Just noticed that there is only one copy of The Truth About Muhammad in the entire Rochester, NY library system.

Posted by: kenmat01 at November 13, 2006 12:06 PM

And not a single Robert Spencer book in the Garland County Library here in Arkansas. I shall complain.

Posted by: USBeast at November 13, 2006 12:14 PM

is anybody allowed to go, or just heritage members. i'm going to be in D.C. tomorrow and will go to the event if possible.

Posted by: freedomfight11 at November 13, 2006 2:07 PM

Oh, boy!

Posted by: PRCS at November 13, 2006 2:12 PM

Freedom fighter,

Anyone can go, you just have to register.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 4:24 PM

Dear sir,

This should be black day at Heritage Foundation that it has also fallen a prey to the nefarious designs of people like Robert Spencer of ‘Jihadwatch, com’. Looks like the authorities at Heritage foundation have approved his presentation of Book; ‘Truth about Muhammad’; at Heritage Foundation with out vetting it. I highly object to hijack of a renowned forum like Heritage Foundation by the people who no nothing; other than wilfully inducing poison in the society. Spending just about half an hour at his profane website Jihadwatch.com and his abettors; frontpagemagazine.com would be enough an evidence to know and reach for the bottom of his conspiracy that he is indulged in against the human race.

It should be just seen that what Robert Spencer wants to achieve by writing and presenting of this book: ‘Truth about Muhammad. He wants to spread an elusion about the character of a most revered person on this God’s earth; Prophet Muhammad. He wants to prove and portray advertently; to world in general and to Muslims in particular that they are following a false prophet.

With the same coin-what does he think about Jesus, Moses and Abraham? Were they also… some how characterless and false?

Jesus would be the most controversial one. He lived among his disciple just for three years only. For this duration he was among 3 out of 12 tribes (sheep). Rest were already driven out by the invading armies. The gentle and kind hearted person as he was; what reformation he could have done. He lived a persecuted life for his entire stay and was put on cross to die a cursed death by his very own people. He was humiliated by the people among whom, he had come. He could leave only three followers behind. Rest all is just hear say. Christianity developed a myth out of this; to live on. They are even unable to trace Jesus trail that after all, where he migrated? The myth does not want to believe that he migrated to north east and after passing through north Iran, went to Herat, Afghanistan and found other Judaic tribes (sheep); He reached his final destination in Kashmir. He died at the age of 120 years. His tomb is located in Khan Yar- Sirinagar, Kashmir.

Leaving the Christian myth aside, question arises that who selected these prophets. We all believe God chose his prophets for all the denominations.
If God had selected theses prophet and today as per Robert Spencer claim; We find them; a wrongly selected personalities for prophet hood by God; then; Prophet Muhammad may not be his target; rather he is targeting God Almighty.( Nahaoz billah) and.....

Robert Spencer is a savage like ‘wolf trying to dress up in sheep clothing’. With the policy of run deep run silent, He can be most dangerous person for inter societies, interfaith relations; widening the cracks and pitching them against each other.

A special culture of arrogant and ignorant is in making through this websites. The entire effort is to obliterate the route of peace and make it foggy to reach for the summit of truth called-Islam.

This is also not unusual that we find Islam being mocked at. All the prophets have been mocked on their declaration as messengers of God. There are hordes of slanderers every where; including quite a few on his website. Rather; I shall say; the entire set up of his website is meant to serve this purpose. They are; but bent to attack Islam from all sides and defame it.

What a useless exercise and waste of time of talented peoples of Heritage Foundation, abetting and supporting him in sheer ignorance?

Just to pursuing; a mere conjecture.
All in vain…Who has, ever been able to frustrate the plan of the God?

He and Heritage Foundations may be committing a manifest error.

With best of regards.

A Khokar

-------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None

Posted by: A Khokar at November 13, 2006 4:53 PM

A Khokar,

Your Taqqiyah is showing.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 5:40 PM

Earth to Khokar.....ole mo is NOT, nor, has he ever been the most revered person.

You are dreaming. He's the MOST HATED person to ever live.

Posted by: freewoman at November 13, 2006 6:34 PM

Khokar,

You have to share some of that stuff you are smoking! I would love to share your hallucinations! (sp)

Posted by: kwg1 at November 14, 2006 12:27 AM

KHOKAR

I liked your retarded rant! An empty gourd rattles the most.

