Mehdi Hasan tries, fails to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion

Mehdi Hasan (like so many Islamic supremacist spokesmen) refuses to debate me, so I will debate his recent Oxford Union appearance, in which he argues that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Hasan begins by apologizing to Anne-Marie Waters, one of those who was arguing that Islam was not peaceful. He apologizes for the Bali bombing, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, and more, and then says, voice dripping with irony, “Yes, that was all of us, that was the Qur’an, that was Islam…” The camera cuts to Waters shaking her head, as she is apparently aware that Hasan is indulging in a common rhetorical trick that Islamic supremacists employ: to claim that those who point out that the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic law teach violence against unbelievers are blaming all Muslims collectively for the misdeeds of a few. No one of any significance in this debate actually does this, but it is a slick diversionary tactic. It is, however, completely empty of any real substance. To see why, imagine if a Christian behaved in a way that was merciful and forgiving (hard as that may be to imagine for some), and someone pointed out that Christ taught mercy and forgiveness, so that the Christian’s actions accorded with Christ’s teaching — and then the Mehdi Hasan figure in this analogy said, “Oh, you’re saying that all Christians are merciful and forgiving.” What Hasan is saying here is equally absurd.

Hasan then invokes “the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” who he says has declared “these views” to be “anathema.” He is apparently referring to Cameron’s statement that “there is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror.” But this is just another rhetorical trick, again devoid of substance. For surely Hasan would not argue that the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom confers upon one some special knowledge of Islam. And Cameron is not known for being a scholar of Islam: if a Prime Minister who had studied just as much about Islam as Cameron has, or more, were ever to say that Islam was not a religion of peace, Hasan would not be repeating his views as if they carried weight, but would condemn him for his ignorance. Consequently, this is just an argument from authority, which is the weakest of all arguments — particularly when the authority in question is not even an authority on the matter at hand.

Hasan then implies that Waters’ views would be welcomed by the openly racist British National Party — again retailing the numbingly familiar charge that opposition to jihad and Islamic supremacism constitutes racism. To that I repeat my numbingly familiar response: what race is jihad terror against innocent civilians again? I keep forgetting. Then we hear about the Muslim who discovered algorithms — yet another rhetorical trick, since inventions or discoveries by Muslims say nothing one way or another about whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion. Or can one not make mathematical discoveries if one adheres to a religion that teaches warfare?

Hasan also says that there would have been no Renaissance or Reformation (he probably means Enlightenment) in Europe without the role of the Muslim philosophers Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd). Very well; then why wasn’t there a Renaissance or Enlightenment in Muslim countries with Avicenna and Averroes? Because they were condemned as heretics, and philosophical exploration withered in the Islamic world. Al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers argued that the philosophers were heretics who should be put to death. Averroes countered with The Incoherence of the Incoherence, but the damage was done, and it was left to the West to figure out what to do with the algorithms and philosophical discoveries of which Hasan is so proud, while Muslims largely ignored or condemned them. Hasan doesn’t touch on that rather obvious fact.

With a great flourish, Hasan then says: “Modern antisemitism in the Middle East was imported from — finish the sentence? — Christian, Judeo-Christian Europe, where I believe certain bad things happened to the Jewish people.” That Christian antisemitism existed and still exists in some quarters is undeniable. That Christians participated in the Holocaust is undeniable. But Hasan’s claim that Islamic antisemitism is an import from Christian Europe is false. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, didn’t live in Berlin during World War II, make broadcasts for the National Socialists, and raise up a Muslim SS division because he had been influenced by Christian antisemitism. He did all that and more because his Qur’an told him that the Jews were the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82), were under the curse of Allah (9:30), had been transformed by Allah into apes and pigs (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); etc. He did it because he read in the Hadith Muhammad saying that the end times would not come until Muslims killed Jews and the Jews hid behind trees, and the trees would cry out, “Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” (Sahih Muslim 6985). The Qur’an and Hadith are loaded with antisemitic material, and Muslims who believe in the Qur’an and Hadith have behaved in antisemitic ways throughout history. Hasan quoted Thomas Friedman as telling him that if Muslims had controlled Europe, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. That may be true. The chief drivers of the Holocaust, however, were not Christians, but Social Darwinist atheist materialistic relativists. Christianity doesn’t actually teach that mass murder is justified any more than Islam does. The six million might still be alive, however, not because of some Islamic belief in general human dignity — it has no such belief, but instead teaches that “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another but harsh to the unbelievers” (Qur’an 48:29). They would be alive in a Muslim Europe because they would be needed to pay the jizya, the tax that historically financed the great Islamic empires. Certainly this is preferable in all respects to mass murder, but it is not quite equivalent to an enlightened belief in the universal dignity of the human person.

Then we get the familiar tu quoque indictments of Christianity: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the anti-Jewish pogroms, etc. Again: even if Christianity were the most evil, hateful and violent belief system on earth, that wouldn’t establish anything either way about whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion or not. Of course, Hasan is trying to say that all religions, or at least Christianity, have followers that commit violence in their name, and so no judgments can be made on that basis. And it’s true: the question of whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion can only be established by an examination of the canonical texts and teachings of Islam, not by the behavior of individual Muslims (or Christians). That’s because one cannot be sure that any individual believer is acting in accord with the teachings of the religion without examining those teachings. When one examines them, one finds that Christians committing violence in the name of Christ were violating the teachings of Christianity, and that Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam were acting in accord with the teachings of the Qur’an and Muhammad. I am sure Mehdi Hasan would disagree with that statement, but he says nothing whatsoever in this video to disprove it. When he invokes the attacks on abortion clinics, he fails to note that there is not a single Church or Christian authority who supports such attacks. Yet some of the leading Muslim clerics worldwide, such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, endorse Jew-hatred, jihad violence, jihad-martyrdom suicide attacks, etc. Hasan, of course, does not mention that.

Hasan says that 113 out of the 114 chapters of the Qur’an begin by introducing the god of Islam as a god of mercy and compassion. He doesn’t mention that the one chapter that does not, sura 9, is the one that contains the verse of the sword (“slay the pagans wherever you find them” — 9:5) as well as the verse calling on Muslims to wage war against and subjugate Jews and Christians (9:29). He admits that Islam is not a pacifistic religion, and that the Qur’an contains verses that enjoin war and violence, and says that “a minority of Muslims” take those verses out of context. But he doesn’t explain what that context is; instead, he shifts ground to point out that the people who are arguing against his proposition are not experts on Islam, and invokes Robert Pape, who argued that most suicide terror is committed by non-Muslims. Not only is Pape wrong; he’s on the dole of Hamas-linked CAIR.

