| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Nearly four years after 9/11, during which time jihadists have carried out 2,647 terrorist attacks, American Muslim scholars have gotten around to condemning terrorism. It is unclear from this report whether in their fatwa they make the necessary distinctions: do they stipulate that American and British civilians are indeed "innocent civilians" and thus not to be murdered, or do they leave unanswered the jihadist assertion that they aren't innocent civilians at all, but kafir harbi, unbelievers at war with Islam, and thus fair game? Do they stipulate that the terror they are condemning is that which is committed around the world today by Muslims, not the terror that jihadists charge that America is committing? I will get hold of the full document as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, see the links below for evidence that the groups behind this fatwa may not be all that they seem to be.
From AP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were "criminals, not `martyrs.'"
"There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism," the scholars wrote. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - or forbidden."
Many Muslim leaders overseas have issued similar condemnations in recent weeks, but some have left an opening for violence to be used. British Muslim leaders who denounced the July 7 attacks in London said suicide bombings could still be justified against an occupying power.
The U.S. fatwa did not specifically address suicide bombings in a war, but the scholars barred Muslims from helping anyone "involved in any act of terrorism or violence." The council also declared that Muslims were obligated to help law enforcement officials protect civilians.
"It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities," according to the Fiqh Council. The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic legal issues and understanding the faith's religious law.
Islam has no central authority and the council serves an advisory role for American Muslims, who could number as high as 6 million. But some question whether the panel's statements would sway extremists.
Leaders of major American Muslim organizations have taken pains since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to condemn terrorism and deny any religious justification for it. They have intensified their efforts following the July 7 bombings in London and the botched attacks two weeks later. Other terrorist attacks have occurred in Egypt and Israel in recent weeks, along with continued bombings in Iraq.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles, started the "National Anti-Terrorism Campaign" last year, urging Muslims to monitor their own communities, speak out more boldly against violence and work with law enforcement officials.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights organization, is running a TV ad and a petition-drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," which repudiates terrorism. In New York and other cities, mosque leaders have joined advisory committees created by the FBI to build relations between law enforcement and their local communities.
"We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism," the scholars wrote. "We pray for the safety and security of our country, the United States, and its people. We pray for the safety and security of all inhabitants of our planet."
Do you renounce any intention of imposing Sharia on the US now or in the future?
Posted by Robert at July 28, 2005 1:53 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This document means nothing. It can mean nothing. It was issued to satisfy, or at least in the hope of satisfying, the growing suspicion of non-Muslims, a suspicion that might lead, quite dangerously, to too many Infidels learning about Islam in too great detail, and might even begin to learn about taqiyya and kitman and all the rhetorical tricks (selective quotation, tu-quoque, insistence that the Qur'an alone matters and the Hadith and Sira do not, insistence that the principles of Qur'anic interpretation -- such as naskh or abrogation) that are routinely used by that small army of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who are abroad in the land.
That CAIR was chosen to issue it, after the statements made in the past by a number of people who have been closely associated with it, even served as high officials in the organization, tells us all we need to know.
Is Jihad abandoned? Is the desire to turn this country into a Muslim country abandoned, or is the goal of having Islam dominate, and Muslims rule, still very much the animating impulse of Muslims here, there, and everywhere.
This is a pitiful document, but not so pitiful that it will not be greeted with delight by the editorial writers of The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon. So be it.
The dogs bark. The caravan -- headed straight to the bookstore to buy books by Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and others -- moves on.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 28, 2005 2:27 PM
A bookstore? Nah. Maybe WorldNetDaily.
at July 28, 2005 2:35 PM
Sadly my bookstore only carries 1 title of RS: Onward Muslim Soldiers. I found it by pure chance about a year ago, but not since.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at July 28, 2005 2:48 PM
Great post Hugh! This is a major media offensive to put lipstick on the pig, and the major media will eat it up.
Posted by: Yitzhak at July 28, 2005 3:09 PM
I remember people criticizing American Muslims for NOT issuing a fatwa on this website. And when it happens... you still have some to criticize.
You could always rename this site, "Islam Diatribe."
Get over it guys. American Muslims are doing as much as they can do combat terrorism.
You're just a bunch of businessman taking advantage of the times.
Posted by: Capulet at July 28, 2005 3:13 PM
So what exactly are they supposed to do?
If they condemn it, nobody believes it and they're criticized
If they don't condemn it, people say they agree with it because they didn't condemn
What exactly is a decent peace loving muslim to do to prove to radical bigots at jihadwatch.org that they do not want to blow things up??
