| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Some reflections on some recent polls, in FrontPage today (news links in the original):
A new Newsweek Poll on American attitudes toward Muslims and Islam has found that 46 percent of Americans believe that the United States is taking in too many Muslim immigrants. 32 percent think that Muslims in America are less loyal to the United States than they are to Islam. 28 percent believe that the Qur’an condones violence, and 41 percent hold that Islamic culture “glorifies suicide.” 54 percent are either “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about Islamic jihadists in this country, and 52 percent support FBI surveillance of mosques, with the same percentage rejecting the claim of American Muslim advocacy groups that Muslims are being singled out by investigators and police.What are we to make of these figures? Do they mean that American Muslim advocacy groups have to do more to combat “Islamophobia”? That is the likely response: watch now for the follow-up stories about “Islamophobia,” in which the onus for all the attitudes displayed in this poll is placed firmly and solely upon non-Muslim Americans, as if Muslims were an entirely innocent, passive group that was doing nothing whatsoever to make anyone suspicious or angry at all. Newsweek itself led this off by asserting in another article published along with the poll that Muslims in America are “vulnerable as never before.” That story began with an account of a Muslim in Cleveland asking George W. Bush: “What are we doing with public diplomacy to change the hearts and minds of a billion and a half Muslims around the world?” The unspoken assumption behind this question is that Muslim fury at the West stems entirely from the actions of the United States and other Western countries, and not from anything within the Islamic world itself. Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), expressed another aspect of this view after the recent jihad plots were discovered in London and Glasgow, when he suggested that the religion of the attackers was incidental to their plots: “Let’s not create a hypothetical problem…it can be the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists.”
The prevailing view is that the Islamic Faith of today’s terrorists has nothing to do with their actions, and those who suspected otherwise are simply bigots who are drawing an unwarranted connection between Islam and terrorism. But it is some Muslims who are themselves making that connection, as the recent Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America revealed: twenty-six percent of Muslims between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine affirmed that there could be justification in some (unspecified) circumstances for suicide bombing, and five percent of all the Muslims surveyed said that they had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. Given the Pew Center’s estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in America, and the total of thirteen percent that avowed a belief that suicide bombings could ever be justified, that’s over 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks. And 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda.Meanwhile, terrorists themselves repeatedly and consistently explain and justify their actions by reference to the teachings of Islam – particularly to the imperative, deeply embedded within the Islamic tradition, to subjugate all non-Islamic polities under the rule of Islamic Sharia law. This connection is made openly elsewhere in the world. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, an Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in a 1994 book on Islamic law notes that “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book [primarily Jews and Christians]…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.[1] But then why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recent times? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: “the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”[2]
Despite the best efforts of Islamic advocacy groups to obscure the connection between Islam and violence and supremacism, the sheer volume of Islamic terror attacks (over 9,000 around the world since 9/11) has awakened at least some Americans to the fact that the ideology that fuels those who are determined to destroy us is deeply rooted within Islam, and peaceful Muslims are doing little to root it out. And as for the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by Western actions, former jihadist Hassan Butt remarked recently that he and his fellow mujahedin used to scoff at this idea: “I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.” Butt added that “it isn’t enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.”
The Newsweek poll should become the occasion for renewed debate about the attitude of Muslims in America toward Islamic Sharia law, and about the posture of American Muslims advocacy groups toward the U.S. Constitution. It should be the occasion for a new public examination of Muslim immigration and the monitoring of mosques. It should provide the foundation for a new public call to Muslims in America to renounce Sharia and Islamic supremacism, and to institute comprehensive programs in American schools and mosques that teach against the jihad ideology and the necessity for Muslims to live peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis. For the people who are “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about Islamic terrorism in the U.S. today are not “Islamophobes.” And they deserve a realistic appraisal of this problem by their elected officials.
Notes:
[1] Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Theories of Islamic Law: The Methodology of Ijtihad. The Other Press, 1994, pp. 251-252.
[2] Nyazee, p. 253.
Posted by Robert at July 24, 2007 7:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Mr. Spencer, what does Hirsi Ali mean exactly by her claim, "there is no such thing as Islamophobia?"
