemonlime, you are saying that Christians striving to "love their God with their whole mind, heart and spirit" and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is "morally neutral" (my words)? Really?

So if everyone in the world applied those admonitions in their lives, the world would not be a much better place?

How is applying these principles in earnest. whenever possible, an "unrelated virtue" or hampering the cause of neutralizing izlum?. Many people, including many, many former muslims, who have been trapped in lives of desperation, violence, abusive relationships, addicted to various substances, involved in criminality, or otherwise lost and hopeless, have found a purpose and joy in life after discovering Christ and by applying the principles of loving ones God and loving one's fellow man, how is this "unrelated" to the world being a better place?

Please...if you are to get anyone to agree with your view in this regard, you are going to have to do much better than what you've put forth.

Observe the Mohammedan, can cho, above: spewing out an incoherent gibberish of Lies and Tu Quoque compounded, in an attempt to demoralise and confuse.

As regards violence against women, women's shelters, etc: the harsh fact is that, in Western countries with large Mohammedan populations, women's shelters are disproportionately populated by **Mohammedan females** who are fleeing from the violence of **Mohammedan males**.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali noticed this when she was working as an interpreter in the Netherlands. (She also noticed that the clientele at the abortion clinics - to which she accompanied certain - Mohammedan - females who had been seduced or raped and who wished to avoid being honor-murdered by their families - comprised very few native Dutch, but a great many immigrant / refugee women, the vast majority of whom were...Mohammedans.

Rosemary Sookhdeo's daughter helped out at a women's shelter in London and they, too, were inundated with Muslim women fleeing violent marriages or violent families.

Geraldine Brooks, in her book 'Nine Parts of Desire', notes that in the early 1990s a police study discovered that women married to Mohammedans were **eight times more likely** to be murdered by their spouses, than any other women in Britain. In other words: a Mohammedan male in the UK was *eight times more likely * to murder his wife, than was a Jewish, Christian, secular, or Hindu male.

And 'can cho', in citing the antique portion of the TaNaKh that describe stoning for adultery, neglects to mention that even at the time of Mohammed the Jews had abandoned that particular custom;; and he also conveniently ignores the powerful story, in the Gospel of John, of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. Jesus told the accusers, 'he who has no sin among you, cast the first stone'...and they all - being honest self-critical Jews, rather than malignant narcissist lying Mohammedans - examined their consciences and went away, one by one, without throwing a single stone. Jesus - the only person there who *could* claim to be sinless - tells the woman to 'go, and sin no more'. And so...stoning for adultery has never been something Christians do.

Further to DDA'S comment, yes absolutely abuse of women and children is a big problem in western societies. HOWEVER, the difference is western society as a whole CONDEMNS these horrible acts and punishes such behaviour as criminal as should be, whereas in izlumic societies this is looked upon as normal and indeed the woman is almost universally blamed as deserving of such brutality...

can cho - another probable muzlum troll.... it's like whack-a-mole, clobber one muzlum troll and more take their place...I need to pour myself a strong beverage - good night fellow freedomlovers...we live to fight again tomorrow...

Right-on, Dumbles. . .

"can Cho" wrote:

Mr. Bell you praised your cronies Spencer and Geller. The fact remains that none of you visited a single muslim majority state. I tell you that men and women there in muslim majority state live thier lives to fullest . None of them are immersed in black sea of sorrow...
..................................

Of course not! Suffering FGM, forced child marriage, floggings, sacralized rape, "honor killings", and stonings is all very salubrious...sarc/off

More:

It is the bible that tells you to stone adulteres.
..................................

And yet, no one has been stoned under Judaism for thousands of years, and no one has ever been stoned under Christianity.

Yet in Islam, a woman sits on death row in Iran right now under sentence of stoning. Pregnant girls have been threatened with stoning in the Shari'ah courts in Nigeria. A little thirteen-year-old rape victim was stoned to death in Somalia. A couple was stoned to death in Afghanistan.

Here is the horrifying video—WARNING! Graphic Images!:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/couple-stoned-to-death-in-afghanistan-video/

They are murdered by a howling mob screaming "Allhu Akbar!".

You can peddle your Taqiyya elsewhere.

can Cho,

Most of the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed by Muslims. And many of the people fleeing Iraq have been Christians because they are persecuted, killed, raped, by Muslims.

