| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
When I wrote my book Islam Unveiled in 2001, I hoped that thoughtful Muslims would address the points I raised in it, and that we could open up a dialogue that might be useful in illuminating what could be done about the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence. In that I was naive. The response by critics to that book as well as to every other book that I have written has consisted only of vague assertions that I am ignorant of Islam, without ever providing a single substantive refutation of anything I wrote.
It's the same with this Alt.Muslim review of the documentary in which I appear, Islam: What The West Needs To Know. Reviewer Zahir Janmohamed seems to think that sneering is a good substitute for argumentation. He raises not a single substantive point to attempt to show that what the movie says is wrong.
This is an extremely common tendency, and that's why I am writing this post. The opposition is, from an argumentative standpoint, unarmed. They know that what we are saying about Islam, jihad, and terrorism is true -- if they really believed it wasn't, they would show their readers the exact ways in which we are wrong, but they don't do that, because they can't. But they know that a few well-placed sneers will scare away many people of good will -- and that is a game that they play expertly.
The directors believe we have been duped. The result is a comically self-righteousness 98-minute film that seeks to correct (and to warn) the west one simple thing: Islam is not what you think. It's a religion of violence. "What part of kill don't you understand?" one "expert" says, looking deadpan. It's a priceless moment that should ideally be punctuated by a scene of a burly man taking a large bite out of an oversized, chicken drumstick....
Hah?
Aside from the film's homage to cheesy South Asian wedding video special effects, we are subjected to hearing five or six talking heads offering their "expertise." One of them is Robert Spencer, a Frontpage magazine columnist and current director of JihadWatch. He sprinkles his observations about Islam with a liberal use of Arabic terms, as if somehow this is supposed to impress us. There can be a peaceful Muslim, he tells us, but not a peaceful Islam. Later in the film, he credits Edward Said as someone who Islamized Middle Eastern Studies in the US and wrote his seminal Orientalism to silence critics of Islam. It's a scene that is more embarrassing than offensive.
Well, I'm always glad not to offend. But note what he says about Arabic. Islamic apologists and terror apologists frequently claim that I must not know what I'm talking about because I don't know Arabic -- although they don't actually have the slightest idea whether or not I know the language. In this film I use Arabic, and that's wrong too. In other words, for Islamic apologists, any port will do in a storm. If I don't know Arabic, I'm ignorant. If I know it, I'm vainly trying to impress the audience. If you have no ties to the Islamic world, they will say you are ignorant because you're completely cut off from your subject. If you have ties there, they will say your local concerns in whatever Islamic country you're dealing with have blinded you to the larger reality. And so on -- this is not, in other words, honest argumentation.
Another expert we hear from his Srđa Trifković, a Serbian historian who served as a spokesman for the Bosnian Serbian government. He has called the rape of Bosnian women "entirely fictitious" and once said, "For a Christian the real task is to help our fellow humans who are trapped in Islam and to help them become free." His comments in the film are so absurd that to respond would only be to give credence to his assertion of being a "historian."
Of course. They always are -- and not just Trifkovic's. Every critic of Islamic jihad terror immediately renders himself absurd and beneath the need to reply simply by being a critic of Islamic jihad terror. But the questions that Trifkovic and others have raised nevertheless remain.
The film does, however, have its redeeming moments. Bat Ye'or, an Egyptian born British Jew whose books include titles like The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, offers a useful grammatical lesson on to use the word infidel in a sentence. She sprinkles her commentary with sentences like "Islam is a religion started to fight infidelity and to bully infidels until they rid the infidels of their infidelity." Its no wonder that Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of her: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work."
Which work? We're not told. Examples of these scholarly misdemeanors? Not forthcoming. All we get is mockery of the English of someone who is not a native speaker. How gallant of you, Janmohamed.
My favorite commentator in the "film" is Walid Shoebat, author of Why I left Jihad. A native of Palestine, he compares joining a Palestinian terrorist group to rushing a fraternity. "The martyrdom applications were full," he says. "We had initiation ceremonies which included killing a Jew." But his story lacks credibility. Perhaps this is because he seems too eager to denigrate his old self in order to self-aggrandize his present post-Islam enlightenment. In one scene, he talks about watching CNN at work during the first Gulf, when he was still a terrorist sympathizer. "Watching the TV with my colleagues at work I had to restrain my excitement when I saw the American targets being hit by Sadaam," he said. "I would drive home from work with my windows open, put my head out the window, and shout Allah-u Akbar the entire way home," he says. It's a visual that just begs comparison to Jim Carrey's driving antics in "Ace Ventura." The question is - how do you go from that form of (silly) zealotry to Fox News Islam basher and Zionist apologist in just ten years?
