I would hope the mere mention of "JIHAD WATCH" would invited those who have never been to visit...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 27, 2007 10:15 AM

Dear Professor Spencer,
Thanks for all you do!

Think of it this way: You are helping to deflate the balloon of Islamic "tolerance" that is propagated - inflated - by the MSM, at least one pin prick at a time.

:)

God bless!

Posted by: Crusader at February 27, 2007 10:17 AM

College students, i remember being that ignorant once on my own issues. Luckily i entered the real world, outside the reach of professors and other self-professed experts on the "world", and discovered that the world is not made up of nice people just waiting to help another, that dialogue alone is not a solution to the world's ills and that being tolerant of intolerance is a good way to get hurt.

Posted by: Penfold at February 27, 2007 10:20 AM

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem are clearly individuals unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the texts of their faith.

They appear equally unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the actual letter written by Robert Spencer.

It's an astounding phenomenon -- name calling, ranting, unbridled anger from muslims without ever once addressing the texts quoted and why Robert Spencer is "wrong". It is, as Spencer predicted, always the same sweeping "taken out of context" gesture and never, ever a sensible and truthful rebuttle. Of course, that's because there is none. Isalm is what it is, and those books say what they say.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 27, 2007 10:23 AM

Robert - you are the Man,as usual. I wonder if these guys have any clue with whom they are dealing. They can't get away with their usual denials, lies, and rhetoric that work so well on uninformed, PC-obsessed types.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at February 27, 2007 10:23 AM

There is a term you might not be familiar with. It is 'memeoid'. A meme was defined by Richard Dawkins as a unit of information which replicates wildly in the same way a virus replicates, but using the mind as a host instead of the cells of the body. It is a play on the word 'gene'. A memeoid is someone who is infected with such virulent information that he no longer cares about his own survival. Suicide bombers are such people. They exist only to propagate the virus they are infected with. All moslems are potential memeoids and will become memeoids if their mental immune systems are weak enough.
The man who Dawkins credits with inventing the term 'memeoid' is Keith Henson, who was arrested recently for violating a California statute called Interfering with a Religion. See http://www.operatingthetan.com
This man criticized the Scientology cult and picketed their compound. Now he is facing jail. His case serves as a warning. Confine your criticism to polite and logical discourse, as Spencer does. Do not taunt, or ridicule. Memeoids are not rational and they will attack through any means available, legal or illegal.

Posted by: baconblaster at February 27, 2007 10:27 AM

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem, I invite you to join the collection of commenters at Jihadwatch and start telling us where we are wrong. It's so easy a caveman could do it, so I know a well schooled Emory University student could do it. Y'all dare not join; there are some very intellegent commenters who will chew you up and spit you out, figuratively and intellectually, of course.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 27, 2007 10:30 AM

Firstly I think the journal in question needs to be congratulated for running all these editorials and dissenting opinions.

Secondly the authours of this letter have has Robert so prophetically predicted done nothing to counter the arguments and evidence put forward by Robert. This is shameful from response from those in an academic position and should the authours of said letter be reading this you should be hanging your heads at such a contemptable counter argument, which can be summed as thus:

Those who question the tenents and doctrinal basis of Islam and its diametric opposition to Western, liberal and humanist values should consider themselves the worst of hatemongers because your questioning upsets the sensibilities of those who do practice the religion.

Absolutely pitiful. The authors objection to critical discourse is perhaps one of the largest obstacles to redressing the grievences that exist on both sides of the Islam/Jihad debate. From this perspective alone their academic status should be revoked.

Posted by: km at February 27, 2007 10:53 AM

People who suffer from Infidelobia are inclined to make all kinds of excuses.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 27, 2007 10:56 AM

Your bizarre post and the placing of it in this thread, americaningermany, tells us a lot about you. What is your motivation in presenting something so off-topic in this particular thread, one might wonder.

And one might do the right thing and ignore it and you from this point on after pondering the possibilities.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 27, 2007 11:00 AM

americaningermany, ask the Saudi what the Arabic word for pluralism is.

Posted by: sectionOne at February 27, 2007 11:03 AM

@Abraham_Lincoln:

This might come as a shock to you, but there is a community feeling here on JW. Many posters here have commented for years, I being one of those. I don't find americaningermany's question something that merits more than a polite response or no response, but I'm hardly surprised, from the snippets I've read from you thus far, that you're looking for straws to pull and chains to yank.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2007 11:09 AM

Left to their own devices islamists of any race will destroy America in the same way they turn any place they go into a toilet. The islamists, with their refusal to do simple things like washing their hands at the hospital or getting polio vaccines will bring misery to all of us. The result, any muslim that you come in contact with has the potential to slime you with who knows what debilitating or fatal disease. They are ruining our colleges and universities, our malls and restaurants, airports and public transportation and soon our cities as well, they are the cause of all our recent loss of rights and we will lose more in the future. The authorities have imported a cancer into our midst and I am starting to believe that the powers that be are actually trying to get us killed. I see no other way of defining it.
baconblaster,
I followed your link, Hemet=crackhead central or methlab nation. These people, if you can call them people that live in the Hemet wasteland are either on welfare, crack or both. Throw in the illegal job thieves and the rape, robbery and murder they bring (jobs Americans do not want to do) and you have the makings of a (fill in the name of your favorite ME crapistan and you could not tell the difference) American garbage dump.
americaningermany,
I have seen this before, if you are a woman you won’t have to wait long for it to find ways of making your life miserable. I have never met an islamist that wasn’t a complete piece of ****. Hey, they may exist but I have never met one. Chrysler is off my list of companies, I will buy from.

Posted by: tgusa at February 27, 2007 11:14 AM

@americaningermany:

If the Saudi you're working for is a Muslim (99.9% chance), then you'll have a knot in your gut, as I would I. You'll have to weigh what's best for you versus what you can afford to do as a matter of honor. If quitting isn't viable now, you can work to make it viable later.

Here's my advice -- if something offends you at your core, then you'll be best off changing your surroundings. The opinions of others in this matter mean nothing -- because it won't change your heart.

Smart thing to do: keep silent on this matter at work, start looking for other means and when you find them, leave. In the meantime, grin and bear it.

The worst thing to do would be to put yourself in desperate financial straits over this, unless you feel there's more urgent reason to leave.

I also don't know how things work in Germany, but if you were to get yourself fired, you'd be able to claim compensation in the USA under many circumstances. There are creative solutions to every problem, you just need to examine all the possibilities....

Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2007 11:16 AM

Americaningermany, here's some advice from someone who has worked with many people from around the world, although it was always in the US. Just be cool and see what happens. Even if he is from Saudi Arabia, he could still be a marginal Muslim. There is a veeery remote possibility he is not Muslim or could even even be a Christian convert.

Find out what he eats; does he pray during the day. If you can observe him in the restroom, does he use the urinal and also use toilet paper at the urinal? Does he stand ridiculously close to the urinal? If he watches television and has a favorite beer, he might OK. Does he know the difference between beer and ale?

Here is another clue: If he is the kind of person who considers menial tasks beneath him, you might have a problem. One Iraqi I knew would always try to get someone else to make copies. He even asked my manager to make a copy of a cost estimate for him, and asked me to bring it to him from two blocks away!

Posted by: Pelayo at February 27, 2007 11:18 AM

Actually, I see this as a positive. By identifying

Jihadwatch.org,
Robert Spencer
and David Horowitz

once again by name in the Emory Wheel, Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem have likely generated some curiosity by those not yet familiar with these sites. And I respectfully thank them for the service.

Robert opens this piece with:

"However, while the claim will be made that my quotations are 'cherry-picked,' 'out of context,' and so on, . . .

chuckle . . .voila. . .right on cue . . .

Spencer's specious arguments and David Horowitz's original ad use cherry-pickedquotes without any context to stigmatize a community, which comprises nearly one-fifth of our world population.

and of course . . .

It is apparent that Muslims, including Emory's sizable Muslim community,

the whiners response is replete with tu quoque/taqiyya ad nauseum . . .clearly pushing the dawa and demographic phases (Dawa, Demographic, Dhimmitude, Death) in the hopes that the Emory Wheel will relent, play dhimmi.

Numbers don't lie

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 27, 2007 11:27 AM

"What other community could be compared to Mussolini's black shirts or the Nazis with impunity on the pages of a major university newspaper?

"Spencer's specious arguments and David Horowitz's original ad use cherry-picked quotes without any context to stigmatize a community, which comprises nearly one-fifth of our world population."

OK.

Roman Catholicism: all those bells and smells; all that Latin nonsense; Hail Marys, Confession...; fish on Friday; child-abusing priests; no abortion; no condoms; the IRA; et cetera, et cetera.

What a load of superstitious old tosh. What an objectionable, oppressive 'religion' Roman Catholicism is.*

Am I stigmatizing a community by saying this?

Well, if I am, I am 'stigmatizing' and oppressing myself because I am a Roman Catholic.

I am not a child-abusing priest, by the way.

This letter-writing 'committee' should try and examine the - fairly simple - propositions Robert Spencer is putting to the 'Muslim community' before firing off silly missives like this.

* My comments about Roman Catholicism are for indicative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect my beliefs.

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at February 27, 2007 11:35 AM

Americaningermany -

Pelayo had a good suggestion. See what the guy is like first, he may be cool, he may be a dick, you don't know until you work with him a bit. I would be careful about opening up too much to a boss, any boss, especially if you are new on the job.

Other things to consider if the guy is a screaming prick is if you can transfer to another division wthin Daimler, you could also consider Human Resources, but i would be wary of them, they have a tendency to be all sympathetic right before they stab you in the back.

Posted by: Penfold at February 27, 2007 11:38 AM

The Wheel Prints Hate Against Islam.

This is the 6th Pillar of Islam in action. Certainly the student editor has to wince, afraid of getting jumped by a half-dozen Ahmeds returning to his dorm from class after dark.

And you know the president of Emory U. is worried, darkly imagining his school being featured as a Hatemonger U. by the great globo-socialist John Stewart of the Daily Show.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

There is no humor in Islam.
--- Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini

There is freedom of speech in dealing with or debating about Islam.
--- Alarmed Pig Farmer

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 27, 2007 11:42 AM

no freedom

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 27, 2007 11:43 AM

“…the difference between the Internet hate site jihadwatch.com and the Wheel…”

***I can see the correlation between ‘hate’ and all things ‘jihad.’ Surely any site that quotes directly from the (un)holy Qu’ran and the cult’s contemporary leaders will be dubbed ‘hateful.’

“It is apparent that Muslims,…have become…a scapegoat for terrorism, war, cavities? and whatever other ills currently plague society…” (AND OUR TEETH!)

“Like-minded bigots across the country congratulate Spencer for exposing "barbaric" Islam, while another claims Islam is not "religion, but a mental illness." Is this the kind of discourse with which we wish to define Emory?” (Ban comments now!)

***They raise a valid point. I would not want these people in my community either.

“For both the Wheel's record as well as Mr. Spencer's, we'd like to say that we (SPEAK FOR ALL) Muslims, and being maligned by the Wheel is unacceptable.”

“…we can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit (DISGUISE) it for political motives…”

***Like Keith Ellison, Darryl Issa, etc.

Keep up the great work Robert! You are pushing all the right buttons.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at February 27, 2007 11:44 AM

They are reduced to this transparent nonsense of Tqiyya and Tu Quoque. How else can they proceed? They know what is in the texts. They know what states, societies, families suffused with Islam are taught. They know the tenets. They know the attitudes. They are well used to the atmospherics. They just don't know how to handle those Infidels who also know those texts, those teachings, those attitudes, those atmospherics.

And there is nothing they can do to stop more and more Infidels, as they pick up their newspapers or turn on the evening news and realize how much of it is about this or that local manifestation of the world-wide and permanent Jihad -- which can only get worse, and examples of which will only proliferate -- from finding out, slowly and then more rapidly, in greater and greater numbers, about Islam. There is nothing they can do, try as they will to lie, or to hide, or to distract with irrelevancies, or by appeals to Western "guilt" and false claims of victimisation (but Islam itself, as the vehicle for Arab imperialism, is the most successful imperialist project in history, the force which caused whole peoples to jettison and ignore, or despise, their own histories, pre-Islamic or non-Islamic), and the raising of idiotic claims of "racism," to make Infidels, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and all others, everywhere and not just here in this country, refrain from finding out about Islam.

It's too late. Cat's out of the bag. The Qur'an is just a click away (www.quranbrowser.com). And so are the Hadith. And so is the Sira -- or you can read the texts about Muhammad, the Muslim texts, the texts of Qur'an and Hadith and Muslim Sira, and Muslim commentators and historians, with connective tissue and organizing principle supplied by Robert Spencer.

Nothing these people can do, except what they have been doing all along: "three Abrahamic faiths," "one of world's great religions," "hijacked" or "perverted" by "extremists," or quote, out of context, the handful of Qur'anic phrases -- "there is no compulsion in religion" and 5.22 but not 5.23 (Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it). Why, I can write the Mosque-Outreach script for Infidels myself, and so can you, dear reader, and so can any man.

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2007 11:50 AM

Brilliant letter, Robert.

And the deceivers could not answer and just folowed your assessment.

Wake up America.

Posted by: dgene at February 27, 2007 11:51 AM

I feel that this turn of events is very good.

The fact that Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are mentioned in the Emory Wheel will spike the interest of the Emory community.

As for the Islamicists that are mentioned, there's probably nothing there. These guys are so full of hot air especially if they are in the academic community.

Remember Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are removing hot air from the balloon of Islam, one prick at a time.

Posted by: credit man at February 27, 2007 11:55 AM

I feel that this turn of events is very good.

The fact that Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are mentioned in the Emory Wheel will spike the interest of the Emory community.

As for the Islamicists that are mentioned, there's probably nothing there. These guys are so full of hot air especially if they are in the academic community.

Remember Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are removing hot air from the balloon of Islam, one prick at a time.

Posted by: credit man at February 27, 2007 11:56 AM

Mr. Spencer what a great compliment! 4 intellectual cowards had to gang up to lie, spin, twist and whine about your work here.

Keep up the excellent information flow and to be an author like Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem DOES'T MORE THAN YOUR MOTHER READING A BOOK YOU PUBLISH NEED TO READ YOUR WORK TO MAKE YOU AN AUTHOR.

These 4 are so back alley they probably drive cabs at night to make a living as they pretend being Islamic intellectuals and poets.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 27, 2007 12:07 PM

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 27, 2007 12:19 PM

Some Muslim Said:

"It is our very Islamic beliefs that command us not to threaten or transgress against our fellow man, but rather to be productive members of both the Emory and greater human communities."

I read the Koran daily. I know what it says. I read the 'accepted by Muslims' commentaries on the Koran daily as well.

You, sir, are a Liar, spewing 'al taqiyya'... the Great Islamic Lie.

Hint... No One Believes You Anymore.

Some other Muslim said:

"Spencer's words inevitably dehumanize and ostracize Muslims in what should be a respectful dialogue."

No... it is Islam that dehumanizes Muslims, and it is the actions of Muslims that ostracize Muslims.

Arrogant Muslims, strutting around, lying, murdering, claiming themselves to be better than all other humans... this is YOU, Muslim. This is what YOU have made of YOURSELVES.

...and your children, and their children, and their children's children, forever, are going to pay the price, for your puffed-up, arrogance and Pride.

Convert, Submit, or Die.

Posted by: cheese_burger at February 27, 2007 12:24 PM

Robert Spencer said:

The Emory Wheel printed it a few days later, whereupon I wrote here: "I predict right now that none of the responses will deal with the fact that this letter is made up largely of quotations from Islamic sources, except possibly to claim (falsely) that these sources are "marginal" and that no Muslims pay attention to them. However, while the claim will be made that my quotations are 'cherry-picked,' 'out of context,' and so on, no actual documentary evidence will be offered that the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not actually teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. No such evidence can be offered, because they do teach this." I might have added that I would almost certainly be personally attacked as a "hatemonger."

Robert no doubt had excellent reasons for not including the above paragraph´s content in the letter he sent to Emory. But had it been possible to include the above, it would have preemptively disarmed, to some extent, the responders, and then it would have been even more interesting to see how they would have dealt with Robert Spencer´s challenge. Probably the inadequacy of their responses would have been even more apparent.

Posted by: traeh at February 27, 2007 12:25 PM

"No Muslim at Emory is proud of Al-Qaeda, but at the same time we can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit it for political motives."

I love that: they're 'not proud' of A-Q. Yes, a pity about A-Q; maybe they'll do better in the future.

Really, you could fisk things like this till the cows come home, all to no purpose, so deep is the denial. Assuming, of course, that they aren't simply lying outright.

Regards

Posted by: Darryl Harb at February 27, 2007 12:28 PM

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem said:

the Internet hate site jihadwatch.com

To any students at Emory, whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist, whether man or woman, whether gay or straight or bisexual, whether conservative or liberal or socialist or libertarian, who have come to this site as a result of curiosity after reading the article in The Wheel...

Welcome!

Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2007 12:33 PM

americaningermany

Adopt the attitude of a spy in the enemy camp. Say or do nothing to provoke any discussion of religion. Keep a log and cultivate allies if possible.

Please keep us informed as to any unusual developments. I am absolutely facinated with your situation.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 12:35 PM

AIG-

I'd have to agree with those who take the wait and see attitude. This new boss might not be as bad as you think. You'll have to view him as a person first and a Muslim second. If he does turn out to be a jackass then perhaps a transfer would help. I'm sure you're squirming in your position but then again anytime I gas up my car I squirm when I realize where my money goes.

I guess we'll be hearing less from you as a result and that stinks.

As for this article-I find it laughable that these idiots are complaining about "cherry picking" lines from the Koran. Isn't that what jihadists do all the time? Funny how THEY never get criticized for cherry picking all those "kill the infidel" lines. You simply can't win with these guys, no matter what you say.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at February 27, 2007 12:40 PM

If you just happen to come to JW/DW through the above article, have a look at islam's doings:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 27, 2007 12:40 PM

Big up to Robert & company. There is no shortage of hatred and outrage for this website from the Infidelophobes, and not just from "the street," not just from CAIR, but from Osama bin Laden himself. It is not because what this site says is wrong. Au contraire.

Posted by: Greek Fire at February 27, 2007 12:55 PM

To logically pick apart the article is like punching a pillow. We've passed the point of rational discourse now, and entered the realm of "I don't care about data, this is about my views and how I feel about them. Hooray for my views!." Feel-good education, the process of attempting to make students experience a false surge of unearned self-esteem, has created minds that not only are impervious the possibility that the could be wrong about something, but that also must expend enormous amounts of energy protecting a self-confidence based on groupthink instead of real achievements. Thanks, academia, for reducing the pursuit of knowledge to nothing more than an exercise in truth-mocking narcissism.

Posted by: Clive at February 27, 2007 12:59 PM

You simply can't win with these guys, no matter what you say.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

So very true, but that is not the main objective.

The MAIN objective is to create a fascinating intellectual fracas that uninformed Infidels will find irresistible. Once being fascinated they may then go on to seek the knowledge that will set them free.

When you engage an Islamo-nazi always be aware that someone may be watching.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 1:12 PM

The following is repetitive from a previous thread(sorry, eh?), but it is perhaps nevertheless instructive:

To Emory University Muslims:

If any Muslim from Emory reads this, especially including the 4 authors of the response in The Wheel (Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem), please ask or consider how you, yourselves, RESPOND, or HAVE RESPONDED, as a muslim, to apparently pious Muslims such as those in the "islamic thinkers society" (you can google their website, if you are unfamiliar) who spout hatred and supremacism such as the following (linked from http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005049.htm?print=1 ):

"Israel won’t last long… Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel
Takbeer!
Response: Allahu Akbar!

* * *
No wonder they call you sons of apes and pigs because that’s what you are.

We know many government services are watching us
Such as the FBI…CIA…Mossad, Homeland Security…
We know we are getting on their nerves
And so are you….
So we say the hell with you!
May the FBI burn in Hell
CIA burn in Hell
Mossad burn in Hell
Homeland Security burn in hell!!

Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Takbeer!
La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasool Allah

* * *
Another mushroom cloud, right in the midst of Israel!
Takbeer!! Allahu Akbar! "

Do you agree with the "islamic thinkers society"? If not, please share among yourselves, how those in the "islamic thinkers society" are wrong in their deen? Please explain using whatever Muslim texts you deem appropriate how they are misinterpreting islam, and how the message of islam is not really hate-filled, bigoted, and supremacist, as is evident from the "islamic thinkers society. After all, they must be misinterpreting something? Yes? Please avoid a disingenuous response to those here at JihadWatch, which has, unfortunately, been characteristic in the past. Remember, my request is for you to ask yourselves (and answer yourselves) how YOU respond to the above material from the "islamic thinkers society".

No one can force you to do the following, but even better, you might substantively and directly respond to the "islamic thinkers society" themselves and publically -- and share that response here.

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance in opposing bigotry.

Posted by: del at February 27, 2007 1:42 PM

Internet hate site? Is that what this place is?
My, My you learn something every day.

I always thought this place was where one found out why others hate us.

Isn't Islamfobia a Mental State that manifists itself as a direct result of others Infidelobia?

If these "Students" really believe that this presentation is a Mis-interperation of Islam. Then one could consider that the producers would have loved their partisipation in re-formating the material so as to allow them to show how this behavior, as depicted, is so AGAINST Allahs will and teaching.

Dialog and all.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 27, 2007 1:48 PM

Did anyone see the following article about college students being more self-centered and narcissistic than ever. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/02/27/self.centered.students.ap/index.html
Is this irony?

Posted by: Penfold at February 27, 2007 1:52 PM

Leftists and Islamists can't win arguments on substance, so they resort to name-calling and attempting to paint those of us that try to dissuade them from lies as KKK members or worse.

It's no small irony that this very same tactic is being attempted against me by a moonbat flapping around one of my comment threads on the Anvil today.

Keep stating it clearly and over and over Robert and Hugh. We may never win converts to the cause but we can sure as Hell wake up the "choir" to defend the homeland!

Muhammad lied.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2007 2:04 PM

I don't LIKE this at all. I wanted to get up, put on my coat and walk out.

Any suggestions on how I should handle this situation?

BTW, the money I earn for the work I do SUCKS.

Posted by: americaningermany

Hey..

Maybe you could claim he harrassed you in some way? First, I'd look into his history see what you can find. Then establish a pattern.. get it?

At the very least let them let you go and you go on unemployment and Hartz4. Why let only the leeches get our money we all work for.

Go and get yours!!

I know I could NOT work for a SOWdi. ugh.. that's be like being in the same room with a Brog who looks like Jabba-the-Hut.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 2:11 PM

Abraham Lincoln,
"Your bizarre post and the placing of it in this thread, americaningermany, tells us a lot about you. What is your motivation in presenting something so off-topic in this particular thread, one might wonder.

And one might do the right thing and ignore it and you from this point on after pondering the possibilities.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln "

Mr Lincoln,

I am afraid you have the wrong end of the stick as far as americaningermany is concerned. She has posted here far more many times than I have had hot dinners. You dont know me AIG but I have read you many times. It's nice to see you back. Re your dilemma, if you can afford to walk-walk!

Posted by: rookie at February 27, 2007 2:12 PM

As long as the cults of the world demonstrate evil against civilized nations, the civilized world will conquer and destroy them; history proves it !

Posted by: Jeff at February 27, 2007 2:16 PM

As long as the cults of the world demonstrate evil against civilized nations, the civilized world will conquer and destroy them; history proves it !

Posted by: Jeff

Not quite so Jeff. Remember Rome and why it fell?

We still have work to do my friend!

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 2:20 PM

Why would Mercedes hire a SWOdi anyway? Are they like insane? Are they looking for a switch to BMW?

I am sick and tired of OUR Western companies and campuses giving out jobs to these truly "INFIDELS".

Yes, it is THEY who are true INFIDELS!!

They don;t belive in the 10 Comandments.

ANYONE else - Christian or not - knows that to kill is a sin. To kil in the cowardly fashion of the moslems is simply their way of paying tribute to the LORD OF DARKNESS.. alla.. a.k.a. baal.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 2:30 PM

americaningermany,

I'm not sure what the problem is.

Be a good American. Act out your American principles of tolerance for others.

Be courteous and kind. There's no reason to be otherwise.

Help him in any way you can -- short of assembling a bomb for him.

I don't see any reason why you should stop being an American just because he's an Arab Muslim. why make life miserable for him just because the culture he comes from makes life miserable for others?

He might be a working stiff just like anyone else, just trying to make a living for himself and his family.

On the other hand, if he makes any comments that offend you as an American or Judeo/ Christian, be blunt in your reply without being insulting. You don't have to leave your principle at the office door for anyone, and have every right to defend American ideals and principles, which are far superior to Islams.

In other words, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Who knows, he might not be a bad fellow, and just might learn something from you.

Bottom line: Be everything you think he should be.

Posted by: rational at February 27, 2007 2:33 PM

'Who compared Muslims to Fascists or Nazis? '

You don't Mr. Spencer. But I always do and most of the posters here on JW would agree with me. I also believe that the 'RoP' is far worse than the Nazi's ever were. They are. To deny that means to deny reality.

The Muhammedan whiners complain about us calling their belief-system "barbaric" Islam, while another claims Islam is not "religion, but a mental illness." Is this the kind of discourse with which we wish to define Emory?

Islam is both barbaric and a mental illness. We can't do the Muhammedans no greater favor than tho help them leave the shackels of this ideology and to become decent human beings.

"It is our very Islamic beliefs that command us not to threaten or transgress against our fellow man, but rather to be productive members of both the Emory and greater human communities. "

Trouble is that there are no such Islamic beliefs. Islam divides the world strictly in believer and unbelievers. And we know the rest.

But what I really find hard to stomach is the projection:
THEY are the hatemongers, the 'RoP' itself is nothing but hatred, discrimination and incitement to first degree murder and genocide, and these people turn around and project this hatred upon us because we point it out.

How bizarre, how very bizarre!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 27, 2007 2:38 PM

AIG I feel for you.
I worked in GE in the 1980's for a German American Co. It was very interesting.
One bit of advice, Do Not Ever Acess This Site On Your Work Computer!

Thank you Foehammer, for stepping in there with Mr. Rudebritches. You could have spelled snippits; snippy.
Civility, as I have said before, is so evident here and so welcome and rare in todays world. The ability to have discourse and share knowledge without lording it over someone who doesn't have that knowledge is a lesson those Muslim letter writers could learn here.

Of course they won't have the nerve. Look at what happens when someone tries to overwhelm this group with disinformation or hurling insults and namecalling instead of the "Dialog" they are always claiming to desire.

When a young man came on here the other day, he was not insulted or called names. However, he was asked a lot of to-the-point questions. Which he didn't answer. He just hurled insults and namecalling.

The reaction of this community to a disinformer reminds me of an incident I witnessed a week or so after 9/11. A pilot of a small plane in the sky over the job site I was working on allegedly yelled on the pilot radio 'Death to America'. I watched the fighter planes force him down. Our community some times reminds me of those planes where two f15's looked like four. They were moving around a lot.

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at February 27, 2007 2:40 PM

"Jihad Watch is in favor of freedom of conscience, equality of rights before the law, and other elements of Western societies that are contravened by Sharia. If that makes it a "hate site," then the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights are hate literature."
[Emphasis Added]

This summarizes rather neatly a vast majority of the issues involved. Muslims view anything that restricts or prohibits implementation of sharia law as actual war upon dar al-Islam. Not an impediment or obstruction but actual war, as in active aggression upon Islam itself. It is every bit as real as bullets being fired into a mosque.

In that Islamic context, America's Constitution and Bill of Rights are indeed "hate literature" in that they legally estop aspects of sharia’s enactment with force of armed response by peace officers or the military personnel of this country.

While sharia law contains many innocuous mandates regarding diet and apparel, a huge number of its dicta regarding treatment of women and those of other religions represent nothing less than a massive violation of human rights as recognized by the global community, including several Muslim majority nations.

Witness the case of Muslim apostate Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan, whose recently liberated government has supposedly embraced freedom of religion and other widely accepted human rights. What message is being sent to the international community after spilling so much of its precious blood releasing Afghanistan from the Taleban's stranglehold? What does it say when president Hamid Karzai implicitly condones the newly Christian Rahman’s death sentence when such a pronouncement is in direct violation of his nation’s agreement to uphold recognized human rights?

Such is the overweening nature of Islam and its comprehensive code of putatively moral conduct called sharia. It would be amusing to ask Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem whether the Meccan passages they are so fond of citing are abrogated by the later Medinan verses. How delightful it would be to see them backpedal as the mandates of their own faith command that they stoutly defend those later, far more violent and hateful verses.

Note to americaningermany: If I recall correctly, you now have a child to support. If jobs are indeed so scarce, your child’s welfare overrides most other concerns. In the end, as with all of us, you must follow your conscience. But your obligations are no longer just to yourself or your spouse and a helpless baby is now hostage to your decisions.

Posted by: Zenster at February 27, 2007 2:41 PM

Aunt Bea:

Old rule for an argument I learned early on -- "Never show up to a gunfight without ammo."

The biggest problem with the Left? They either have no ammunition or they use rubber bullets. This is why arguments don't see to go the way the Islamists expect when they show up here on JW -- too many of us know their "messenger" and his message as well or better than they do themselves, and Robert and Hugh better than any of us, I'd dare say.

As for civility, I aim to be civil most of the time, but I willingly admit that when I get confronted with tired insults right from the start, I'm more apt to get "snippy" myself nowadays, especially on my own blog. I think the message there is that my patience is wearing thin.

I think I need to strive to come by JW more often than I have in recent months. I see a lot of trolls that need chasing with a pitchfork (or hammer) and I'm just the jingo for the job.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2007 2:48 PM

Well, perhaps I am wrong in americaningermany's case in suspecting anything.