If Muslim majority countries are so wonderful as you suggest, why aren't westerners moving to Islamic countries? Why is it that Muslims are flocking in such huge numbers to western countries?

Let me ask you this, since you present yourself as opposed to violence against women: Will you condemn, right here and now, Quran verse 24:2, which says:

"(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement."

Will you condemn verse 4:34, which says:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Will you condemn verses 70:29-30 (also see 23:5-6, 4:23-24), which permit male Muslim masters to have female sex slaves in addition to their multiple wives (4:3)?

70:29-30: "And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (then) they are not to be blamed,"

Condemn these verses. It should be simple, easy, straightforward.

Kepha ...

You wrote:

"And, in recent years, missions-minded Christians have been caught flat-footed in a way that leaves us a humbly grateful to Almighty God as we are surprised: more Muslims are turning to Jesus Christ as he is offered in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (NOT as he is portrayed in the Qur'an) than at any time in history."

I ran across this story that will inspire you ...

Muslim (Jihadist) becomes Christian - Kamal Saleem (Muslim Testimony)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watmc09K2Zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wow!

You're a brainwashed clown!

No one claims that there are no problems in secular societies. However, the reason why the ideology of Islam must be openly and publicly criticized is that your Al Qur'an TEACHES Muslims INEQUALITY of women in society. Al Qur'an says that a women's evidence in court is worth only half that of a man's, that a husband can sex with his wife at a whim, that a women found guilty of adultery must be stoned to death, and so on.

Secular legal systems do not allow these barbarities to exist. That's the fundamental difference between Islamic states and free, western societies.

And you are totally mistaken about The Bible! The Enlightenment 'abrogated' all the theocratic dictates of The Bible. These theocratic elements are now understood to be relics of the distant past.

What you and your misguided brethren have to understand is that you are not comparing like with like when you compare Islam with Christianity. The difference is that we have moved on to develop more compassionate societies. Islam, sadly, is stuck in the 7th Century with all its brutality intact.

Wake up! Your circus tent is burning down around your ears!

So Lemonlime, you are saying that Christians striving to "love their God with their whole mind, heart and spirit" and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is "morally neutral" ...

No. It's good when the "others" you are "doing unto" aren't psychotically murderous fanatics trying to kill you, your family, and your fellow citizens. It becomes, however, idiotic and reckless and morally irresponsible when the "others" are, in fact, psychotically murderous fanatics trying to kill you, your family, and your fellow citizens.

So if everyone in the world applied those admonitions in their lives, the world would not be a much better place?

Of course if everyone in the world applied those admonitions, the world would be a better place. But everyone won't. So you're sounding like an airheaded Miss Universe telling America why she believes in World Peace. And what's more important, a sufficient number of Muslims around the world won't apply those admonitions, and their unwillingness to do so will express itself (and already has expressed itself thousands of times around the fucking world in case you haven't noticed from your cave) in actions that are -- again -- psychotically mass-murderous fanaticism hell-bent on trying to kill us, our families, and our fellow citizens.

I hope when the Anti-Islam Movement finally gets its organizational shit together, it will provide daycare for children like "i_not_a" to play with blocks and crayons and draw pictures of his or her evangelically ideal world (and if he or she is particularly precocious, he or she can draw pictures of a historical fantasy time in those horrible Middle Ages when no Catholics for centuries actually waged wars against Muslims and killed Muslims while defending the West from Mohammedan depradations).

Lemonlime, times have changed, even if the Gospel hasn't. I don't hold with Buraq that the Enlightenment abrogated the theocratic stuff, for "theocracy" simply means that "God rules"--NOT clerics or self-appointed whatevermajigs--and a bunch of self-important 18th century Frenchmen, Germans, and Scots can't abolish God's rule (it's kind of funny how in the details, Diderot's "natural law" sounds vaguely Roman Catholic; Kant's Pietistic Lutheran; and Hume's Reformed). Jesus, God Incarnate, said that all authority in heaven and earth was his, and his followers are to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).