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 24, 2007 8:03 AM
I don't care if I am called an islamophobe. I just call it like I see it. When a group of people have no problem expressing their hatred for what I am, white American male, and then go out and try to kill as many people as possible. Why should I have an issue defending my kind through what I say. I am not a racist, everyone gets equal treatment. Except when a group of people pose a threat to me and my country, once I see muslims taking a stand to stop this madness, maybe my attitude will change. Until then, I guess I'll be an islamophobe. I'm alright w/that. One question though, How come the only racists (according to the MSM) are only white folks. I've never givin' a sermon about wiping out Israel. My wife doesn't follow me around in a burhka. I've never said my religion is the superior religion, well, it is definitely better than islam anyway. I hope I have ruffled a few feathers this morning.
Posted by: americanmadestrat at July 24, 2007 8:13 AM
This post hits on what I think is a major issue, which is to say the role of empirical data in the analysis of the connection between Islam and terrorism. Even a rudimentary statistical analysis will show that the probability that any given terrorist act was committed by a Muslim is overwhelming. Overwhelming. Apologists and those practicing taqiyya would have us "believe" (and I use this word very purposefully) that there is no connection. Well, I refuse to throw out the analytical tools bequethed to me by better men than I in the Western tradition and just blithely go along with these Islamo-pimps. I know there is a connection between terrorism and Islam because that's the ineluctable conclusion to be drawn from the data. There is no other conclusion one can draw if one is intellectually honest. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" and I say "I think, therefore I know there is a connection between Islam and terror."
It's not too difficult to see the endgame: Keep the West in a state of torpor until it is too late and the Muslim birthrate swamps us. The only open question is whether the Muslims have taken our measure correctly and their plan will work.
Posted by: venividivici at July 24, 2007 8:30 AM
Newsweek itself led this off by asserting in another article published along with the poll that Muslims in America are “vulnerable as never before.”
--from the article--
Muslims in America are vulnerable as never before...to the truth about Islam. Thank you Robert for your vital contribution in exposing this unfortunate reality.
Posted by: awake at July 24, 2007 8:30 AM
Robert, Hugh, And Marisol,
Thank-yous for having an informitive and updated website. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 24, 2007 8:35 AM
Who has a better life, a muslim in a christian country or a christian in a muslim country......hmmmm...
Posted by: americanmadestrat at July 24, 2007 8:38 AM
darcy
I think Hirsi Ali means that to be 'islamophobic' is ok,,,well, you can see there is something to fear, and 'phobia' really means an irrational fear therefore 'islamophobia' doesn't exist because it is a rational fear - we worry about what islam can do to us.
Does that help?
I know Robert or Hugh could do a better job than I can.Not to mention many other illustrious posters here.
Posted by: Gramfan at July 24, 2007 8:41 AM
camesawconquered - love your Cartesian conclusion. Of course you're right.
Any fool who claims no connection between Islam and Terrorism is being disingenuous, for reasons of political correctness I suppose.
Posted by: darcy at July 24, 2007 8:42 AM
americanmadestrat
Is this a trick question,lol?
Says it all I guess!
at July 24, 2007 8:43 AM
I think what "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" means is that most, or all, claims made by so-called Islamophobes happen to be true.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 24, 2007 8:49 AM
Gramfan - Actually I was thinking along the same lines. That "Islamophobia" is a misnomer because it's RATIONAL, not irrational, to fear Islam.
I believe that's Hirsi Ali's meaning.
Thanks for your input!
Posted by: darcy at July 24, 2007 8:50 AM
Gramfan, I'm glad to have made you laugh, humor or should I say sarcasm is the only tool that gets me through this. You can't sit around worrying about it, all ya can do is laugh.
Posted by: americanmadestrat at July 24, 2007 8:52 AM
darcy,
Happy to help,and I am sure you knew all along.
It is late at night in OZ and I just put in my 2 cents worth!
I know all of us are happy to wear the 'islamophobe' badge because we are not irrational.
-------------------------------------------------
OT guys, have you checked out www.stumbleupon.com ?
Handy for getting exposure and hits to all the sites we need to expose.
