Christian Science Monitor on jihad murder of ambassador: "Muslims must assert their faith's teachings of peace and mercy as the answer to such hate"

How many hundreds, thousands, of articles have we seen since 9/11, calling upon the peaceful, moderate Muslims to stand up and show themselves and act decisively and effectively against the jihadis? And how many peaceful, moderate Muslims have stood up and shown themselves and acted decisively and effectively against the jihadis?

"Islam's answer to the killing of US envoys in Libya," an unsigned editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, September 12:

The killing of US diplomats in Libya is seen as zealous revenge for the blasphemy of a film against Islam. Muslims must assert their faith's teachings of peace and mercy as the answer to such hate.

Protesters demonstrate against the demolition of a Sufi mosque by ultra-conservative Salafis in Tripoli, Libya, August 26. Attackers bulldozed a mosque containing Sufi Muslim graves in Tripoli in what appeared to be Libya's most blatant sectarian attack since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi. The placard reads: "Islam respects the nonMuslim's grave, so how about the Muslim's?"

The people who killed US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats in Libya on Tuesday may have believed that violent revenge for blasphemy is a useful way to promote Islam.

It isn’t. And most Muslims who see Islam as a religion of peace know that.

The storming of the US Consulate in Benghazi appeared to have been triggered by news of a film made in the United States that criticizes the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Protesters also breached the US Embassy in Cairo. The diplomats were simply a convenient target for impatient Muslims eager to defend Islam, perhaps even keen to quickly restore a caliphate in the Middle East.

While Muslims worldwide may be angered by acts of religious bigotry, most know that killing in the name of Islam is hardly favorable to Islam. Most faiths are based on love, not hate, in order that humanity can honor godly commands to love one another in a spirit of individual freedom. If there is to be a global contest of beliefs, it is beliefs, not people, that can be disputed.

Yet Muslim fears of blasphemy remain strong. They first erupted on the world scene in 1989 with Iran’s death sentence against author Salman Rushdie. They were behind 9/11 and the many senseless attacks that often follow slights on Islam.

Each violent response should compel Muslims to assert Islam’s teaching of tolerance. They have a good reason. Most of those targeted for blasphemy by Muslims are actually of Muslim background, such as Shiites accusing Sunnis, say scholars of Islam. And, according to the State Department, nearly half of the world’s governments abuse religious minorities. Opposing bigotry nonviolently is a global challenge.

Many Christians, for example, see Islam as an enemy, although few resort to acts of violence on innocent Muslims. (The recent killings of Sikhs in Wisconsin may have been an attack on people who the killer misguidedly thought were Muslims.) Polls show a third of Americans are “not favorable” to Islam.

Muslim-led governments that want strict antiblasphemy laws – both in their own country and enshrined in international law – see freedom of speech as a threat to social disorder and a license to insult Islam. Until enough peace-minded Muslims stand up for an interpretation of Islam that sees freedom as necessary for the flourishing of faith, these governments will continue their campaigns of intolerance or wink approval at mobs of zealots....

Indeed. Until!

| 27 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

27 Comments

| Leave a comment

Now if the editors of the Christian Science Monitor were dropped into Mecca with crucifixes fastened around their necks during the Hajj, they'd certainly get the ultimate crash course in Islam's "teachings of peace and mercy".

"Most faiths are based on love, not hate..."

...except for Islam....

Any others come to mind?

"... their faith's teachings of peace and mercy"---

Islam, a peaceful and merciful ideology. You don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point when you're hear delusional and demented haggardish verbiage like that, specially after seeing stuff like this: http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Stevens.jpg

What Islamic teachings of peace and mercy? Golly I must have missed that chapter!
And what "hate" is this joker talking about? The hate is all one way: from Islam to the rest of us.
"Muslims eager to defend Islam"...Get real Fido, they were eager to spill blood and siezed the latest opprtunity.
"Muslims worldwide may be angered by acts of religious bigotry"...What planet is this space-waster from? Is there any group on Earth more bigoted tham Islam?
"Muslim fears of blasphemy... They first erupted on the world scene in 1989"...Try a little earlier. Like a millenium or so ago.
(I was gong to reply point by point. But..)
That's it! I've had enough of sifting through garbage.