Missions did not end with colonialism; and maybe paternalistic Western control over other nations' institutions wasn't quite what God had in mind. Maybe the mainstream pseudo-Protestant churches gave up missions out of guilt feelings (I don't think they believe in true moral guilt anymore), but scads of other churches still engage in cross-cultural witness, and not just Westerners. At this point in time, there are probably more Christian missionaries of all sorts than there were at the time when the Sun never set on the British Empire. I've run into Koreans openly helping plant Taiwanese churches, and Ugandans witnessing to Chinese in Guangdong. Some of us who are mostly European-Mideastern white have benefited from the ministries of South Asians and Mestizo Latin Americans. Back when Malcolm X was complaining about Christianity being the "white man's religion", his complaint was quietly ceasing to be valid (unless, perhaps, you counted all Mestizo Latin Americans and Christian South Asians as "white"). An Anglican friend of mine pointed out that today, the "average Anglican" is a Nigerian rather than a Briton or North American. And South Korea is probably more Presbyterian than Scotland at this point.

Nor should we marvel at this. In the year 620 A.D., the "typical Christian" was a North African or inhabitant of Asia Minor or the Fertile Crescent. He probably would've thought that the most hopeful mission field was among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia; and would have seen the folks in what are now Uppsala, Trondhjem, and Halle as hopeless heathens; and mourned the news that the flourishing churches of once-Roman Britain were now swamped with a horde of Anglo-Saxon heathens. He wouldn't have even known that there were whole other continents in the Americas and Australia.

God clearly wants the nations discipled, and he hasn't quit, even if "enlightened" ("endarkened" may be a better term) North American and European pseudo-Prostestants have.


Good points, Kepha.

Two books that every educated Western Christian - and the non-Christians too -should read: Stephen Neill, 'A History of Christian Mission' and David Bentley Hart's deceptively-coffee-table-book-appearing "The Story of Christianity'.

The greatest ingatherings of people into the churches in China and in Africa took place not during the period of western imperial dominance, but decades afterward.

That is the point I am making. Bible descibes in details step by step instrctions how to stone. If you do not believe in Bible then simply declare to the world that Christianity in a NON_BIBLICAL MAN MADE HOAX. you say that you created a western society based on compassion. you mean you are more compassion than God Almighty. Shame on you. The quoted verses of Quran I whole heartedly believe and bow down my head to the entire text of Qran. you stupid Islamophobes abolished the teachings of gospels and Old testement. shame on you. Ask any theological seminery chief he will tell you that christian theology comes from a mad man Saint Paul not from Jesus Christ. You stupid dumb Christians call yourself christians in reality you all are Paulinians. The God that you worship is A God that is wishy Washy flip flops and tunrs around and corrects it self. If so delare to the world that all Christians are ignorant dump founded worshipers of fasle GOD.

can Cho,

You wrote:
"The quoted verses of Quran I whole heartedly believe and bow down my head to the entire text of Qran."

Thanks for your candid reply.

To review, you enthusiastically approve of
(a) wife beating (4:34),
(b) whipping females (or males for that matter) with 100 stripes (24:2) if they had premarital sex,
(c) and sexual slavery (70:29-30, and others),
(d) and polygamy (4:3).

Let me then ask next, to bring us up to the present:
Do you believe that non-Muslims should be criminally prosecuted and punished for insulting, mocking, or criticizing Muhammad or Islam?

can Cho,

I would be remiss if I was not also willing to answer your questions, if you have any. Therefore feel free to ask me questions also.

First, though, I'd be interested in your response to my latest question, above.

Kepha,

I've run into Koreans openly helping plant Taiwanese churches, and Ugandans witnessing to Chinese in Guangdong. Some of us who are mostly European-Mideastern white have benefited from the ministries of South Asians and Mestizo Latin Americans. Back when Malcolm X was complaining about Christianity being the "white man's religion", his complaint was quietly ceasing to be valid (unless, perhaps, you counted all Mestizo Latin Americans and Christian South Asians as "white"). An Anglican friend of mine pointed out that today, the "average Anglican" is a Nigerian rather than a Briton or North American. And South Korea is probably more Presbyterian than Scotland at this point.

All this is not relevant to Muslims; for Africa, despite the cruelest efforts of Muslims over the centuries, continued to contain many non-Muslim animists (most likely your anecdotal "Ugandans" and "Nigerians") receptive to Christianity.