After that comes another familiar charge: that those who argue that Islam is not peaceful are agreeing with jihad terrorists: “Osama bin Laden would be nodding along,” he says, to everything that those who argued that Islam was not peaceful had said. This is yet another rhetorical trick, not a real argument. For without establishing that bin Laden is wrong about Islam, which Hasan hasn’t done, it’s just a kind of guilt-by-association tactic: This evil person believes what you believe, therefore your belief must be wrong. He goes on to say that mainstream Muslims don’t agree with bin Laden, but even if that is correct, truth isn’t established by a majority vote, either. The question of whether or not bin Laden’s actions accord with Islamic teaching can only be established by examining Islamic teaching, not by taking a vote among Muslims who, like all people when they vote, are influenced by a huge variety of factors — and those factors may not have anything to do with what Islam teaches. Hasan then tried to establish that Islam teaches peace by invoking several Islamic scholars. Embarrassingly for him, one of those whom he invokes is Sheikh Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, who has indeed issued a fatwa against terrorism. He is also a chief framer of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws, which have been used to victimize countless Christians in Pakistan. Not exactly a shining example of a peaceful Islamic teacher.

Extrapolating from the teachings of the two scholars he invokes, Hasan says that mainstream Islam doesn’t teach that one should go out and “kill people willy-nilly in the high street, or anywhere else, on a bus or a mall, based on verses of the Qur’an that you cherry-picked without any context, any understanding, any interpretation, or any commentary.” He doesn’t address, however, the point that the Woolwich jihad murderer, Mujahid Adebolajo, made: that the Qur’an tells Muslims to fight those who fight them. He saw Lee Rigby, a soldier who had fought in Afghanistan, not as an innocent non-combatant — in other words, not as one of the people Hasan is saying that Islam says not to fight — but as one who was making war against Islam. Is this interpretation correct or not? Hasan doesn’t say. He doesn’t talk about it at all.

Hasan says shortly thereafter that there are different interpretations of what Sharia is, and that “you empower the extremists” by saying that there is only one version of Sharia. This is yet another familiar claim, advanced by the likes of Reza Aslan and others. It ignores the fact that wherever and whenever Sharia is implemented, be it Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, or elsewhere, it looks pretty much the same: stonings, amputations, death for apostasy, subjugation of women, etc. To claim that it is nebulous beyond definition reminds me of a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party whom I knew in college. She claimed that true communism had never been seen anywhere, not in the Soviet Union, not in Communist China, not anywhere. This was just a dodge in order to avoid having the atrocities of Communist regimes laid at Marxism’s feet. So also is Hasan’s claim here just a dodge to try to prevent the atrocities of Sharia regimes from being attributed to Sharia. The striking similarities of Sharia regimes across the globe, however, argue against him.

If Islam is what is motivating jihad terrorists, he concludes, “why aren’t the rest of us doing it?” This is the crowning point of his case: that “99.99% of Muslims” aren’t committing acts of jihad terror. If Islam isn’t peaceful, why aren’t the vast majority of Muslims behaving violently? But this is an absurd point. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. Yet polls consistently show that the vast majority of Catholics use contraception. Does this mean that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that contraception is sinful? No, it simply means that the vast majority of Catholics have other priorities and influences aside from Church authority. So also do most Muslims have other priorities and influences beyond Islamic teaching. Most people of all religions just want to live their lives and be left alone. This is ultimately irrelevant to what Islam teaches.

Hasan concludes by reiterating that to say that Islam is not a peaceful religion would be a manifestation of bigotry. No: the question of whether or not Islam is peaceful is a question of fact. If it is true, it is true. Calling it bigotry doesn’t make it any less true.

Mehdi Hasan in this speech has shown himself utterly bereft of any actual arguments to establish that Islam is a religion of peace. No wonder he won’t debate me.

Robert Spencer to debate Muslim scholars on "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" at Michigan conference
"They treated us like infidels"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Britain: “Rape Jihad” Against Children

    “As one police officer said to me, ‘There isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.’ We should start from the assumption that children are being sexually exploited right the way across the country.” ” Sue Berelowitz, Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England.

    According to government estimates that are believed to be “just the tip of the iceberg,” at least 2,500 British children have so far been confirmed to be victims of grooming gangs, and another 20,000 children are at risk of sexual exploitation. At least 27 police forces are currently investigating 54 alleged child grooming gangs across England and Wales.

    Judge Peter Rook, who presided over the trial that ended on June 27 at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales (aka the Old Bailey), sentenced five of the men to life in prison and ordered them to serve a minimum of between 12 and 20 years before becoming eligible for parole.

    Rook said the severity of the jail terms — which are longer than those in other high-profile grooming cases such as those in Rochdale, Derby and Telford — were meant to send a message to abusers that they would be targeted and brought to justice.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3846/britain-child-grooming

    Read it all. As for sending out a message. Bah! Too little, and far far too late. I estimate that over 10,000 little girls have been systematically gang raped, each hundreds of times over. There is no parallel in history in any nation, where a bunch of impoverished immigrants have been allowed into a country, and then been allowed to rape little girls. It is inconceivable that the authorities did not know, as they claim. They knew.

    And now they are trying to brush it under the carpet. Of course they are doing their best to sweep it under the carpet – the matter is of such huge national shame, that they have no option but to.

  2. says

    The debunking of the supposed Golden Age of Islam in Spain.

    We have traditionally been told that the first two centuries of the Spanish Emirate, supposedly founded in 756 by Abd’ er Rahman I, constituted a veritable Golden Age of Spanish history. And indeed the opulence and prosperity of Spain during these years is contrasted very favorably with the poverty and ignorance of Christian Europe in the same period.

    http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/07/the-rain-in-spain-falls-on-a-mythical-past/

    Read it all.

  3. says

    Not much can be expected of poorly trained, intellectually ill equipped and objectively lacking individuals. Mr. hasan is clearly unable to provide clear, concise and objective arguments supporting his claim, much less any solid theological or philosophical evidence to counter the violent core components of islamic texts. He spends his time talking on and on and on, but covered absolutely nothing objective to strengthen his claim – pertaining to the ROP label. A hack a best.

  4. says

    I’m glad he brought up Hitler, in light of the comparison to Mohammed I have some food for thought.

    One of Mohammed’s last edicts was to cleanse the Arabian peninsula of Jews. Muslims went on the revere and elevate Mohammed to demi-God. And have for the most part extrapolated his edict to cleanse far al Islam of Jews.

    Europeans crushed Hitler and his army, then tossed him into the dust bin of history.

  5. says

    I gave up expecting Islam to ever adequately defend itself ten years ago after watching Robert Morey mop the floor – repeatedly – with Jamal Badawi. Everything I’ve seen since has been so equally embarrassing (or should be) that I’m surprised Muslims haven’t issued a fatwa against engaging in recorded debates.

  6. says

    Mehdi Hasan, a slime-bomber with a machine-gun mouth.

    Just goes to show that even the best education is no cure for the mental disease of Islam.

    Even without semtex up his arse he is so full of it he almost explodes.

    Mehdi Hasan proves that a perfectly good western education is totally wasted on him and his ilk.

    Education only enables these morons to become better Mohammedan agitprops, better da’awa peddlers like Tariq Ramadan, and educated hijackers like Mohammed Atta.

  7. says

    Islam is built on a foundation of lies and disinformation. This creton won’t debate you Robert because I suspect he knows he would lose. You deal with the truth and reality, Muslims like this just spin lies.

    I am getting sick and tired of Muslims denouncing any criticism of Islam as ‘racist’. How about their nonstop vilification of the Jews and Christians?