I don't know, Janmohamed. Why don't you ask John Walker Lindh how he went from hip-hopper to mujahid in a shorter span of time?
In any case, these sections illustrate the quality not only of Janmohamed's review of the film, but also of the general "dialogue" that apologists for jihad are carrying on today with the rest of the world: when cornered, sneer and deflect responsibility.
Posted by Robert at July 25, 2006 12:28 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I will forward this to Alt muslim.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 25, 2006 12:59 PM
He raises not a single substantive point to attempt to show that what the movie says is wrong. [...] The opposition is, from an argumentative standpoint, unarmed.
It is good to read the writings of Robert again. The other JW commentators do an admirable job when Robert is travelling outside Undisclosedville, but the quiet, patient, and well-reasoned voice that is Robert's is very rare these days.
I wish "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" was showing somewhere within the San Francisco Bay Area. Guess I'll have to wait till it comes out on video.
Posted by: special_guest at July 25, 2006 1:13 PM
This criticism by ridicule is an excellent sign. Muslims have no way to counter these well thought arguments. What I would love to see is a DVD of this film sent to every home in America!
Posted by: Quijybo at July 25, 2006 1:28 PM
Put the movie on the world-wide web, to be down-loaded for immediate view, or put on a DVD for future and repeated viewing. Let it go everywere. If need be, have some intelligent Maecenas or a group of them pay for hiring dubbers into French, Spanish, German, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi. This is not the time to spare expense in order to swell the damned coffers of some university or museum or to help cure AIDS or something else. This effects everything.
"Sint Maecenates non deerunt, Flacce, Maronis..." Right. No Ovid, no Horace, no Virgil without the money to support and encourage them to keep going. And no anti-Jihad, given what the governments of the Western world are refusing to see, and given the infiltration in the U.N., the E.U., the BBC, RFI, the major newspapers, the major departments of Islamic or Middle Eastern studies, without the money to translate what needs to be translated. Or to find volunteers who will do the translation and dubbing for free.
I'll wait by the mailbox, I'll stand by the phone.
Let it be sent hither and yon.
Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2006 1:29 PM
How does one get to see the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know"? I see from the website that it's not currently in theaters, and besides, it was shown in limited cities to start with (why not New York?).
Will this be available on DVD soon?
Thanks in advance for any info on this.
Posted by: Vee at July 25, 2006 1:50 PM
They can not make count arguement because they have no reasoning mind. No one with sound mind will cling to Islam.
Posted by: ssa at July 25, 2006 1:51 PM
I am only 28 quite possibly not the sharpest tool in the shed.But it does not take the movie to tell me that Islam is nothing but a ancient cult that preys upon the weak.All you have to do is turn on the TV to see that.Their actions speak a thousand words.Since my husband is in Iraq and I have been on my quest for the truth,I have only been lead down 1 path and 1 path only.That Islam is doing more harm than good.And if I am wrong please show me otherwise.....
Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 1:58 PM
one more thing...When my children ask me why their dad is over in Iraq and he can't be here with us .I want to give them an educated honest answer.I have found that history is the most logical answer and the only truth I can find on this subject.Then I ran out of answers and all I could say was "I don't know anymore".I beleived all the propaganda.But I figured that I would set forth the effort to get to know the Jihad and the Koran to have some logic as to where these radical people where coming from.To tell you the truth I was hoping to find that I was wrong and being some what of a bigot.But in doing so I just found that I was on the right track and the truth was evident in all the chaos.
Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 2:09 PM
Ahhh....Jammo man doesn't like that you've caught on to the act.
Posted by: jawa at July 25, 2006 2:10 PM
You know you're winning the arguement when they turn to personal attacks.
This small-town person would also be interested in purchasing a DVD, sounds like someone hit a nerve.
Posted by: limes at July 25, 2006 2:11 PM
Here's that movie's IMDB entry. Of course, the
media reviews are BAD.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0818682/maindetails
Posted by: george_rem at July 25, 2006 2:11 PM
Please make dvd/video of the movie... More people need to know.