Your counter-argument to my point about 300 + years of Western immersion in the Third World more missionizing than our more modern West is not persuasive, sans actual evidence. The 20th century has seen a Muslim world more and more capable of hampering Christian missionaries, whereas the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries saw NO HAMPERING AT ALL. It just doesn't make sense that hampering would produce more effective missionizing than no hampering.

Lemonlime, I'm not sure that my points are irrelevent, especially since the descendants of Muslim people who carried out the Armenian and Assyrian atrocities are showing up as CHRISTIANS in churches in southern Turkey, or that Kabylia has indigenous churches popping up when there haven't been any for centuries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free and unhindered and open witness everywhere. I thank God for every country on earth that allows its Christian population to worship, teach, and evangelize openly. I certainly do not welcome persecuting states, whether the blunt instrument kind like Marxism-Leninism and Islam, or the subtle force-all-doctors-to-be-abortionists kind like that of the Obama administration's probes against the First Amendment. But, perhaps the colonial model with the Gospel following the flag isn't what God had in mind when he inspired the Evangelist Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles (the sequel to the Gospel that bears Luke's name).

Quran I love it I read it and I memorize it.
Answer Number 1. the wife beating is crude comment on a verse that is intended for a cheating spouse. There are two steps before a man can lay hand on his cheating spouse. Even then if wife keeps cheating the man has to be so gentle not to leave a mark on her body and use a stick the size of a tooth brush.
answer 2. it was time when women out numbered men. There is big "If" in the begining of the verse that allows up to four wives. only in case the man is able in all respect to do justice. In fact the prescription is for monogamy. Prophet PBUH was monogamous for 25 years.
Answe number 3. it was a time when winner of a battle could lay claim on the war spoils. Again women taken as prisoners of war could be taken in as spouse not as sex slaves.
I am still waiting to hear from you weather or not you Christians have abondaned the teachings of Gospel and Tourah.
Why do not you answer my questions. In your opinion God was not compassionate when he ordered stoning for adultery in Torah and then suddenlty realized his "MISTAKE" and made adultery permissible. Are you more compassionate than God. Do you think Jesus Christ sent the woman who was alleged to have committed adultery to go ahead and engage in another round of adultery. I bet you are speachless.

I am still waiting to hear from you weather or not you Christians have abondaned the teachings of Gospel and Tourah.
**************
The answers "NO".

No more for the troll.

can Cho,

You didn't answer my question as to whether you thought criticism or mockery of Islam and Muhammad should be illegal (see above)..

I'll gladly answer your questions. I've just now returned to see your comment. Some other people might not comment because this is getting to be an old thread. First, I'll address your latest comments:

It seems you have now lost your candor. You were blasting Christians for abandoning the Old TestamentAlso in the follow-up you don't address 24:2. Is there a moderate version of whipping someone with 100 stripes?

You write:
"Answer Number 1. the wife beating is crude comment on a verse that is intended for a cheating spouse."

Can you cite any hadiths regarded as authentic or at least good or sound that say 4:34 was only intended to refer to punishing wives who cheated? The context in the hadiths indicates that the permission to beat wives was in response to wives who had become "emboldened" towards their husbands.

Also, your suggestion doesn't make sense, because (a) four witnesses or confession are need to establish guilt for adultery, and (b) the punishment for adultery as laid out in the hadith is stoning to death, not the husband merely beating his wife. If the husband accuses or suspects without such proof, and tries to speak or act based on this, then he would be considered guilty of slander, and would himself be punished for it.

"There are two steps before a man can lay hand on his cheating spouse. Even then if wife keeps cheating the man has to be so gentle not to leave a mark on her body and use a stick the size of a tooth brush."

This is laughable nonsense. You are probably making a crude attempt to trick me and the other readers. Where is the valid hadith that says a man should only "beat" gently with a stick the size of a toothbrush? How could this possibly work as a punishment or a deterrent? His wife would just laugh at him and disrespect him even more, defeating the whole point of the verse, which is to make wives obedient.

The point is, it's wrong to beat your wife or wives, but the Quran fails in this regard. It should simply say "Don't beat your wife." And the Quran itself only says beat; you have to go to the hadith to get specifics about beating "lightly" and not on the face, and so forth.