  8. says

    Great deconstruction of Hasan’s deceptive spiel Robert. Mehdi Hasan is a supremacist, here he is in a short 45 second video attacking Atheists as Kufar:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APAPqT3QdFU

    To think this deceiver is an advisor to Ed Miliband…oh wait a minute, that’s actually not surprising at all considering the number of Labour MP’s you see hugging a genocidally bent maniac these days.

    Hasan portrayed the Crusades as an offensive war by the Christians, I saw a very informative video by Bill Warner that puts the Crusades into a context I was never taught at school. It’s 45 minutes long, but I think it’s worth anyone’s time: ‘Why are we afraid, a 1400 year secret’.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

  9. says

    His entire schpiel is weak, because he comes off as a fast-talking car salesman, too intent on selling you damaged goods.

    But intellectually, his achilles heel lies in this, simple problem:

    Hasan and others of his ilk keep trying to convince of two things:

    1.) That Muslim terrorists who commit acts of violence have somehow misinterpreted their own faith. Yet, he fails to explain the elements of that supposed misinterpretation, and why, for instance, that misinterpretation seems to be “accomplished” with the same results – violence, killing and subjugation.

    2.) The apologists tell us that we are “taking a particular verse out of context”, when we point out the glaring abnormalities in the Q’uran and Hadith. Again – EXACTLY WHAT IS THE CONTEXT from which we are incorrectly extracting? What is that OTHER CONTEXT?

    ________________________________________

    Hasan, like all the others, fails this most simple test of logic. If he is so sure THAT we are taking things out of context, then he should be equally sure of exactly WHAT that “correct” context would be.

    He cannot and will not debate these points, however, because he is using a type of circular logic that he knows very will is unsound, and if explored, will lead right back to the same, two questions posed above.

  10. says

    Dear Pr. Robert,
    Thank you first for putting your life on the line for the sake of our freedom. There is no way we can pay you for this sacrifice Sir.
    This young man cannot debate you because quran is not his field. Please do forget that you are the top leading expert in today’s planet when it comes to quran. If he is not happy with your position let him discuss the issue with imam Yunus.
    GOD BLESS AND PROTECT you Pr. Robert

  11. says

    Muslims are allergic to the truth about Islam and so they lie like a sieve. They follow taqiyya in their life whethr or not they are defneding Islam. It is their habit – lie, cheat and deceit before they go to the next stage of threaten, invade, loot, rape and murder!! Only if you meet them head on with force these cowards will run away but treat them nicely and they will be all over you!!

  12. says

    Oh the context thing!! When we explain Quranic rantings, we take it out of context. Yeah, right!! Muslims can’t explain context because they don’t know it for themselves.

    Muslims don’t know that the whole Quran is out of context. Rantings of a lunatic cannot be logical. If they say the archangel Jibrail told Mo allah’s message then either allah is a raving lunatic and doesn’t know what is talking about(what is the context) or Jibrail messed it all up and finally Mo himself is allah and ranting like alunatic. Take your pick, Muslims won’t understand this simple logic!!

  13. says

    Big thanks Robert for your comments! People like Mehdi Hassan are the greatest problem at the moment. They confuse everyone and make our social elites misperceive the threat of Islam for our civilization. You were needed there to destroy his arguments and explain everyone the way things are with Islam.

  14. says

    Brilliant refutation, Mr. Spencer. Absolutely brilliant.

    All those who cherish liberty and other good things, like equality under the law and a true Golden Rule for all, owe a debt to Robert Spencer, a warrior like few others in our time.

  15. says

    Robert

    Thanks for the education!

    No wonder,with your knowledge people do not want to debate you.

    This is the only way you can counter their lies usually to the “West”,(to people who do not understand Islam),including the “golden age” business.

    “Hasan is indulging in a common rhetorical trick that Islamic supremacists employ: to claim that those who point out that the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Islamic law teach violence against unbelievers are blaming all Muslims collectively for the misdeeds of a few.”

    Yes, Robert this is the first thing Muslims do and is very common.” Are we all responsible?”” You are blaming us all?”they say.

  16. says

    Robert , you will love this argument from authority.

    Some people will need to go to logic school and learn how to argue.

    -resort to the hackneyed swear-words

    -far from being serious academicians they are cynical politicians hawking ad hoc or plausible explanations in the service of a party line.

    -professors who are patronized by such platforms.

    -Big Lie being spread

    QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MARXIST PROFESSORS

    http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm

  17. says

    Hassan sounds like a prattling chimp with a bad case of OCD. He spews out so much garbage at once that he’s like a duck hunter that uses a scatter-gun with hope of hitting something, rather than a sniper that knows its target and uses one shot for a clean kill.
    His rantings on abortion clinic bombings must be from what he saw in the many DVD box sets for US fantasy TV shows where a clinic is bombed each week.
    I did some of my own research for how great muslim were to contribute to the world. I found out that it was Dhimmi’s under islamic oppressive reigns that gave us many great thing while today’s muslims try to lay claim to it as Islamic Inventions.
    The muslim have the moon as part of their faith but haven’t been there like non-muslims have, islamic has yet to produce ,via its follower, any Airplane equal to a 747.

    Hassan leave out the misogyny and pedophilia by his prophet that the alleged 1.6 billion followers bow to.
    he leave out how 6 billion people on earth live in fear of being slaughtered for NOt embracing islam as we see almost every week
    on Jihad videos and death threats to infidels.

    Gee, Hassan managed to fill part of the hall with like minded muslims that cheer during his racists and bigotted rants, this tactic is used by NAMBLA when they fill a room with fellow Pedophilies and kiddie-porn supporter so they can get cheers and support for their twisted view of reality and also validate there lust for child romances.
    Where were the female muslims that feel safe to NOT wear the hijab,where were Hassan rainbow flag fans to show support for iran and Gaza where gays are murdered in public, how about the Afghans that fled a 99.4% muslim nation.
    Big deal that he found enough useful idiots in the UK to back his sick and pathetic Stand-up farce where he himself cites his versions of history and islam.
    Lets see him try to gather 5000 muslims to do a peace march and denounce Armed-Jihad, or use the media to prove the Rigby shariah murder did NOT cite the Quranic verses. It’s too late for his ilk to to bang the Taqqiyah drums when the Intenet and Social media videos prove islamic hatred and violence is real and is practised by millions and not his “Few” as he likes to mock as more jihadists slaughter even other muslims.
    You know he’s in trouble when he links Hitler to Christian Europe as many desperate muslims do to deflect the mass-slaughters don’t in allah’s name.
    As for Shariah Law that he denies is anywhere, tell that to Sheema Khan from CAIR-canada because she crusaded for it in canada and said it gave more rights to females and citizens that canada’s current system. Meanwhile she was in canada saying that and not some islamic hell hole that would put her in a beeKeeper suit and flog her for any offence to allah or islam.

  18. says

    The most worrisome thing about that clip for me was the amount of applause Hasan received. People actually CLAPPED when he said such lies and nonsense? Dear me…

  19. says

    I really think we need to stop fretting about the A word so much, as Spencer continues to do. If one must feel it necessary to dismiss the canard, just say “I didn’t say ‘all Muslims’…” and leave it at that. Don’t provide the opposition with firewood for your burning at the stake, for crying out loud.