Posted by: Gramfan at July 24, 2007 8:55 AM
americanmadestrat
I know. We could all do with a laugh. Fighting the mujahadeen all day is hard work,,,and I think my everyday chores are suffering badly!
Let alone the family thnk I am------fill in the blank.
Perhaps one day Robert could have a joke day?
No posts, only jokes. It has possibilities.
at July 24, 2007 9:00 AM
OK Gramfan - here's an Editorial cartoon I've saved from the Palm Beach Post from '06:
Turbaned Mohammedan sits with the Quran and a grin on his face. Caption: "After a hard day building a nuclear missile, threatening to wipe Israel off the map, spreading terrorism, and sponsoring an anti-Semitic cartoon exhibit, Iran's religious leaders always return to the Holy Book."
You like?
Posted by: darcy at July 24, 2007 9:12 AM
My wife gets mad when I talk about this stuff. At least her reasoning is correct, she says it scares her. She is like how can you make jokes about this? I am glad that Robert, Hugh, and the crew give us the serious scoop. I need their info, at one time in my life I thought I was the only person who got it. I've pretty much ruined my career because of all of this. Try to be a conservative musician in the northeast. It just doesn't work, so I thank God for this site. Keep up the good work Jihad Watch and posters.
Posted by: americanmadestrat at July 24, 2007 9:19 AM
Here's the latest Zogby poll.
Posted by: Shy Guy at July 24, 2007 9:34 AM
To me those percentages look rather low. We still have way too many uninformed people wallowing in complacency.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at July 24, 2007 9:35 AM
‘Islamophobic’ is a dumb word.
‘Informed’ is too generic.
A better word is ‘Islamosavvy’. Sounds like a good name for a musical group too.
at July 24, 2007 9:40 AM
pez-
"Islamosavvy". Excellent. Right to the truth of the matter.
Posted by: Frank at July 24, 2007 9:50 AM
ive been called a racist, "neo-fascist", skinhead, nazi, bigot. all because i love my country and hate to see it destroyed. its encouraging to me but all americans i speak to from all walks of life, races and education who have ever been to the UK ask me why has it been ruined? even my wife's 87 year old jehovahs witness grandfather, who spent time in england during ww2, is disgusted with the muslims for crapping on the british culture. why dont my fellow britons get it? the ones who do are the ones being branded as "neo-fascist". very sad.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 24, 2007 9:56 AM
The trick with this "Muslims must say they support the Constitition" plan is that Muslims can say anything.
And continue to still believe in the Jihad through other means (continuing infiltration as "refugees" and "students", birthrate demographic deluge, de facto colonization, smiling deception, legal harassment, etc.).
How are we to trust their "reforms" until they start jeering at their militant imams in the mosques and hunting down and crushing their own violent extremists?
When they starts happening, I'll start to believe them.
Meanwhile, no further immigration from potential invaders.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 24, 2007 9:57 AM
What bothers me is that the numbers of concerned citizens isn't over 90% for each category.
We have some work to do! I figure that it will never be 100% because there are too many really, stupid people, or er I mean left wing kooks who think that appeasment will work while not have one iota of a clue as to the violent islamic history both past and present.
Posted by: R_not at July 24, 2007 9:58 AM
"The sheer volume of Islamic terror attacks (over 9,000 around the world since 9/11) has awakened at least some Americans to the fact that the ideology that fuels those who are determined to destroy us is deeply rooted within Islam, and peaceful Muslims are doing little to root it out."
The ones not directly involved in the violent jihad are the "peaceful Muslims"? I rather suspect that they are the ones doing everything they can behind the scenes to support the ones who go out and commit the actual jihad. You know, commit other crimes to raise money for them, conduct the prison dawa, etc. Use your imagination. Being an accesory to a criminal is a crime too.
Posted by: j_not_a at July 24, 2007 10:03 AM
I have yet to meet a Buddhist who plots death and destruction and I know of no christian or jew honest to their faith who condones such actions either. Since the day after 9-11 we have treaded lightly around muslims in America. When do denounce terrorism with a ferocity that they denounce our actions in Iraq?