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 3:15 PM
Kill themselves, of course!
Posted by: Capulet at July 28, 2005 3:22 PM
"You're just a bunch of businessman taking advantage of the times."
--- from a posting above
Would that we were. But the involuntary vow of poverty that anyone associated with this site must take -- and I have repeatedly urged visitors to kindly rectify this great injustice -- leads me to declare, categorically, that whatever else may be involved, we are hardly a "bunch of businessmen taking advantage of the times." There is only one way to make money out of discussing Islam, and all kinds of former diplomats, public relations agents, Western intelligence agents, and academics are busy doing it, as they have for decades -- being paid, directly or indirectly, by the Arabs and Muslims. Those are the businessmen. They are the ones selling out the Western world for a mess of pottage. Would you like the same names listed here -- let's start with how James Akins, and Raymond Close, and Eugene Bird, and Andrew Kilgore, and John Esposito, and a good many others, receive the funds for their various "centers" and "committees" and those lectures they so disinterestedly give, as "international business consultants" with a "special expertise in the MIddle East" -- let's have some Congressional committee look into those sums, who pays them, and what is received. Hmmm? Your charges are absurd and misdirected -- follow the money all right, the vast sums ($70 billion and counting) that the Saudis alone have spent in the last decade or two, on mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and Western hirelings, all over the world.
at July 28, 2005 3:23 PM
Until they say the same thing to the mosque goers and to us "infidels", I will not hear anything they say except "blah, blah, peace, blah, blah, not islamic."
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 28, 2005 3:28 PM
If they had the internet 40 years ago, Robert Spencer would have started a site called negrowatch.org to try and prove their culture inferior and try to avoid civil rights legistlation. He would have listed all the examples of Black riots and crime and a bunch of bigots from the South would have thought he was a hero while Robert Spencer laughed all the way to the bank.
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 3:29 PM
Ryan,
I generally allow for a multiplicity of opinions here, but your hateful remarks are not something I could let pass unanswered.
Your equating of the struggle to defend human rights against the global jihad with racism is as ignorant as it is offensive. Are you familiar with the contents of Sharia? Are you aware of how it institutionalizes discrimination against women and non-Muslims? Are you aware that it is Sharia for which the jihadists are fighting?
Are you aware of how grotesque these facts make your analogy of resistance to jihad with racism?
Even if you were aware of these facts, I doubt they would make any dent. You are secure in your prejudices. Good luck: I hope reality will not hit you too hard.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at July 28, 2005 3:38 PM
No Ryan, RS would have had a site about the Nazi threat to civilization.
Can you deny that islam is a bloody religion?
Just pick up any newspaper or listen to the radio or television...islam is the problem.
at July 28, 2005 3:38 PM
40 years ago...what do you know about the 60's?
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 28, 2005 3:41 PM
"What exactly is a decent peace loving muslim to do to prove to radical bigots at jihadwatch.org that they do not want to blow things up?? "
--- from a posting above
Well, issuing immmediately a fatwa, and showing not logic-chopping but a full-throated denunication, not only of terrorism, but of the texts that naturally inspire such terrorism, might have counted for more. As Robert Spencer notes, the timing of this -- when it is clear that all over the Western world some Infidels are getting just a mite too inquisitive, just a mite too interested in what is actually written in those texts, Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and beginning to realize that all the various means of denial, from the left-wing squaking about "poverty" as a root cause, to the right-wing (or at least this Administration's) insistence that this is mainly a "war on terrorism" or the insistence of others that this is a "war on Amerida" (disproven every day or a "war on the West" (ignoring attacks on Hindus in Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, and India itself, attacks on Sikhs, attacks on Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia, attacks on Buddhists in Thailand, attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims in the Sudan, in Nigeria, and so on and on -- all of which disproves this business of "the West" and "Islam" for in truth, it is Islam versus the Rest, the entire world of Unbelievers who are so carefully to be distinguished from the fellow Believers, the umma al-islamiyya.