    The fact is, that too many Muslims around the world are showing signs — to anyone who still has the faculty of reason — of enabling, if not outright supporting, the kind of fanaticism that is leading to Islamic violence all over the world, ranging from terror attacks, to sharia punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, to honor killings, to riots, to guerrilla warfare; and on and on and on.

    To continue to walk on eggshells and with fastidiously gingerly care avoid this problem of Muslims in high numbers spread out all over the world in over 60 countries showing these signs is… not only silly; it is self-defeating, and, most of all:

    it is not working. Look at Spencer’s banning from the UK; from McManus’s venue, from Soto’s venue. Obviously, Spencer’s consistently cautious avoidance of the A word isn’t helping him.

    And that’s because the opposition knows that the problem goes beyond a Tiny Minority of Extremists. They know it, but they recoil from its logic — and they punish anyone who keeps trying to remind them of the facts. They even punish someone who keeps claiming that he doesn’t mean “all Muslims”.

    Really; how much longer are we going to keep putting care over the truth…?

  20. says

    Dear Robert,

    just want to congratulate you for this brilliant essay, which shows your very great logical skills (and patience!).

    Thank you for working so hard to protect our freedom from Islam. One day your awareness of the danger it poses to the world will surely become mainstream wisdom.

  21. says

    Dear Robert

    As a Muslim that follows the teaching of the quran I totally disagree with the vile putrid hate that you are spewing. However, you are entitled to your opinion regardless of how misguided is. As with all those people who are looking class islam as evil you are just going with the masses opinion. I bet you dont even know what jihad means,the popular misconception is holy war when in fact it means to suffer and strive please check it up.

    As for debating their is a scholar called Dr Zakir Naik who is schooled in not just the quran but the torah the bible etc etc i would love for you to debate with him to see how you would fair.

    As for islam is not about peace please look around the world to see the atrocities that are befalling muslims because of the American government for 911 Americans have killed millions of innocent muslims man woman and child raped and pillaged their homes but obviously thats not an issue, because they are muslims. The hypocrisy ofball of you is un believable I just pray allah opens your eyes to the real truth that muslims are peaceful and just like in any walks of life there are idiors that given relugion race and culture a bad name

  22. says

    Oh just like to add that all these terror attacks have one popular theme running through them and that is the murder rape pillage etc etc of innocent muslims in Palestine Afghanistan Iran Iraq but obviously you can’t be objective just use these idiot extremist examples tobfuel fire to the hatred I and many other peaceful muslims have to endure because a small section of idiots

  23. says

    Although difficult to find as the western media doesnt depict the plight of Muslims just the aggression here are a couple of links to things happening right now to muslims which I am sure everyone here will ignore

    http://clip.dj/american-soldiers-raped-tortured-killed-a-women-in-iraq-download-mp3-mp4-_6nKlPw3rhU

    I will try and find some better examples shortly. I just have one question to ask I am stating islam is a peaceful religion you believe its not but has anyone of ypu really sat down and looked at why there is so many terror attacks by these fanatic muslims? I am not asking anyone to change their views but all I would ask is please sit down and look at why this happens, consider the story that you are not being told and then make a judgement if you still believe its a religion of hate and evil although I would disagree I would respect your views do some research every story has two sides and you ate making your conclusion based on one side of yhe story

  24. says

    Robert, please do a critical piece regarding the proliferation of graphic islamic videos on YouTube. Specifically from the likes of mrhaSSanmohammed. He has detailed movies of people having their heads cut off while still alive. Images of literally dozens of people being shot in the head at point blank range, IRA execution style.
    These videos are not being removed by YouTube or the security forces who have been alerted. It may be that they are left as traps to follow links to his supporters but it really is disgusting.
    Perhaps Mehdi Hasan would care to reconcile these brazen barbaric videos with his religion of gruesome pieces.

  25. says

    No one should say reflecting on the struggle to save humanity that doing good and submitting to the command of Allah (or whatever you may call Him)is peace. Why did Abel loose his life? Why did Noah spent 40 days in his ship? Why was Abraham thrown into fire pit? Why was Joseph almost killed? Why did Pharaoh kill all the male children of Israel? Why did the levis kill 30,000 of their brothers? Why was Jesus son of Maryam about to be crucified? Those were the examples of civilizations in respect to obedience to the creator of the universe.
    Now, if any one will say or expect that when Allah sent Muhammad to mankind to tell them the true story behavior of those civilizations, that was meant a peaceful existence, then he must be doting the followers of Muhammad so as to perpetuate in their sins. Such a one in certainly a fool with an infantile brain or a degenerated one. The Quraysh Arabs whose mother tongue influenced and controlled all Arab languages never explained ‘Islam’ to be peace. That explanation meant the ultimate fruit and goal one receives after obeying the Lord and Allah of the universe. It is the end of a long chain of reaction- the precipitate.
    Mehdi Hasan’s views and explanations must be matched with what was explained and understood by Muhammad Rasulullah and his faithful tribes the Quraysh. That information and proof is available standing against the failure of the followers of Muhammad to explain precisely what he taught and practiced. He unequivocally defines Islam as submitting to the commands of Allah equivalent to the 365 prohibitions and 248 commands.
    Who can prove that the 13 years of Muhammad’s life in Makka was full of peace? His 10 years of Madinan life was that of struggle to uplift justice and save humanity from extinction. Islam and hence who is a Muslim must be viewed from its origin and not from what groups of intellectuals considers it to be. Islam has its root in the Torah. In the manner Samuel was appointed by the G-d of Moses to save the children of Israel-unknown to the then retinue- this is also what is awaiting by the followers of Muhammad.

  26. says

    To any Muslim reading this.

    What does Islam teach must happen for all your sins to be forgiven?

    Serious question. Thanks in advance for your reply.

  27. says

    Robert makes nice work of this guy in his commentary. I only wish Hassan would agree to debate him in person, so Robert could take him apart, piece by piece, on camera for everyone to watch on YouTube.

    Spencer is the most knowledgeable enemy of Islam we’ve got in this global War of Ideas. My fellow Lefties who vilify him and try to shout him down are doing a grave disservice to the cause of human rights, democracy and civilization.

  28. says

    An iron clad law of history – the pendulum always eventually swings in the other direction.

    ‘Do unto others’….Boy, do they have it coming to them!

  29. says

    Muslims like atif in the comments above remind me of the Martians in the movie Mars Attacks! — particularly this one scene where the Martians are going on a rampage attacking and killing Earthlings in the streets with their explosive ray guns, all the while calling out:

    “Don’t run — we are your friends!”

  30. says

    Mehdi’s main point is that a lot of Muslims in Britain aren’t violent. The question that should be asked is what percentage of Muslims in Britain would be violent if instead of being about 5% of the population they were 10% or 20%. We can answer that question by simply looking at places in which Muslims are present in these numbers. We can look at no go areas in places like Sweden where Muslims are closer to 100% of the population. What we then see is practically the entire population is violent.