Posted by: mikc at July 25, 2006 2:12 PM
The review at alt.muslim is very revealing. Rather than address the concerns about Islam, he ridicules the film and those who would believe it, saying it's the same group of people who would watch "Wife Swap."
In a way, it's getting harder and harder for these Muslim apologists to peddle their garbage. There seems to be a rising awareness in the Non-Muslim world of what Islam is really all about. The growing, relentless and endless list of atrocities commited in the name of Islam is forcing these apologists to parrot their non-sense more and more often, and Infidels are gradually starting to see how hollow and worthless their oft repeated drivel is.
Much more needs to be done. Until our so called leaders start to demonstrate they understand the real nature of Islam's threat to Non-Muslims, the threat will continue to grow. I've been hearing a lot of talk lately of a new Middle East, the only way the Middle East will be improved is if Islam becomes a thing of the past.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at July 25, 2006 2:12 PM
Proud Infidel ,
Agreed...I have yet to find a logical Muslim agrument.I thought it was just me. : )
at July 25, 2006 2:19 PM
"If we punish a person who killed an American soldier, who is an occupier, we should punish the American soldiers who killed an Iraqi who fought against occupation," parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhandani said last weekend. "In my view, a person who killed Americans in defense of his country, in other countries, they would build a statue to him."
I guess they are all sicko's..........
Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 2:29 PM
I have yet to find a logical Muslim agrument.
If the numbers are to be believed, there are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world. And yet where is one that can cogently (sorry Naseem, Mohideen Ibramsha, etc.) respond to Robert and Hugh and Marisol's statements?
Why is it that we only see ad hominen attacks, obfuscation, and outright lies coming from Islamic spokespersons?
They are smart enough to build missiles that can travel 150 miles over Israel, they are smart enough to put rat poison and ball bearings inside their bomb belts to increase the lethality, they are smart enough to rig explosive charges to destroy centuries-old Hindu statues, so why are they unable to string together a couple of sentences that would show us how peaceful the Qur'an really is?
at July 25, 2006 2:37 PM
A Muslim argument is an antithesis of a logical and rational argument.
Posted by: King Ferdinand (PBUH) at July 25, 2006 2:38 PM
Robert, you got them where it hurts! Why does mr. muslim think that his review will have any impact on reversing the truth being revealed about islam?
The opposite is true. As usual the lame comments have backfired. More people will want to see, and share with others EVERYWHERE " Islam, What The West Needs To Know".
There is no turning back now. Keep us posted.
at July 25, 2006 2:41 PM
I think that religion can be an addiction.Like crack or heroin.Islam needs its daily "FIX" of Infidel bloodshed.
Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 2:42 PM
I know just how you feel, young Keep. I, too, found myself learning about Islam (of all things--I'm a Catholic traditionalist!) for entirely different reasons from the ones that keep me studying about it now. I suppose, like you, I was hoping to find that my suspicions were largely unfounded--hoping to find, that is, that Islam really is a religion of peace, just given a bad name by "a tiny minority of extremists." Thank God for Robert, Hugh, and many other courageous souls who do all the leg work for us and risk their lives in the process. Remember, as for your husband, there really is no Secure Undisclosed Locationville for these heroes. We rant and rave through TypeKey, but they use their real names and they live always looking over their shoulders...which brings me to the reason for this brief post.
I just wanted to say, God bless them, and may He also bless and protect your husband, another sort of hero altogether. I pray you and your kids get him back safe and sound real soon.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at July 25, 2006 2:55 PM
Yes I am glad I found this web site...It was a real eye opening thing.I hope to someday see the movie that has the muslims in an uproar.But I doubt it will come to this military town : )
Posted by: Keep enemy close at July 25, 2006 3:03 PM
Yes! By all means put it on the net, I downloaded one of them 9/11 conspiracy flicks for a look. We can then make copies and ensure all the more people see this much needed truth about the ideology of jihad...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at July 25, 2006 3:34 PM
"they know that a few well-placed sneers will scare away many people of good will -- and that is a game that they play expertly." -- Robert Spencer.
It takes two to tango. These many people of good will are not children. They and their culture are responsible for being so easily scared away.
And this comment of Spencer's does not account for the millions of other Westerners of not-so-good will, who wouldn't have to be scared away, because they would be cheerleaders of reviewer Zahir Janmohamed from the get-go.