"Ryan" seems to think after those nearly 3,000 terrorist incidents that have occured since 9/11/2001, after the screams of delight all over the Arab and Muslim world (in Riyadh, where goats were slaughtered for feasts, and horns honked in merriment and delight, as they were all over Saudi Arabia, or the ululations and screams of delight, even dances of joy, captured on film, in the West Bank and Gaza, in Cairo, where even Frank Gardner of the BBC was forced to report on the expressions of pleasure on so many faces, even in Beirut, where a visitor reported what she horrrifiedly observed even in the cafes and restaurants and nightclubs, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal -- indeed, there were expressions of real condolence only in one place in the Arab and Muslim world, and that was in a ceremony in Teheran, attended by those who, though perhaps still nomiinally "Mulsim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, had endured a quarter-century of the Islamic Republic of Iran and were in no mood to express Muslim sentiments of joy and pleasure, for they had had their own experience with, and fill of, Islam.
So "Ryan" thinks we are to accept this bit of obvious taqiyya, this transparent expression of condemnation entirely directed at Infidels, in an attempt to win support, or lessen suspicion, emanating from the same groups that have had years to express such outrage, and have never once felt the need to do so, but at long last feel such a need? And let's look closely at the language, shall we? What is that language? Let's ask those who issued the fatwa what it is they are condemning? Are they condemning all acts directed at civilians? What is their definition of civilians? Are they perhaps limiting their condmenation so that it does NOT include attacks, say, on Israeli children, or other civilians. Let's look for, and cross-examine them, about all the loopoholes.
And what about Americans in Iraq? Is terrorism directed solely at American troops, troops not there to fight but at this point merely to guide the country (in a wrongheaded policy, but there it is) into the safe harbor of a functioning democracy, part of what is being denounced here, or is it only acts that damage Islam, either becuase they kill Muslims (and nowadays you can hardly have a terrorist attack on a London or Madrid or other Western subway without killing some Muslims), or because they "damage Islam" by harming its image, and thus must be condemned not because it is immoral to kill Infidels, but because it is wrong, it is un-Islamic, to kill Infidels if whatever good is done is outweighted by the larger damage done to the image, and interests, of Muslims and of Islam?
For that, in the end, is all that counts for Muslism. Islam, and fellow Muslims. That is the inculcated loyalty. To the umma al-Islamiyya, and to nothing else on earth. And that is what Infidels are beginning, in very large numbers, and for Muslims distrubingly large numbers, to discover. But you can't both have the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira readily avaialable, and continue to think that you can carefully "present it" only in the way that Muslim apoloigsts want it to be presented. Nor can Muslims control, as with quite the same power as they may have possessed even a few years ago, the distribution of information about the history of Islamic conquest, and of the subjugation of the many non-Muslim peoples -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, and others -- all of whom are beginning to realize that they have far more in common with each other, as historic, and present, and future intended victims of Islam, than they have differences, and that the real divide is as the Muslims themselves teach: between Muslims, and all non-Muslims.
And that is a lesson, once carefully learned, that is never unlearned. No matter what public relations gimmicks are undertaken, or given prominence by the naive.
Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2005 3:41 PM
Some people are intuitively contrarian, so you if you criticize the Religion of Death, you're a racist, bigot, etc.
I doubt hardly any of them have even read the Quran.
Posted by: Yitzhak at July 28, 2005 3:45 PM
What is a peace-loving muslim to do to prove that they're not a terrorist?
Leave Islam.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 28, 2005 3:50 PM
Yitzak-
There are scores of free online translations of the Koran(Qur'an, -whatever) and Hadiths, etc., so the posters who don't bother to educate themselves are either being 'tactical' (I.E.-know better, but play dumb to foster their faith, always unpsoken, or denied, AKA Islam) or are just trying to spread the soothing and confusing taqiyya of "relativism", by equating 400 year old Christian outrages (the Salem witch hangings! those dirty phony Christian liars who preached 'love' by killed innocent 'witches' HAH!) with the daily onslaught by Imperialistic Islamicists practicing Koranically-approved jihad against infidels, NOW.
Anyone is able read sura 9:5 and see it CAN be used, today, to 'justify' killing anyone, Muslim or infidel, if that furthers the cause of Allah (Who is as capricious and murderous as any Bronze Age deity): a theocratic global tyranny run by 7th century intolerant patriachal imbeciles.
Me, I prefer freedom of thought over a lockjaw of the mind.
(However much stolen honey they pour over it.)
Posted by: BigSleep at July 28, 2005 3:59 PM
Mr. Spencer:
I would not call my remarks "hateful". My remarks were only an analysis of who the same people posting on this site might have hated had they lived 40 years ago. My remarks were not "hateful" in any ways towards African-Americans and my remarks acknowledged their struggle as legitimate. My remarks were meant to use historical events as comparisons to the demagoguery being demonstrated on this site.