Posted by: aldomanuzio at July 24, 2007 10:06 AM
I have sent this email to members of Congress who participated in the Feingold bill and other security bills and committees:
Dear Senator Feingold,
I've been reading about potential legislation that may come from your Judiciary committee on restricting or outlawing security profiles based on race. That's fine, but this is not the problem. The problem is Islam. Islam is not a race, it's a belief system. It's more than a religion, it's a supremacist ideology which believes it must dominate all other political, religious, and legal systems. Its believers aren't a single race at all. Profiling based on racial attributes won't protect us from another terrorist attack. It’s the ideology driving these attacks.
I do think that we need to profile to get the most efficient use of our limited security resources. May I suggest using the facts rather than a politically correct filter to counter the terrorist threat?
Just as the FBI develops personality profiles of serial killers and pedophile abductors I would suggest that our nation get past this 'racial profiling' distraction and look at the numbers.
We need the FBI to do a profile of the most likely statistical suspects. The answer would be most likely traits:
a) Males, b) 18 to 40, c) born in a middle eastern country or the son of immigrants from a middle eastern country, d) Arabic or middle eastern name and a e) devout Muslim described as f) 'a good boy' by members of his previous community.
This profile would be backed up by the statistics, but I think it would be most important to do the analysis. Use the statistics to construct the profile. Use the actual facts to figure out how and where to apply our limited anti-terrorist efforts. Use the 90/10% approach and declare openly how we arrived at the profile.
I didn't get a reply on this one, but I know they do have people reading them. I visited my Congressman's office in Washington this July 10th and he had four people working in the back office and two running interference in reception. Someone's going to read a letter or email that you write, no doubt. I got a reply on a fax I sent on the illegal immigration/ border crisis, but all the responses are on issues where the Reps/Senators agree with me. That doesn't mean they throw out everything they disagree with. Someone reads it and it adds up.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at July 24, 2007 10:18 AM
Neither phobes nor informed. We're just biased. All we see in Islam are the bad things. We aren't fair and balanced. (Sorry, FNC) We don't see the good(?) that is in Islam. (Or so I hear.)
Is there a Muslim Paul Harvey? We need "the rest of the story".
Posted by: PMK at July 24, 2007 10:26 AM
Anything good in Islam has been borrowed from other sources. It can be found in other sources. Honoring parents and charitable giving are not exclusive to Islam and are actually more extensive in other systems, considering Islam lacks the Golden Rule and empathy. Any 'good' actions in Islam only apply to believers. It's up to the individual to judge others to the degree that they're believers. Since an individual Muslim has authority to be jury, judge and executioner any tendency to be charitable is choked down.
Other systems are more adept and wider in scale and scope for every single 'good' thing Islam cloaks itself in. It's not worth keeping around in a cost/benefit analysis. Nothing 'good' or productive that is practiced is exclusive to Islam.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at July 24, 2007 10:32 AM
Darcy, I saw the interview with Hirsi Ali where she said there was no such thing as Islamophobia. Her argument was basically this: a phobia is an irrational fear, and it makes sense to speak of hatred or fear of women or blacks as a "phobia," since being a woman or black does not by itself imply any moral characteristic. But Islam is not a race or gender. It is a voluntary belief system. And since that belief system encourages violence, etc., it is not irrational to criticize it or be alarmed about it.
Posted by: minnesotan at July 24, 2007 11:02 AM
Darcy, I saw the interview with Hirsi Ali where she said there was no such thing as Islamophobia. Her argument was basically this: a phobia is an irrational fear, and it makes sense to speak of hatred or fear of women or blacks as a "phobia," since being a woman or black does not by itself imply any moral characteristic. But Islam is not a race or gender. It is a voluntary belief system. And since that belief system encourages violence, etc., it is not irrational to criticize it or be alarmed about it.
Posted by: minnesotan at July 24, 2007 11:05 AM
What are we to make of these figures?The numbers are too low, that's what we make of them. Clearly there's much more work to do to educate the good people of the US about the Religion of Peace. Posted by: Greg Z
at July 24, 2007 11:06 AM
I suppose that Islamophobia could in theory exist, but not in the way that it is currently defined. As noted above, a phobia is by definition an irrational fear. So if I were to fear that a mosque might try and eat me or fear that the act of praying five times a day to Allah might cause the sky to turn purple and fall on our heads, then yeah, I'm an islamophobe because those fears are completely irrational. If, however, I fear that the Muslim sitting next to me on the bus has a bomb under his jacket, my fear is at least somewhat based in reality. It is rational. Some might argue unjustified due to the incredible odds, but rational.
Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at July 24, 2007 11:07 AM
It is interesting to see that the initial (and follow-up)reactions of many people towards those who openly express their enmity towards Islam is name-calling and labeling. It is all they really have to combat the truth. Theirs is the weapon of fear and ignorance. Interesting to note that both Leftists and Muslims sling the word "Islamophobe" with ease.
Paraphrasing some of what Jesus of Nazareth said, evil does not like the light and prefers to remain hidden. The Evil One is a Deceiver, and uses every strategem to effect our total captivity to deception.
at July 24, 2007 11:10 AM
We're just biased. All we see in Islam are the bad things. We aren't fair and balanced.
Posted by: PMK
Oh, I totally agree. There are good things about islam. For one, they're not cannibals. For another . . . (ten minute pause) . . . let me think a bit . . . I'm sure there must be . . . well . . . hmm . . . this is tricky . . . .
at July 24, 2007 11:50 AM
Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), expressed another aspect of this view after the recent jihad plots were discovered in London and Glasgow, when he suggested that the religion of the attackers was incidental to their plots: “Let’s not create a hypothetical problem…it can be the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists.”
He's the one creating "hypothetical problems" when he suggests the British attacks could be the work of "Christians, Jews, or Buddhists". In reality there haven't been any. In reality the attacks have been by moslems. In reality the problem is islam and the terrorism it inspires and applauds. So by all means let's stick to the real problem.
Posted by: ebonystone at July 24, 2007 12:01 PM
C'mon people, we can inform our fellow citizens.
And no, Ibrahim, you and CAIR are not my fellow citizen.
Posted by: dgene at July 24, 2007 12:05 PM
True...the term is ENEMY COLLABORATOR
Posted by: jcom972 at July 24, 2007 12:08 PM
Speaking of frontpagemag.com ...anyone else also see the George S Patton youtube link midpage?
It was RIGHT ON!
(let's see if the embed code works here...
...if that doesn't work here's the hyperlink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
Enjoy!...except for the enemy collaborators who will invariably suffer a stroke & go into an emo fit...lol
at July 24, 2007 12:12 PM
Shy Guy
Reading the Zogby poll you cited, a few things stood out:
Also, item (3) ignores whether the Arab-American in question would be a Muslim or not. Most Americans aren't aware of the phenomenon of Islamo-Christians, and are therefore more likely to support Arab Christians/Jews than Arab Muslims. Given the current confusion about what percentage of Arab Americans are Muslim, as opposed to Christians, this is something Zogby would have done well to address.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2007 12:19 PM
I get polled by Zogby all the time. They always start by asking me if I vote Republican or Democrat, if I go to church, etc... Sometimes after answering those preliminary questions, the poll ends abruptly. Funny, they didn't send me this one...
Posted by: atheling at July 24, 2007 12:33 PM
He's shown his anti-American militancy a couple years ago with his own words, too...'nuf sed.
Posted by: jcom972 at July 24, 2007 12:41 PM
"Here's the latest Zogby poll."
Posted by: Shy Guy July 24, 2007 9:34 AM
From the link:
"Most Americans feel they are personally less prejudiced than the rest of the nation," said pollster John Zogby yesterday. "But headlines hurt, and ultimately lead to stereotyping. We found that large majorities of Americans are still very prejudiced overall."
By a wide margin, respondents believe Americans think Muslims are the most likely to engage in terrorism (83 percent). Forty-two percent think Americans would be most concerned about their child dating a Muslim, followed by an atheist (17 percent) and a Mormon (14 percent). A quarter blamed Protestants or other Christian affiliations for a prejudiced society, followed by Muslims (20 percent).
-----------------------------------------
He thinks it's "prejudiced" that 83% think 'Muslims are the most likely to engage in terrorism'?? What planet does this fey little fellow live on? Do they have newspapers there? Does he think we all should believe that Buddhists are the most likely terrorists? ... or Amish?
Muslims ARE more likely to be terrorists than other broad groups. Americans are more likely to eat pie starting at the pointy end. British are more likely to drive on the left side of the road. Southpaws are more likely to pitch left-handed. Are these statements evidence of prejudice, or of studying events and noticing patterns?
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at July 24, 2007 3:21 PM
If Islam didn't create an obligatory Mental Disorder called Infidelobia, We wouldn't be having this discussion. Let alone the problem.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at July 24, 2007 3:27 PM
Oh, I totally agree. There are good things about islam. For one, they're not cannibals. For another . . . (ten minute pause) . . . let me think a bit . . . I'm sure there must be . . . well . . . hmm . . . this is tricky . . . .Posted by: ebonystone
Sorry to disappoint you, but we do have documented examples of people ripped into pieces by Palestinian mobs. I'm not sure if they put the pieces in their mouths or not.
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/gallery2/v/ffi_gallery/lynching/bodyparts.jpg.html
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/gallery2/v/ffi_gallery/lynching/lynching3.jpg.html
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/gallery2/v/ffi_gallery/lynching/bloodyhands.jpg.html
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/gallery2/v/ffi_gallery/lynching/lynching2.jpg.html
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at July 24, 2007 3:55 PM
With all the deliberate obfuscation and disinformation in the MSM this poll is, in spite of it, an encouraging result.
How can we get the message out? How can we get more people interested instead of looking away?
Qur'an 9:111 "The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Bukhari: V4B52N220 "Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’"
Qur'an 8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an 8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
Qur'an 8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Ishaq: 588 "When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves."
Ishaq: 327 "Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’"
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’" (Qur'an 5:72 defines "infidels" as "Christians" in case you were wondering.)
Qur'an 8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can escape. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 24, 2007 6:13 PM
And you are also right, Elias.
Of course "people have a right to dislike Islam without being called racist or whatever."
Hey - people can even detest Islam if they want to, just like we can detest Naziism, KKK, and other Hate Groups.
at July 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Like this poll will have any impact on either political party, xcept maybe to intensify the Islam is Peace MSM propaganda....
I don't remember them polling us whether we want over 30 million Mexican illegal aliens coming in and taking our jobs, but that's exactly what we ended up with.... (of course, being upset over both political parties conspiring to NOT enforce immigration law for some 20 odd years now just means you are a mexicophobe)
at July 24, 2007 9:46 PM
I'll go for "Necessary!!"
Posted by: pythagoras at July 24, 2007 10:21 PM
For the people who are “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about Islamic terrorism in the U.S. today are not “Islamophobes.” And they deserve a realistic appraisal of this problem by their elected officials.
We certainly do deserve a "realistic appraisal of this problem by elected officials"; it is the most exigent threat we face. Instead of realistic appraisals, our elected officials are pandering to CAIR, trying to pass hate speech legislation to protect the identity politics crowd and silence free speech; refusing to pass legislation protecting "John Does" from muslim lawsuits; trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; and other useless, unnecessary, or superfluous crap directed at one special interest group or another.
Our elected officials are first to call Americans racists, islamophobes, and bigots for opposing their insane legislation. They are all controlled by special interest lobbyists and we're paying for their treachery. The worst is yet to come. I am "very worried" and I have all but begged for some answers from my elected officials. Their standard, form letter replies, with perhaps a sentence or two squeezed in for originality, have all but admonished me for daring to express my valid concerns about islam.
"America guarantees religious freedom to everyone", end of conversation. I've achieved more satisfaction talking to computer generated voices on the telephone than the indifferent, ignorant, incognizant replies from my "elected officials."
at July 24, 2007 11:54 PM
I dunno...if rabbits with pink spots kept showin' up at public places and blowin' themselves up with a suicide vest killing innocents, I would become suspicious of rabbits with pink spots. Would I then be accused of being bigoted against rabbits with pink spots?
Posted by: Alaskan at July 25, 2007 2:01 AM
"Did Muhammad and the 4 Caliphs killed or hurt any Christian?"