RS "And how many peaceful, moderate Muslims have stood up and shown themselves and acted decisively and effectively against the jihadis?"
I think it was 3.
No, hang on it was 4!
No it was 3. Definitely 3.
Or it might have been 5.

Wow they sure don't Monitor islam very closely, do they ...

"How many hundreds, thousands, of articles have we seen since 9/11, calling upon the peaceful, moderate Muslims to stand up and show themselves and act decisively and effectively against the jihadis?"

And when they do stand up, they ask for a temporary truce (hudna), as per the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

'Our people like death': Brother of Al Qaeda leader Aymen al-Zawahiri, reveals 'peace plan' al-Zawahiri's six-page proposal offers a 10-year truce if the following terms are met. In brief they are:

• for the U.S. and West to stop intervening in Muslim lands
• for the U.S. to stop interfering in Muslim education
• for the U.S. to end the war on Islam
• and for the U.S. to release all Islamist prisoners.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201645/Our-people-like-death-Brother-Al-Qaeda-leader-Aymen-al-Zawahiri-reveals-peace-plan.html#ixzz26CcOOPul

I met one of these CSM journalists in Khartoum: we were interviewing the same person. I have to admit that the Sudanese Muslims are so polite and charming that one can quite easily mistake the charm and manners for the religion itself. The Muslims there OOZE charm.
Still, there is no excuse for this, yes, drivel.

Please remember that the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR is an oxymoron. It is neither Christian nor Science but a variant of old gnostic heresy.
Hence from garbage comes garbage.

First of all they must have burst a vein to state that much!!

That must have taken a lot out of them.

A *cough* congrats due!

::

That's the thing - the Left just will not admit that their view of religion is a Christian one and perhaps they deceive themselves - in trying as they may - to fit Islam into that same mold.

And most Muslims who see Islam as a religion of peace know that.

Platitudes on magic carpets!!

Each violent response should compel Muslims to assert Islam’s teaching of tolerance.

Get the Bibles out!!

Asserting Islam’s qualities of mercy and peace is the best counterpoint to such violence. Islam need not be a victim of bigotry if its adherents are steadfast about the truths it stands for.

Shows a deep lack of understanding about the ideology.

What their Muslim advisers could not [read did not have the heart to] tell them - is that these qualities of mercy and peace are for Muslims only and on conditions set out in Islam - are these to be extended to others/non-believing/infidel/ignorant/people of the book....

Of course this is in the strictness sense in Islam.


Also, those described as 'bigots' are in Islam defenders of the "truth" the way Muslims see it!!

As it has been from Islam's inception. Virtually all of Islam's territory was gained via jihad.


This article is a good step in the right direction for the CSM - we simply don't excuse this behaviour - period!!

Back in the 50's and 60's, and maybe for some time later, the CSM had been regarded by knowledgeable people, to be at the forefront in fair, balanced, and incisively accurate and well researched news coverage, having no journalistic religious bias. I think they still retain the non bias, religious wise. However, I looked over some of their coverage of matters I'm familiar with, in the last few years, on occasion, and was appalled at how far their standards have fallen. Personally, and IMHO, I've found them to have a distinct MSM leftist bias, and as this article shows, they no longer exercise knowledgeable journalism. I personally no longer waste time to read any of their drivel, and am sad for such a development, as another former light of knowledge has dimmed almost out......

As a matter of fact, there was a peaceful, pro-USA protest today in Libya.

Here's the proof: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

It's good to point that out and to see those pics. But I think such people are very much in the minority in Egypt.

A December 2010 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found widespread popular support (84%) in Egypt for death penalty as a punishment for apostasy from Islam.

All peace, as Chairman Mao puts it, grows out of the barrel of gun. When one is done with the killing, then it pays to pay off the survivors, giving them double reason for loving the peace. One without the other is a waste. And most people won't involve themselves in either pursuit, violence or money, without money being involved. Hence, peace is a rare occupation. War generally doesn't pay so well. Right-thinkin' folk do get it: Make violence pay. Give violence a religious core of any sort, and one the road to peace we be. First we win the war, and then the killing starts.