Many of the same arguments were used against African-Americans in the United States the past as well as Europeans of Jewish descent throughout history. You can't claim that it's different this time. Bigotry and its results have been the same throughout history.
A common argument throughout European history is that Jewish Europeans could never be loyal to their nation because they were more loyal to being Jewish before being German, Polish, French, etc. That's exactly the same argument that's being presented here claiming that there are no moderate muslims and insinuating that American muslim associations want to impose Sharia law on the country. You make no distinction between jihadists and peaceful muslims who only want to improve the lives of themselves and their families.
Your books as well as this website are demagoguery in the highest form from which you are reaping great profit
at July 28, 2005 4:08 PM
Can anyone find this fatwa in its complete text? I can't. Only some quotes taken from it in the media. It seems to me that the quotes carried by the media are not enough and we should be allowed to see the entire doccument. Muslims should name specific terrorists, acts and groups, like al-queda, bin Laden, Zirqawi, 9-11, 7-7, Jihad, etc., if this is going to have any real impact. I fear however that this will never happen. As it is written it seems Muslims can interpret "terrorism" in the document to mean anything done against Islam by the West, making the fatwa a document supporting radical Islamic fundamentalsim.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 4:22 PM
Ryan:
The differences are in fact many. Your assertion here, among others, is false: I never say that "there are no moderate muslims." If you think I have, produce the statement from my writings here or anywhere else.
As for " insinuating that American muslim associations want to impose Sharia law on the country," see http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ for statements by CAIR leaders. If you think those statements are unsubstantiated, produce your evidence.
Your assertion here is also false: "You make no distinction between jihadists and peaceful muslims who only want to improve the lives of themselves and their families."
Actually I make that distinction routinely. If you think otherwise, produce your evidence.
As for making a profit on this, it is a false charge as well as beneath contempt, and belied by my surroundings at this very moment.
"Demagoguery"? You seem to be a master.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at July 28, 2005 4:27 PM
Ryan,
I think it's safe to say you know very little about Islam.
It's not demagoguery or bigoted to point out that, throughout its history, and for more than 1,000 years, Islam gave non-Muslims three choices: (1) convert, (2) pay regular tribute, or (3) execution, typically through beheading.
Islam has shown throughout it's history that it is extremely intolerant of others.
Any "liberal" would be concerned about this, and the denial of basic liberties to women.
Your labels and criticisms of those who are knowledgeable on this site, given your lack of knowledge, is assinine.
Posted by: Yitzhak at July 28, 2005 4:30 PM
The Chicago Trib says that the full text of the fatwa is "embargoed till Thursday".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507280196jul28,1,6766276.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
I wonder why they would delay its release if they are truly comitted against terrorism???? Shouldn't honest men speak plainly?
at July 28, 2005 4:32 PM
Q: Where did I suggest "there are no moderate muslims"
A: Perhaps by titling a post "The Myth of the Moderate Muslim"
(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary )
Myth: (n) A imaginary of fictitious person, thing, event or story
at July 28, 2005 4:34 PM
"Ryan" you are obviously a Muslim apologist who is practicing his/her own personal jihad by attempting to use taqiyyah here in the attempt to spread your religion. Islam has nothing to do with race, as your "negro" comments above attempt to color it, unless you are admitting that Islam is not a religion for "white men" as is so often quoted in American jails?? That is an old trick we are all wise to. Islam IS terrorism and it has always been spread by violence, murder, rape, pillage, extortion, and warfare. Jihad is war. And re: your negro comments? Islam still has slavery in at least 3 countries. After all, if owning slaves was good enough for Mohammed, it should be good enough for the modern day Muslim, right?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 4:42 PM
The Myth of the Moderate Muslim?
That was an article by Salim Mansur. I did post it here.
Clearly you did not read or understand either the article or my comments on it, or you wouldn't be saying what you are saying today.
You are free to lie about me all you wish, but I think you will find the people here generally too well informed for you to hold the moral high ground in the midst of your lies.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at July 28, 2005 4:43 PM
"Ryan", you stated that
"Many of the same arguments were used against African-Americans in the United States the past as well as Europeans of Jewish descent throughout history." When did Americans of African or any other descent murder people who did not folow the same religion as theirs? When did they follow a book that told them to kill all infidels who would not submit? When did they follow an ideaology that divides the world into the house of submission, the house of truce and the house of war? When did they Adopt a religion that says it follows the old and new testaments, but says Jesus did not die on the cross and that Jesus could not be God's son because "Allah has no sons"?
at July 28, 2005 4:50 PM
Bohemond:
They didn't do that stuff and were never accused of it. They were accused of other things and people ended up believing the accusations even though they were untrue. Jewish Germans were blamed for ruining the German economy by price-fixing. This was a terrible lie but things were bad and people ended up believing it. Jews were also accused of not being loyal to Germany and not being "real" Germans. Japanese-Americans were interred because it was believed they could never be loyal to the United States during the war. Do you think Muslim Americans are loyal Americans Bohemond?