-- from a posting above
The poster needs to order, on Amazon, "The Decline of Eastern Christiaity Under Islam" and then to do one other thing. Read it.
Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2007 7:46 AM
Does anybody know about plans permitting Iraqi refugees to settle in North Texas (or anywhere else in the US)??
I just returned from CUFI (Christians United for Israel) Summit in Washington, D.C. During our meeting with our US representative's legislative aid, she volunteered that she was trying to organize a fair in our district to assist the Iraqi refugees who are already in or soon coming to Dallas!?!
The legislative aid revealed that she was a member of the Isamaili Shia Muslim sect, a 'moderate' esoteric Islam originally centered in India. They differ from the Twelver Shiites inasmuch as they trace their Imam, Aga Khan IV, back to the sixth Imam, Imam Jaffar common to the Twelvers, however, this sect traces the lineage through Jaffar's elder son, Ismail, whereas the twelvers accept the second son of Jaffar, Musa al Kazim.
I naively thought that perhaps the refugees may be Iraqi Christians, suffering persecution at the hands of Shiite and Sunni Muslims. What I discovered was that the refugees are actually Sunni Arabs who were displaced from Israel (or their descendants) in the 1948 and 1967 wars. That is to say, Palestinians!!!
Given our recent experience with Albanian Muslim refugees in the Fort Dix plot, I am concerned about the wisdom of such well intentioned humanitarian efforts.
While I would like to believe that this legislative aid is acting purely from charitable, humanitarian motives; however, I cannot help but wonder whether she has strategically inserted herself within the corridors of power and influence, in order to further an Islamist agenda.
Thank you for providing those who rationally share a concern about Islam with support. I would certainly appreciate any further information about US/Western efforts of affording refuge to Palistinians living in Iraq.
Posted by: Ragfish
at July 25, 2007 9:52 AM
Man this stuff gets tired!
All the religions in the world that I have ever heard of, with the sole exception of mohammedanism, have all been detoxified, declawed and domesticated.
Whatever scary sounding texts they may have in their canon, and whatever bloody practices may have been conducted in their names in centuries past have all been universally:
- obsoleted
- discredited
- condemned
- abandoned
- or all of the above.
Only the mohammedan cultures, and we are talking millions of people here, even in those countries where most folks are modern and civilized (and thats giving them considerable benefit of the doubt) cling to to the bloody savage practices and violations of individual rights that were common in the last millenium.
Everybody else has cut that crap out!
Enough with the lame tu quoque nonsense about the creepy parts of the bible.
==========================
Even if you add up all the violent verses in the Bible, the Bagavad Gita and all the other allegedly holy books in the world there's no way you could come up with a comparable body of militarism and hostility toward outsiders as that which you can find in the mohammedan texts and their commentary.
And in no other cultures in the world, will you find anything like a comparable historical continuity and sheer volume of legal and theological precedent and justification for bloody violence, and I'm including the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic conversions in Mexico and South America, and the various witch-hunts.
Enough already. This is crap.
at July 25, 2007 11:23 PM
I'll add that the whole "Islamophobia" business smells exactly like a deliberate and coldly thought out propaganda effort to capitalize on the political achievements of the gay rights movement, as in the anti-"homophobia" campaign.
It is also based, I believe, on the successes of the left in general in characterizing conservatives of every stripe as xenophobic, reactionary and generally driven by fear.
It is a particularly cynical campaign, being conducted as it is by people who support murdering homosexuals and who are both as hostile to outsiders as it is possible to be and who are reactionary to a degree rarely seen in human affairs -- not to mention people who would outlaw the secular western left in a heartbeat, and treat them with particular brutality.
It is worth remembering what the khomeinists did to the Iranian communists that helped them attain power.
=============
The proper response to the accusation of "Islamophobia" is that after all the jihaddist murders of the last few years, anybody that's not at least a little afraid of genocidal imperialist assassins is plain nuts!
Rather than phobic I am Islamo-contemptuous.
I have nothing but scorn and contempt for a philosophy that can bankrupt as many cultures and countries as mohammedanism has.
I have nothing but scorn and contempt for a philosophy that can inspire such an enormous army of disgusting criminals.
at July 25, 2007 11:51 PM
(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.)