P.S.: Janmohamed's chicken leg comment is an allusion to the fat white trash American who eats KFC -- you know, the type of American that millions of Americans themselves (not to mention millions of other non-American Westerners around the world) ridicule and denigrate.
at July 25, 2006 3:46 PM
Mr. Joe Friday ("Just the facts, ma'am"-"sir")-AKA Robert-
In the 1970's the Soviet Union's economic and political system were under severe criticism both from within and without (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, etc) but the Soviet leadership repressed all criticism. However, it was during this time that Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982)told his daughter (in strict confidence) that the Soviet system was a "complete failure".
Yet Brezhnev continued to repress and deny the truth. He probably ordered the assassination of Pope John Paul II (5/13/1981) to eliminate that forminable and truthful critic of Soviet Communism. The simple truth is that he did not know what to do to solve the problems of the Soviet system. So he denied, repressed, exiled, killed, etc.
It's sometimes painful for people to examine the facts and admit truths-even when they know the truth. That is a large part of why Muslims have a problem with you.
Posted by: Frank at July 25, 2006 3:46 PM
Robert,
One other thought: there were plenty of non-communists in the West and elsewhere who tried to put a happy face on what Brezhnev knew was a "complete failure". As you know-there are all kinds of reasons people have for not adressing the facts.
Posted by: Frank at July 25, 2006 3:57 PM
Keep enemy close,
This is a GREAT place to learn about the violence we see on the news from the middle-east. It cuts right to the heart of the matter. Thomas Jefferson confronted the muslims in his time on the Barbary coast and came to a similar conclusion. I've lurked for ~a year or so. It inspired me to read a koran in the context of "know your enemy". It was very educational. I hope one day we can see this movie at video.google.com or some outlet. The word needs to spread. Keep up the Good Works Robert, Hugh and JW/DW crew :-)!
Posted by: squire at July 25, 2006 4:01 PM
It does not matter what the muslims think of the film, the targeted audience is the rest of humanity. If the truth hurts the muslims enough to whine about it all the better. Advertise the films as “hurtful to islams goal of world domination” and “muslim critics cringe at the mention of this film.” I agree this film needs to get out and get translated. We could download it onto CD’s and leave them everywhere. It worked for AOL. The two biggest fears of islam are: truth and other muslims (both tend to hurt them). Most muslim propaganda is poor by our standards but resonates with muslims, time to spread our own propaganda (truthful). We have to fight back with as many methods as they attack us. I tend to get passionate and occasionally my posts get yanked but this is a peaceful way to spread the word. Many people stumble into this site by accident and many of us suggest it but we need more. I for one would handout copies of this film if it were available for download. I’d also buy copies but that would really limit my ability to spread copies. If the goal of the producer was profit as long as they are reasonably priced and someone will tell me where to get copies, I’ll hand some out. I travel a lot and can place a few at international airports and bus stations. I have to do something while I wait. Imagine this growing into, viewing parties, church showings and groups of concerned citizens showing them and inviting the public (with a discussion period afterwards). It can’t hurt and as long as you don’t do something stupid you are just using your right of free speech.
Posted by: Ronin at July 25, 2006 4:39 PM
Has anyone here seen the documentary 'Obsession'. I'd be interested in some feedback.
It apparently came and went as quietly as 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know.'
Posted by: Cornelius at July 25, 2006 5:03 PM
When and where will this film be available on DVD? (And if you do make it, make it universal, so that it can be played on DVD players anywhere worldwide.)
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 25, 2006 5:09 PM
special_guest
I think Haidon is the only one who comes close. Just too bad that he's thought of as a heretic.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 25, 2006 5:10 PM
Spencer: "In other words, for Islamic apologists, any port will do in a storm."
Yes! This is the supreme ultimate truth. No matter what you say, an apologist will always, without failure, find a way to twist it into his favor. That's why it's utterly and absolutely impossible to convince them of anything.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 25, 2006 5:17 PM
The alt.muslim (altmuslim.com) website was founded by Shahed Amanullah, who is a prominent member of MPAC. He also has a personal website (amanullah.org) that gives the appearance that he and his wife are nice, harmless, Muslim next door types. If you go to the latter site and scroll down a bit, you will see a "Don't Try This At Home" caption...a reference to the fact that he was given security clearance to work in the BART (the Bay Area's main train/subway system) subway tunnels at night. I used to live in the Bay Area and still visit sometimes...and I will never ride BART again after seeing Mr. Amanullah's blog entry.