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 3:11 AM

ILL HAVE TO WATCH IT USED, THE STREAM ISNT WORKING FOR ME

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at November 14, 2006 12:50 PM

Anyone get a chance to watch this? I did and it was great as expected.
Did anyone watch the very ending? There was singing in the background by a few people and they were singing about Natzi Genocide. What in gods name was that all about?!!

Posted by: Avatar at November 14, 2006 1:45 PM

I did watch the whole program.

"3000 died, that's like Nazi genocide"

Or something like that.

Almost as wierd as the Mark Foley question.

The brain dead are not open to intelligent discourse.

Posted by: PRCS at November 14, 2006 2:06 PM

Yes, that singing was weird. What I don't like about it is that it makes the appearance of the very academic and professional nature of this discourse relatively silly (albeit adds a funny twist).

The points that Robert speaks of are profoundly thought provoking, evident, and interesting.

Notice how the gentleman above, A Khokar, has to resort to talking about other religions in order to deflect attention from the reality of the world's problems, none of which have anything to do with the supposed "myth" of Christianity. Sir, if Mr. Spencer speaks untruths, then point them out. Once again, a critic and true hatemongerer is silenced.

The Foley comment was hysterical. It's a shot at political commentary and presumes that Mr. Spencer has some political agenda or supports anyone in particular. He handled it with a hearty laugh and then dismissed it. Classy.

The man is all class. I know his heart is in the right place. He wants to support the "moderates" - as do I. Unfortunately, as shown time and again, very few, if existent, want to help themselves. I fear that the moderate will do nothing in the future when populations take over and policies begin to change towards Sharia. Will that inaction be considered moderate when the rights of others are trampled on?

Posted by: Palamas at November 14, 2006 2:16 PM

So were they laughing at the Foley question because they thought equating that to Mohammud was funny or becasue they thought they pulled a fast one on Robert. I failed to see the humor in the question.

so the singers were more or less proterstors I take it. Likening robert to Hitler or some non-thinking BS like that?

Posted by: Avatar at November 14, 2006 2:23 PM

Getting down to the brass tacks:

I cannot imagine how 'moderate' Muslims can challenge their literalist brethren.

Consider amputations as an example:

While some 'moderate' Muslims dismiss Big Al's own word (Sura 5:33) as being relevant to the time and the circumstances in which it was 'revealed' to Muhammad, the Taliban simply don't see it that way; and they did conduct such amputations.

If that sura were ever publicly debated by a Muslim literalist and a 'moderate' Muslim, I'm quite sure the literalist would win.

So, how can the literalist view be challenged, defeated, and changed?

Posted by: PRCS at November 14, 2006 2:37 PM

Hello everyone,

I was fortunate enough to attend Robert's speech at the Heritage Foundation since I'm in town on business. It was dead on fabulous. The woman from Boston named Megan was a plant in the audience as were several other young folks. One of them pitched a fit because he didn't get to ask his question, which you may have seen when the moderator said there would be no more questions. He went out into the lobby outside the conference room and was talking to some of the guys who had attended. The next thing I know they were escorting him out through the hallway where the elevators were and he started to resist and these guys were on either side of him "encouraging" him to go. Then he started screaming and moaning, but it was all fake. When I was leaving he was in that same hallway talking to the Capitol Police about who he could report this incident to and the big, tall, thirty-something, black police officer was placating him but not buying it. Later when we were outside, his group of audience plants, about 8-10 people, were on the street corner, looking very satisfied with themselves. The buzz from the other participants was that this was some sort of leftist group, probably young communists or something like that. I wanted to walk over and slap that nasty, condescending smile off little Miss Megan's face.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 14, 2006 3:41 PM

That is correct. That Megan woman was clearly trying to be funny and point out somehow that Spencer is part of a group (like the Republicans) and perchance is doing their bidding? So he laughed (the crowd didn't) at the utter absurdity of it. I laughed too because no one ever can challenge anything he says, they go simply to distractors or ad hominems.

I wasn't sure what the nature of the singing was at the end. I thought it could either be a praising or mocking of the topic at hand, an applause for truth or disdain for it. It turns out that it seems to be the latter.