  31. says

    Mr Hasan is certainly a slick wordsmith. Slogans and quotations role off his tongue without pause, except for a sip of water. His sound bites resonate with the audience who fail to pause for reflection about what he is actually saying. He apologises for the terrorist atrocities carried out by Islamic adherents across the globe – as though the dead, the maimed and the terrorised can now rest easy following his assurance that only 7% of Islamic adherents are dissenters of what he claims is the religion of peace. As we all know, the majority of Muslims are like the rest of us, simply ordinary folk who, in the absence of any in depth study of religion, wish to get on with their daily lives, feed their children and bring them up as self sufficient whole people. However, one doesn’t need to be an expert in those logarithms to work out that 7% of some 2 billion people makes an awful lot of dissenters terrorising the world. The added problem is that very few of those silent majority of Muslims stand up to be counted against this 7%. Indeed like Hassan they attempt at all turns to divert attention by claiming majority innocence is more relevant than minority guilt. Go tell that to the families of those murdered in the name of Islam. Go tell that to the citizens of Israel who only two days ago suffered another missile sent from Gaza by some amongst that 7%. Go tell it to every person who has to spend 3 hours of precious time in airport queues for security checks as a result of airline bombings and hijackings. Go tell it to every Jewish child whose school is surrounded by security needs that would be redundant but for that 7%.

    He states that Islamic Antisemitism emanates from Judeo-Christian Europe citing the Holocaust as evidence without any reference to the fate of the Jews of Khyber, a chant for its repeat heard across the world in modern times. He fails to mention 1929 when the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by the Nazi collaborators lead by Hajj Hosseini, with the Jewish nation surviving only because Yochanan Ben Zaikai took the Torah to Yavneh where the exiled Jews found a safe haven. He further neglects to tell of the Jews massacred in Jenin that same year of 1929. To put tis in perspective, the Nazis won power in 1933 and the Holocaust took place after 1939. So all that remains is to work out what came first, again without a need to understand those logarithms.

    Of course there is more to cite than this space permits, but the gist is there, illustrating the paucity of his argument as Robert has well argued in this article.

  32. says

    ” They have had their critical faculties eroded by PC/MC garbage. ”

    “”This implies that PC MC affects someone from the outside in.”

    “Actually, no, it doesn’t.”

    Sure it does. The odder meaning of your description would be that a person is eroding his own critical faculties. The more reasonable meaning of your description would be that the erosion is happening to them, from without, through an external process that is a bad influence upon them. It’s not unreasonable for me to construe that you intend the more reasonable meaning, rather than the odder, more paradoxical meaning. Nowhere else in your post, or in any other comments you have made, have you expressed the awareness that this process of PC MC is an odd paradoxical process whereby the victim is just as much a colluder in his own pedagogical cultural deformation as he is a victim — or that, to put it paradoxically, he is his own co-dependent victimizer, cooperating with the very same sociocultural process that is deforming his heart and mind. And this un-odd, un-paradoxical view can only be such if it presumes an external process whereby good decent ordinary folks like us are being somehow deformed (critical faculties eroded, among other things) by an inimical external social “liberalism”.

    If you do agree with me that this is, indeed, an odd paradoxical phenomenon going on in our society, then you have a strange way of never before having expressed it or articulated it, and only now suddenly doing so (in a curt, prickly, almost annoyed fashion) after I have prodded you to do so.

    We have no real disagreement here; I read your very interesting essay on Montaigne and Rousseau. It doesn’t explain though, where this attitude **originates**.

    First things first. First we have to recognize the odd paradoxical phenomenon going on here. Then we have to fully assimilate the oddity of the long pre-history of this sociocultural psychological phenomenon. Later on, we can speculate its ultimate origins. The fact that I have found several intelligent individuals from the 19th and early 20th centuries who formulate and regurgitate PC MC notions about Islam and Muslims, and that one major one hails from the 16th century (and another from the 18th — Rousseau) indicates that we cannot reduce PC MC to “Leftism”. There was no “Leftism” around in the 16th century. And there certainly was no “Gramscian” conspiracy going on then.

    So this indicates we should widen our focus from “Leftism” in our explanation of this phenomenon that is the primary reason why our West persists in its myopia of this problem that is endangering our lives. Certainly understanding the nature of this phenomenon that is endangering our lives is important, even if we have not yet plumbed and fully explained its ultimate origins. But as long as people continue to indulge in this Us vs. Them mentality, whereby its the bad “Leftists” and “Elites” over there who are against Us True Ordinary People over here who “get it”, they will not be doing their best to understand this phenomenon that is endangering out lives.

  33. says

    The two philosophers Mehdi Hassan credits with causing the renaissance and enlightenment in Europe had nothing to do with either, both of which occurred centuries later. The most influential of them was Averrroes; he was significant mainly because he transmitted the writings of Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas. This was during the high middle ages and in no way influenced the renaiisance.

    Ironically, one of the main reasons for the beginning of the renaissance in 15th century Florence was the capture of Constantinople by the Muslim Turks and the subsequent influx of Greek scholars and classical literature to Italy.

    Hassan’s algorithm claim was also a red herring. Not only was the originator of the algorithm Euclid, but al-KhwÄ�rizmÄ«’s “algorism” (sic) in no way contributed to the development of computing. This was the result of the work of a series of western mathemeticians beginning with David Hilbert in 1928.

    These constant attempts by muslims to take credit for western civilization grow very tiresome. In Mehdi’s case, it is worse because the man is a lier–I have heard him tell deliberate lies in other video clips from Al Jazeera.

    Keep up the good work, Robert. Someone has to tell the truth about Islam. BTW, I am reading your book “Did Muhammad Exist” with great enjoyment.

  34. says

    There is no where in the Qur’an where Allah explained and described ‘Islam’ as a religion of peace. Islam does not mean religion in the first instance. Islam means submitting voluntarily to the commands of Allah the Lord and creator of the universe. One of such commands is: Be just that is next to piety. The Arabs were chosen to convey this meaning for they had nor such training for a period of more than 3000 years, unlike the Children of Israel who were the vanguard of Islam in their time. The origin of the word ‘Islam’ is unknown. Muhammad explains Islam to mean the safety and security one gets from someone. The Arabs understood it to mean running away from evil and all indecencies.
    Certainly obedience to Allah according to the Torah is accompanied by difficulties and hardships. Probably Isaac and Jacob escaped such difficulties. The life of Muhammad Rasulullah if studied carefully has a parallel to the life of Prophets from Joseph to Jesus son of Maryam. Indeed after Moses the children of Israel prospered under the leadership of Joshua. The Torah spelled that once the G-d of Abraham and Moses is disobeyed that nation knows no peace.
    Those wanting to learn Islam should visit sbpra.com//allamadrsanisalihmustapha.

  35. says

    Robert, having watched the oxford debate I was dreadfully disappointed that one of the UK’s supposedly top universities could have agreed on the motion that ‘Islam is a peaceful religion’ based on the factual and intellectual contributions of its proponents. I was particularly disturbed by the smoke and mirrors diversionary tactics of Mehdi Hassan which ultimately failed to disguise the fact that his contribution had more holes than a Swiss cheese. Britain is stuck in the mire of Political correctness, and the word ‘racist’ is inevitably thrown at any who dare speak out and as a once proud englishman I am ashamed at the current state of my country. I am however optimistic that with the likes of yourself and others (RIP Christopher Hitchens) prudent use of fact and intelligent debate may yet halt the spread of this virulent insanity that is Islam.