Posted by: NCKaffir at July 25, 2006 5:46 PM
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1742_0_25_0_C
The Post was removed
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 25, 2006 6:41 PM
I followed the link the Alt.Muslim earlier to read the review and the comments thread. I saw the aforementioned post, which presented part of Robert Spencer's response and a link to this Web page. That post has been deleted from the comments thread.
Evidently ad hominem, false analogy, and other assorted fallacies are not enough for the folks at Alt.Muslim. Another famous way to end an argument, besides abandoning reason, is deletion. And when they have the power to delete, Alt.Muslim seems to have no problem using it.
Posted by: JTF at July 25, 2006 7:02 PM
Was there ever a Usenet newsgroup called alt.muslim? If yes, is this alt.muslim related to that?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 25, 2006 7:25 PM
Since most Muslims are reading translated versions of translated versions of edited originals, I would forgive Robert for not being fluent in the language form of the period of which the original texts where compiled, of which I am sure there are a handful today who can grasp. It is a similar story for the various versions of the Bible, with thousands of documents scattered in different languages. I don't know any serious Bible historians who claim to be fluent in the original forms of all those languages either. The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable chunk of the Muslim of this world who would agree with Robert's understanding in a heartbeat.
There is still far too much theologically correct nonsense from conservatives and the supposedly military in-the-know types like Ralph Peters, etc...
Personally, I would still put Robert's Onward Muslim Soldiers as my favorite book, not far behind Why I Am Not A Muslim. Trifkovic does tend to get carried away, but that is not to say that he does not raise some reasonable questions and arguments, though I have only read his Defeating Jihad. The best overall view of Jihad from a contemporary perspective remains Walid Phares for me.
Posted by: amana39
at July 25, 2006 8:56 PM
The comment on Bat Ye'or comes form Sidney H. Griffith from The Catholic University of America. It would be interesting if someone with more knowledge on the subject then me, published some analysis of current policies of Vatican and multiple Catholic politicians and institutions.
Posted by: Terry Crane at July 25, 2006 9:13 PM
If anyone has been duped it is those who believe what they have read in the Qur'an.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 25, 2006 9:43 PM
From the Alt.Muslim review…
"Zahir Janmohamed, co-founder of The Qunoot Foundation, is still trying to figure out the air speed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut."
Hippie Muslim?
at July 25, 2006 10:11 PM
As Ali Sina said: The Truth will destroy Islam. The truth can spread outside of the repression of the press. I believe this film will have a big impact on waking up America and forcing dialogue on Islam.
Hopefully, more young filmakers follow the lead.
at July 25, 2006 10:21 PM
Butterfly: Janmohamed's blurb is a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
But anyone who's familiar with that movie would know that whether the bird is of the African or European variety makes all the difference.
That's some fiiiiine jahiliyyah right there.
Posted by: Shinoliite at July 25, 2006 10:26 PM
They are always doing this - since they cannot put up a rational argument they have to resort to trying to discredit the messenger, it's all sneers and cheap dishonest shots at people because they cannot put up a decent true and rational argument. Really it is pathetic and kind of dirty and nasty. If they had a proper argument then they would use it, they got no argument so they resort to these nasty attempts to discredit people. This actually discredits them but they are too stupid to see that.
DIRTY NASTY LIES DIRTY STUPID IRRATIONAL NASTY
at July 25, 2006 10:38 PM
'They' in my post above refers to the taqiyya using Islamofascists and thier apologists.
Posted by: EnglishBlondie at July 25, 2006 11:08 PM
Yes, of course, I completely missed it. Thanks Shinoliite.
Posted by: butterfly at July 25, 2006 11:09 PM
"She [Bat Ye'or] sprinkles her commentary with sentences like 'Islam is a religion started to fight infidelity and to bully infidels until they rid the infidels of their infidelity.'"
-- from the now-deleted review of the movie in Alt.muslim.
Bat Ye'or writes English not as a native speaker, but as someone who knows far better two other European languages. It is not surprising that the word "infidelity" should trip her up. It is easy to see what she meant, and easy to correct it.
Here's one version:
"Islaim is a religion begun to make war on Unbelievers, and to bully those Unbelievers until they have been rid of their Unbelief, and accepted Islam."
The original meaning, of course, was obvious, and the reviewer might have objected to the English produced through the prism of French, but that is the extent of a legitimate objection.
---------------------------------------
"The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work."