Posted by: Ryan
at July 28, 2005 5:02 PM
"When a thief kisses you, count your teeth."
-Yiddish saying
at July 28, 2005 5:08 PM
Mr. Spencer:
I was slightly mistaken about the post "The Myth of the Moderate Muslim". The title of it suggests that NONE exist (deceiving for someone who does not read the whole thing) but in the article you suggested that a small number exist ("small support for moderate organizations") and they are in the process of being pushed over. I was mistaken in that I believed the writer was an editorialist for this website and not the London Free Press. When I re-read the article, I realized this not to be the case and I apologize for my mistake.
However, your last post that included the suggestion that American muslims wanted to impose Sharia Law on the country implied that they are not loyal Americans and not loyal to American law and the American constitution. The same argument was made against Japanese-Americans during World War II. The suggestion that this denunciation is not honest and truthful also incites hatred. Can you imagine the implications if the majority of the population held these views?
Many of the posts on this board are also inflammatory and they are often much worse than the articles posted by Mr. Spencer. I was berated terribly for the comment "There are good muslims and bad muslims". Anybody who does not agree with that statement is bigoted.
Do you agree with following 2 statements Mr. Spencer?
1) There are good muslims and bad muslims
2) Most Muslim Americans are loyal Americans
at July 28, 2005 5:22 PM
Ryan,
You're a phony who has shown his true colors as a Muslim. Most people figured that out when you were more concerned about British authorities then Muslim mass murderers.
This lastest condemnation of terrorism by Muslim "scholars" is because Muslims are feeling the heat. Politicians, terrorism "experts" and average citizens are saying openly that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization and that there should be curbs on Muslim immigration. The latest round of terrorists in London are good examples of why Muslim immigration should be stopped.People are finding out that these terrorists were criminal scum who lived on the dole for years. They contributed nothing to British society not even tax dollars. They existed only as parasites on the British people and they grew up to be criminals, racists and terrorists.The statement by the "scholars" was issued because the Islamic "faith" permits lying to "infidels" if it furthers the cause of Islam.This statement would have had meaning on Sept 12, 2001 but four years and thousands of terrorist acts later it clearly a PR stunt.
Posted by: Roxane at July 28, 2005 5:24 PM
Roxane:
I felt very sorry for the Brazilian who became another victim of the 7/7 attacks. I wondered if they could have acted a little more responsibly and perhaps not used lethal force. However, I acknowledged that most of the blame for the killing rested with the terrorists because they had sowed the atmosphere of fear in the country that led to this.
As I said previously, I am not bigoted against muslims but I am not a muslim.
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 5:32 PM
Roxane:
I felt very sorry for the Brazilian who became another victim of the 7/7 attacks. I wondered if they could have acted a little more responsibly and perhaps not used lethal force. However, I acknowledged that most of the blame for the killing rested with the terrorists because they had sowed the atmosphere of fear in the country that led to this.
As I said previously, I am not bigoted against muslims but I am not a muslim.
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 5:33 PM
I have seen the news releases in the main stream media, the way they are acting you would think that the war is over...
I wish it was but you see there is a problem.
1. The moderates (which have very little influence over the rest of the islamic world) are the ones who issued the statement.
2. Islam and the Koran still Demand death to all Jews, christians and non muslims
3. Islam itself is the problem not the rest of the world..
I would love to believe that this would just turn off the Islamic terrorism but i am not holding my breath
Posted by: jingoist at July 28, 2005 5:41 PM
Ryan, you said "They didn't do that stuff and were never accused of it." But Muslims have done it and are still doing it. That is the issue. Stick to it. So you are comparing apples to kumquats? The issue is Muslim violence, not race. There is one race, the human race. Please be good enough to address the questions I posed and stop dancing around.
"Do you think Muslim Americans are loyal Americans Bohemond?"