Muslim men were allowed to beat not only their wives but also their slave girls, and even whip them if they committed fornication:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 731:
"Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid: The Prophet said, "If a slave-girl (Ama) commits illegal sexual intercourse, scourge her; if she does it again, scourge her again; if she repeats it, scourge her again." The narrator added that on the third or the fourth offence, the Prophet said, "Sell her even for a hair rope.""

You wrote:
"answer 2. it was time when women out numbered men. There is big "If" in the begining of the verse that allows up to four wives. only in case the man is able in all respect to do justice. In fact the prescription is for monogamy. Prophet PBUH was monogamous for 25 years."

A prescription for monogamy would say "You shall be married to only one spouse at one time. If you want to marry another you must first divorce your current spouse." The Quran doesn't say that. And if polygamy was only to be a temporary measure, then the Quran would say so. It doesn't.

The Quran says that Muslim men can have up to four wives at once.
To your specific claims:
-Women outnumbered men at that time partly because Muhammad and his military and thugs were, according to the Islamic texts, killing off the non-Muslim men in raids, battles, and assassinations, thus creating a surplus of women.
-the context and detail supplied by the Hadith makes it clear that Muhammad had numerous wives, more than four, at one time (and the Quran 33:50-52 confirms this), and that Muslim men could have multiple wives as long as they did not exceed four at one time. Muhammad certainly had multiple wives for several years of his career as a prophet.
-"justice" in that context is defined according to seventh century Islam, not according to modern western standards.

You write:
"Answe number 3. it was a time when winner of a battle could lay claim on the war spoils. Again women taken as prisoners of war could be taken in as spouse not as sex slaves."

Are you still justifying it? Anyways, the verses I cited distinguish between wives (z-w-j; azwajihim) and those whom your right hands possess (ma malakat aymanuhum); the Quran and hadith indicate these are two different kinds of relations. This is recognized in classical Islamic law.

I don't agree that all others practiced this. For example, I have read that the Romans did not practice this.

Anyways, according to the Islamic texts, these non-Muslim female captives were taken as sex slaves; the hadith makes this clear:

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."

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10382&ln=eng&txt

BTW, Islam does indeed forbid rape of a free Muslim woman outside of marriage; but it does not forbid rape of one's wives, or one's legally held female slaves and captives.

Again, if this was not allowed, the Quran would say don't rape your wives, slaves, or anyone else. It fails to say that.

You write:
"I am still waiting to hear from you weather or not you Christians have abondaned the teachings of Gospel and Tourah."

I'm not a Christian; I'm not of any religion. However, I would observe that most Christians have indeed abandoned certain cruel punishments in the Torah, but they tend to justify this by claiming that the New Testament (including the Gospels--not Gospel, as the authors of the Quran erroneously stated it) overrules it. That's their interpretation. I'm not defending it.

Anyways, you are upset that Christians aren't stoning adulterers,, am I correct? You are blasting them for not literally following the Torah's complete set of punishments?

You write:
"Why do not you answer my questions. In your opinion God was not compassionate when he ordered stoning for adultery in Torah and then suddenly realized his "MISTAKE" and made adultery permissible. Are you more compassionate than God."

I don't think it takes a moral genius to realize that stoning someone to death for adultery is a wildly inappropriate, unjust punishment. It is the product of a barbaric age when people were killed on a whim over the flimsiest of reasons. The problem is one of proportionality. Adultery can be punished, or forgiven, socially, through non-violent expression of disapproval, of divorce, and so on. There is no need to kill someone for this. Anyone with half a clue about morality knows this; but Muslims in some places today continue to kill alleged adulterers.

Unfortunately, Islam in the Hadith requires the death penalty for adultery. In the hadith, Muhammad even forced the Jews to implement stoning for adultery; he had accused them of abandoning their scripture.

"Do you think Jesus Christ sent the woman who was alleged to have committed adultery to go ahead and engage in another round of adultery. I bet you are speachless."

I'm quite sure the vast majority of Christians here don't support the death penalty for adultery, but I will leave that for them to answer, if they are reading this.

I will in turn ask you whether you support Muhammad's ordered death penalty by stoning for adultery. Do you?

Also a reminder about my other question:

Do you believe that non-Muslims should be criminally prosecuted and punished for insulting, mocking, or criticizing Muhammad or Islam?

Kepha,

I'm not disputing the Whether (Muslims are converting to Christianity), I'm disputing the How Many. I haven't seen proof that the numbers indicate a sufficient quantity of conversion of Muslims to Christianity to save either Muslims or us from Islam.