-- from the same "review" quoting a real review of Bat Ye'or by Sidney Griffith
It is disappointing to find Sidney Griffith, who appeared last year at the conference devoted to Christoph Luxenberg (and was, of course, quite circumspect in what he said), objecting to what he terms "theoretical inadequacy" of what he calls "the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimimtude." I wonder what Snouck Hurgronje or Arthur Jeffery would, in a less inhibited and fearful age, make of Griffith's claim that "jihad," in particular, is an "interpretive concept" -- wonder, in fact, what that phrase means. As for the polemical tone, is it
"unfortunate" because the historian is forbidden to pass judgment, always and everywhere. If so, then Macaulay and Michelet, to begin with, will have to go, but so will my old two-volumed Morison and Comager, and so will a good deal else. Any tone of neutrality in describing what Bat Ye'or describes, as we have seen repeatedly employed to such misleading effect by Bernard Lewis, is what is uncalled for.
Or perhaps what Griffith went on to say (I haven't read the full text of his review) is that the "polemical tone" is "unfortunate" because the book is so important, covers such a major subject that never before has been so thoroughly treated, never before such synthesis of past work on the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule been so thorough, and so devastating in the presentation of facts, so that, in Griffith's view, a "polemical tone" was de trop. If that is not what he meant, he is once again exhibiting the fearful desire not to offend Muslims that may have contributed to his exaggerated only-seeming scrupulosity at the Luxenberg Conference. After all, Fred Donner and other apologists for Islam were there, and Griffith has had long experience with such people. He should forget them. He should ignore entirely the membership of MESA Nostra or whether Muslim colleagues will be offended. Of course they will. So what? Think more of offending posterity.
Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2006 11:42 PM
I am outraged that Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist, isn't believed about what he did, and what he tried to do.
It's like mentally raping some-one.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 26, 2006 3:20 AM
Muslim apologists seldom provide any arguments. Instead, they generally engage in distraction, avoidance, and deflection. They often try to get by through substituting the naming of arguments for the actual arguments themselves. In this review, Janmohamed sticks mostly ad hominem and to making comments on the superficial aspects of the film's packaging and presentation. He avoids addressing substantive content, because that is what is most damaging to Islam.
Posted by: Archimedes at July 26, 2006 3:22 AM
Thank you for the excellent analysis about the Muslims' and their apologists's form of discussion: sneer!
And that's why I take a chance and ask you how on earth you manage to keep those people out of JihadWatch.
Of course posters are not scaring, but they are disturbing, distracting and causing anger among the good posters, who sometimes leave in resignation. Where ever some German AntiJihadists and Israel-supporters meet on Internet and talk openly, Muslims and dhimmis arrive like wasps on a glass of limonade. I know there are less Muslims and less stupid leftist dhimmis in the US than in Germany, but at least there are SOME too. And here in JihadWatch there are none at all. How do you make that?
Posted by: Eisvogel at July 26, 2006 5:55 AM
Proud Infidel you say,,,There seems to be a rising awareness in the Non-Muslim world of what Islam is really all about.
I hope you are right, it will be dispite the lies that the media tell us about Islam. I cannot understand why the Media is backing what we call terrorists, which I feel is in fact the Muslim army, or the first line of the army, which is just testing the front lines.
In the armed forces, if someone runs away they are shot as a traitor, so it is with Islam, We see that when the time is right and they are called to war, that aMuslim who is fit and able to go to war doesnt then the Quran says he is an agnostic and is then also slaughtered.
I have asked a couple of times on this site, can anyone give me any hope that we are winning this war. With the UN and the meddia on the side of Islam telling so many porkies, I cant see that we have a chance..
at July 26, 2006 7:05 AM
@americaningermany: it's the same thing in the forums I usually write in. They ban nearly every pro-Israeli user because of "offences" just as calling antisemites antisemites or because of "provocation" while the Jihadists' agitation becomes worse every day.
I know about Ibrahim El-Zayat. And Ayyub Axel Köhler as well. In my opinion the converts are a problem that is extremely underestimated in demographic prognoses - not only in Germany but all over Europe.
The normal discussion forums are already Eurabian :( . But meanwhile the Muslim or Dhimmi harassers even invade the commentary sections in downright anti-jihad pages. I know - the best thing would be to ignore them. But this is impossible. Someone always gets angry and answers to them. And thus they achieve their aim: distraction.
Posted by: Eisvogel at July 26, 2006 5:35 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)