Peace is a good thing, and to have it one must rid oneself of those who would make violence against the Order. Butt Butt Butt, then we would be just like our enemies, they say with a scowl and a frown and dramatically knitted brows, the 'look' practiced in the mirror after watching 50s gladiator movies, the "really concentrating hard look" just so we all know by the signs they're serious about their deep intellectual analysis. Butt. Quite seriously, take a page from the Algerian War and kill the wankers first. All "moderates" must die if we are to have peace.Clear the board for the serious players to win or lose the game and become the Order of Peace, who cares who wins so long as it's us. We don't want to be as bad as they are, we want to be far worse so we win and they, who cares who they are, will be so devastated by our violence they will not be capable of fighting us further, and they will be so disillusioned with their previous beliefs that they will flock to the new Order because it is demonstrably stronger and therefore better and it pays cash money. This is peace. We can talk democracy and perhaps morality later, but peace first.

Kill, kill, kill, and kill face to face so the enemy can see the men killing them and have faces to fear and live to fear forever. Machines don't do that job. Killing that isn't personal, man to stronger man, is just accident. There is hope in death by machine, and that hope is in getting better machines than the enemy has. There's no fear in death by machine, only the resentment that lesser men have better toys to kill with. Kill for peace face to face and the losers will long to be on the side of the triumphant, switching sides to be a winner, becoming "one of us" against their worthless own. Then there is peace.

Maintain peace by paying and letting the people make money. Kill those who disrupt the peace of the people. Peace is money and terror. Because we must kill in grander ways to make a lasting impression, let's then forget the sentimentalities of terror and look at real peace, what I am happy to call "Horrorism." Kill till the set clay of culture is turnstatic=1

Continuing where we left off:

.... Kill till the set clay of culture is turned to dust, and then remold the work of man into a new figure according to ones liking, the peaceful man. To the dust of the pulverized defeated add the water of cash. One can create the peaceful man therefrom. Smash, smash, smash till all that was the Good is now the Horror. Then let the survivors become us and make a peaceful life of making money.

Why do any such good thing for the world? No reason if it doesn't pay. So make it pay. Kill for money. Make lots of money killing the enemy, and then there will be perhaps even an excess of killing. But better too much peace than too little. Peace is a good thing, and it is especially good if one can make a living at it. One needn't count on another's good heartedness, one can simply go out and make good money, the Good coming from the happenstance of Horror.

Islam will be the religion of peace when we have destroyed the Muslim will to live as they do now. That is, exercise Horrorism. Make money by being masters of horror who bring a longer peace. Some might call it murder. I say, "Off with their heads, these monsters who would prolong the violence." Kill till the enemy is so sick of blood they just can't take it anymore. St. Augustine argues roughly that, and I find myself becoming happy about Christianity in the thinking about it. Massacre is pity. Slaughter is mercy. Killing is charity. Why bother? Because it should make one rich as well. And then the world will also have some peace, including the world of Islam. Peace is a good thing, and those who are against it, no matter what they say, should be killed. Killing is sometimes a good thing, and really good if it pays well, too.

The sentimentalist is a monster who must be slain. The true humanitarian is a butcher. Make it pay and butchers will come a running. Then there will be long peace till we have to do it all over again. Peace. I love peace. Kill our enemies and we will have peace. Kill them all and we will have lasting peace. Long live peace.

The editors of the CSM fail to realize that the meanings of words like 'truth', 'justice', 'oppression', 'corruption', 'freedom', 'mercy' and 'peace', when used by Muslims, are quite different from the meanings associated with those words by most non-Muslims whether western or non-western.

Islamspeak throws Orwell's Newspeak quite into the shade.

A few terms are explained here.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html
Islamic Dictionary for Infidels
An illuminating new piece from the European essayist Wolfgang Bruno

Example:

'"Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia.

The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.

'Bassam Tibi explains:

"First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them.

"The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to the entire world," explained Tibi...".

:

Nazis must reaffirm Mein Kampf's teachings on goodwill, kumbaya and cuddly fluffiness to prove that the holocaust was just a momentary abberation carried out by a tiny minority of Nazis who had misunderstood Hitler's message.