  36. says

    “The chief drivers of the Holocaust, however, were not Christians, but Social Darwinist atheist materialistic relativists. Christianity doesn’t actually teach that mass murder is justified any more than Islam does”. Nor does Atheism (if any of the “chief drivers” actually were Atheists).

  37. says

    Am a british in the overseas.
    all this talk about Islam…i decided to
    give it a go.
    studied with no bias, no prejudice.
    i can now say, not only it is a religion of peace, it is the only religion accepted by God.

    my Shahadah:
    “there is no god but Allah, and Muhamad
    is indeed a prophet of Allah”
    just like Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

  38. says

    “He spews out so much garbage at once that he’s like a duck hunter that uses a scatter-gun with hope of hitting something, rather than a sniper that knows its target and uses one shot for a clean kill. ”

    Actually, his tactic is not offensive, but defensive: He’s throwing up what I like to call a “fireworks display” of a dazzling multitude of canards, in the hopes that he can obfuscate and distract. Along the way, of course, he salts and peppers his sophistry with buzz words which are meant to appeal to the non-thinkers in the audience (which, alas, remain the majority in the West).

  39. says

    As I keep trying to remind Jihad Watchers, most of your Western neighbors around you are PC MC. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers… are, still — few.

  40. says

    ”The most worrisome thing about that clip for me was the amount of applause Hasan received. People actually CLAPPED when he said such lies and nonsense?”

    You must remember the people were **students**. They have never been taught logic, evidence, or how to use their brains, let alone the virtues of scepticism. They have had their critical faculties eroded by PC/MC garbage.

  41. says

    STOP with the pantomime of victimhood.

    Stop whining. Stop lying.

    It cuts no ice here.

    The jihad has been waged by Muslims aggressively for fourteen centuries on three continents; it is now being waged worldwide. And it would be waged on this or that manufactured excuse, no matter what we did or didn’t do, because at the core of classical Islam is the Will To Power, the megalomaniacal desire to force all of humanity to submit to Muslim despotism, and to the hideousness that is the sharia of Islam.

    *Nothing* justifies butchery such as the beheading of Lee Rigby in the streets of London, or the daylight murder of Theo Van Gogh (which was done in accord with the example of Mohammed’s assassins murdering Asma bint Marwan for …criticising and mocking Mohammed; she had not killed anyone, neither had Mr Van Gogh), or the ritual Muslim murder of the eight year old Jewish girl Miriam Monsonego. Or the screaming Muslim mobs rushing to attack and drive out of house and home hundreds of poor and defenceless Christians, all because a few malicious Muslims yelled a *false* charge of ‘blasphemy!’ at a tiny little Christian girl called Rimsha Masih. This sh*t makes me sick. It makes me angry. And I see Muslims doing it the whole world over.

    Muslims waged jihad against the world, long before the Jewish state of Israel was resurrected. Muslims hated Jews, and attacked them, often on the basis of *evil lies deliberately told*, at a time when Jews were a tiny minority living as oppressed dhimmis within lands dominated by Muslims.

    If you want to know what I think of your fake and faked narrative of ‘victimhood’ and claims of ‘persecution’…

    read this.

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/11/dangers-of-legitimizing-islamic.html
    Sunday, November 13, 2011
    The Dangers of Legitimizing Muslim Grievances

    Every word the author says is true.

    Here’s some of it, just in case you’re not game to click on the link:

    “Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence.

    “To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent.
    The list of grievances is an endless as the violence.

    “Every act of violence carries its own narrative.
    The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history.

    “But it isn’t a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session.

    “Muslim grievances are the frustration of conquerors, the broken teeth of predators who weren’t allowed to feed on the world until their stomachs burst..

    “To a Muslim, “injustice” means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence.

    ” A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law.

    “The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure.

    “The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power… everywhere.”…

    “The common denominator of the cartoon controversies, Muslim wars around the world and just about every other grievance, from their claim to Spain to their demand for more mosques, is an insistence on power at the expense of others.

    “Everyone has to keep paying a price for Muslim grievance– either in rights and freedoms, or in blood..”

    “That narrative of [Muslim] innocence is a lie.

    “People are not innocent, and the [Muslim] conquerors and oppressors of much of the world are certainly a long way from innocent.

    “**Historical Islam was a brutal conquering ideology that fed off blood and human misery.** {my emphasis – dda}

    “No amount of revisionist history will make that go away and the revisionist history is a disgusting insult to the millions killed and the cultures wiped out for the greater glory of Islam.

    “A religion [that is, Islam – dda] that has never stopped practicing genocide, slavery and repression as religious mandates is the worst positioned to act out the charade of innocence,

    ” to pretend that everything was fine until the Ottoman Empire fell and the British and French colonialists replaced the Muslim colonialists and gave the local minorities civil rights instead of a spiked boot in the face..

    “Rejecting the grievance also rejects the violence, it prevents the narrative from getting its foot in the door, the mosquito whine that pitifully pleads even as it’s sinking its stinger into your neck.

    “Fighting that narrative requires pulling back to see the sweep of history, the conquering armies of the Caliphs bringing slavery, destroying cultures, burning books and oppressing millions..”.

  42. says

    I have to go to work at the moment but will try to reply to your post by just saying read about salah uddin who spread islam in times of war through mercy and peace. I have to ask have you seen what has been happening to people of Palestine Afghanistan since the war? Have you seen the rape, pillage etc etc. If your family was raped in front of your eyes what would you do. At the end of the day you are entitled to your opinion I dont agree but its your opinion

  43. says

    Thank you, dumbledoresarmy!!!

    I was about to just start spewing venom as fast as I could type, in response to atif’s load of classic, predictable Muslim denial & dissembling. I was totally seeing red after stepping in that pile of fresh, steaming deception. But you handled it in much more coherent fashion, exposing his lies for what they are, point by point.

    If atif thought he could get away with that BS here at Jihad Watch, without anyone calling him on it, he doesn’t know much about this site!

  44. says

    Shove off, mohammedthug.

    Don’t even *try* to fool *me* with Islamspeak.

    I believe the mountain of evidence manifest from 1400 years of mohammedan violent conquest and raiding of Infidels – including slave-taking raids of Iceland and Ireland – in all directions.

    Your cult is *exactly* what Sir Winston Churchill called it, after seeing it flagrantly in action in what is now Afghanistan, and in the Sudan, and he also saw it in action in Mesopotamia: “The religion of blood and war”.

    I believe Conor Cruise O’Brien.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html

    CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN
    Friday 6 January 1995
    The lesson of Algeria: Islam is indivisible

    Excerpt:

    “The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours. He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them or beat them into submission.”

    And *that* is perfectly plain from the Quran, from the Sira, from the Hadiths, from Al-Tabari and from the testimony of *all* the victims of Jihad, past and present.