The man from France was particularly interesting in his description of how socialism and placation has led to and is currently lending to the destruction of the French state. Very informative with a good response from Robert on that one as well.

Finally, the sad thing was also admitted by Robert (as has been said by a few, scarce islamic scholars), and that is, for reform, the Koran must not be taken seriously. The claims are so obvious and the history so deep that the jihadists cannot go away unless the literalism and writings are considered to be a front, or if you prefer a more malignant term, a sham. I say it's sad because ethnocentrism and group mentalities of humans is something that is VERY difficult to remove --- and this is a social, political, cultural, religious system. I would say that we better learn how to support the transition to a religion that admits it as such and therefore progress can begin. I am almost certain that this will not happen, however, and that saddens me, because it renders our support irrelevant and a waste of time.

I hope this conference is taped and put on the internet as a realmedia or windows media file because from top to bottom along with the audience questions, it was a greatly informative piece, succinct and to the point.

Palamas

Posted by: Palamas at November 14, 2006 4:03 PM

Isabellathecrusader,
So would you say the majority of people that came were the Leftist, people like yourself that was there in support of Robert or were they mostly people there who learned something new and took what Robert had to say to heart?

Posted by: Avatar at November 14, 2006 4:03 PM

A Khokar,

You seem not to have a clue of what the Heritage Foundation is all about.

They did just fine, and within their tradition, in choosing Robert to speak there.

Kudos to them.

Posted by: Vee at November 14, 2006 4:46 PM

Man oh man you clowns are so quick to judgement and condemnation..that's the problem with ideoloques and ideology (left, right or somewhere else) they are mutually exclusive, self righteous, judgemental and fanatics..and "if you ain't one of us, then you is one of them"..and in that direction lies ruination as you bozo's alienate millions of fellow citizens who would, if they were rationally and lucidly informed, be allies.

Anyway news for you Avatar (and his statements are the reason for my statements and this post), according to Mr Spencer himself and his article Here the disruptors were members of that neo NAZI, neo Commie cult of Lyndon LaRouche.

LaDouchebag is all things to all people..a commie when it suits him, a NAZI when it suits him..but that's the way it is with cults.

The La Rouche ideology is neither left, right or in between..it is the ideology of a douchebag.

Posted by: Nariz at November 14, 2006 4:53 PM

The Lyndon LaRouche political cult. I haven't heard from them in years. They used to be big on the Rockefellars, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, central banker conspiracy kind of thing. That and the House of Windsor and the House of Lords running the world heroin trade. That and fusion energy. They used to finance themselves on nitwits credit cards so they could get public election funds.

How did he wind up in the anti-anti-jihad camp? What is he doing for money these days. Hey! You don't think he is taking money from the ... oh. Things that make you go hum ...

Posted by: Malta_1565 at November 14, 2006 4:59 PM

Here's a good link on the "LaRouchan" opinion on Spencer.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2006/3344gestapo_for_war.html

I attended the Spencer lecture, and I posted my account of what went down on another forum. Here it is again:

Today, I attended a lecture at the headquarters of the Heritage Foundation by Robert Spencer, author of various books on the threat of radical Islam. His lecture lasted for about 40 minutes. As I've noticed on his website, Jihad Watch, in his columns, and in a recent interview with Brian Lamb on CSPAN, Mr. Spencer is very knowledgeable on Islamic theology, history, and radical groups. I truly enjoyed his discussion. (If you want to watch it, go to The Truth About Muhammad. It is available in streaming video, streaming mp3, and downloadable mp3.)

The lecture itself went on without incident. It was during the Q&A period that things started to unravel. The first few questions were on various topics, and Spencer gave insightful answers and commentary. It was one of the last questions that exposed the "infiltrators" amongst the audience.

A young woman wearing a hat, named Megan ("from Boston"), brought up the subject of child marriage, which Spencer had mentioned when talking about the bad example Muhammad has given to his followers to this day. She asked him if "Republican Congressman Mark Foley was perhaps under the influence of the evil teachings of Muhammad." Spencer laughed at the question, and bluntly said "No." Members of the audience also laughed at her question, most likely because of its sheer absurdity. Spencer expanded on his answer, and said, "I never said that child molestation or pedophilia or anything of the kind was exclusively the province of Muslims.... I disapprove of it [this kind of conduct] from Mark Foley or anyone else" (If you want to hear this complete exhange, watch the streaming video on the link above, and using the scroll at the bottom of Windows Media Player, forward the time index to 58:01, and it follows from about 58:10 on.)