I believe that Muslims in America are loyal to Islam first, and American second. Their religion requires it, just as it requires every Muslim to practice Jihad. If Muslims are against the violence comitted in the name of their religion, why not just condemn the specific people and groups who commit it? Why not simply excommunicate them? Because as long as those groups quote the Quran, no Muslim can argue against them. To do so is to argue against the Quran and become apostate, an infidel. No muslim who practices the 5 pillars of Islam, no matter how vile, how cruel, how inhuman their deeds be, can ever be said not to be a Muslim. Or haven't you read the Quran, tha hadiths, Bukari, Muslim, Reliance of the traveller, et al? Are you ignorant of the writings that form the core of their beliefs?
at July 28, 2005 5:46 PM
ryan thinks Jihadwatch
and Mr. Spencer
need a censor.
Cutting off an innocent person's head
is hate,being blown up
on the way to work is hate
and worse than the fate
of being hit with diatribes
and insults of the tongue and pen.
When the awe of mohammed strikes again
how do you know ryan it won't be your end?
Tolerance of intolerance is a great sin.
at July 28, 2005 5:47 PM
Sorry for the doggerel
but ryan's drivel deserves it.
at July 28, 2005 5:50 PM
Poetess,
nice rhyme,
thanks for taking the time.
No skin off this nose of mine.
at July 28, 2005 5:53 PM
poetess:
I don't think Jihad Watch needs a censor at all. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. Although in some nations this could be considered "incitement", it it my opinion that this is simply Freedom of Speech.
However, I think that Mr. Spencer to some degree and many of the posters on this site to a greater degree have to be more responsible with their comments as they are bordering on pure hate-speech and may become dangerous if a larger percentage of the population were to espouse these views.
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 5:54 PM
Ryan, then how do you feel about the Muslim sites that rejoice in the acts of 9-11, 7-7, and call for an increase of Jihad among the infidels, and for Mr. Spencer's violent death as well as the death of anyone who opposes Islam and the destruction of any nation that supports Israel or the War on Terror? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 6:00 PM
ryan, read the koran, the hadith of bukhari and the biography of mohammed by ibn ishaq. Read the bio first, then the hadith, then the koran. There's some real hate for you boy'o. It will put the comments here in perspective.
Posted by: the poetess at July 28, 2005 6:00 PM
Bohemond:
I view those sites as unacceptable and inciteful. Rejoicing in the acts of 9/11 and 7/7 would probably be considered Free Speech. Calling for more attacks and for Mr. Spencer's death would probably be illegal although I'm not a lawyer.
Do you have links to any of those sites?
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 6:05 PM
Ryan, first things first. Please be good enough to answer the questions I posed in my earlier posts before we get too far of track here. They are import and and deserve an answer. I'm sure Robert has many more of the links you'd like than I possibly could. Maybe he would be good enough to help you despite the accusations you've made against him here.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 6:10 PM
http://www.4law.co.il/Lea190.htm
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 28, 2005 6:12 PM
Ryan, BTW if you "view those sites as unacceptable and inciteful" why do you want links to them?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 6:14 PM
Bohemond:
Mr. Spencer's books and this website are causing readers to develop Anti-Islamic feelings even though he claims that he separates radical muslims from moderate ones. Anyone who writes books about the inherrant evil and violence of a religion has a problem with all members of that religion. He does not respond to anyone who says all American muslims should be deported nor does he censor overtly bigoted comments.
Every single post is about something bad a muslim does and NOT a single one shows a good thing that a muslim does or has ever done. He sows the seeds for hate and provides a place for this hate and bigotry to breed. Even when comments totally cross the line, nothing is said or done about it by the Jihadwatch staff.
Mr. Spencer has not responded and answered the 2 questions:
1) Are there both good muslims and bad muslims?
2) Are most muslim American loyal Americans?
I stand by my comments that the inherently islamophobic comments present on this website do not differ much from those of segregationists in the 1960s, the KKK, and Anti-Semitism Europeans of the past. Bigotry throughout the globe and this case is no different.
Posted by: Ryan at July 28, 2005 6:27 PM
Ryan said 'Although in some nations this could be considered "incitement", it it my opinion that this is simply Freedom of Speech.'
Ahh, Ryan is merely concerned about "incitement".
So, I'm sure he'll soon be posting here to answer some of the calls such as:
Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”
Qur'an 7:97 "Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep? Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (carefree)? Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!"
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Now THAT'S what I call incitement.
at July 28, 2005 6:37 PM
Ryan said "Every single post is about something bad a muslim does and NOT a single one shows a good thing that a muslim does or has ever done."