    I believe Jacques Ellul.

    http://www.dhimmi.org/Foreword.html

    “In Islam…ihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfil; it is Islam’s normal path to expansion. And this is found repeatedly dozens of times in the Koran. Therefore, the believer is not denying the religious message. Quite the reverse, jihad is the way he best obeys it.

    “And the facts which are recorded meticulously and analyzed clearly show that the jihad is not a “spiritual war” but **a real military war of conquest.**” END QUOTE FROM ELLUL

    I don’t care what weaselwording euphemisms and doubletalk *you* use – I know damn well that only Infidel resistance to/ self-defence against Mohammedan assault is called ‘war’ and that Muslims don’t use the Arabic word for ‘war’ to describe their repulsive and violent (and often sneaky and cowardly) attacks upon Infidels in order to try to force them to submit to Islam – but..we Infidels experience and have experienced your assault upon us as *war*, so we will call it *war*. We don’t care what *you* call it; it’s WAR, a totally unjustifiable and vicious attack upon everything we are and everything we have and believe, so we will defend ourselves.

    I believe Patrick L Moore, in his impeccably researched and reference essay, ‘From Cold War to Guerra Fria”

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/GUERRA.HTM

    “There are five especially critical aspects about Islam’s doctrine of jihad which must be brought out to properly understand the significance of Islam as it relates to the United States and the West.

    ” In summary, **the meaning of jihad in its primary sense is military and coercive** [my emphasis – dda};

    ” it is central to the universalist doctrine of the Islamic belief system; its operational aim is political domination of non-Islamic territories (i.e. rather than forced conversion);

    “**it is offensive or aggressive in nature in the first instance (and not merely “defensive”)** {my emphasis – dda};

    “and, finally, jihad is continuous in character (i.e. pending the ultimate victory of the forces of Islam).”

    So stop with the weaselwords, mohammedan.

    Face the facts.

    You lot – the Mohammedan Mob – are and have been ceaselessly and mass-murderously and thievingly *at war* upon all of non-Muslim mankind for the past 1400 years; and for no other ‘reason’, at bottom, no other ‘excuse’, than that we do not grovel nor *want* to grovel to your nasty little blood-drinking demon ‘allah’ nor do we regard Mohammed the Mad as a ‘prophet’ nor do we wish to live in the hell on earth that is produced by the sharia.

  45. says

    Wow just took a break to look if I had received any decent rebuttals and I get an reply starting with an insult. At no point have I been insulting and the only reason you feel the need to be insulting is because you sir lack integrity.

    I didn’t read your post first line put me off. I am not asking for people to have my belief forced on them and to be honest I have decided I can’t care less if bigots like you deem my religion as aggressive your opinion more power to you. My only concern is muslims being victimised for following their religion as long as people like you can at least judge every individual muslims by their character and their attitude without hatred as long as they live peacefully in the modern society I couldnt care less whether you hated islam or not thats your right hate away

    As I have just stated I have no right to influence your decision and you are perfectly justified to feel how you feel about it. However all I hope is that all of you that have an issue or hate islam will at lesst have the integrity class and decency to judge each muslim by their actions and not their religion

    I would just like to add what I am doing here would be classed as jihad meaning to suffer and strive. It pains me to see my religion deemed as evil but I am striving to try and make people see their is a loving and peaceful side to islam whether you choose to believe it is entirely up to you

  46. says

    I’m not a follower or supporter of islam, but your ignorance and insolance disgusts me. Replying in a nicer, calmer way won’t kill you. It kinda makes you look bad, the way atif was replying quite calmly, while you reply with insults…

    I don’t support either side, for each side has their own powerful points. But yeah, if you wanna be seen as the good guy then maybe you should start acting like it.
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, eh?

  47. says

    ”I have to go to work at the moment … ”

    Really ? You amaze me. In the UK, **53%** of your fellow mohammedan thugs are living off the welfare state, which means they are living off the taxes I, and my fellow non-muslim citizens pay.

    And dumbledoresarmy is quite right, we here at Jihad Watch know far too much about your foul cult, and your disgusting psycho ‘prophet’ to fall for your inept whining and parading of victimhood.

    Go and whine somewhere else. I sure the mohammedan thugs and useful idiots over on loonwatch will welcome you with open arms.

    Here ? You’re just making everyone feel nauseous.

  48. says

    Most of the problems in muslim countries are caused by muslim themselves. Time you stopped blaming others.
    Is it a peaceful inner struggle when sunnis blow up shias? Is it a peaceful inner struggle when alawis and sunnis massacre each other? Is it a peaceful inner struggle when mohammad attacked median tribes that were just going about their morning work?
    Just saying islam is peace is useless. History and the quran shows this to be false.
    You talk about zakir naik. I have read and heard what he says. He is an idiot. His arguments are foolish and illogical.

  49. says

    “…all these terror attacks have one popular theme running through them and that is the murder rape pillage etc etc of innocent muslims in Palestine Afghanistan Iran Iraq but obviously you can’t be objective…”

    Oh, really? All of them, huh?

    Explain this then: The article currently at the top of this website speaks of a slaughter in Kirkuk. That’s Iraq, in case you’re geography-challenged, as many of your co-religionists are – I mean – geo-centric cosmology is still taught at King Saud University in Riyadh…

    But I digress. You’ll forgive me, of course because it’s Ramadan/sarc off
    _____________________________

    In case you haven’t noticed, America withdrew from Iraq some time ago, yet we hear almost daily about MUSLIM ON MUSLIM violence. How do you explain that?

    And how do you explain the first World Trade Center bombing done, again, by one of your oh-so-peaceful co-religionists? That was done in 1993, when the USA had no forces in any Muslim countries, except on bases that were there by the blessing of…oh yeah – your co-religionists’ governments.

    And what about Africa? Any US, British forces there, in any numbers worth mentioning? Nope. Yet we have, again your buddies, Al Shabab running roughshod over…OTHER MUSLIMS! Explain please.

    Finally – Palestine? Are you kidding me?

    Everybody withdrew from there a long time ago, because you and your Muslim terrorist buddies turned it into a hell-hole, ruled now by…oh yeah – your co-religionist terrorist buddies; on one side, Hamas, and on the other, Fatah.
    ______________________________________________

    Explain away, Mr. Objectivity. But don’t expect me to be waiting breathlessly for your insipid reply…I know it’s not forthcoming.

  50. says

    “Who can prove that the 13 years of Muhammad’s life in Makka was full of peace? His 10 years of Madinan life was that of struggle to uplift justice and save humanity from extinction. ”

    Let us see – Mohammad preached for 13 years in mecca and nothing happened to him. He was mostly ignored. This was perhaps the greatest torture he received. As recorded in the islamic sources, the Meccan hostilities appear to have begun only after mohammad started denigrating the meccan gods.

    Now he goes to medina. Could he not have preached peacefully there? No. He becomes a warlord, attacks tribes after imaginary conversations with angels, enslaves women and children etc. To call such actions as following the dictates of God is a blasphemy in itself.

  51. says

    The Almighty gave Moses a few very simple tests to verify whether someone claiming to be His prophet spoke the truth.

    Have you applied these tests to Mohammed?

  52. says

    ” They have had their critical faculties eroded by PC/MC garbage. ”

    This implies that PC MC affects someone from the outside in. Actually, PC MC does not exert and enjoy its effects & fruits by indoctrination from without, as some kind of imposition or brainwashing via external radio waves impinging upon brain waves (to speak metaphorically): it works from the inside out. The minions and millions of Westerners who are PC MC have become that way by growing that way, true believers in their hearts and minds. What’s more, these PC MC beliefs are felt by them to be on the side of the angels, helping to make the world a better place, freer than ever before from those uniquely white Western thought crimes of bigotry, prejudice, racism, dis-crimi-NAY-tion — which, of course (in the PC MC mind), inexorably lead to hatred of non-whites, lynching them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, ethnically cleansing them, and ultimately genociding them. When PC MCs see more and more criticism of Islam, this arouses in their thought process the dread that this growing criticism is going to morph into those aforementioned thought crimes — and horrible deeds. So when PC MCs recoil from criticism of Islam (much less the condemnation it so richly deserves) and when they stand up to reject it and revile it, they sincerely believe they are helping to avert “another Holocaust” — this time against millions of “Brown People”.

    With these delusional, yet powerful, ethical issues at stake, PC MCs are higly resistant to readjusting their paradigm that the modern West has built up over several decades — with plenty of substance going back centuries, as I have shown detecting much of PC MC even in the great French philosopher and politician Michel de Montaigne of the 16th century — Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC? And Montaigne isn’t the only one. In a few other essays in I have examined scholars of Islam in decades before we think of as “liberal” — e.g., the British scholar T.W. Arnold in a 1917 essay. As I wrote introducing that analysis:

    The prevailing sense today is that PC MC is only two or three decades old”or at the outside, approximately fifty years (usually starting with those damned Sixties). It is a rather odd experience, therefore, to read an academic scholar in Orientalism in 1917 expressing PC MC sentiments very similar to those that, from a position of mainstream privilege and dominance, offend and plague us today most especially with reference to the Problem of Islam. And yet there it was in a dusty old article from a dusty old journal from a dusty old time almost a century ago..

  53. says

    ”This implies that PC MC affects someone from the outside in.”

    Actually, no, it doesn’t.

    We have no real disagreement here; I read your very interesting essay on Montaigne and Rousseau. It doesn’t explain though, where this attitude **originates**.

  54. says

    I imagine you got an insulting response because you’re insulting our intelligence by thinking you can float that raft of obvious BS on a site like this.

    They might (eagerly) accept every word you say, on more PC, mainstream sites, where people know nothing about Islam; but not here, pal. Wrong venue.

  55. says

    ” The question that should be asked is what percentage of Muslims in Britain would be violent if instead of being about 5% of the population they were 10% or 20%. ”

    That can be a distracting and misleading question, because the problem is not merely Muslims being violent — but also supporting their culture of violence on a spectrum from active support, to sly veiled support that deceptively seems “moderate”, to more or less passive co-dependent enabling of their brothers and sisters based upon a psychological and cultural leaning to support their Islam over values and societies that are not Islamic.

    In addition to this, there is the effect that sheer numbers (and growing numbers) of immigrant Muslims have in a non-Muslim society, whereby they subtly over time foster a “We’re here, get used to it” meme that, to the degree the surrounding society is PC MC, becomes either accepted or enabled or, sometimes, downright supported.

    Finally, there is the problem of our inability to know which Muslims are going to be participants and/or enablers of terror cells plotting horrific attacks using various kinds of weapons of mass destruction (likely very creatively, such as chemical or biological toxins dispersed in various imaginative ways to wreak maximum casualties and suffering; etc.). The more that the above-mentioned factors are in play —

    a) a spectrum of enablement by Muslims, most of which is not overtly or ostensibly “being violent”

    b) growing demographic presence and aggrandizement, including increased infiltration into places and positions of sensitive security (food processing plants, water treatment plants, energy companies, nuclear power plants, government offices, hospitals, law enforcement, fire fighting, academe, public schools, etc.)

    c) our inability to tell the supposedly harmless Muslims from the one who will, indeed, “be” violent

    d) our own PC MC, which tends to facilitate a-c, and tends to punish fellow Westerners trying to sound the alarm about Muslims.

  56. says

    To complete my thought above:

    “The more that the above-mentioned factors are in play –…

    — the more our societies become vulnerable to horrific violence caused by Muslims in the coming decades. Our ability to prevent such violence could well be impaired if we fixate in a Daniel-Pipesian way (at best!) only on the Muslims “being violent” and forget all the other subtle factors I adumbrated above.

  57. says

    “As we all know, the majority of Muslims are like the rest of us, simply ordinary folk who, in the absence of any in depth study of religion, wish to get on with their daily lives, feed their children and bring them up as self sufficient whole people. ”

    Oh God; my first impulse as my eyeball was contacting those words and transmitting them to my brain for processing was that surely, this was meant sarcastically. Alas, no. It was meant earnestly, in full Daniel-Pipesian mode. I’m really getting sick — in the sense of a Sartrean Nausea — of ths asymptotic nonsense that continues to persist like a bad stomach flu in the Counter-Jihad.

  58. says

    “It was meant earnestly, in full Daniel-Pipesian mode.”

    Actually, it’s worse than that; for the writer fully halves Pipes’ preposterous 15% ratio, into 7%. Double your Nausea, Double your Fun.

  59. says

    Sorry if I didn’t make it clear: the 7% was made by Hassan in his speech (perhaps you didn’t listen to the whole diatribe) and all I am saying is even if as he says…… that still makes an awful lot of terrorists, Jihadis etc that go unconfronted by those silent majority Muslims he speaks of. Of course anybody aware of the unrest across the globe knows the basis of almost every atrocity bar the odd nutter like McVeigh or Kaplan.

  60. says

    I sincerely agree with you Lemonlime only that I prefer to use the word Islam and not religion. The followers of Muhammad truly do not know about Islam and the proof is in this book: ISBN 1468070444. Islam technically is that portion of belief in Allah and obeying Muhammad Rasulullah. If you believe in Allah then you must follow Muhammad.

  61. says

    “I don’t support either side, for each side has their own powerful points.”

    Not supporting either side is simply impermissible. That would be like affecting neutrality in a debate between a Nazi and an opponent of Nazism. There is no planet in the universe capable of sustaining such neutrality. And, of course, it’s far likelier that “shauna” isn’t trying to occupy that impossible neutral zone but actually has a dog in this fight, and is trying to affect a neutrality as cover for that tendentious prejudice against Islamocriticism, in favor of Islam.

  62. says

    I do not believe in ‘allah’.

    I reject the allah of islam as a false god, indeed as a demon.

    *I* believe and confess the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom I also as a Christian confess to be God and Father of Yeshua the Messiah.

    I *do not* follow mohammed the mad, the arab warlord, liar, treaty-breaker, slave-taker, child-rapist, rapist, torturer and bandit, and false prophet; who died and remains dead, dead, dead. Probably also damned.

    *I* follow and address as Lord the resurrected Yeshua: **who was crucified**, died, was buried, and on the third day *rose* from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father in glory.