Spencer answered one more question about whether Islam could under go a reform movement like the Protestant Reformation (and made a slightly-veiled jab at Unitarian and Episcopalian "Christianity" and in the process - Spencer himself is a Catholic of the Melkite rite). After he finished his answer, the moderator for the lecture, the director of lectures and seminars for the Heritage Foundation, announced that the time for Q&A was up. As he was closing out the lecture, a young man who had has hand up for the entire latter half of the Q&A period stood up and whined loudly about how he hadn't been called on. The lecture director, in response, stated that he was welcome to talk to Spencer afterwards, and then thanked Mr. Spencer for his presentation, which started a round of applause.

Following the applause, people started to file out of the large auditorium at the Heritage Foundation. The man who had been complaining continued to shout, and as I made my way out to the lobby outside the auditorium to get my copies of Spencer's books signed, I started to hear singing. It sounded like some kind of protest song/jingle. I didn't really know what they were singing about at the time, but upon the reviewing the streaming video at the link above (starting at the 1:02:00 mark), the words were something like "Mr. Cheney, something something World War Three, one hundred thousand something die, that's like Nazi genocide." The song, of course, continued.) Between the Foley question and the jingle singers, it became pretty obvious that there were a handful of leftists that were bent on causing some kind of disruption at the lecture.

The disruption continued out in the lobby. A line formed in front of a table so Mr. Spencer could sign books. The man who hadn't been called on (and I have a feeling that lecture organizers had been warned in advance about this guy) came up to the side of the table, and started to rant about how Spencer supposedly supported the mass killing of Muslims, and how he couldn't see why so many people came out to hear him speak.

I was near the head of the line for the book signing, and in close proximity to the whiner, and I quickly got fed up with his rantings. I said to him that he basing his whole rant on a false premise, and that I was offended that he thought so poorly of the people who attended the lecture. The whiner, of course, came back with a lame retort (I can't remember the whole exchange word-for-word). Soon afterwards, Mr. Spencer signed my books. He asked him to personalize one book, and when he got to the other, I said he didn't have to personalize that one. He asked if I was sure, and I said I just didn't want to burden him and the people waiting in the line. He went ahead and personalized the second book as well. He was very friendly.

As I left the line, I noticed that the lecture director was escorting "Megan from Boston" from out of the auditorium. She left without incident. However, the young whiner continued his rant, and finally, he too was asked to leave. Some of the Heritage staff and the people who attended the event tried to get him to leave, and with some difficulty, he moved towards the hallway where the elevators were.

I wasn't paying complete attention to the whiner and his "escorts" as they moved towards the elevators, since I wanted to get some of the food and drinks that Heritage had on hand. Suddenly, I heard shouting from the hallway. I went over to see what was going on. I saw the whiner from before trying to hang on to a corner in the hallway as a Heritage staffer escorted him out. He kept on shouting that he was being hurt.

A few minutes later, the U.S. Capitol Police showed up (the Heritage Foundation is only a block and a half away from one of the Senate office buildings). They interviewed the whiner, the staffers involved, and probably some of the witnesses who saw the whole thing go down. After some time, he was finally escorted out of the building by the police.

Posted by: M. Joseph at November 14, 2006 6:32 PM

Khokar the only myth is the Islamic one. A myth of hatred and jihad. And you know it.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 14, 2006 6:39 PM

Thanks M. Joseph.

The "whiner" - how probably a very appropriate name for that guy.

Posted by: Report at November 14, 2006 6:50 PM

Avatar,

'Sorry, I posted the above and then had to run to a meeting. As has been stated above and on another thread, the group of rude disruptors had something to do with Lyndon LaRouche. I said above that the buzz from other attendees was that it was some sort of leftist group. This impression seemed plausible because the song they were singing at the end had that flavor to it. It was hard to hear the words because people around kept asking what they were singing about. I remember hearing something about Nazis. It was obvious from their blatant disrespect for the other people attending, for Robert and for those who put it on that this was not a conservative group.