Furthermore, the Christian impetus to proselytize among Muslims tends to have a tendency to erect impediments to our necessity to be ruthless in our self-defense -- which one must be, when faced with this kind of enemy.

Lemonlime, I am neither a Mennonite nor a Quaker, and think that Augustine was on to something with his just war theory. I would certainly fight for the defense of my country and civilization if I had to. I just question if now is the time to commit armed forces to cleaning up the entire world between Mauretania and Mindanao; or even if this is necessary.

We free people in the West still have options, and Islam has its weaknesses even in the lands where it is dominant.

Kepha,

"I would certainly fight for the defense of my country and civilization if I had to. "

Sometimes defense can wait until provocation; sometimes it has to be pre-emptive and proactive.

Hitler's years of ramping up in the 30s is a good example of the latter, whose appropriate response as urged by Churchill went unheeded by people who felt that the former was the way to handle it. And millions of lives, terrible destruction of land and property, and terrible dislocations were the result of that disastrous miscalculation.

Which type of defense is appropriate now in our time as the 21st century limps along with its feet flat and asleep?

Looks like "can Cho" has disappeared. Here's a quote from Cho from a previous thread, which helps establish that he'll follow just about anything ordered by Muhammad (my emphasis):

"...As for the Prophet there were tens and thoussands of nine years old girls available for him to marry but he married only one why ? becasue his marriage was arranged in .Allah is great and Mohammad is his messenger."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/ex-muslim-writes-on-women-in-islam.html#comment-852048

---------
Note how, even while admitting that the Islamic texts say Allah approved Muhammad's "marriage" to child Aisha, Cho is still obfuscating somewhat. Muhammad didn't select Aisha when she was nine; he selected her when she was 6 (or possibly 5) years old, and married her when she was 6, and then consummated the marriage with her (i.e., had sexual intercourse with her; the word is "penetrated") when she was 9 years old.

Kenana of Khybar.
I have not disappeared I am here I hope you are folowoing this thread.
The verse of Quran you referred for beating wife contain a key word "fahash" that clearly refers to leud act or indecency. The way I understand this verse is the leudness or indecency is the key requirement for husband to raise his hand only if separation and counselling fails. Yes I gave you the information based on hadith when I stated that the stick no longer than tooth brush be used to beat wife. You say it will be ineffective. If so even harsher punishment will fail if woman becomes defiant. Prophet made it clear that woman is like a rib bone. If you try to bend it to straighten her she will break. I have to defer from your opinion that women out numbered men because muslims killed the non-muslim men. The fact remains that the enemies of prophet and muslims were lot stronger and were out to wipe out the early muslim comunity. I can give the numbers of muslims and non-musims who faced each other in battles. In some ways you answered your own questions by siting the hadith about slave girls. if the slave girl engages in illegal sex then warn her several times and if all fails sell her not to beat her or to kill her. let me point out that verses of Quraan uses parable to suggest men to be gentle with women just as a farmer who tills the land and prepares the land to be productive. I am so glad that you remember a statement about marriage of prophet to Aisha. thank you for reminding me that. I agree that prophet chose her when she was six years old. Yet I mainatin my argument that there were so many 6 years old girls for him to chose. As a muslim i do believe that there was a reason behind the marriage between the two. If you chalenges that you have every right to do so. In all I am very happy to have discussion with you because you are using substance in your arguments. I think you are a reasonalbe person intersted in serious dialogue. I wish i can keep this dialogue going with you but this thread is getting older. may be we will meet on other thread but I will keep looking this thread for your valuable comments. I have to tell you that God is God. In torah God destroyed the people of lot all of them. Stoning is not only prescribed for adultary but for so many other crimes. I still beleive that God who prescribed all these punishment is still God who is compassionate. Kianan of Kybar the difference in us and God ( big difference ) is the fact that we can take each others life but can not restore life. God alone can restore life and stiff punishment does not render God as cruel I enjoy dialogue wiht you I respect you I wish i can have more dialogue wiht you thank you by the way i did not have chance to check spelling pardon me thanks

Alright, can Cho, as you say this is an old thread so perhaps we can discuss these sorts of things in the future in new threads.

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
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
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
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter