| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I have pointed out for quite some time now that critics of my work restrict themselves to broad generalizations about my alleged inaccuracy, without troubling to provide any examples. Or alternatively they resort to outright fabrications, as in Khaleel Mohammed's utterly mendacious claim that "Spencer...misquotes verses of the Qur'an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies." When I asked Dr. Mohammed to provide evidence of any instance in which I miquoted the Qur'an, he did not comply -- and of course he cannot produce any such evidence.
But now Jihad Watch reader JVC has sent me some critiques of my work that appear to have some substance -- and that I therefore think are worth answering here. But I'm afraid there is less here than meets the eye, as JVC also writes: "Hey Spencer! I was talking with someone about your books, and he sent these to me from some online discussion he read. It is especailly ironic when it is only through you I even know what Tafsir is."
Tafsir is Islamic commentary on the Qur'an. JVC refers to it because the first critic says this (I don't know whom is being addressed):
I don't want to insult you, so I'll say only that you are quite ignorant of the facts. Some parts of the world do face threats from so-called 'jihadis', that much is true, but Islam and the Quran are not the basis for this. Like any theological text, there are 100 ways to interpret the Quran. The Prophet Muhammed himself said, "Difference of opinion in matters of religion in a blessing." For instance, I was born and raised a Muslim. I have read the Quran cover to cover and studied all six sunni collections of hadith, and I still have yet to come to Spencer's conclusion that Islam teaches its adherents to kill and/or subjugate all non-Muslims.
This is a common claim. Mahdi Bray pulled it on me during a talk I once gave up in Boston. With unctuous solemnity and folksy charm, he claimed that the Islam I described was like no Islam he had ever come across. Likewise now also this writer. But the problem is that if this person really studied Qur'an and Hadith, how exactly did he fail to spot Qur'an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, and hundreds of other passages that tell Muslims to convert, subjugate, or make war against non-Muslims? Or am I supposed to have made all that up? There may be some way to understand these passages in a non-literal sense, and I'd welcome that, but just to claim they don't exist strains credulity beyond the breaking point.
I doubt that Spencer has ever picked up a book of tafsir.
"Zaynab bint Jahsh was apparently remarkably beautiful. According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, an ancient Islamic commentary on the Qur’an, after her marriage to Zayd, 'Muhammad’s eye fell on her, and love for Zaynab budded in his heart.'" -- Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad, p. 59.
"All this ground has been covered long ago, such that today Muslims can consult various venerable books of tafsir that carry enormous weight in the Islamic world. A useful starting point is the work of Ibn Kathir....Ibn Kathir elaborates on this in his commentary on Sura 9:29. That verse says that the People of the Book should 'feel themselves subdued'; he glosses 'subdued' as 'disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.'" -- Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, pp. 127, 139.
He really has much more in common with his salafi/jihadist nemesi than he would like to admit. Both of them can't stand dissension or opposition.
It's ironic that I am always the one asking Muslim spokesmen to debate, and many have declined (Omid Safi, Ahmed Afzaal, etc. etc.) and now I'm the one who can't stand dissension or opposition.
Meanwhile, it has become increasingly common lately for people to claim that I am empowering the Salafis by reporting on their words and deeds. Evidently if we all close our eyes and pretend with all our might that they aren't using the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit more jihadists, they will stop doing so. Well, sorry, but I don't buy it. If Islamic reformers are sincere, they will confront jihadist exegesis of Islamic texts, not ignore it -- as most continue to do.
Both of them are on a religious crusade against each other. And most importantly, both of them think they can pick up the Quran and hadith and interpret them without the aid of any scholars. Perhaps, as a Catholic, Spencer calls this the miracle of immaculate scholarship. It's funny, he's such a great Islamic scholar, and yet he doesn't seem to have ever heard of the concept of sha'n al-nuzul, instead claiming that all the violent surahs and ayah of the Quran are eternal, immutable commandments for the Faithful.
As I have said many times, I don't have any interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. I report on their interpretation by Muslims. And I don't see any large-scale effort by Muslims to refute the jihadist interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. A few courageous individuals are doing so, but that doth not a movement make.
Likewise, the idea that the violent passages of the Qur'an take precedence over the peaceful ones is not my invention. In his sira, Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur'an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya. Tafasir by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that Surat At-Tawba, the ninth and most violent chapter of the Qur'an, abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur'an.
In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Qur'an's teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed by Qutb, Maududi, the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of "The Qur'anic Concept of War"), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his "Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah"), and others. It is, of course, an assertion of no little concern to non-Muslims, since it encapsulates a doctrine of warfare against non-Muslims and their ultimate subjugation under Sharia rules, with all that implies.
Anyway, the sha'n al-nuzul involves the circumstances in which a particular passage of the Qur'an was revealed. It is more commonly referred to as the asbab al-nuzul. I've never heard of it, have I? Well, read on:
"Perhaps reacting to the fragmentary quality of the Qur’anic narrative, early Muslims elaborated two principal sources to provide context for the Qur’an: tafsir (commentary on the Qur’an) and hadith, traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And a significant amount (although by no means all) of the hadith is itself tafsir. It gives the asbab an-nazool, or circumstances of revelation (as we have just seen for Sura 66:1-5), for various Qur’anic verses—which can have important implications for how the verse is to be applied in the modern age." -- Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad, p. 24.
It would be nice if these pseudo-scholarly critics actually read what I wrote before dismissing it. But I have given up such hopes.
Now of course, it isn't as if I have never made mistakes. At the same time JVC (and another reader also) sent me someone taking me to task for asserting in a recent interview that Qur'an 3:28 told Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends and protectors (awliyaa) when actually it says "unbelievers," not Jews and Christians. That is true. My mistake. It is actually Qur'an 5:51 that tells Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends and protectors (awliyaa). And since 3:28 goes on to say -- in the opinion of the tafsir of Ibn Kathir and others -- that it is permissible under certain circumstances to deceive unbelievers, it is useful to point out here that Qur'an 5:17 refers to orthodox Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ as unbelievers (kafara), the same word used in 3:28.
Next!
Posted by Robert at November 24, 2006 2:53 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Why is it that when Muslims interpret the Qur'an as supporting violence, other Muslims are silent. Yet, when a westerner presents those same interpretations, he is immediately attacked and persecuted for this...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 24, 2006 3:47 PM
"Well, sorry, but I don't buy it. If Islamic reformers are sincere, they will confront jihadist exegesis of Islamic texts, not ignore it -- as most continue to do".
...and continue this displacement of blame to unbelievers who simply see and report what the jihadists say and do. This displacement will stop when the "moderate-reformers" really take on the jihadists. Then what unbelievers think won't matter much to reformers. The attacks against unbelievers (Jihadwatch folks, e.g.) are displacement right now.
at November 24, 2006 4:02 PM
Am I the only one who notices that like the Eskimos and their 90 words each describing different kinds of snow, Islam seems to have like 90 words describing sanctioned violence. It's funny.
at November 24, 2006 4:17 PM
Robert said
Anyway, the sha'n al-nuzul involves the circumtances in which a particular passage of the Qur'an was revealed.
You have mipselled (sic) the word "circumstances" in the above sentence. Therefore whatever Qur'anic quotations you have shown us are irrelevant, whatever work you have done can be dismissed, your books should be ignored. Islam really is the Religion of Peace(tm), jihadists are not attacking us, and any anyone who investigates the beliefs of Muslims is a racist.
So sayeth the Middle East Experts(tm).
Posted by: special_guest at November 24, 2006 4:31 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html
The Bible, with the over 600 Mosaic Laws, can be interpreted in a manner very similar to the Qur'an, and has been done for centuries. Care to discuss the violent reprecussions of Commandment #1 for starters? Millions of Christians, and many Jews espouse a more moderate view of their religion today (shall we consider them "apostates"? "Christian-lite"?- as many who preach notions of christian supremacy in this country say as much). Many enjoy and repsect our pluralist society and do not endorse religious absolutism. Yet do these religious do the same? Care to scrutinize it? Of course not! It would completely undermine your career!
Of course, Christians did not come to that position overnight. The religious absolutism of Constatine and Justinian, the treatment of Jews during the Inquisition, the bloody wars during the Reformation, were all comitteed in the name of Christ, by vehement crowds offering a choice of "convert or die". Biblical passages (particularly Leviticus) used to justify each and every instance of violence. My Ladino friends in Istanbul were given precisly such a choice by Catholics which is why they fled to Istanbul, where the Sufi Sultan Beyazit welcomed them. Your premise that Muslims adhere to violent tenants completely overlooks the glaring fact that the Bible basically profers much the same thing.
It was only due to the Enlightenement which led to the founding of our great nation, that people actually started to reject the rigidly violent tenets espoused by religion and begin to think in terms of solutions- advocating living in a pluralist society. Even so, we still allowed for the forced conversion of millions of slaves to Christianity, finally conceded that your fellow Americans were truly free to worship- or not- in 1959, and there has been nothing but andless hostility expressed towards your fellow Americans who are non-Christian (re: wiccan). of course, you would deem Christians like my mother, who has attended seminary (Read EDUCATED FEMALE- gasp!) and is an ordained priest, an utter apostate in your narrow views, for supporting the rights of non-Christians to worship freely in this great country of ours as well.
I also notice a rather glaring disjunct between you and your friend Daniel Pipes, as he deigns to feature Muslims who take a stand against hate- while you never do. You make it seem like it never happens.
Daniel has condescended to feature these guys:
www.freemuslims.org
and these guys:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/434
However, I would also like to point out these brave men and women who serve our country, provide critical services, and who far more effective contributions to our country than you do:
Some other brave women who take a stand:
www.monaeltahawy.com
www.irshadmanji.com
http://www.asmahasan.com/
and of course, there's always Republican neo-con Muslims like Semee Hasan!
http://muslimsforamerica.us/about/seeme.html
Yet lets think for a moment as to what made this country so great a nation:
George Washington
(1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)
The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...."
According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)
As you rarely deign to offer anything constructive, dare you point your zealous fan base towards resources to learn a little of the relevant languages for themsleves? Here's a start
www.easypersian.com
http://www.lexicorient.com/babel/arabic/
Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred, but just know that there are plenty of your fellow Americans who know just what you purvey, and will never buy into the hate propaganda that you voluntarily choose to spew.
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee at November 24, 2006 4:34 PM
Mr. Spencer is targeting easy prey. The truth is that Mr. Spencer is hiding his face from real Islamic scholars like Mr. Nadir Ahmed who runs his own site called Examine The Truth. Here is the link incase anyone wants it www.ExamineTheTruth.com
So tell us Mr. Spencer, why are you hiding from Mr. Ahmed? We all want to see you take him on but you seem to be afraid. But no worries dear.. Mr. Ahmed always gets his man.. and he is not going to stop till he shows your true face Mr. Spencer.
-Shazia
Posted by: Shazia Ali at November 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Trolls...yawn...
Posted by: duh_swami at November 24, 2006 4:46 PM
Dear Special Guest: Fixed. Thanks.
Dear zzazzeefrazzee:
You say: "The Bible, with the over 600 Mosaic Laws, can be interpreted in a manner very similar to the Qur'an, and has been done for centuries. Care to discuss the violent reprecussions of Commandment #1 for starters?"
Sure. As soon as Christians and Jews start cutting off heads and flying planes into buildings because of the First Commandment, I'll get right on that.
You say: "Millions of Christians, and many Jews espouse a more moderate view of their religion today (shall we consider them "apostates"? "Christian-lite"?- as many who preach notions of christian supremacy in this country say as much). Many enjoy and repsect our pluralist society and do not endorse religious absolutism. Yet do these religious do the same? Care to scrutinize it? Of course not! It would completely undermine your career!"
In fact, this will be the subject of my next book. Watch for it next summer.
You say: "...Your premise that Muslims adhere to violent tenants [sic] completely overlooks the glaring fact that the Bible basically profers much the same thing."
Even if it were true that the Bible teaches as much violence as the Qur'an does, would the presence of such violent passages in the Bible somehow excuse the Qur'an's violent passages, or the many, many Muslims committing violence around the world today because of those passages?
You say: "...of course, you would deem Christians like my mother, who has attended seminary (Read EDUCATED FEMALE- gasp!) and is an ordained priest, an utter apostate in your narrow views, for supporting the rights of non-Christians to worship freely in this great country of ours as well."
Please provide evidence of any statement I have ever made against the rights of non-Christians to worship freely in the U.S. or anywhere else.
You say: "I also notice a rather glaring disjunct between you and your friend Daniel Pipes, as he deigns to feature Muslims who take a stand against hate- while you never do. You make it seem like it never happens.
"Daniel has condescended to feature these guys:
"www.freemuslims.org"
In fact, Free Muslims is linked at this site, and Tashbih Sayyed, a Muslim, is a member of the Jihad Watch Board.
You say: "Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred, but just know that there are plenty of your fellow Americans who know just what you purvey, and will never buy into the hate propaganda that you voluntarily choose to spew."
If you think that reporting on the words and deeds of jihadists is stoking "the flames of hatred," let me ask you what you are doing to combat the spread of the jihad ideology among Muslims. Or do you think the jihad will end if I stop talking about it?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 24, 2006 4:46 PM
Shazia Ali:
Nadir Ahmad knows the truth: I agreed to debate him in print or on the air, before I knew what he really was, over a year ago, and he is the one who ran. He declined to debate, not me. It's interesting, but not really surprising, that he never told his readers about our exchange at the time, and is now actively misrepresenting what happened.
But in any case, there is a great deal more about him that is of interest, and I expect I will be writing more about him rather soon.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 24, 2006 4:48 PM
traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. (*- Robert Spencer
How can anyone in theit right mind call Mohd.a Prophet. It is an insult to real prophits. After writing the kind of stuff about Mohd. in your book, how can you ever call him a prophet?
at November 24, 2006 4:56 PM
MusHuntCowboy:
I don't believe he was a prophet. The reference is merely for clarity. There are many Muhammads. When I mean the Prophet of Islam, I may refer to him as such.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 24, 2006 4:58 PM
zzaazzeefrazzee--"Stoking the flames of hatred."
To my knowledge, Robert Spencer has never said he hated anyone.
Posted by: SpongeMom at November 24, 2006 5:03 PM
When I mean the Prophet of Islam, I may refer to him as such. (*-
Robert Spencer
Thanks for clarification. Could call him Mohd of Mohamads if you like. Please don't call him Prophet. Prophet has a special place in the hearts of good people, Mohd of Mohamads could never achieve that.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 24, 2006 5:15 PM
zzaazzeefrazzee,
Care to discuss the violent reprecussions of Commandment #1 for starters?
I don't see where this commandment ever stopped Mohammed from disseminating his revelations. It was his fellow Arabs who fought him. Was this commandment where Mohammad derived his idea that anyone who leaves Islam should die? Christians don't kill those who leave the faith. Some were excommunicated (forced out of the church) but they weren't executed.
Sure you can point to the Inquisition and to the many religious wars fought in Europe, but they all happened centuries ago. We've grown up since then. What about Muslims? Are you STILL so insecure that you have to murder someone who even dares to make fun of one or more facets of Islam? Why is it that Muslims are very good at dishing it out, but they just can't take it?
Look at Ahmadinejad or Khomeini just two decades ago, Yasser Arafat (may he burn in hell) and lots more that have shown their faces in just the last thirty years. You accuse Robert of stoking the flames of hatred? Have you looked in the mirror lately?
If Islam is such a peaceful religion, then why did Muslims around the world cheer the collapse of the twin towers? Where are the "moderates" among you? Show yourselves. Why must those who dare to deviate from Islam fear for their lives?
That those Muslims who preach peace are few and far between only further illustrates what we are facing. Not only that, they are all in America or in other Western countries. Where are they in the Muslim world?
Posted by: PMK at November 24, 2006 5:25 PM
Most Americans oppose Islamic fundamentalists for the very reason that they stand in opposition to those things we hold most dear, freedom of speeech, religion, press, equality of al persons, and the right to hold a different opinion about just about anything. Islamic fundamentalism is based on everyone following in lockstep a set of beliefs most Americans would not accept.
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 24, 2006 5:33 PM
"Your premise that Muslims adhere to violent tenants completely overlooks the glaring fact that the Bible basically profers much the same thing."
They also adhere to violent landlords.
Posted by: remote_control at November 24, 2006 5:37 PM
Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred, but just know that there are plenty of your fellow Americans who know just what you purvey, and will never buy into the hate propaganda that you voluntarily choose to spew.
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee
You know what, boy? Noone needs to stoke my hatred. You momobots do that all by yourselves.. suicide grannies.. vile beheaders and people who parade body parts of those they have slain. How can I NOT hate all of those things?
And HOW am I supposed NOT to hate the momobots holding up their hate-placards in from of Westminster Abbey during Easter Celebrations?!
Dummkopf! Dir hammse ins Gehirn geschi**en!
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 24, 2006 5:43 PM
The nation has the complete shahih bukhri and The Tafsir Ibn kathir to download
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at November 24, 2006 5:48 PM
@zzaazzeefrazzee
"Millions of Christians, and many Jews espouse a more moderate view of their religion today
Yup. That's true. But as far as Moslems are concerned, it makes no difference. We are vile infidels anyway.
gobledeeguckfrazee, take a look at Iraq. A picture's worth a thousand words.
Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at November 24, 2006 5:56 PM
Yet lets think for a moment as to what made this country so great a nation:
George Washington
(1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)
The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
NOONE EVER SAID GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS PERFECT. LIKE ALL POLITICIANS HE MADE A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT COMES TO ISLAM!!!! Besides, momobots don't make good workmen anyway.
They think work is beneath them and everyone else should do for them. Which explains the f*cked-up state all of these mahometan countries are in.
As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...."
EXACTLY!!!! Show me where the momobots are the persecuted! They are the PERSECTORS!! They kill Jew and Christian and Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic and Atheist.. Animist and Wiccan. THEY KILL ALL WHO CHOOSE THE BE THEMSELVES. Most of us don't wish to join the Hive, thank you very much.
[....]
As you rarely deign to offer anything constructive, dare you point your zealous fan base towards resources to learn a little of the relevant languages for themsleves? Here's a start
www.easypersian.com
http://www.lexicorient.com/babel/arabic/
Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred, but just know that there are plenty of your fellow Americans who know just what you purvey, and will never buy into the hate propaganda that you voluntarily choose to spew.
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee
zzzz.. you are anything but an American! If only Robert's "fanbase" were half as "zealous" as your momobuddies!!! You'd have no idea what hit you if we got even ONE-TENTH as zealous as you guys!!! So please behave and go back into your little spiderhole. You don't want to make us too "zealous" :-) Trust me.
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 24, 2006 5:59 PM
Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred, but just know that there are plenty of your fellow Americans who know just what you purvey, and will never buy into the hate propaganda that you voluntarily choose to spew.
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee
Oh I misread that 'fellow Americans' bit. But allow me :-) These 'fellow Americans' wouldn't happen to be Rosie O'Donnel and Richard Qere? Or do you make reference to Traitor "Ted the Red" Kennedy?! Nancy Pelosi, and oh yes, Keith Ellison and John Conyers!! Please name a few more if my list is not INCLUSIVE enough for you!
Al Sharpton perhaps? Jesse Jerkson? What other loundmouths can i think of?
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 24, 2006 6:03 PM
"Your premise that Muslims adhere to violent tenants completely overlooks the glaring fact that the Bible basically profers much the same thing."
They also adhere to violent landlords.
Posted by: remote_control
Ain't nothing goin on but the rent.
Bottoms up. time to pray.
Feng Shui design dilemma of the day:
Shall I face the front of my toilet east or shall it be the back?
at November 24, 2006 6:09 PM
I find the postings above by Shazia and special guest amusing. These are the typical Muslim approaches, "well you misspelled a word therefore you cannot be right".
Muslim's as we see everyday, everywhere are playing these same games. They never want to answer a question, they only stand and criticize, and usually if not always using false logic. I guess that sums up the Quran, false logic, by a false prophet.
The only ones who will see true hellfire are those who follow this religion.
Niv
Posted by: The fanatic at November 24, 2006 6:27 PM
Oops. I shouldn't have said that. Obviously not all liberals are pro-muslim.
Posted by: americaningermany
Good to see you're doing well, AIG. Happy Turkey [OUT of the EU]-DAY!!! Let me just ask.. WHAT liberals are NOT pro-muslim? I am not being sarcastic. I really would like to know. They can be American, German, any nationality really. Not that i have much faith in Germans being anti-moslem these days :-( I have had HUGE fights with all of my family re. these momobots and what they are doing to my beloved Europe! Only one living Grandmother remains faithfully on Our side. She says she won't discuss it if anyone else is in the room because she doesn't want the fighting. And I say that's precisely the problem: we are afraid to speak up and fight! But then I have to respect her as my elder and given her age I can understand why see wants to avoid too much fussing about. She has said to me that she doesn't envy us [younger generation] for our future one bit.
at November 24, 2006 6:30 PM
What to do if an anti-rascist says-"Don't you know JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ISlam is peaceful religion it is only evil Zionist and his America who ruins it JOOOOOO"
"Because you hate Jews I feel it is only right that you cease to use their inventions, please hand over to me your cell phone/computer/and all other Jewish inventions the full list of which I shall give you next time we meet"
Now that that is out of my system (Just confronted a self proclaimed "anti-rascist" on the topic of Israel)callled Islam the Religion of the invasions) I didn't see any scholarship in the critique you just responded to since everything he says would be cleared up if he read some of your books.
Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at November 24, 2006 6:44 PM
Motorist is beaten to death, eight hurt as crazed man rampages
Police attend the scene where a man was killed in a fight in west London
A motorist was beaten to death today and at least eight people were injured after a man went on the rampage near Heathrow.
The violence is believed to have been sparked after a confrontation between the assailant and a car driver.
One of those hurt was fighting for his life in hospital. Two of the injured were women.
An ambulance crew called to the scene was attacked trying to treat people in the street.
A number of police officers were also hurt as they arrested the man.
Detectives are believed to be investigating the possibility that the assailant had a history of mental illness.
A local café owner said that following the incident, the alleged attacker had broken into his café and made himself a cup of tea.
Police say the driver stepped out of his vehicle in Harlington High Street at about 4.30am today - yards from the airport’s perimeter fence -possibly because of an altercation with the man.
The suspect - believed to be of Tunisian origin - then launched a ferocious assault on the victim, leaving him for dead in the street
Posted by: DP111 at November 24, 2006 6:50 PM
I have had Mohammedan obfuscators tell me that 'infidel' or 'unbelievers' doesn't appear at all in the Koran...
I suppose 'kufr' or 'mushrikeen' or 'Takfir' is not so different and scholars like Robert Spencer could tell us just how many times the Koran vilifies and condemns these 'sons of monkeys & swine'...
The question why a Mohammedan denies the obvious remains...
Anyone else had a similar experience?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 24, 2006 6:59 PM
From Troll above: Go ahead, stoke the flames of hatred...
The dictionary meaning of 'hatred' is 'intense dislike'. There is plenty about Islam to intensly dislike. The truth about Islam brings out intense dislike in reasonable people. Intense dislike is positive, and most likely to cause a change. Hatred is only negative when it is uncalled for, or produces an irrational respose in the hater. There is plenty of that in the world, and muslims are not exempt. How about 'Death to America', riots over cartoons ect. So who is it really, that is stoking the flames of 'irrational' hatred?
So, for the record, there are few if any 'irrational' haters posting on JW/DW, except the trolls who try and project their own hatreds on to others. They hope that by accusing Robert and others of hatred, we will not notice their own irrational hatred, seething just below the surface...nice try...wont work...
at November 24, 2006 7:22 PM
"Because you hate Jews I feel it is only right that you cease to use their inventions, please hand over to me your cell phone/computer/and all other Jewish inventions the full list of which I shall give you next time we meet"
dfm
Posted by: NicephorusPhocas
Let's add nukes to that list of Jewish inventions. On the other hand they simply hate all of us Westerners so they shouldn't really be using ANY of our inventions. Instead of whining about the electricity not working they need to simply NOT use any. After all, it was invented in the Good ol' Red White and Blue! Andfuhggeddabout indoor plumbing!
at November 24, 2006 7:28 PM
Quote from article:
"Likewise, the idea that the violent passages of the Qur'an take precedence over the peaceful ones is not my invention. In his sira, Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur'an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya. "
OFFENSIVE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE UNBELIEVERS TO ISLAM OR MAKE THEM PAY THE JIZYA
that says it all
Islam the answer is: No
at November 24, 2006 7:28 PM
Gee, Robert deigns to repsond!
First off, Christians were repsonsible for many waves of violence as you well know. care to show your minions how the West went from violent promotion of religious absolutism to a more modern and moderate mode? It didn't happen overnight, did it? In fact, plenty of Christians are still sponsoring hate and murder in Northern Ireland, last I checked.
While you state you have a link to freemuslims, and it seems the secular muslims, do you deign, much less care to feature ANYONE ELSE In a positive light? I doubt it. Daniel has featured a great number, but you rarely do.
As to your supporting religious freedom, didn't you pen this little ditty earlier this year about the building of a mosque at Quantico? You offer a little smear piece becuase of where the imam was sucated, but nothing that he actually did or said that was anti-american, in the slightest.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011789.php
You write:
"Even if it were true that the Bible teaches as much violence as the Qur'an does, would the presence of such violent passages in the Bible somehow excuse the Qur'an's violent passages, or the many, many Muslims committing violence around the world today because of those passages?"
No it doesn't, did I say somewhere that I did? I'm just holding up the Bible to a little bit of the same light that you are so fond of shining on Qur'an.
You avoid highlighting how Christians went from violent religious absolutism to the more moderate form that widely practiced today, and at the same time you have the gall to turn around and excoriate some very brave Muslims women like Musdah Mulia, When the Bible clearly endorses polygamy (only Paul put a stop to that, to cater to prevailing Roman custom of monogamy) subjugation of women (basically endorsed by Paul), and punishments like stoning, and death to those who do not worship Yahweh. Genocide is definitely endorsed and histroically recorded in the Bible, yet you avoid that little issue. I wonder why?
Let's take a look at who all died on Yahweh's orders....
Joshua 8:24 - City of Ai
Joshua 10:26 - Joshua murdered five defenseless kings of the Amorites in cold blood.
Joshua 10:28 - City of Makkedah
Joshua 10:29 - City of Libnah
Joshua 10:31 - City of Lachish
Joshua 10:33 - City of Gezer "...Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining."
Joshua 10:34 - City of Elgon "They left none remaining."
Joshua 10:37 - City of Hebron
Joshua 10:38 - City of Debir
Numbers 21:33-35: Land of Bashan "...they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."
Deuteronomy 2:21-24: The Ammonite, Horim, and Avim people.
Deuteronomy 2:26-35 - Land of Heshbon "...we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."
Genocide of the residents of Canaan
Genocide of the Geshurites, Gezirites, and Amalekites
Mass murder of children in Isaac, including
the first-born of Egypt
42 little children
a whole family
the Midianite children
babies of Babylon
Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) convinced the ancient Gnostic Christians to believe that Jehovah was a defective, inferior Creator-God. (The Gnostic Christians were one of the three main groups in the early Christian movement. They are undergoing a revival today). They named the Creator-God the Demiurge, and viewed him as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion, and prone to genocide. Gnostics worshiped a different deity, called the Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth who is remote from human affairs; he was seen as unknowable and undetectable by human senses.
f course, the Gnostics were readuly deemed "Heretics" and gleefully slaughtered!
Conservative Christians tend to believe that the Bible is inspired by God, inerrant and infallible. This includes the "hard passages." One of the main Biblical verses supporting this belief is:
2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (King James Version) The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) did not exist when 2 Timothy was written. So, the passage must have referred to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) only. However, the verse is commonly used today to refer to the entire Bible.
Religious conservatives believe that much of the apparent immorality in the Hebrew Scriptures' hard passages are human misunderstanding because Jehovah is both a God of love and of justice. God, as a wholly just being, must sometimes punish rebellious individuals and groups for their sins in ways that we find difficult to understand.
bullet Liberal Christians tend to regard the Bible as a series of somewhat imperfect documents, which individual authors (and later forgers) used to introduce and promote their own competing religious beliefs. Religious thought is seen as evolving during the period from about 900 BCE to 150 CE when the various books of the Bible were written. Liberals feel that some "hard passages" and other Biblical passages reflect an earlier, lower standard of morality and should be ignored. They are dangerous to the religious belief, spirituality and ethics of today's readers. These passages include verses which condone and regulate slavery, which advocate discrimination against women, which promote religious hatred and intolerance, which denigrate homosexuals, which describe the killing of innocent people, genocide, etc.
A sampling of these passages from the Hebrew Scriptures follows. If you have the stomach for more, "The born-again skeptic's guide to the Bible" contains brief descriptions of about 70 "mass killings ordered, committed or approved by God."
Genesis 6:5-9:
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
God is described as having created the earth, mankind, other living things, and the rest of the universe in the early chapters of Genesis. But he apparently was unable to foresee the future behavior of his creations. In particular, He did not predict the degree of wickedness that mankind would exhibit. He regretted his decision to create mankind. So he decided to commit the ultimate act of genocide, by murdering the entire human race: men, women, children, infants and newborns. God decided to exterminate people by drowning - a slow and painful way to die. But He allowed Noah to survive, along with Noah's wife, his three sons and their wives. But the Bible states that the rest of the human race were wiped out.
The Israelites invaded Canaan and, under God's instructions, exterminated seven nations in widespread acts of genocide: the Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. They continued to commit genocide against other groups.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."
Joshua 6:21:
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
This latter passage describes one event in the invasion of Canaan by the ancient Israelites. After the walls of the city of Jericho fell, the soldiers ran into the city, and murdered all its inhabitants: elderly men and women, mature men and women, pregnant women, youths, boys, girls, infants and newborns. Their goal was to entirely wipe out the Canaanite culture by destroying its people; this is one definition of genocide. Incidentally, the people were butchered by the edge of the sword, because the weapons did not have pointed ends.
Joshua 10:40-41:
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
As recorded in Joshua 11:19-23, God had "hardened the hearts" of the Canaanites, so that all but one city attempted to fight the Hebrews in battle. The sole exception were the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. "As the LORD commanded Moses", all of the rest were defeated in battle; their cities and populations were destroyed. This included people of all ages: men, women children, infants and newborns.
Maybe you state you don't hate, but your minions sure do! take a look at the commentary proferred by many at Freemuslims.org, and you will see your works are widely quoted, far and wide, and all the while you provide a link to the site? Seems like a case of "Taqqiya" on your part.
Frankly, you say that you have nothign against "true moderate" , but you failt o feature many at all. that leaves your minions with the distinct impression that they don't exist (read the comments that you allow to be posted )
You could do a lot better, demonstrate that there are Muslims, among your fellow Americans who despise terrorists and their ideology, rather than continually rant about the violent passages in the Qur'an. The next time you do that, just think about all the blood shed in teh name of Christ. Think about my Jewish ladino friends who live in Istanbultoday. Their ancestors were given the choice of "convert, die, or leave". Seems no different than the jihadists, does it?
If you can acknowledge that episode occured, then please outline Christianisy got from point A) violent relgious absolutists extremists, to point B)- moderates who operate in a society that is repsectful of one another. Then maybe, just maybe, you'd condescend to feature your fellow American Muslims who AREN'T members of CAIR, who NEVER condoned terrorism, who do confront the jihadist ideology, who do live a more modern life that is respectful of other religions, and how what they are doing is really not all that different from what Christians had to go through as well. They speak to the harts and minds of Muslims across the globe far better than you do!
Your failure to support moderates is glaring- care to mention Orhan Pamuk for example, or the Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus (yes, who helped sponsor small business laons targetng primarily women). Care to mention the alliance between MAronites and sunnis in Lebanon against the extremism promoted by hizbollah at the request of Iran and Syria? Care to mention the Egypitan Mufti Shaykh 'Ali Guma'a who has donemuch to promote pluraism in the face of extremist sympathies? Women like Irsahd manji and Mona el Tahawy write what they do at far greater personal risk and harm to themselves than you seem to! Your penchant for assailing moderates for the simplisic premise that their sacred text is "flawed" in your view, while ignoring the same flaws in teh bible, only effectively demonstrates to me your sanctimonious prejudice, which is the root of this site.
I'm glad that other conservatives note the full effects of your "thruth mongering" refuse to buy into it, like Cathy Young, and of course, you know about this article:
http://www.californiarepublic.org/Notes/Notes200609.html#012
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee
at November 24, 2006 7:32 PM
You could gurantee if the attacker had been an the Brit in the car and the victim the man of Tunisian heritage, the headline would have read "Muslim Brutally Attacked By Crazed Brit." Muslim activists would be screaming about British racism, and demanding an investigation into how Scotland Yard was bungling the case.
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 24, 2006 7:32 PM
Re. The British Man sain by a momobot at Heathrow:
I find it vile that our Western countries' politicians continue to allow the influx of harmful persons. The gutless politicians share a good deal of the responsibility for this man's death as they share responsability for a great number of crimes committed by those who keep on benefitting from immigration and then turn around and pay us back in the most atrocious of ways! When is it finally enough! It's becoming ever clearer that Western countries are not a good place for Mohamedans to live. We just don't have the same value systems. The evidence is mounting daily. Sad sad sad indeed..
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 24, 2006 7:37 PM
zz:
Quoting a lot of Scripture is null unless you can come up with Jews or Christians killing people and invoking those Scriptures to justify the killing. Good luck with that.
As for Peters: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013122.php
As for Young:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012118.php
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 24, 2006 7:42 PM
Once again, we are subjected to misinformation about the Inquisition,especially the inference that the Inquisition was an exercise of "convert or die". This kind of inference is a deliberate attempt to deflect from the truth about Islam and that the real meaning of the word Islam is submission.
Most people do not have any understanding of the history behind the introduction of the Inquisition. It was not about conversion, but about the rooting out of certain heresies that were rampant in Europe at the same time that Islam was attempting to spread.
One of the worst misconceptions about the Inquisitions is the lie that millions died as a result of these tribunals being convened throughout Europe. The truth is, very people people were put to death as a result of the Inquisition, and the ones who were handed over to the civil authorities were the worst kind of anarchists at the time.
The major heresy that was tackled was that of Catharism. The Catharists were known as the "pure ones". They pretended to be Christians, but in reality they were dualists, believing that there were two gods - a God of Good, and a god of Evil. They did not believe in marriage. They promoted homosexuality amongst their adherents. There were children born out of wedlock. They had one sacrament and this was given within weeks of death. Once the consolatum was given the person refused all food, and then starved to death.
In towns such as Toulouse, where Bernard of Guys travelled to help find the Albigenses, the Inquisitors actually saved some lives. There were times when the townspeople were so angry that the people who stood accused of being Cathari came close to being lynched. The arrival of the Inquisitors tended to bring order to the chaos. The accused were given a hearing, and there were some who were found to be innocent, others were given light punishment, and the ring leaders, who refused to recant usually ended up being handed over to the civil authorities for "appropriate" punishment.
This is only one form of the Inquisition. The Waldenses also faced persecution through the Inquisition, and they also were responsible for the problems that they caused. They taught heretical beliefs at the time. Likewise,they refused to recant those beliefs.
Prior to the period covered by the Inquisitions there had been other sects who had spread heretical teachings. Some of them, including the Bogomils, were iconoclasts, and they used to go around smashing churches and the religious artwork. If they were brutally put down, not by the Church, but by civil authority, it is because they disturbed the civil peace, and they were appropriately punished at the time. The Bogomils were also Cathari and they were into some really bad stuff prior to their own conversion to being Islamics.
Another of the rather insane claims is that millions of women were put to death because they were witches. That claim is also untrue, but it is a claim that is doing the rounds - probably a claim that is being made by modern wannabe Wiccans.
Whilst the majority of those brought before the Inquisitors were accused of heresy, there were times when even an Inquisitor used his position against a neighbour. When this happened, the Pope revoked the authority of the Inquisitor to do his work. This was a rare incident, thus one cannot argue that thousands, let alone millions of innocents died at the hands of the Inquisitors.
The Inquisitions were not about forced conversions. They were not even about any conversions. They concerned heresy. Even the Spanish Inquisition, that was convened by Queen Isabella of Spain, concerned heresy, and not forced conversion. Isabella was concerned about the way in which certain Jews were trying to gain power in Spain, and at the same time she was worried about the encroachment of the Moors. The Moors were being funded by some very wealthy Jews who had ulterior motives in siding with the Islamics. The majority of the Jews in Spain were law abiding citizens. However, within the minority there were Jews who attempted to gain power by pretending to become Christians. They used to allow themselves to be baptized, and then they would hold an un-baptism ceremony. It was this group who were the major concern of the Spanish Inquisition.
Maybe the method for dealing with these power hungry people was not perfect, but in reality, the problem arose because the Church and State were not sufficiently separated at the time. The Jews were prevented from holding any government position, and that is why they resorted to subterfuge.
In these examples, one should be able to see that what was in Leviticus etc had little to do with the reality of the situation that confronted Medieval Europe. The heretics were following what had been established many centuries prior to the Inquisitions. The Cathars might have died out naturally, but to the civil authorities they posed an enormous threat with their lifestyle and their prosylitizing.(sp). The French chose to get rid of the Cathars by moving against them via military action. Should Rome be blamed because the French chose this course of action? Absolutely not. The French responded to the nature of the threat which was a threat to the state, not the Church.
One does not have to condone everything that happened during that time. However, we do need to understand the truth about history, and not allow ourselves to be deceived by the relativists who throw up what is our past, as if these actions in some way make it ok for the jihadis to kill or threaten to kill everyone who is not a member of Islam. It is Islam that remains a potent threat to the order of society. If any are found guilty of disorderly conduct, especially the attempt to stir up trouble, then yes, they should be deported back to their country of origin. Even if they are born in Canada,the USA or Australia, if their parents come from Pakistan then they should be returned to that country, without delay.
at November 24, 2006 7:47 PM
Maggie4Life:
I'm surprized that zzazzeefrazzee hasn't brought up that old chestnut about how great life was everyone in Moorish Iberia. My only response to thast is: If it was so great why did the Spanish and Portuguese fight for nearly 800 years to get the Moors and Islam out?
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 24, 2006 7:54 PM
sorry to be an ass but vince that 90 words for snow with eskimos is a bit of an urban myth
Posted by: BlowHammed at November 24, 2006 7:55 PM
@AIG:
One of my very best German girlfriends here has recently announced to me that she has a new boyfriend. Wanna guess what for one?
Yep, an African muslim from Gambia. I am sick.
This is the one girlfriend I could actually talk to about islam and she was just one of two of my friends who seemed to understand where I am coming from on the subject.
I could accept anything else, but not this.
Posted by: americaningermany
Where on Earth did she meet this guy? Have you had opportunity to check him out yet? All these guys try to find Western women to latch on to and - bingo! - all their problems in life are taken care of!
Isn't there ONE country where all us anti-jihadists can live when we get really fed up with the leeches worldwide called the umma?
PS. I hope your friend will see thru him and get someone else. Is she good looking? Often these guys go for the "wall-flowers" because they make an easy mark. I don't mean to insult your friend. I was just wondering how well he is following the "playbook" on how to feed at the overflowing and abundant trough of the West.
Tell the World: our streets are paved in gold! Everyone drives a Mercedes.. Roasted pigs fly thru the ar and right on into your mouth. Guess that one will keep them away!
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 24, 2006 8:03 PM
'zzazzeefrazzee'
...did nariz change his name? Again?
at November 24, 2006 8:12 PM
We are at work countering anything the Russians and Chinese do. We will soon have "cloaking shields" ala Star Trek.
http://www.photonicsonline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=26bb352d-bbc7-4ac0-b49a-5fd3480fb590&atc~c=771+s=773+r=001+l=a&VNETCOOKIE=NO
at November 24, 2006 8:41 PM
Oh deary me Robert, did I say something?
There you go, once again, avoiding the issue - apparently those Muslims who reject the terrorist ideology are not worth holding up as a model, as their sacred text is flawed.
Gee, seems like Beck on CNN barely balanced his hour on the spreading of the violent ideologies with a few minutes of those who are quite otherwise. Can you?
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/17/cnn-anchor-beck-surprised-that-muslim-man-criticized-al-qaeda/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fitems%2F200611160005&frame=true
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/17/cnn-anchor-beck-surprised-that-muslim-man-criticized-al-qaeda/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fitems%2F200611160005&frame=true
You fail to hold up positive examples, as I guess it's not worth your time, and of course, would more than slightly hamper your career.
For example, an entire feature on MEMRI's web site is rarely, if ever featured by you, and hence NEVER get's much attention from your fan base. Gee, I wonder why?
http://www.memri.org/reform.html
My point is simply this- Muslims who support tolerance, a more moderate, stand against violence and hate, are outspoken against the subjugation of women, manage do a far better job of speaking to the hearts and minds of other muslims, and therefore far better at confronting the terrorist ideology than you could possibly ever managed!!!
Ergot, I must ask what you goal really is? If you REALLY want Muslims to challenge jihadis, to support our efforts in the war on terror (something I'd like to see more of), then why on earth not encourage it? There are many more people like this, all you have to do is FEATURE THEM!!!!
Oh gosh, I forgot, then you'd be >GASP
Instead, America slips into becoming a free-hate zone (Sorry, but this does refer to Hooper going on about defacement of mosques- btw- I'm no fan of Hooper either)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/766342.html
I'm sure that you don't condone this, but gee, for kicks, let's just take a quick poll on our site and count how many of your fans were delighted by it?
You could do more Robert, a LOT more, like THANK these guys for starters:
http://www.apaam.org/Thaibani_NYTMES_AUG06.htm
http://www.apaam.org/VOA-SuicideBomber.htm
http://www.apaam.org/September11thEvent_Sept06.htm
Yet you seem to overlook those model examples among your fellow americans like these, basically, hmmmm, all the time?
More positive trends you can witness here:
http://www.mideastyouth.com/
and the mission statement is nothing that you should be critical of, now is it?
http://www.mideastyouth.com/about/
Now, am I whitewashing violence? Hardly. Just giving the folks who do take a brave stand a few minutes of your time would do a world of wonder- and heck, maybe even educate a few of your fans that there are some sane people out there who happen to be Muslim. People who love our country, our way of life, who support our efforts, and hate the hate even more than a fair number of my bigoted fellow Americans can begin to fathom.
Of course, you won't deny that there is heightened bigotry against muslims in general, even when they take such stances, yet you don;t seem to boot them from your site very much, now do you!
collective trashing of all Muslims, and of Islam in general, especailly when you fan base is so generous to include thsoe who never endorsed, condoned, or even take a public stance against terororism and violence, is bigotry, pure and simple.
at November 24, 2006 8:52 PM
zz:
Go mau-mau someone else. You brush aside the evidence that I gave you that I have done what you claim I have not done (and there is plenty more of it in the archives), and then go on claiming I haven't done it. Sorry. Try your game on someone else. I won't play.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at November 24, 2006 9:05 PM
zz,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I wonder why anyone would think muslims might be connected to terrorism?
at November 24, 2006 9:07 PM
MMMM...gee....I haven't heard anything from the muslim communities against FGM, Saudi women not being able to drive or vote, or even banning the veils. If we saw muslims baby stepping from the horrors of islam and some of the idiotic things muslim males continue against women, we might believe this guy. Instead of them looking at it as a better way for their womenfolk, they get mad at us when we do it. If we mandated that men go through what these poor women go through during FGM, (like pulling their penises out from the root) they'd be screaming like little girls. Pun intended.
I think muslim males just like to whine. Oh, and keep their blinders on.
Posted by: freewoman at November 24, 2006 9:21 PM
Ergot, I must ask what you goal really is? If you REALLY want Muslims to challenge jihadis, to support our efforts in the war on terror (something I'd like to see more of), then why on earth not encourage it? There are many more people like this, all you have to do is FEATURE THEM!!!!
posted by zzazeefrazee
Mr. Spencers "goal" is clearly stated on the main page of JihadWatch. As for your attempts to demonstrate equvalency between the Bible and Qur'an, save your time and refer to the archives. How many Christians are animating Old Testament scriptures, wreaking death and destruction all over the world and celebrating their carnage as God's will, convinced they have pleased the Lord and will be amply rewarded? I know of none, but muslims justify their heinous atrocties with verbatim quotes from the Qur'an. Suicide bombings, martyrdom, are lauded as the greatest tributes to allah that a muslim can make. Now they're recruiting grandmothers for this magnificent sacrifice to allah.
The Inquisition and the Crusades are ancient history. The Crusades were Christendom's response to islamic jihad and muslim imperialism, not unprovoked wars against muslims. The Christians killed Jews and committed many atrocities during the Crusades, but there is nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Christianity that condone, encourage, or sanction their crimes. The Qur'an is a manifesto of perpetual war. Christianity has been reformed; Christians do not wage religious wars any more. They ended CENTURIES AGO!
If you want to focus on the past, focus on islam's 1300+ years of bloody war and conquest. Focus on the fact that islam has been at war with the rest of the world since its inception. Focus on the primary, immutable, perpetual goal of islam-----to conquer and subjugate the entire world. Quit defending the indefensible. Americans are the most welcoming, generous, tolerant people in the world and we understand that all people are free to worship as they please, or not to worship at all. But religious freedom should not be granted to those who wish to destroy all other religions and impose theirs on everyone, and who want to abolish the Constitution and implement archaic, barbaric, islamic law in its place. Muslims are obligated to spread islam until it rules the world, and they have allah's blessing to lie and deceive until they are powerful enough to overcome all who stand in their way.
Your purblind refusal to acknowledge the truth about islam is regrettable but common. You seem to derive a tenuous sense of morality by joining the ignorant chorus of apologists for islam, people who obviously have no clue what they are defending. Truth is not bigotry and islam is not a race. We are neither bigots nor racists. Robert Spencer does not make uninformed statements about islam. He is the bane of apologist islamic scholars because his work is as close to flawless as it comes. I guess the truth hurts, and it's a shame that muslims must work so diligently to hide the truth about their vile religion. It's also pathetic that people like you cannot see, or refuse to see, what they are doing.
Posted by: Susanp at November 24, 2006 10:33 PM
Oh Dear Robert, did I hit a nerve? I DARE YOU to take a poll on your site regarding the Ramadan mosque shooting in Florida. Just keep it simple- those in favor and those opposed.
Am I really mau-mauing you? Oh, I'm so terribly sorry!! To be fair, I am hardly someone supportive of Jihadis, terrorist sympathizers, knee-jerk apologists, and hold no love for CAIR either. I hate abject hatred, on all sides.
I see a lot of it in my fellow Americans right now. It seems to me that you give them reason to justify it towards those of their fellow Americans who never endorsed any of the above.
As far as the last post by "freewoman" about Muslims confronting to ban the veil, Robert had nothing nice to say about a woman taking just such a public stance about that very issue:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17696
Dr. Musliah of course, takes a very brave and much more relativist view of Sharia, much along the lines, oh, of say something between Conservative and Reform Judaism. Yet Robert feels that this woman doesn't properly understand her own religion , while at the same time, he feels no compulsion to investigate any of the laws mentioned in the Bible regarding the treatment of women. So I guess it's not OK with Robert if Muslims don't adhere to the letter of the law while he basically does the same with regard to the tenents outlined in the sacred text that he (supposedly) adheres to.
Sorry, but you just can't have it both ways!!!
As far as Muslims against FGM- this is old news!
http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/fgm.html
but here's a new and refreshing page about it.
http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/violence.html
http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/84/
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/569/cu1.htm
(Please note, while I do not endorse the views of the last site, it is proof of the fact that something of a dialog does in fact occur, if you care to look. I'm not asking you or anyone else ot become a Muslim, or endorse this site, but I am asking you to stop collectively lumping people together who really are not seeing eye to eye. Shall we lump the Episcopalians in with Falwell and Robertson?)
Of course, Robert's article above neglects to mention women like the very brave late and highly esteemed Huda Al Shawari (whom I also do not find any mention of in searching the archives).
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Shaarawi.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/774/bo5.htm
Sure Robert, you feature a few people here and there, but your fan base hardly notices, or deigns to sound even the least bit supportive of such efforts, now do they! A little thing called sectarian bigotry always seems to get in the way!
Hence it proves my point that you utterly fail to truly educate your fellow Americans. I stand by my point that you hardly ever feature articles about reform in a positive light on MEMRI's web site. Selective presentation of facts is still your main strength!
For example- Searching the archives just now, I find no mention of APAAM at all, nor Orhan Pamuk, nor Muhammad Yunus. I wonder why?
http://www.apaam.org/
http://www.apaam.org/September11thEvent_Sept06.htm
Care to thank and congratulate those Muslims who serve our country in the military? Of course, I frankly predict that much of your fan base is rather horrified to learn that Muslims serve in the military at all. Yet just how are we are ever going to suceed in our efforts without the support of folks like them?
hmmmmmm think about it.
And again, for the record, my mother is a PREIST!
at November 24, 2006 11:08 PM
Zaazzeefrazzee
you been told you are wasting everybody's time, why don't you take your da'awa elsewhere?
Last time I heard of Mohammedans 'service' in the US-army there was a guy who rolled a handgrenade into a tent and killed 4 of his fellow soldiers, another went awol and popped up in Lebanon claiming he was 'kidnapped' while hanging out with Hamas...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 24, 2006 11:19 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzany --
Have you read any of Robert's books? No. Then how can you state the things you state about him and his website?
Please educate yourself a LOT more about "RADICAL ISLAM" by either buying some of Robert's books; or buying the DVD, "ISLAM: What the West Needs to Know", that are offered on Jihad Watch. [Another one everyone must see is "OBSESSION", but that you'll have to buy over the internet from an independent site].
Anyway, you come on here with your ignorant rants; coupled by that enormous chip on your shoulder, and all you do is make a complete and total fool of yourself by making rash judgments about Robert, and the majority of posters, that simply aren't true.
Take the time to learn more about radical Islam so you can channel this anger and hostility in a more productive fashion. You clearly want to stand for something, so why not stand for what's right.
Would you rather know the Truth about this evil enemy we ALL face, or believe a lie? The choice is yours.
at November 24, 2006 11:23 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz --
Do you own a mirror? You are also full of hate.
Posted by: champ at November 24, 2006 11:25 PM
"The Christians killed Jews and committed many atrocities during the Crusades..."
You know, it's funny...I keep hearing about all the atrocities the Christians committed during the Crusades. Could anyone here list examples and site the references for me? I mean, I'm just wondering if this is actually a true statement or if it's the same politically correct B.S. we hear along the same lines as "Islam is a religion of peace." We seem to apologize a little too much for things that we don't seem to understand. If Muslims lie to get their way, and we have never ending examples of them doing so, then we need to get REAL CLEAR about what we believe and what we don't, otherwise they will be able to trip us up everytime. They are really good at confusing us because of our hesitancy, and it needs to stop, now.
I'm not apologizing for the Crusades because they were necessary, and Pope John Paul II had no business doing so, whatsoever. Does anyone really believe that a Christian knight who was used to wearing heavy chain mail and living in a country that has a cooler climate was actually dreaming of ransacking and taking over a country that was thousands of miles away where most of the English horses and many of the men died because they couldn't take the heat? When talking about the atrocities they committed were there some sort of extenuating circumstances, like seeing Christian women forced to be sex slaves in a haram, seeing people hanging from the trees with their throats slit, decapitated bodies or smiling moors coming up to them and then thrusting a sword in their hearts? I know seeing those things would make me cranky and I might forget my good Christian manners if it happened too often or to people I love. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things, so I think we need to take a look at what was going on back then and what the threat was before we jump to lumping all Crusaders in the group that "committed many atrocities."
at November 24, 2006 11:26 PM
The mission statement of JW states in part: "Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life"
So zzzzzzzzz - are you presenting evidence that a major Muslim group repudiates the doctrine of armed jihad and has theological legs to stand on when confronting the extremists? Or are you just citing a bunch of random individuals? And whoever said that posters here aren't aware of the existence of reformist Muslims or appreciative of their efforts? Seems to be a bit of a problem, however, that they so often find themselves under death threats.You might appreciate the fact that we wish to avoid a similar fate in the future. But I guess that's "hate" in your book. BTW - last time I checked, this site is called "Jihad Watch" - not Christian Watch or Bible Watch. If there were actually a global Christian Inquisition going on, I know that personally I'd be logging on to "Inquisition Watch" and posting comments quite similar to the ones I post here. You're welcome to start such a site but good luck finding material to post. It's obvious that Mr Spencer has no problem coming up with daily material. Wonder why that is?
Posted by: Caroline at November 24, 2006 11:38 PM
A poster above claims:
1) that Orhan Pamuk has never been mentioned here. I have mentioned him several times. But so what? Is it obligatory to mention this or that "moderate" Muslim? The problem with the category of "moderate" Muslim is that it a) is never clearly defined b) the person who is "moderate" may merely be feigning, or even if not feigning, may have a quick or not-so-quick change of find c) the children of a "moderate" are very often, especially in Western Europe, not "moderate" themselves but much more fervent Muslims. An unhelpful category for Infidels, one that simply prolongs unwariness and ignorance.
2) that the only thing that is required of Muslims is that they denounce or abjure terrorism. Not at all.Jihad employs many instruments, of which terrorism is only one, and not the most effective. If Islam is dangerous to Western legal and political instiutions, to free and skeptical inquiry, to artistic expression, to all sorts of things, then its spread, and the duty imposed on Muslims of participating, actively or passively, sometimes collectively and sometimes individually, in Jihad is a menace even without terrorism. And that is understood by those who first look into Islam to find out, from the texts, and from the observable behavior of Muslims over 1350 years, what it is all about, and must be about.
Posted by: Hugh at November 24, 2006 11:50 PM
"And again, for the record, my mother is a PREIST!"
That's a curious thing to add to your post the way you do - with the exclamation mark at the end and all. And the relevance of that point is (scratching my head here)...that it somehow makes you 'holier than thou' perhaps?
at November 24, 2006 11:52 PM
"Inquisition Watch".....that's funny!!
Posted by: champ at November 24, 2006 11:58 PM
Caroline: You notice PREIST is misspelled. Makes you wonder either about the accuracy of the statement, or the educational level of zzazzeefrazzee,
Posted by: MikeB52 at November 25, 2006 12:07 AM
I am not Catholic, but I didn't think that women could be priests -- so is she full of it too? Ok, we all know she's full of it, but you know what I mean.
Posted by: champ at November 25, 2006 12:25 AM
MikeB52 - maybe its a Wiccan spelling. (Do Wiccans attend seminary?) In seriousness, however (champ), I believe that Episcopalians allow women priests.
Posted by: Caroline at November 25, 2006 12:29 AM
Isabella, I'm certainly not politically correct but many Jews were killed during the Crusades and the Inquisition and they were killed by Christians. The massacre of the Jews in 1096 is attributed to the uncontrollable emotionalism and fanaticism evoked by reforms in the papacy and as a popular response to the writings of St. Peter Damiani, a leading figure in medieval Catholicism. There's no point in denying that Christians have been very cruel to Jews; not all Christians and certainly not me, but Christian persecution of Jews is not a myth. Ask any Jew.
There are more hate crimes committed against Jews in the United States today than against people of any other faith, including muslims. Some people simply hate Jews and while that mentality is a mystery to me, it almost seems to be inbred in some. I think that there are certain groups, like the ADL, that exaggerate the extent of anti-Semitism in America and have an unfounded and paranoid fear of Christians. Many secular Jews in the ACLU are responsible for the endless attempts to remove all symbols of Christianity from the public sphere. Many of these same secular Jews are defending muslims and islam and consider Christianity to be responsible for all of the world's problems. George Soros is a good example.
They are also involved in efforts to pass hate speech legislation, on the same side as CAIR in that endeavor. It's hard to believe that in today's world many Jews still consider Christians, not muslims, to be their arch enemies.
at November 25, 2006 1:08 AM
No Christian ever bombed an abortion clinic? Nope no siree!!
No church ever defended, justified, or made excuses concerning the genocide and rapes of the Bosnian Muslims, Nope, no siree!
No Christian sympathized with aided, or abetted the "Christian" terrorist Eric Rudolph. Nope no siree!!!
No Christians ever took sides in the violence in Northern ireland, nope no siree!!
Muslims incapable of free-thinking?
www.muslimsforamerica.us
Muslims incapable of real debate?
http://www.ijtihad.org/AJISS.htm
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ijtihad.html
http://www.asmasociety.org/mlt2006/events.html
Muslims incapaable of confronting violence?
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.6/elfadl.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/10/the_war_for_islam/
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/terrorism1.htm
It's easy to collectively trash Muslims, pathetically easy. More difficult to, oh, learn a little Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, Urdu, even Turkish. Much more difficult. Though far more worthwhile in fact! Make REAL contribution to the war on terror will ya?
Why the need to hold all collectively to the fire when many here have made it unambiguously clear that they don't support or condone violence, FGM, subjugation of women etc. etc., if they don't actually hate the terrorists more than many of my fellow Americans do! For example, my expat Iranian friends who despise the Ayatollahs, their regime, and yet still identify as Muslim?
Hugh- if you have in fact mentioned Pamuk- you surely need to fix your search engine on your site!
So if renouncing and denouncing Jihad isn;t good enough, i guess that you are in fact calling for the destruction of the faith to which a billion people adhere.
I'm so glad that our President and his adminstration refuses to echo your blatantly bigoted views.
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee at November 25, 2006 2:14 AM
Yo, Muslims...
With the advent of the Messiah, most Christians follow the New Testament as it supercedes the Old.
Jesus more or less nullifies the old laws and His followers are peaceful.
Muslims follow their own peaceful religious teachings as well.
But in the same texts are the violent teachings used to justify the fundamentalist killings documented here and elsewhere.
How is pointing this out and commenting on it hateful in any sense of the word?
Suppose a Bishop decided to use scripture to recruit laity and kill abortion doctors.
How long would it take for the church to excommunicate him and his followers?
We have not and will not see this type of separation in Islam, because the religion itself prevents it.
It's Muslim against everyone else, we know it, we see that you are very afraid of our knowledge when all you can do is attack us for telling the truth.
at November 25, 2006 2:15 AM
Bottom line ZZZZZZZZZ. Allah is not God. Prove to me that he is, and I will read your other stuff...
Posted by: duh_swami at November 25, 2006 2:24 AM
Susan P,
So help me to understand here. Is it just the Jews that the Christians are supposed to have committed atrocities against or was it the Muslims also? Of course persecution of Jews is not a myth. But it is interesting that you bring up the ACLU's never ending war on Chrisitanity. With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that St. Peter Damien preached murdering of Jews. Do you have a link for the 1096 massacre? I'd like to read more about that. Thanks.
Zazzee,
Oh yes, what's in been, one million, two million Christians blowing up abortion clinics? Isn't your real name Doug Hooper?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 25, 2006 3:03 AM
WHAT A PATHETIC TROLL!
Christians bomb abortion clinics because thats what the churches teach? Is that what makes up Christian scriptures? And these same scriptures teach the subjugation or annihilation of unbelievers?
Northern Ireland was a regional conflict, is that a case of Christians seeking world-domination?
Beyond stupid!
No:
Renouncing and denouncing jihad is not good enough, Zazzi; the whole perversion gotta go. Nobody here buys your home-cooked Islam, we prefer to listen to Quaradwi, Omar Bakri, OBL and those who take their faith seriously, not twits like yourself who puts lipstick on a pig.
Don't bother to waste more time here!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 25, 2006 4:51 AM
'zzzaaazzzifraazzzeeee (WTF) has no doubt graced us with his insolent presence before and under a different name.'
'king tolerance' comes to mind, but I doubt it. Neither of these two is tolerant, but both do aspire to become king of something. They could get together with nariz and have a nice little tea club.
Posted by: Gary at November 25, 2006 5:29 AM
americaningermany~ I think what he is, depends on how much he's imbibed at the Daily Kos each day.
When he sticks to islam he does great... but the Hysteria does break through from time to time. (psst: I've also heard it said that when nariz is around, farakhan is nowhere to be found....) (just kidding. Bad Batman joke).
Posted by: Gary at November 25, 2006 6:15 AM
Nariz has stated that he's an atheist, so that would rule out being Muslim. All I know is that Nariz HATES Christians, so he does share that in common with radical Muslims; but I don't think he'll ever act on his hatred by killing Christians.
Posted by: champ at November 25, 2006 2:53 PM
"Ergot, I must ask what you goal really is?"
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2006 08:52 PM
Ergot, n. [F. ergot, argot, lit., a spur.]
1. A diseased condition of rye and other cereals, in which the grains become black, and often spur-shaped. It is caused by a parasitic fungus, Claviceps purpurea.