The guy that stood up and complained about not getting to ask his question knew he was disrupting the procedings and he clearly got off on it. I saw him going down the hall as the other guys escorted him out and the whole screaming/whining thing was a put on. He was just ticked that they were throwing him out. He wasn't being hurt in any way, shape or form and he knew it.

To answer Avatar's question, the room was full of suits and younger folks who were dressed in business casual. There were a lot of people over the age of fifty. In talking to several of them afterwards there seemed to be a lot of conservatives there. There was also a very interesting French guy, who Palamas referenced up above, who was talking a mile a minute but getting some good points across. He said that his country is basically lost, that the country is practically bankrupt, that people there pay 50% of their salaries in taxes and that there just isn't anymore money to do anything about the Muslim problem. He said that between what the socialists have done to destroy the economy and what the Muslims have done to destroy the culture, there is almost nothing left of the France anyone would recognize. He also said that the castles and cathedrals in France are falling into disrepair because there is no money to fix them. He also talked about the Muslims burning cars (referred to as Car-B-Que) and that over the past year, car sales in France have dropped 13%. He said he's not sure if that is directly affected by the burnings but he said that , I think, five years ago the Muslims burned 45,000 cars. He also threw out a number of 35,000 for another year and he said the French are really scared about it. He said the people are confused because they can't go out at night. It's like this thing happened and they don't remember when. He also said that they get a huge amount of their income from tourists and that in a few more months, when the suicide attacks start, the tourism will dry up and France will really be screwed. How he knows this, I don't know. Whether the part about the suicide bombers is true or not remains to be seen. But it was very interesting to speak with someone who has lived there and appears to know what he is talking about, who speaks of things that resemble so much of what we read here.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 14, 2006 8:00 PM

Isabellathecrusader, thanks for the interesting description of the talk and "events" surrounding it. I would have been there except I live on the other side of the world. Speaking of which, you can credit Tim Blair for the Car-B-Que line.

Posted by: Brett_McS at November 14, 2006 8:36 PM

Mr. Kobar, I hope you're still reading. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your posting is in good faith and that you are doing what you believe to be right. I have a few things to say, also in good faith, if you have the patience to listen.

First, as you will know, this site is principally a "newsblog" in which the blogger posts news items, making informal comments of his own, and a largely unmoderated group is given opportunity to add their two bits. If you visit many of these sites you know what to expect: the blogger's comments may range from serious to flippant, sarcastic and, yes, even downright offensive -- it is reader beware; if a person can't take the sarcasm and irreverent comments, they needn't choose to visit.

You learn quickly to steel yourself to the "unmoderated comments" that follow the blogger's own input. In Spencer's case, he lets people say what they will, and you will find all manner of abusive, offensive and hateful things said here. It is an exercise in free speech. Many of those posting such things are just blowing off steam -- it is frustrating to deal with the same issues over and over again and receive no answer except charges of hate-mongering ... so many of these kiddies resort to tit-for-tat potty-mouthed posturing. If you're looking for sensible commentary, avoid these sections and scroll to more reasonable comments, or Mr. Spencer's own writings.

To his credit, Spencer does something many bloggers don't do: occasionally he will peruse the comments people are posting and remove some of the most offensive ones.

If you visit many such sites alongside this one you will immediately notice that Spencer maintains some fairly stringent bounds on his own comments -- though he takes no responsibility for the anonymous contributors. But, to see what Spencer is truly all about you have to go to his scholarly works, not these off-the-cuff reactions to news "as it happens".

Find the articles he cites here and there, in which he develops a subject and explores what is to be known. You will find him knowledgeable and balanced in his presentation. You will also find that he repeatedly makes a challenge that seems to fall on deaf ears. Maybe if I repeat it one more time here, you, or one of your Islamic friends, would take the challenge up.

You see, while Spencer's scholarship is impeccable, he has no "formal" credentials in this field. So he is careful not to come to conclusions on his own. In his scholarly works on Islam he relies, for any conclusions he draws, entirely on original Islamic sources. The very things you claim to find offensive in his book (which I suspect you have not read) are not his own conclusions -- he merely summarizes what Islamic scholars have to say. His "offense", if there is one, is that he compiles them deliberately to emphasize certain points that are generally underemphasized by those sympathetic to Islam.