As many others may have noticed, I hope, the jihad dis-information dudes are rampant across the internet and post completely out of context baiting posts on many sites. Not all are as clumsy as our obvious regular "guests" here. The moderators of those sites end up confused and uncertain as to if they should delete the posts, and a tiny number of the participants at the sites are drawn into commenting in a way that can be portrayed in a very negative manner. I've seen it happen a few times but later, in a few instances, the webmasters were able to collaborate and track down the same rhetoric and baiting with IP addresses across several identities. The IP address(es), no surprise, ended up primarily emerging from Turkey, the muslim country with the most internet Jihadist users. This resulted in post-incident hacker attacks, and a few terrorist law cases are pending, or so we hear about.

My suspicion is based on that, and on americaningermany's positioning of this completely off-topic question on this particular post/thread. One which is likely to be read by more university students and academics concerned with the issue of civil liberties than any other. It could have been posted elsewhere and it would have passed without objection from me, as it is a legitimate enough question to ask. However, placed where it is, it potentially harms Jihad Watch, by creating an artificial bubble of potentially bitter responses that might promote wrong-headed perception of this site as some sort of "hate mill" when it is, clearly and by any objective measure, a "fact mill". The jihad dis-information dudes and those who support them directly or indirectly by clinging to PC and whatnot, really need some sort of way to actually smear fact mills like Jihad Watch. The truth is begining to march right on over them.

Americaningermany and others need to consider these things when making posts, in my opinion. But that is up to them, and it is my right to question them when they don't.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 27, 2007 2:48 PM

DebV,

that was an excellent suggestion for americaningermany about recording (or keeping a diary) of conversations...along that line (btw), there are available devices (such as Creative MuVo "mp3" players - which also feature a "record" function -- they're about 3 inches by 1 1/2 inches -- can easily fit in a pocket) great little recording devices...and very inexpensive..just a thought...

Posted by: J.S. at February 27, 2007 2:57 PM

BTW, the money I earn for the work I do SUCKS.

Posted by: americaningermany

Hell.. ANYONE can get Unemployment and Hartz-IV in Germany. I say GET YOURS NOW!! You've been paying taxes and Unemployment insurance.. You just had a baby.. :-) Great time for a little vacation...

Oh you should look into a little something called "gesetzlicher Mutterschaftsurlaub". I think Mercedes may have to pay you to take off for child rearing reasons.

When it's time to go back you can see what happened to the SOWdi. Maybe he'll be gone.

I say we Westerners need to start dipping into our own Social Systems a little deeper.. why put in all this money for the moFoes?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 3:15 PM

A little off topic, every now and then we get Muslim visitors on this site and claim Islam gives equal rights to women and the works.. Usually these people pop in unexpectedly. I happen to visit a UK site called BBC.CO:UK and I found this very alarming article about the equality given to women in Pakistan under Islamic law. I think this type of treatment dished out to Muslim women, in my opinion, is wide spread throughout the Islamic countries. I let you read it ---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6401677.stm

'Sold' Pakistani girl in appeal

The mother of a girl in Pakistan claimed by a man in lieu of a 16 year old gambling debt has appealed to the authorities for help.

The woman told journalists in the southern city of Hyderabad that she feared for her daughter's safety.

Women are often used as collateral to settle debts and feuds amongst tribesmen in rural Pakistan.

Last year, Pakistan's ruling political party introduced legislation to outlaw forced marriages under tribal customs.

Tribal justice

Nooran Bibi said her late husband had promised her daughter, Rasheeda, to one Lal Haider in lieu of a poker game debt amounting to 10,000 rupees ($164).

The mother says Rasheeda was a year old when her husband told Mr Haider that he could have her instead "when she grew up", reports the Associated Press news agency.

Nooran Bibi and Rasheeda
Rasheeda (r) with her mother and younger brother

After Rasheeda turned 17, Mr Haider had come to claim her, even though the debt had been paid off, the mother said.

She also complained that he had threatened her family if Rasheeda was not handed over.

Both families belong to a local tribe, and the case was referred to elders who ruled that the girl must be handed over to Mr Haider.

The matter is now with the local police who have registered a case against Mr Haider and the elders.

The use of women to settle blood feuds and debts in tribal society in Pakistan by promising them in marriage remains widespread despite recent reforms.

In November 2006, the ruling PML-Q political party introduced legislation in parliament to outlaw such marriages.

The new bill criminalises customs such as vanni and swara, in which young girls are given away in marriage to settle feuds and debts.

It prescribes a maximum of three years' imprisonment for offenders in these cases.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at February 27, 2007 3:29 PM

Working with Saudis

I used to work for the world's largest oil company. I worked with many Saudis and their range of beliefs is like here in the US wide. many of the ones I worked with were not extremists and greatly admired the US. One was very proud that his son was born in the US. many hold green cards. I well remember a managers meeting where we were discussing a problem with a Saudi trainee who refused to shave his beard to comply with OSHA regulations for working at a refinery (must have a clean shaven face to allow for a tight gasmask seal). The Saudi VP erupted after much discussion with "there is nothing in our religion that says we have to grow a beard. tell him he either shaves his beard or he goes home ie back to the Kingdom." Result the beard didn't get shaved and he got sent home. major disgrace as US training assignments were greatly desired

Get to know your new manager, ask him out for lunch. as others have suggested observe his actions, listen to his words take your time before judging him

Posted by: pak152 at February 27, 2007 3:46 PM

Leave it to the leftists to attempt to put words in the mouths of people whose viewpoints they oppose in a vain attempt to discredit them. The Emory Wheel evidently considers this practice standard journalistic practice and itself engages in conspicuous exploitation and stigmatization by its own journalistic hand. Why would such folks as the editors and writers at the Emory Wheel quibble about WHO has the right to make use of practices of discrediting others if they feel these practices will work for them??

How many posters and writers at this site ever CLAIMED they hated anyone or anything? And so what if they DID?? How many Jihad Watch posters participate in terrorist bombings? How many Jihad Watch posters cut off human's heads? How many feel a compulsion to slaughter people on the street for any reason other than self-defense? "Hate" as the left defines it can mean anything. And it really means nothing coming from their mouths as "hate" is a generalized smear tactic. This word, if coming from the left, means virtually nothing and can safely be dismissed.

I would would like to ask the Emory Wheel:" when are Muslims going to stop killing non-Muslims and disobedient Muslims"??? I'll bet the Emory Wheel couldn't (and WON'T) give us a straight answer to this. Just more BS.

As for dialogue between the non-Islamic "unbelievers" and the Muslim world what the Emory Wheel leftists steadfastly REFUSE to face is that the Kuran prohibits Muslims from dealing honestly with the "unbelievers." In the final analysis, dialogue between the two (artificially imposed by Islamic ideology) global partitions is an exercise in futility. Islam commands that Muslims lie to "unbelevers" to accelerate Islam's global conquest through jihad and since this is "al-lah's" command it may NOT be broken by Muslims.

The editors and writers do NOT have to agree with us. They COULD however acknowlege the validitiy of an opposing point of view even if they donot agree with it. But I see little evidence indicating that the left has advanced to that level.

As for Islam, if the emory Wheel folks refuse to comprehend the danger it poses, then it's THEIR funeral. (Boo hoo hoo).

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2007 4:00 PM

Ammara Abbasi writes:

"Islam is not at all a subdued religion"

That must be worthy of a prize for euphemism of the week.

Posted by: zaltys at February 27, 2007 4:06 PM

The response of these Four Musketeers -- Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem -- illustrates for the thousandth time an ongoing problem we are having in our communication effort in the War of Ideas: the problem is, how do we demonstrate that the pernicious threat emanating out of Islam pertains not merely to a small minority of extremists, but also extends more deeply (into the normative foundations of Islam) and more broadly (into a sufficiently high number of Muslims to cause concern)?

Unfortunately, while we all here may feel it's self-evident, the data that would connect enough dots to show that our concern about Islam and Muslims extends beyond a small minority of extremists suffers from three problems:

1) undue complexity, both in quantity and quality

2) insufficient organization of this complex jungle of data into a definitively authorative presentation that is both comprehensive yet also efficiently pithy

3) insufficient organization of the counter-arguments against the prevailing paradigm that axiomatically and stubbornly detaches a "small minority of extremists" from a harmless and blameless Islam/Majority of Muslims.

Thus, for example, even if people would begin to seriously entertain one of Spencer's main arguments -- that what everyone agrees is dangerously "extremist" actually pertains to traditional Islam in its texts and legal theory -- the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?

Posted by: remote_control at February 27, 2007 4:22 PM

AIG..

I just found this little Hartz-IV Benefit Calculator. They were talking about some Egyptian terrorist who lives in Berlin AND CASHES HEFTY CHECKS every month.

They pay you per kid [the terrorist has 6!!! - talk about Germany the Cuckoo's Nest!]

They also pay your living expenses and rent.

Here, check it all out.. the German Jizyah state:

http://biallo.lycos.de/sozial/ALG2rechneri.php?zzS=i&Seite=1

What a dhimmi disgrace!!!

I say we need real Germans and other Weestern people getting on the Social Systems. The faster we DRY UP the income for the terrorists who are sucking and leeching off of us the better!!

The Hartz-IV mooching terrorist preaches in a mosk somewhere.

And HOW do you think he got into Germany in the first place? He married some stupid Blondenbimbo and the taxpayers have to pay for her idiocy!! I wish we could SUE her pants off. She ought to have to pay for this vermin - NOT US!!

In fact I really think he needs to be sent home - on the double. And take his 6 future jehadists with him!! How many people feeding these scum today will get killed by their evil brood tomorrow??!!

I read what Martin luther said about "the Turk" and the mahometan.. and what he said about the traitors who run germany.. how little things have changed... LOL LOL LOL it really is SAD.

One thing I can tell you, Martin Luther would definiely be on Jihadwatch and on Politicallyincorrect if he were around today.

He called the moslems brutal and unwilling to work. He said they treat women worse than beasts.. everything we hear about to this very day.

Le plus ça change!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 4:25 PM

As long as AIG makes sure that recording a conversation without the other party's knowledge is legal in her jurisdiction, I'd say go for it.
Posted by: DebV [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 03:09 PM

AIG - Where about in Germany do you work? I have read so many of your posts, I always enjoyed them, I think DebV is on the ball. Do you need to stay there?

I have a bunch of friends from Germany with whom I went to college and we had lots of fun together. They were from Berlin and Munich.

There was another person called 'GermanInAmerica' who is not been here for a while. I wonder what happened?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at February 27, 2007 4:33 PM

Note to americaningermany: If I recall correctly, you now have a child to support. If jobs are indeed so scarce, your child’s welfare overrides most other concerns. In the end, as with all of us, you must follow your conscience. But your obligations are no longer just to yourself or your spouse and a helpless baby is now hostage to your decisions.

Posted by: Zenster

Yeah exactly. She needs to spend time AWAY from muftis in the workplace. Get back some of her investment into the German Socialist Welfare State. Hey, if they pay the MoFoes to raise their kids in germany on German taxpayers' backs then why not do the same for a nice American Girl!

Her babies may one day have to put down the jehadist babies whom our enemies are busy raising in my country and in all of YOUR countries too!!

Let us drain out the social swamp BY USING IT!! We can pick up and work anythime - much better than they can!!

Once the socialist system has been drained... :-)

NO RESOUCES FOR jehadists from OUR countries!!!

Go, Kell-Ann and GRAB YOURS!!!

http://biallo.lycos.de/sozial/ALG2rechneri.php?zzS=i&Seite=1

The money you take out will be guaranteed NOT to go to jehadist activity in my country :-)

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 4:39 PM

Those pro-Islam propagandists have produced their libelous ad hominem and other fallacious attacks on Spencer like clock-work, just as Spencer had predicted.

They claim the verses and quotes are cherry-picked, out of context, etc. Some writers at Islam-Watch are working on some draft rebuttals to those common Islamic apologist myths, here and here.

Any informative or critical feedback you may have that might help improve those rebuttals would be most appreciated.

For those apologists who think the bad verses from the Koran are just "cherry-picked," these links show that the Koran itself is a veritable cherry orchard of such negative verses.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Here are some Koranic verses which are unacceptable in any context.

21:98. “Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come.”

[What were those slick apologists saying about tolerance?]

98:6 (Pickthall). "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."

9:30. "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) *fighteth against them. How perverse are they!"
*Qatalahumu

Ishaq, p. 552. (Conquest of Mecca. Muhammad destroys the polytheists' idols).
"When the apostle prayed the noon prayer on the day of the conquest he ordered that all of the idols which were round the Ka'ba should be collected and burned with fire and broken up. Fadala b. al-Mulawwih al-Laythi said commemorating the day of the conquest:
'Had you seen Muhammad and his troops
The day the idols were smashed when he entered,
You would have seen God's light become manifest
And darkness covering the face of idolatry.' "

Koranic insults: Inappropriate in any context, but the vast majority of Muslims claim they believe the Koran and therefore they do not deny the content of these insults:

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims):

--are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews were) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); are like frightened donkeys chased by a lion (74:50-51), are like cattle—nay, worse than cattle (7:179), are like dogs (7:176);

--they (idolators) are unclean (9:28); have uncleanness set upon them by Allah (10:100, 6:125); the hypocrites are unclean (9:95).

--“evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); "enemy" (63:4); ungrateful traitors (31:32).

---“perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); are ill (84:20); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); in false pride and schism (38:2), in schism (2:137, 2:167);

--foolish (6:35); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6-7), and deceived by Satan (4:60);

--Allah sends devils against them to make them do evil (19:83); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89),

--liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 6:28, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19),

--“losers” (5:53, 6:31, 7:178-179); among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those above insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief in Islam is the worst crime, according to the Koran)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 27, 2007 4:50 PM

Oh no, not the old "out of context" ploy again.

Hey you students at Emory (I presume you are students), do your homework. The "out of context" ploy is old hat and hasnt been in use in cutting edge rebuttals for two years. Havnt you been receiving the latest Automatic updates from the mosque, how to counter Islamophobia?

This just wont do. Its E for attainment(charitable) and F for not doing the research.

Posted by: DP111 at February 27, 2007 4:53 PM

Anyway, here is what I think is a flaw in the liberal argument that only a fraction of muslims are violent extremists ...

The fact is it only takes a fraction of the world muslim community to violently impose Islam on any particular place, especially if violent resistance to Islam is blocked by liberals that say Islam is a religion of peace and no threat exists...

Take Kosovo for example. The muslim individuals that committed the crimes that largely successfully ethnically cleansed most of the Serbs out represent only a small fraction of the world muslim community, and I would even wager a small fraction of the total number of Albanians in Kosovo. But the modus operandi is, small number of extremists commit the actual crimes, the "moderate" muslim majority enables the crimes by the silence and lack of assistance rendered while their non-muslim neighbors are killed, raped, and looted, and the MSM prevents aid to besieged Serbs by covering the crimes up and painting Serbs as aggressors.

Now take this paradigm and repeat in one local area after another, add the women as breeder part of Islamic ideology to it, and you can make the whole world muslim with only a few muslim extremists that actually commit the violence.

So the liberal argument is in effect like arguing that since only a fraction of Soviets serve in the Red Army, the Soviet Union is peaceful and therefore not a military threat. Because essentially the threat of the "moderate" muslim is that he is historically the guy who doesn't do anything when the muslim extremist targets your house, as the number of the "moderate" muslims increases, the extremists prey on non-muslims with more impunity because the number of people that victim can count on for effective protection decreases. Hence ethnic cleaning.

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at February 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Those pro-Islam propagandists above--and I call them propagandists in part because they do not support the claims that they disseminate--in using the out-of-context claim invite an important question: What context? If the apologists are to be taken at their word, then they are implying that they know the real (or historical, alleged) context of the Koranic quotes, i.e., that they've read the Sira and sahih Hadith to find out the context of the Koranic verses. Now if these apologists have read those contexts, why don't they point to the Hadith and Sira and show us where the Islam critic's quotes are wrong? Now, for those of us who've read the sahih Hadith and Sira, it is clear that those sources only show the Koran to be even worse than it actually appears.

Otherwise, those apologist-propagandists have not read the contextual material provided only by the Sira and sahih Hadith; i.e., they are bluffing, as usual, providing the name of an argument ("out of context") instead of the substance of that argument.

I am willing to predict that if any of the above five Islam apologists cited by Robert were to join us here for conversation, they would come across no better than Will Caldwell--a self-proclaimed "moderate" who freely volunteered the information that it was permissible to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam or accept dhimmitude under "defensive" circumstances.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 27, 2007 5:09 PM

>Thus, for example, even if people would begin to seriously entertain one of Spencer's main arguments -- that what everyone agrees is dangerously "extremist" actually pertains to traditional Islam in its texts and legal theory -- the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?
Posted by: remote_control

Excellent post. I think the solution is to work on "one of Spencer's main arguments..." first. If people don't know what Islam really is in the first place, they will never appreciate the second point of how widespread the threat is. We can work on the second point only after the first is established. You gotta eat the elephant one bite at a time.

The problem I see is holding the average Infidel's attention long enough to slip in a little information. I believe 2 page information pamphlets are one answer. I have completed one consisting mostly of Ayat that every infidel should know. I plan another on Mohammad (after I read Roberts book) and maybe one on Sharia.

We have to reach people who don't read books very often. The key here is one page, double sided. This would be something that you would give to a friend, acquaintance, fellow traveler on a bus, etc.

If we don’t spread the truth who will?

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 5:19 PM

the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly? Posted by: remote_control

Take the top 5 (population) Islamic countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and Iran, and show how each of them is a basket case, as well as conditions of religious minorities in each of these countries. Then take the other countries that have significant Muslim populations even though they aren't Muslim - India, Nigeria, Israel, Russia, China, Serbia et al, and point out how in each of these countries, Muslims and Infidels are at loggerheads. Note that in the latter category, the Infidels aren't always Christian - you have Jews (Israel), Hindus (India), Buddhists (Thailand) among others.

I think the PC mindset will prevent one from entertaining step 1, until such time that Leftists are targeted, as is now the case in countries like Holland and France. But if one does accept a link between Islam and 'extremism', one may then see a link between Muslims endorsing these beliefs in a large number.

However, I don't believe that we'll be out of the woods even at that point. Instead, people will then state that Muslims in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Kyrghyzstan et al are extremists, but Western Muslims (including White Converts) are moderates (and they won't see Chechens and Albanians in the same way that they see, say, Pakistanis or Palestinians). One example of someone who seems to think that is Michael Medved: even though he has entertained Robert on a number of occasions, he seems to be of the opinion that US Muslims are okay, and here for the same reason as other people. And as long as that attitude holds, there will also be resistance to reducing Muslim immigration to the West on the grounds that if Western Muslims are moderate, Muslims settling in the West will be seen as seeking a better life, and therefore ready to discard the baggage of Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 27, 2007 5:20 PM

Davegreybeard, Please make these available to the rest of us here on Jihad Watch!

Posted by: fedupinamerica at February 27, 2007 5:31 PM

remote,

The answer to your question re "tiny minority of extremists" myth has to be answered in part by polls and surveys. You will have to go through a great deal of statistical evidence or consult scholars who have done so. Pipes claims that "Islamists" who support violence constitute about 10-15% of Muslims.

The problem with this type of question is that people who really do support terrorist violence will tend to be cautious about admitting that on even an anonymous poll.

On the other hand, many still do support violence, and this can be gleaned from responses to other questions. In 2006, in a sample of over 45,000 "Arabs", 49.9% claimed they "supported" bin Laden. (Options were yes/no). When we take into account that many Shia support terrorism (e.g., of Hizballa) but not bin Laden, and some of the 49.9 % "Arabs" are Christians, it is reasonable to conclude that among Arab Muslims the support for terrorism is higher than 50%. There also have been specific questions asked about terrorism, e.g., in 2002 about 60% of Pakistanis supported terrorism against the west.

A better way to ask the question to get genuine responses is to ask if violence is permissible against someone who "insults Islam." In this case, 40% of Indonesians say that they themselves would use violence against someone who insulted Islam/Muhammad. Approximately 78% of British Muslims say the Danish cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished; about 68% say that those who insult Islam generally should be prosecuted and punished. In other words, most Muslims believe that some kind of physical force (state-controlled or vigilante) should be used to punish those who insult Islam. About 31-36% of British Muslims answer freely on a questionnaire that apostates from Islam should be killed.

Some polls etc. have been quoted with links provided in the Resources section at I-W.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 27, 2007 5:38 PM

remote_control said:

how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?

I agree with the goals you point toward and with your description of the obstacles.

One short answer, I think, is to collect rigorously conducted polls of Muslims themselves. Such polls seem to have repeatedly shown that upwards of 5% of Western Muslims support terrorist attacks in their own Western countries. Apparently 1% not only support such attacks, but are even interested in actually carrying them out. In a country with a million Muslims, that´s 10,000 people who would like to commit terror. And tens of thousands more who support terror morally or otherwise. And then there are the even larger percentages, 30%, or 40% or 50%, who apparently would support the introduction of Sharia law and the legal dominance of Islam over all other religions.

But the only real answer to your question seems to be: work. Non-Muslims need to work at self-education about Islam. Then what you are looking for is really authoritative expertise, great minds that can simultaneously synthesize convincingly and also demonstrate groundedness in encyclopedic knowledge of details. Such intellectual leaders could sway the West toward its own survival, especially if they were in some sense moral leaders as well. To some extent that is surely true of Robert Spencer, insofar as he risks his life continually on behalf of what he has somewhere called the dignity of the human person, that central Western value threatened by the advance of Islam into Europe and elsewhere.

Posted by: traeh at February 27, 2007 5:43 PM

Davegreybeard, Please make these available to the rest of us here on Jihad Watch!
Posted by: fedupinamerica

Would be glad to but the format does not transfer very well when copied into this post. I usually do an attachment when I email it.

I would gladly post it on this site through Robert if there was interest and robert was willing.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 5:48 PM

They don't mind paying the Somalis to come here and have 10 babies on welfare. I worked 25 years and had several nervous breakdowns so at least I earned it.

Posted by: DebV

Too bad you had to fall ill to get it but I'm glad you got yours.

I find it galling that our guvmints are forcing us to work and feed outr ENEMIES.

By the way, MsHunt.. you were looking for a certain German in America.. you found him.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 27, 2007 5:57 PM

@Khaybar Oasis
Thanks for the compilation. I guess these lines just have to be repeated over and over again - just as often as "moderate" muslims keep repeating over and over again how peaceful their religion is.
I wonder what's the appropriate context for these suras to not be considered offensive... I simply can't make up any context where they couldn't de classified as hate speech or discrimination.
Apart from, well - if you consider the context that being a muslim is the precondition to be considered a human being with dignity and rights...

Islam hasn't changed much in the last thousand years so it might also be very helpful to know what generations before us thought.
What the Byzantines thought is known by the pope's citation of Manual Paleologus, a Byzantine emperor.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

I lately learnt from another comment on this site that Martin Luther neither came to an encouraging result when analyzing islam:
http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01031013600972584326486620&PG=01223001361006780322797517

Just wondering what it should tell us if people from different times and ages and different "context" all came up with more or less the same conclusions with regard to islam..

Posted by: flibustier at February 27, 2007 6:00 PM

Robert,

How do I email you a 2 page pamphlet
"2 QUESTIONS FOR INFIDELS"? I tried director@jihadwatch.org but it is not working.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 6:06 PM

I like this piece of Fox News of Pakistan...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254920,00.html

KARACHI, Pakistan — Police are seeking ten men, including several tribal elders, accused of pressuring a Pakistani woman to hand over her teenage daughter as payment for a 16-year-old poker debt, officials said Tuesday.
In the latest case highlighting how conservative customs threaten women's rights in Pakistan, Nooran Umrani alleges that, despite paying off her late husband's debt of 10,000 Pakistani rupees (US$165), she was threatened with harm if she failed to hand over her daughter, Rasheeda.

Obviously, Islam needs to do some serious preaching of Peace and Love before the world can even recognize them as a peaceful religion.

Posted by: Jeff at February 27, 2007 6:07 PM

Davegreybeard:

Director@jihadwatch.org seems to be working fine, but anyway I don't open attachments. Is it online anywhere?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 27, 2007 6:11 PM

Davegreybeard

There is a project some of us are working on called 'Debating tools for Infidels'. Once you come there, you'll see goals and scope of the project. Anyway, go there, and see whether the material you have might be useful there. Beyond that, if you find the project interesting enough to participate in, feel free to contact us there. Incidentally, that offer to join is open to others on this site as well.

Khaybar

I saw the documentary 'Obsession', and in it, Pipes did provide a disclaimer that the 15% figure was admittedly only an estimate - something that the trailers to the movie conveniently left out.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 27, 2007 6:28 PM

Robert,

Thank you for your quick reply - I'm a little shocked!

The pamphlet opens with "Why do they hate us?" and finishes with "Have the Islamic terrorists radicalized Islam - or is it the other way around?". These questions are never directly answered. Most of the text consists of 19 Ayat such as 9:111, 9:5, 3:114, 47:35, 5:56, etc. Text is some color, bold, and underlined.

I would like to get this to you but I don't have a web site so am unsure of where to go from here.

Sincerely,
Dave

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 6:29 PM

Jeff

That story is there in Dhimmi Watch.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 27, 2007 6:32 PM

'Debating tools for Infidels'
Posted by: Infidel Pride

Thanks for the tip! I will be there time permitting.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 6:41 PM

To JihadWatchers,

auntbea made a good point while responding to AIG: never access this site while at work. Use an anonymous proxy like this one

Posted by: deesine at February 27, 2007 8:08 PM

Emory Wheel: Why don't you steer this--the Kuran teaches first degree murder:

"And when the forbidden months have passed, slaughter the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare upon them; levy the tax upon the infidels' conversion to the ways of al-lah; lo, the ways of al-lah are indeed merciful." Muhammad, the Kuran.

Muslims tend to believe it since it is the direct teaching of al-lah. And many of them either actually practice it and/or pay other Muslims to do it for them (it's known as 'terrorism').

Try putting a spin on that.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2007 9:50 PM

Hugh wrote:

...and 5.22 but not 5.23 (Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it).

Minor correction: I believe you mean 5.32 and 5.33. For those interested in this standard line of deception, I document it here: http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/E%29+How+does+Islam+guarantee+human+rights%3F

Posted by: kamala at February 27, 2007 10:05 PM

Yes, you are right. I don't have a head for numbers, not when they are numbers to certain disturbing Qur'anic passages, and the whole Qur'an disturbs me. I'd better write them down and keep them straight.

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2007 10:50 PM

Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it. - Hugh

I can almost hear Louis Armstrong singing those lyrics (it's a long enough tune, what's one more verse?).

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 27, 2007 11:08 PM

Spencer's words inevitably dehumanize and ostracize Muslims in what should be a respectful dialogue.

If you can't disrepect Islam and Moslems, then what can you disrespect.

Disrespecting and ostracizing Moslems is a duty, and free-thinking people need to better attend to this urgent task.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 27, 2007 11:15 PM

>Disrespecting and ostracizing Moslems is a duty, and free-thinking people need to better attend to this urgent task.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

You're off target buddy! YOU need to explain to the folks what Islam is. Once you've done that the folks will know what to do.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 27, 2007 11:37 PM

You quote sources from scholars many centuries ago which without doubt was written many years ago. But if I go back to Christian texts or Jewish texts, there are many instances of domineering ideology. Remember the crusades? How about Jewish texts? Here are Halachic decrees. How come you do not comment on them?

1) Killing a GT (as well as any other Gentile, in principle, without a court hearing, at least in peaceful times) is forbidden. However, a Jew who murders a gentile (even in peaceful times and even intentionally) is not punishable by death in the human courts. According to some opinions he is not punishable at all by the human courts. But a GT who kills a Jew, purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death.

2) According to some opinions it is forbidden to desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a GT unless there is a danger of animosity.

3) In all situations where one must choose to save either a Jew’s or a GT’s life or where only one of these two lives can be saved, the Jewish life must be chosen. It applies even in a situation where a criminal who is Jewish threatensing the GT’s life – even then it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the GT’s life.

4) According to some opinions, if a Jew charges an exorbitant price or conceals the low quality of goods from a GT customer he does not owe the GT any compensation (as he would owe a Jewish customer). In any case, it is clear that if a GTgentile charges an exorbitant price or conceals the low quality of goods from a Jewish customer, he owes the Jew compensation.

5) According to most opinions it is forbidden for a Jew to consume some food products made by a GT.

6) According to most opinions, in all business transactions a Jew must be given precedence over a GT, even when this causes minor financial losses.

7) According to many opinions it is forbidden to lend money to GT without interest.

8) It is forbidden to delay the payment of the wages of a GT, but the prohibition is less severe than that of delaying a Jew's wages.

9) A GT may not be appointed to any ruling position over Jews. For example, he cannot be a judge in a Jewish court of law.

10) A GT is not considered a valid witness in a Jewish court of law.

11) A GT, as opposed to a Jew, may be easily sentenced to death in a court of law. This may be done by a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness or his own admission of guilt, with no prior warning, even if the witness is a relative [of either the judge or the victim].

12) According to some opinions, if an animal owned by a Jew damages a GT's property the Jew is not required to pay any indemnity. But when an animal owned by a GT damages a Jew's property, the GT is obliged to pay full compensation.

13) A GT who robs or steals from a Jew (or anyone else) must be sentenced to death, whereas no Jew who robs or steals from anyone is ever sentenced to death. A Jew who steals from a GT must pay back only the sum that he stole, whereas a Jew who steals from a Jew must pay back at least twice the sum he stole.

14) The death penalty may be imposed on a GT who abducts a Jew, but not on a Jew who abducts a GT.

15) A GT must not observe the Shabbat, and he also must not establish for himself a religious festival or a religious day of rest. If he does he is to be beaten in punishment (and according to one opinion he is to be executed in punishment). According to one opinion he must not even establish for himself a secular day of rest or intentionally rest for a whole day.

16) A GT must not study the Torah. If he does he is to be beaten in punishment.

17) A Jew is not