>"Muslims must assert their faith's teachings of peace and mercy as the answer to such hate"

What teachings of peace and mercy?? Don't these idiots know that all of these were abrogated by the murderous orders of Mo/allah in Medina!!

Oh, there are so many useful idiots in the West who always help Muslims with free pass and avoid taking all responsibility of their murderous, vicious atrocities they inflict on humans!!

The article is yet another example of the appalling ignorance--or rather, denial of the true nature of Islam--that afflicts the Left today. (Right now we're seeing the dangerous consequences of this mindset when it infects not just journalists, but also the White House and the State Department.) The fact is that NOT everybody on the face of the earth, and certainly NOT every "religion," shares the values and attitudes that we take as givens.

As a Roman Catholic, I find the core doctrine of Christian Science--that modern medicine is superfluous for a Believer--to be absurd, and easily refuted by observable reality. But it would never occur to me to cut off a Christian Scientist's head for holding this belief.

An Episcopalian wouldn't think of putting a bomb in a Congregational church--but a Sunni wouldn't hesitate to do that to a Shiite mosque (and would confidently insist that it was Allah's Will that he do so!).

Did Christians riot, burn, and murder at the spectacle of a Crucifix bubbling in a jar of urine? Of course not. But Moslems do exactly that at any "insult," real or imagined, to Mohammed, or the slightest "disrespect" for the Koran.

Christ forgave His tormenters as He died on the Cross, and prayed for them; Mohammed, in contrast, urged his followers to behead their enemies and enslave their wives as concubines.

Jesus also, famously, saved and forgave "the woman caught in adultery," with the gentle admonition, "Go, and sin no more," after shaming the mob who were about to stone her. Mohammedans, in murderous contrast, to this day, brand rape victims as "adulteresses" deserving death--either at the hands of the mob, or at the hands of their own fathers and brothers.

Need any more examples of the stark differences between the doctrines of Islam and those of the civilized world? They are legion, and not at all hard to find. Just check the news, any day of the week.

This is an important point. There are words that are common to many languages, but mean different things to the different peoples using a particular word. Even pronouncing a word in another's language incorrectly can cause confusion and/or anger. Such as Lucy while trying Spanish in Cuba when speaking to Ricky's uncle.

But in cases like this, it is even more important. Their words do not have the same meaning when spoken by non-muslims as is shown when pointing out what the koran says without the worshipful attitude of muslims. When they say them, it is "good and true" but when non-muslims say the same things, suddenly, the words are "insulting lies."

When using *our* words, whether such as racist, bigoted,insulting or as in peace, goodwill, and esp freedom, they speak with totally different meanings for those words.

If one is to comment to the edification of others, they should know of what they speak. Understanding should be present first before putting pen to paper or fingers to keys.
Research is necessary. This is a good site to do some of it.

Thanks for your always educational comments.


********************************

What I would ask the writer of the CSM article is this: Muslims say they are over a billion strong and some claim that it is only a "tiny minority" that do such things as we see daily, but how many, out of the rest of the billion have ever stood up and showed the world the "peace and justice and love" that the writer claims to be part of islam?

'Moderate' Muslims do exist but they are a rare species and never speak out for fear of incurring the wrath of the REAL followers of the example set by Muhammad.

I wonder what Mary Baker Eddy would say if she were alive today, just as I wonder what George Fox (the first Quaker) would say if he saw Friends praying with Adolph Hitler. Christian Science used to be Christian. The Society of Friends also used to be Christian. Both have fallen away from Christ. Without Christ in the picture, there is no transforming power.

Go, and sin no more
How sweat. the result is
1. Millions of single moms in christian world
2. Fathers are spem donors. After few night stand
3. when there is no need for warm--- father leaves and no where to be found.
4. Millions of abortions every year.
5. child has no father figure
6. child grows up to be a criminal
7. prisons revolving door
8. STDS herpes life sentense AIDS death sentense
9. failure of churches

decay of christian societies

decay baby decay
Glory be to Allah and peace on his messenger.