But Spencer is not interested principally in destroying Islam. He holds out some hope for Islamic scholars who can find a way to interpret the religion in a way that is not a threat to the rest of humanity (and also to many innocent muslims).

So, the first challenge is, if you find yourself upset at the things Spencer is saying in his book: present an argument that they are unsupportable by orthodox Islamic thought. This should not be a difficult job as he documents his Islamic sources very well. It should be easy to look up these sources and say, "no, here is where you are going wrong -- you are misinterpreting here, here and here; this is what is really means; you are missing this fact; so-and-so never actually said that...etc" But the fact is that out of many thousands who claim to be Islamic scholars in the west, nobody has put forward a credible rebuttal of Spencer's claims.

You see, he is not blindly slandering a religion -- he is merely presenting what the members of that religion say about it, in a way that makes very clear what the full implications are. But he is met with slanderous accusations. You should know, Mr. Kobar, that simply calling someone a bigot or Islamophobe, or trying to censor his work is NOT an appropriate response, if that person's message is scholarly and respectful. Mr. Spencer deserves to be met in open forum, and his statements deserve an appropriate scholarly treatment. I hope you can do better than just make unfounded charges about his motivations.

Now, Spencer is not really writing about *Islam* per se -- he is writing about *Islamism*, which you may know is that particularly potent brand of islamic thought that is bent on world domination under Sharia law.

It just so happens that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do a credible analysis of Islamism without *also* doing a fairly complete analysis of certain aspects of Islam. For it is the Islamists themselves who draw from true, orthodox Islamic sources to justify their movement. This is true for the "peaceful" Islamists bent on using political clout to bring in the Khalifah Rashida in the west. It is also true for the radical Islamists bent on using violence to attain the same goal.

The second challenge is to peaceful muslims to demonstrate convincingly that the jihadists -- those bent on using terror to "bring in the kingdom" -- are wrongfully interpreting the religion. I presume, Mr. Kobar, that you are opposed to these folks, Al Qaeda, Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, and their ilk. I presume that we can converse as allies against their poison, whatever else we may disagree on.

But Spencer says something quite alarming in conclusion after all his independent study: it seems impossible to shake the impression that it is the JIHADISTS, not the MODERATE muslims, who appear to be most orthodox in their understanding of Islam.

Your challenge, Mr. Kobar, is to meed the arguments of the jihadists face to face and prove them to be apostate, while you and the other moderate muslims in the west, are the ones who are true to your faith.

I wish you luck, and Mr. Spencer and I and many others reading here, sincerely hope that you are right and the jihadists wrong. We really are rooting for you. But alas the battle seems to be going badly.

There is a pretty clear indication that the "moderates" (if I may presume to call you that) are losing: you see, your boys don't appear to be directly addressing the jihadists at all. I don't see any effort being expended toward this end. This would appear to indicate that you don't think that you can make effectively the jihadist's interpretations of Islam directly. (Mr. Spencer makes your job easier by presenting their interpretations quite lucidly.)

Instead all efforts are directed at trying to silence those who are calling attention to this problem. You are trying to shoot the messenger ... but the message, apparently is bad news, and without the messenger, that bad news will overtake you, and me, in a most unsavoury fashion!

To use another metaphor, it appears that you consider Mr. Spencer and company as a disease to be cured, or quarantined. But Mr. Spencer is not a disease, Mr. Kobar -- he is the symptom. Symptoms are there to let you know that there is a disease. The symptom is not your enemy; the disease is. The disease is your jihadist coreligionists. You must decide whether you are part of the disease or part of the cure. Mr Spencer is just helping with the diagnosis, and so he is part of the cure.

So you and your fellow moderates would do well, instead of posting loud proclamations that "terror is evil and unislamic", to meet the very sophisticated and scholarly reasons given by the jihadists, face to face, and show why they are wrong. When the Jihadists who would like to kill, subjugate or convert us, our wives and our children, go away, I assure you Mr. Spencer will leave your humiliated prophet alone.

You see, it is not Mr. Spencer and his kind who are doing your religion such harm. It is not the Pope who said that Islam is a violent religion. Nobody has had to say this: we have a saying in the west, "actions speak louder than words". Well, the actions of the jihadists are speaking MUCH louder, right now, than the actions of the moderates. Grow up, stop complaining that by revealing what is already there to see that someone is persecuting you, and do something proactive about the real problem.