If you want to see a site dedicated to listing all the good things a muslim did, see here for such wonderful acts as:
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Bukhari:V1B11N626 “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”
Bukhari:V5B59N448 “They (besieged Jews from Qurayza) then surrendered to the Prophet’s judgment but he directed them to Sa’d to give the verdict. Sad said, ‘I give my judgment that their men should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.’”
Ryan, I hope you understand that for you to say that these are not good acts by Muhammed would be anti-Islamic and Islamophobic. You're not Islamophobic, are you Ryan?
Posted by: special_guest at July 28, 2005 6:48 PM
Hugh,
Your words, "...that the Saudis alone have spent in the last decade or two, on mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and Western hirelings...," brought these two articles to mind. Saudis have their finger in everything, it seems.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005848.php
And now this:
Saudi billionaire donates EUR 17m to Louvre
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=4&story_id=22306
Once the museums are owned by the petro billionaires, will the erasure and revision of the arts and history be complete?
Posted by: Skeet Street at July 28, 2005 6:51 PM
"Mr. Spencer's books and this website are causing readers to develop Anti-Islamic feelings..."
Ryan, I would say that it is the world wide attacks by Muslims that are causing "anti-Islamic feelings", and the 1400 year track record of violence Islam has established for itself. Mr. Spencer removes any posts that espouse violence, use off color language, profanity, etc. The problem Mr. Spencer, I and others here have is not with "members of that religion (Islam)", or any other religion, but with ANY religion that advocates spreading itself through murder and terrorism. The Quran and hadiths teach intolerance, violence, murder, etc, as a proper way of spreading Islam. Does that bother you?
"anyone who writes books about the inherrant evil and violence of a religion has a problem with all members of that religion." You really haven't read one of Mr. Spencer's books, have you? You are just making generalizations on what you have heard others say, aren't you? Please tell us which of his books you have read. You want to read a book preaching hate and intolerance? Read the Quran. But you haven't read that either, have you?
"Mr. Spencer has not responded and answered the 2 questions:
1) Are there both good muslims and bad muslims?
2) Are most muslim American loyal Americans?"
Why should he? He is under no obligation to answer accusations from people whose only purpose on his site is to attack him.
There are "good" and "bad" people in every religion or culture, according to humanist thought. The bible says that "there are none good, no, not one." Which is right? The point is that Islam has always been spread through the sword and war. Or are you ignorant of Islamic history? Their main book, the Quran commands them to do it. Or have you not read the Quran? According to it if a Muslim upholds the 5 pillars of Islam they are a "good" Muslim, regardless of what they have done.
Mr. Spencer is not a Muslim. Why not ask C.A.I.R. or some Muslims if "most Muslim-Americans are loyal Americans?" Loyal to what? The Constitution of the United States? Or the Quran and hadiths? Which takes higher allegiance if one conflicts with the other says? The Quran commands Muslims to fight all infidels until they are killed or converted to Islam. The goal of Islam is the imposition of an Islamic world state, through any means possible. How do you reconcile that with freedom of religion, freedom of speech? Saudi Arabia sure doesn't have freedom of religion or speech.
at July 28, 2005 7:05 PM
Robert Spencer: Do you renounce any intention of imposing Sharia on the US now or in the future?
And if they said YES, would you believe them?
at July 28, 2005 7:28 PM
Robert, sure I believe all the taqiyyah they say. If you are to be accused of anything it is of speaking the truth. We all know ther are psople out ther who hate the truth and/or can't handle it. If telling the truth is a crime then I want to be guilty of it too.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 7:32 PM
Ryan, why don't you post some of the good things Muslims have done here so we can all see them? And while you're at it, why not post some of the verses from the Quran that abrogate or nullify the verses that command Muslims to kill all infidels?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 7:35 PM
Ryan stated
"However, I think that Mr. Spencer to some degree and many of the posters on this site to a greater degree have to be more responsible with their comments as they are bordering on pure hate-speech and may become dangerous if a larger percentage of the population were to espouse these views."
This "larger danger" of the "passions of the mob" (deTocqville?) is exactly why I feel this site is so important in clearly naming ISLAM as the threat residing in HUMAN minds. If Ryan's whole aim is to moderate comments he feels "bordering on pure hate-speech " then his purpose here is commendable, but misguided. Reading posts here for an admittedly short time, I have found the majority of posts on http://www.jihadwatch.org/ clearly directed at the dangerous ideology of Islam rather than any particular race.