Observe the disgusting mohammedan can cho above, attributing to Christianity - and specifically to Jesus' refusal to stone the woman who was accused of adultery - the past one or two decades of somewhat lax morality in some parts of the western world.

And can cho, meanwhile, blithely ignores the murder of girls and women that is rife throughout Islamic societies - murders that can be based on nothing more than the perfervid imaginings of control-freak males, or on malicious gossip - and the incredible S & M-level violence continually practised against them (the marital rapes, the beatings); he ignores the wedding and bedding, by much older men, of little prepubescent girls, whose immature bodies are ripped to pieces either by forced marital relations or by a pregnancy and childbirth that happens when they are too young to sustain it - 'Brides of Death', they are called, in Yemen. And he hopes we won't notice the polygyny, and the rampant sodomy, and the 'temporary marriages' in the Shiite world (that are, basically, prostitution by any other name), and the misyar or 'travellers' marriage'...or the fact that nikkah simply means ...f***ing.

For all its faults, Christendom has largely attempted, and for centuries has in general achieved, monogamy; and there have been many, many faithful marriages. I am the child of such a marriage. I am *in* such a marriage. So are many, many, many people I know, both Christian and non-Christian.

can cho's feverish imaginings of the supposed moral rot of the western world are greatly exaggerated... and pale in comparison to the abominable brutality and cruelty and ceaseless vicious daily war on women and girls by swaggering male thugs that fill dar al Islam - like some vast S & M brothel - from end to end.

It was Muslim women, not Dutch women, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali found filling the abortion clinics and the women's shelters in the Netherlands.

A study on family violence in the UK, conducted in the early 1990s, found that women married to Muslims were *eight times more likely* to be killed by their husbands, than any other women in Britain.

Superior Muslim morality? When a father has the right to KILL his daughter because she doesn't want to wear the slave rag? PUKE. SPIT.

And Islam avidly promotes and sacralises polygyny...which is an unmitigated social and economic disaster.

Recently, some academics at the University of British Columbia, Canada, did a study: they looked at the broad social indicators of societies that permitted polygyny and societies that did not, both contemporary and historic, and also at the changes that had taken place in societies that had formerly permitted polygyny but had then banned it and enforced the ban (one can see the transition, for example, in China: just read Jung Chang's Wild Swans; if China had continued to permit polygyny the result of their self-inflicted 'girl drought' would be ten times worse than it already is).
Conclusion: broadly speaking, if you want long-term social stability and wellbeing - especially of women and children - monogamy is the gold standard.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/40214
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9041460/Monogamy-safer-than-polygamy.html
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
From The Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society
Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
University of British Columbia | January 25, 2012
Summary: "In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage."...
"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.
"According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
“The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan.
T'he greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says...'.
And by way of contrast:
'Monogamous marriage... results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds.
"These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct “blood relatedness” in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia’s Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.'
Here's the abstract:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.abstract
But there *is* a way you can read the whole thing (or was, as of this morning)
Go to this link:
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/
When it opens, scroll down to the bottom where it says:
"View the study, 'the puzzle of monogamous marriage, at...".
and click on the link there provided
which will allow you to view the *whole* thing in its original scholarly form, footnotes and all.
I would advise you, if you're interested, to print it off; perhaps several copies, and keep up your sleeve, as it may come in handy.

You are really dumb. I took out (ledoresarmy) from your name. why because you do not know bible. If polygamy is so undesirable then why Abraham and Jacob were polygamist. Jesus came to withhold the law ( bible ) not to break it. If he were to live longer he too would have been a polygamyst. The reaosn he let go the woman who was accused of illegal sex was because she was innocent. why because the group of jews who brought her to Jesus actually wanted to test jesus. If they really wanted justis they would have brought the man as well who engaged in sexual relationhip with that woman. I am glad you acknowledge the immorality of western christian world. Muslims are living happily all over the world. Your opinion and pesudo research is nothing but Voodoo. Do not go to church the priest may sodomize you.

I know the Bible better than you do. Much, much better. I am, after all, a Christian, and I have been practising my faith actively - and reading and rereading my Bible, and other texts - since I was twelve.