Bye, bye, Miss Arabian Pie
Rode my camel to Mohammed but Mohammed was fried
And good Habibis drinking urine & rye,
singing this'll be the day that I die...
at November 25, 2006 4:02 PM
Susan P,
So help me to understand here. Is it just the Jews that the Christians are supposed to have committed atrocities against or was it the Muslims also? Of course persecution of Jews is not a myth. But it is interesting that you bring up the ACLU's never ending war on Chrisitanity. With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that St. Peter Damien preached murdering of Jews. Do you have a link for the 1096 massacre? I'd like to read more about that. Thanks.
Posted by Isabella
Isabella, the Crusaders' mission was to fight the muslims and reclaim the Holy Land, which the muslims forcibly conquered. The atrocities committed by some of the Crusaders were not part of the original plan; some of them got carried away and took matters into their own hands, believing their actions to be righteous and divinely sanctioned. In other words, there were more than a few religious fanatics among the Crusaders who strongly believed that Christianity was the only acceptable religion. Don't misunderstand me; I am not saying the Crusades were unprovoked attacks against muslims and
Jews. The muslims had it coming and the Jews were more or less caught in the middle. The Crusaders didn't set out to fight and kill the Jews but they certainly had no affection for them.
St. Peter Damiani did not preach the murder of Jews but his writings were ambiguous and perhaps misconstrued by many. The Catholic Church was undergoing drastic changes and Damiani played a primary role in the enrichment of medieval Catholicism, but the new intense emotional religiosity inspired uncontrollable fanaticism, including anti-Semitism. St. Peter Damiani's passionate charity did not always extend to those outside the Christian church.
My thoughts are from memory. I'm sure you can do a search on the Middle Ages and find whatever you are looking for. Try the Jewish Massacre of 1096.
Posted by: Susanp at November 25, 2006 8:59 PM
zzazzeefrazzee,
Are you done with your voluminous impotent rant, or is there more? Does throwing handfuls of sand and gravel feel like throwing rocks?
You have so many absurd tu quoques, moral equivolencies, straw men and outright canards, that to approach each with the diligence needed would require weeks. But that is the point of your rant isn't it? Try to overwhelm with volume instead of substance.
So let's put it back on you. What have all these great Muslim reformers done to reform militant Islam where Islam is dominant, and what has Robert done to enhance militant Islam where Islam is dominant? Because it seems all of your concern is about how Islam is perceived and portrayed IN THE WEST. How can RS and Co. help these influential pious men spread their agenda where Islam is dominant?
And what of our criticism of Islam? We have the right. If it is incorrect that Mohammad was a pedophile, thief, murderer, mutilator, torturer, etc., or if it is incorrect that the Qur'an commands killing and enslaving in the manner it is and for 14 centuries has been actively practiced by jihadists, or if it is incorrect that Allah was capricious and cruel, just show us where we are wrong.
Because if you can't, then there is no reason to make nice while Muslims infiltrate and outbreed us, when it is readily apparent that a real (but not "tiny") fraction of them wish us harm.
I think mostly you are embarrassed to be associated with this cult, displacing anger, and are trying to construct a parallel universe where the things jihadis do doesn't really come from your Noble Qur'an, and therefore doesn't require the attention you should be giving them instead of Robert. So go ahead, do the right thing, give it your best shot and theologically refute the jihadis. We wish you well.
Even so, know this. We have tolerated a lot of kook religions, but none so intent on killing us. So if you think your attempt to shout down those writers illuminating unfortunate truths about Islam will cause us to go back to pretending it is just another passive kook religion, think again.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 26, 2006 1:21 AM
I have been saying this all along.
This Brigadier Malik is a punjabi. He has written a book "Quranic Concept of War" which you mentioned.
The seocnd book which you mentioned has been written by an ethnic arab.
The arab wahhabi terrorism and punjabi deobandi poison have combined together into a powerful monster called the arab-punjabi axis of evil.
The punjabis murdered raped looted plundered more than 3 million bengalis in 1971 war. The successes of punjabis have been summarized in this book and this has become the guiding force for punjabis in the last 4 decades to wage war against the non-punjabis and non-muslims.
According to this Punjabi author and I quote:
"In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, ... to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts… Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him...”
So this war is against the non-muslims and non-punjabis and non-arabs. Terror is not just the means its an end in itself. he is very clear about this.
Terrorists trained in punjabi seminaries are being used US-Israel-India and other ethnic minorities.
at November 26, 2006 6:23 AM
zzzz --
You are a terrorist sympathizer, and you are the one who needs to GET IT RIGHT. Radical Islam is a very real threat, not only to a 'free' society, but to our very lives.
It's people like you who put my childrens lives, my husbands life, my families lives, my life -- at risk. In other words, I consider you to be just as dangerous as the enemy we face when you refuse to educate yourself about radical Islam and when you continue to speak ignorantly on the subject.
So why don't you find some nice, non-confrontational website to promote your "enablement of terrorism" somewhere else.
Posted by: champ at November 26, 2006 11:30 AM
Please re-read my comments:
Have I defended, justified, or condoned jihadism, terroirsm or violence in the slightest?
No I have not! I have defended condoned and urged support for those Muslims who have made it unabiguously clear that they support the US and our efforts.
Like this guy, whom beck of all people , cared to feature:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611160005
Is theer somethign wrong with Ms Aslam 'Abdullah and his letter?
Have I claimed to be a Muslim? No I haev not. Sorry for my mispelling, but my mother is a Christian priest, though i am not as observant as she.
If you claim to be for the war on terror, and claim to support moderate muslims who are also on our side, why not express your support, rather than go out of your way to stab some of our friends who have made it unabigously clear whose side their on?
Please tell me what is wrong with these guys:
and even more specifically this event:
http://www.apaam.org/September11thEvent_Sept06.htm
in your repsonse, care to refrain from the logical fallacies, hasty generalizations, ad hominem attacks and post hoc fallacies, and use an argument accoridng to the rules of logic?
Robert and Hugh- while you post the link to free-muslims, I highly doubt much of your fan base is as supportive of them as you claim to be. Many seem to be outright bigots, which you have previously claimed to remove, but heck, I guess jihadis aren;t the only ones to pratcie taqqiya" now are they?
Sorry, but your friend Daniel Pipes does a far better job of clearly, effectively and unambigously supporting those who clearly, unabiguously, and effectively support the US and our goals than you ever manage to do.
Is stating my support Pipe's style of presentation over Spencer's a support for terrorists?
Please explain.
As far as learning langauges, gee, isn't there some sort of deficiency in these areas in our Military, CIA , and FBI? Why not make a real contribution? German in america- you only seem to care for collectively trashing people, and make no attempt to distinguish bewteen those who do, and those who don;t support us.
What is wrong with folks stepping up to the plate and making a real contribution to teh war on terror? Too difficult? It sure is easy to vent and foment!!
Posted by: zzazzeefrazzee at November 26, 2006 6:00 PM
zzazzeefrazzee writes:
Please tell me what is wrong with these guys:
APAAM is the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military.
First of all, the organization APAAM cleverly conflates Arab-Americans with Muslim-Americans. There are many Arabs who are not Muslims and who have suffered at the hands of Muslims; in fact, most non-Muslim Arabs who have immigrated to the USA (and to the West in general) have done so because they are fleeing oppression at the hands of Muslims.
So, I went to the site and the first article I clicked on had things wrong with it. It's an article written about the "Miami Seven" -- the terrorist cell in Miami that was routed and captured this past summer before they could mass-murder untold numbers of innocent people -- written by an Arab-American Muslim in the US Military, Mahmoud El-Yousseph, Technical Sergeant, USAF (Retired):
As I sat watching the "Miami Seven" alleged terrorist cell arrest unfold on national TV, I held my breath, hoped, and prayed that they were not Middle Eastern. I thanked God when I learned that the seven suspected terrorists were neither Muslims nor Arabs.
Now, why would he thank God to learn they are apparently not Muslims "nor Arabs"? In this day and age, where the problem we are facing is overwhelmingly coming from Muslim terrorists, and where this fact is continually denied or, at best, soft-pedaled by the mass media and politicians, the last thing we need is to have Muslims in our military hoping with fingers anxiously crossed that the next terrorist act that happens won't be Muslim "nor Arab"! Moderate Muslims, if they really want to help, need to face this fact and help us with the obviously rampant and horrible cancer emanating out of their Islamic culture. Otherwise, we don't want their help, and they are a liability.
Sergeant El-Yousseph continues, and paints himself into the corner of a contradiction:
This group never worshiped in an Islamic mosque, and there is no affiliation whatsoever between them and any Muslim or Arab group. In fact the seven were a 'bunch of losers' with only gangster affiliations.
Sources in Miami confirmed that it was with the help of an "Arab Speaking" contact in Miami, who presented himself as an Al-Quaeda operative that these would-be terrorists were arrested. The man was actually cooperating with the authorities.
Why doesn't our government and the media spell it out? Simply state the obvious: it was a Muslim or an Arab who infiltrated the "Miami Seven" terror cell in order to protect our homeland security.
Notice the contradiction Sergeant El-Yousseph constructs? I'll spell it out:
1
(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.)