"Every single post is about something bad a muslim does and NOT a single one shows a good thing that a muslim does or has ever done.",Ryan
Unfortunately, the clearest truth revealed by Islamic texts that are frequently cited on jihadwatch is that a good muslim is, like Ryan, poorly informed as to the intent and purpose of Islam. Such answers question 1
"1) There are good muslims and bad muslims
2) Most Muslim Americans are loyal Americans"
2) Most Muslim Americans, either don't know or don't care that Islam is irreconcilable to Western values.
Sincerely if your aim, Ryan, is to disuade hate speach, then please realize the importance of confronting Islam before Islam confronts another superiorly trained and equiped western army with additional human sacrifice. Islam is the enemy, that its faithful are thrust by this death cult into conflict with western ideals and nations is a sad thing for us all.
Posted by: SamDale at July 28, 2005 7:44 PM
Ryan: What exactly is a decent peace loving muslim to do to prove to radical bigots at jihadwatch.org that they do not want to blow things up??
After 1400 years of massacres, rape, pillage and plunder, 1400 years of wanton destruction of temples, churches and synagogues, 1400 yrears of Jihad, as well as the koranic injunction to lie and deceive the Infidel, it is reasonable to say the least, to ask for something more then just a few weasly words that can be retracted when muslims are in a stronger position.
(Treaty of Hudaibiyyah.) The only reason we are hearing all this, is that the heat is on, not just for muslims but on islam and muhammed.
We are not bigots. On the contrary we are fighting the bigotry that is in the koran. (Note: I have nothing but symapthy for muslims who are in enslavement to this creed against their will.) It is those who protect and shield such people as the Jihadis, that are the real bigots. It is texts such as the koran, which incite bigotry that leads to the mass murder of innocents, that we are against.
And BTW, do you agree with the statement that Muhammed was a thieving, mass murdering rapist and a dealer in slavery? He made slaves of human beings and then traded in them.
Posted by: DP111 at July 28, 2005 7:44 PM
Ryan,
Unlike the honorable People of this forum, I DO hate Muslims and will continue to do so, until they STOP being muslims. In 2000 I didnt hate them, I could have cared less about them.
In September of 2001 as I watched on tv, the second plane hit the towers, I knew at that instant we were at war. I had no idea who the enemy was, but I knew that we were in another life or death struggle against some fanatics. Since then, I have been forced to learn about the enemy. I have learned much of their mind by reading their "holy" books and by simply watching their actions, and their actions speak volumes.
It seems clear to me, that you need the death of thousands more innocents befor you see the light. Not all Germans were Nazis but they followed their leader right into hell just the same. Hating a man because of his race is stupid, hating a man for what he belives in, and his actions based on that belief is not.
Posted by: Sharku at July 28, 2005 8:32 PM
Sharku, I resent being referred to as "honorable". I have a reputation to uphold.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 28, 2005 10:02 PM
Hello Ryan (aka soccermom)
Enjoyed your taqiyya.
On a more serious note - a muslim's loyalty has to be to Islam or according to the Quar'an he is not a muslim - loyalty to Islam first, not America.
It is a pleasure to fight Islam, a hate filled deceptive and militantly aggressive ideology.
And you are an enemy apologist for this ideology of deception, and unless you are astoundingly stupid or just making fun of this thread, you are intentional and responsible.
Shame on you.
at July 28, 2005 10:24 PM
Ryan is just another KingTolerance moral equivalencer who cannot differentiate between the completely unjustified persecution of Jews and Blacks and the hostility the Muslim world has provoked after centuries of expansionist wars and the brutal repression of minorities around the globe. Only now, since the demise of the Caliphate, they operate under the claim of victimhood rather than imperial authority.
There is intemperate talk on this site and Robert has asked people to cease and desist. Much of it is venting in the face of unbelievable complicity from legal and governmental authorities that has mutated our desire to maintain a diverse and tolerant society that permits all to live in dignity to giving license to the most intolerant, ranting, raving mullahs like Hook Hamza and Omar Bakri who have been sent to the west to recruit and raise money for jihad.
The most offensive stuff that comes to this site, however, by the way, hasn't been from the anti-jihad posters, but from the neo-Nazis, who, surprise, surprise, take the side of the Islamists. (I am not suggesting that Ryan is a neoNazi.) And when it's discovered, it gets deleted.
But, no the censure that Islam receives here is not the baseless animosity that was borne toward Jews and blacks and it is very intellectual dishonest to say otherwise.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 29, 2005 9:05 AM
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)