I know the text that Jesus cited when he talked about marriage. "A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his *wife* ' (NOT 'WIVES') and *they two* shall be one flesh. It's in Genesis.

I also know that although Jacob had two wives and two concubines, Moses - *the* one to whom God gave the Torah - had only one. And so did Isaac; there was only ever Rebekah for him.

And I know that the Biblical portrayal of the polygamy of *some* - not all - of certain major historic figures is not pretty. It portrays jealousy and unhappiness and murderous rivalry between the sons of different wives, all the ugly things that polygyny always breeds. It does not *command* polygyny. It does not obligate polygyny. It allows one to see that polygyny is a disaster, and best avoided.

If Abraham and Sarah had trusted God fully, Abraham would never have had sex with Hagar at all. There is *no* suggestion in the book of Genesis that Abraham had ever had sex with Hagar, until Sarah suggested that he do so in order to get a son. And there is no suggestion that he kept on using her as a concubine, after she had Ishmael; none whatsoever. In the end, he sent her away - it could be said that he *freed* her. And Abraham did not marry his second wife, Keturah, until *after* Sarah had died; he was widowed, and then he remarried. So strictly speaking, Abraham was not polygamous in the way that Mohammed was, or that many a Muslim man is.

And all orthodox Christians, Eastern or Western, *never* practised polygyny. The simple reason for that is that *one wife* is what Christianity has always taught...obeying Jesus' teaching. You, mohammedan, know NOTHING about Jesus. You do not know him at all. You know a made-up thing called 'Isa' that is a fake and a fraud and has NOTHING in common with the Jesus that I know from the Christian scriptures which are *hundreds of years older* than the oldest surviving manuscripts of Mohammedan plagiarism and foe-fic.

Rabbi Jesus - Yeshua, Yehoshua, my resurrected and ascended Lord - was and is a Jew, born in Judea, brought up in Galilee. I don't think he got the idea of monogamy out of thin air. I believe him to be the incarnate Son of God, the Living Word, the Word made flesh; I also believe that he was fully human and fully Jewish, and so, humanly speaking, his teaching on marriage must be connected with and consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith in which he grew up. (You, Mohammedan, also understand NOTHING about Judaism).

Although Judaism did not formally and explicitly forbid polygyny until about 1000, in practice most Jews seem to have been monogamous pretty much along with the Christians, from the time of Christ, onward. And monogamy is consistent with the dignity of the human being.

And it is *you* who are misreading the story of the woman taken in adultery. Why would Jesus tell her to 'go, **and sin no more**", if she had not sinned in the first place?

Throughout the whole of Christian exegesis of this story, it has always been assumed that she *did* do it; and that the man involved must have run away and not been caught; and that Jesus chose to *forgive* her...and to release her from her sins. When he tells her, 'go, and sin no more', he is, I think, giving her the ability to live a new life; to be free of old wrongdoing. Just as he told a cripple to 'take up your bed, and walk'; he gives the person the power to do what he has just commanded. She is **forgiven**. I am quite sure that she walked away a new, free woman. And, by the way, throughout the whole of Christian history, NO theologian has EVER taught that adultresses - or adulterers - should be executed. And this story is why. The life-giving authority of Jesus is so powerful that it has governed the way Christians think about this matter, in all traditions of Christianity, ever since.

But you wouldn't understand that. You can't understand that, because there is in Islam NO forgiveness at all. Only ugly, vicious vengefulness, denial of responsibility for one's own evil and continual scapegoating of others. *You* come from a 'culture' that stones women for having been *raped*. *You* come from a 'culture' in which men beat and rape their wives, and divorce them with just three words.

Mohammed is about death. You are a death-worshipper, Mohammedan, worshipping death, eager to hammer a living woman to death with rocks, or to slit her throat for a breach of your nonexistent 'honor'.

Yeshua of Nazareth is about life, and gives life, forgiveness, peace and healing; and freedom. Freedom to fail; but freedom also to get up again, and be changed, and become a new person. That is the risk that we take. Freedom, and change, and life.

We live, and seek to give life.

You...kill, and kill, and kill, and kill, and kill; and your world withers into dust and ashes around you.

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