Trouble is, the moderates seem pissed off with those who are merely calling attention to what the jihadists are saying. If this message is an attack on your religion then I encourage you and your coreligionists to deal with the source of that message ... and that source, Mr. Kobar, is not Mr. Spencer, or the western media, or the Pope, or even the potty-mouthed kids on this site. It is a few million good-time-boys who call themselves Muslims and, in the name of your prophet are going around beheading christian schoolgirls in Indonesia as "Eid gifts to the Umma", raping girls in France and Australia, blowing up innocent people wherever they can find them, and just generally giving your religion a bad name.

Deal with them, Mr. Kobar. Kill the disease, and the symptoms will go away.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 14, 2006 8:56 PM

Hi Brett,

Believe me, I just totally lucked out to have been in town while Robert was.

As for the Car-B-Que thing, I thought that was priceless. I should have heard it before today but I hadn't. It's a good thing Blair has a sense of humor.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 14, 2006 10:35 PM

Hi Isabella,

Yes, it was like "by the way, there is a conference tomorrow...". I do read JW most days and I didn't notice any real forewarning, but then there are reasons events like this aren't advertised too heavily, as you noted.

That's Tim Blair (link) Australia's premier conservative blog, not the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Posted by: Brett_McS at November 14, 2006 10:44 PM

"Muslim" and "extremist" is redundant in my book. The MYTH that is continually fomented by the liberal media outlets (like CNN and Wolf Blitzer - is he not a self-hating, Islamist panderer or what?) is that there is a "moderate" brand of Islam (more appropriately labeled I-slam - as in "I slam you, infidel!). Islam and its backward, draconian, rules and regulations for its society should be anathema in America, Europe, and any place on the earth that stands for basic human rights, pluralism, freedom of expression/speech, and critical thinking.

Funny how the left-wing media and their ilk are quick to label people like Robert and others as "Islamaphobes" for maintaining that there is a REAL threat from these medeivel savages ... but ... then will decline to show/air the much talked about and much maligned (by the Muslim masses) cartoons from the Netherlands that lampooned the "prophet" Muhammad becuse they (left-wing media people) in fact fear (and rightfully so) that an angry Islamist mob would storm their offices, cut their heads off, and throw their mutilated bodies down a well!!!

Robert ... I just got done reading The Truth About Muhammad and Islam Unveiled respectively ... These were excellent books to read! ... I couldn't hardly put them down until I was nearly done with both!!! Very insightful and educational. These shoud be REQUIRED reading for all representatives of Government of the Western World (Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan [which is pseudo-Western, anyways], and some of Central and South America (doubtful that Hugo Chavez would read them).

I just got my copy of Reliance of the Traveller and will peruse that (mostly use it as a reference when reading various books/articles).
I will next read Mark Steyn's America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It.

Does anyone here know about an Op/Ed piece that was written a few weeks ago (in early November in the Washington Times, I believe) that basically discusses what life in America would be like if it ever were to fall to the Islamic onslaught and be put under Shariah? If you know about this article, could you please give me a URL or a link? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: secular4ever at November 15, 2006 12:08 AM

Hi Brett,

Well whichever Blair said it, it was funny. We're going to need all the humor we can get to fight this battle because remember, there is no laughter in Islam!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 15, 2006 8:15 AM

Archimedes2, awesome! that was the most profound set of comments I've seen to date on the issue with violent Islamists (or Islamofascists).

well done! the issue is not that Americans, conservative or Liberal, hate Muslims, or want to persecute them, it's that we hate what the extremist/terrorist/whacko Muslims are doing to innocent people all over the world in the name of religion: they are evil, they do evil things, they MUST be stopped at all costs. When the rank and file Muslim steps to the plate and helps solve this problem, you'll see a huge outpouring of help and support from most all Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, etc. Until that time, we must continue to expose their lies, expose the violence in their teachings, expose their intolerance of other cultures and beliefs, expose the tacit approval of the violent by the so-called moderate Muslims, expose their political agenda to dominate and rule by fear using religion as an excuse.

"Kill the disease, and the symptoms will go away."
well said.

Posted by: PeaceThruStrength at November 17, 2006 9:00 PM