| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Los Angeles Times tut-tuts the "ignorance" of Islam that has led Americans to think that it is different from Judaism and Christianity, and encourages violence. Now where could they have gotten crazy ideas like those? Safaa Ibrahim, executive director of the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is "not surprised. It's difficult to remove the tarnish of twisted interpretations of terrorists from what Islam means."
As this statement comes from a representative of a group that has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding case, it's easy to see why it is so difficult.
The larger problem here is that neither CAIR nor any other Muslim group in the West has ever attempted to untwist the "twisted interpretations of terrorists." For example, CAIR signed and pushed the Fiqh Council of North America's condemnation of terrorism, which condemned the killing of innocent civilians, but neither the Council nor CAIR ever explained who exactly is an innocent civilian -- and some jihadists claim that no non-Muslim can possibly be innocent.
It also might be easier for CAIR to untwist the twisted terrorist interpretations of Islam if they would specify who are the terrorists whose interpretations need to be refuted. CAIR officials have consistently and on many occasions refused to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.
Americans aren't stupid: they can recognize this kind of disingenuousness, even if the Los Angeles Times can't.
Note also that there is no hint in this piece that Muslims can do anything, or should do anything, to reverse these negative perceptions. It's all about non-Muslim "ignorance."
"Knowledge lacking of Islam, Mormonism," by Theo Milonopoulos in the Los Angeles Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
WASHINGTON -- Most Americans say they know little to nothing about the practices of Islam and Mormonism but say their own religious beliefs have little in common with either of these faiths, according to a national survey released Tuesday.Forty-five percent of those polled said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. Nearly 1 in 3 respondents say Mormonism is not a Christian religion, the report said.
The survey of 3,002 Americans was conducted last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Although 58% of respondents said they knew little or nothing about Islamic practices, 70% of non-Muslims said Islam was very different from their own religious beliefs.
Pew Forum senior fellow John Green said that respondents' knowledge of Islam might be even lower than the survey results suggested. Respondents "tend to overestimate their own knowledge, so these figures may well underestimate their lack of knowledge," he said.
The survey found that public attitudes toward Muslims have grown more negative in recent years, with 35% of respondents expressing an unfavorable view. In 2002, the figure was 29%. Respondents who knew a Muslim or who were college graduates were more likely to express positive views about Islam.
But the belief that Islam encourages violence has increased even among groups that have relatively favorable views of Muslims. According to the survey, college graduates are just as likely as those with no college experience to associate violence with Islam.
"We're not surprised," said Safaa Ibrahim, executive director of the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's difficult to remove the tarnish of twisted interpretations of terrorists from what Islam means."
Posted by Robert at September 26, 2007 8:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Muhammad tarnished God.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 26, 2007 9:11 AM
"According to the survey, college graduates are just as likely as those with no college experience to associate violence with Islam."
Yes, especially if those gratuates read the Qur'an.
Posted by: Ketter at September 26, 2007 9:18 AM
The test:
Do Mormons try to kill you ? No.
Do fundamental islamists try to kill you ? Yes.
Shouldn't your answer tell you the truth ?
When will the media elites grow Up ?
Posted by: dgene at September 26, 2007 9:30 AM
Well surprise, suprise.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 26, 2007 9:40 AM
Isnt it the tarnish of twisted terrorists themselves instead of the 'interpretations'?
Posted by: guide inside at September 26, 2007 9:42 AM
The way this article is worded illustrates exactly the bias that the MSM uses in their reporting.
"respondents' knowledge of Islam might be even lower than the survey results suggested"
Actually, the poll indicates that the respondents know a lot about Islam.
Posted by: 1redthread at September 26, 2007 9:44 AM
"The survey found that public attitudes toward Muslims have grown more negative in recent years,..."
...Well, golly, what is the cause of this phenonenon....oh, Muslim induced violence....who would a thunk it.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 26, 2007 9:45 AM
I think its a positive thing that 58% dont know much about islam AND YET have this very negative view.
Wow, us and others are chipping away at the MSM'S fabricated P.C. view of Islam!
Posted by: guide inside at September 26, 2007 9:56 AM
Let them read this:
The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Volume 54, Issue 4, Page B13
September 21, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/32vopc
The Two Faces of Al Qaeda By RAYMOND IBRAHIM
"Numerous Arabic books dealing with Al Qaeda passed through my hands in this privileged position. A good number contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.
It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."
Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.
Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad.""
Read the whole article!
at September 26, 2007 9:59 AM
I believe Neville Chamberlain said it best... "I believe it is peace in our time"...
(if you aren't a history fan, Ole Nev was the PM of the UK right before Winston Churchill)
-Peter
at September 26, 2007 9:59 AM
I believe Neville Chamberlain said it best... "I believe it is peace in our time"...
(if you aren't a history fan, Ole Nev was the PM of the UK right before Winston Churchill)
-Peter
at September 26, 2007 10:00 AM
Didn't the Germans bomb England 3 days later after old Nel said that?
Posted by: Catherine at September 26, 2007 10:07 AM
If people beleive Islamania differs from Christianity and Judaism it's because it does. All one needs to do is read a Koran(especially at the LA Times)-the constant negativity found in that book is truly astounding
and stifling. It's almost remarkable that not all Muslims are jihadists after reading the things that book contains.
at September 26, 2007 10:08 AM
Mormons and Muslims, can't say the two have anything in common except one practiced polygamy 105 years ago and one still practices it today.
Posted by: MadMom at September 26, 2007 10:10 AM
One wants to ask just one question:
Give us one example of a "twisted interpretation" that has been offered by Osama Bin Laden, or Ayman al-Zawahiri, or any of the tens of thousands of terrorists, who have been arrested or are in hiding or are being monitored?
One example. One mis-use of a Qur'anic passage, one misinterpreting of one of the "authentic" Hadiths found in Bukhari or Muslim.
But there are none.
But there are many examples of the attempt, by Muslim apologists, to mis-represent Islam and what it teaches. For example there is the well-known selective out-of-context quotation of 5.32 without 5.33 (and then Bush and Blair dutifuly took the bait and were, perhaps still are, fond of quoting 5.32 without 5.33). There is the constant reference, for Infidel audiences, to that much misunderstood 2.256 ("There is no compulsion in religion"). This phrase does not mean what Muslims want you to think it means. For the pressures of Islam on dhimmis was so great, so onerous, and despite all that "protected peoples" stuff there are many examples of overnight pogroms and massacres and forced conversions of non-Muslims (Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Jihad" is particularly rich in these examples, and many more will be found in his forthcoming companion volume on the treatment of Jews in Islam), both Christians and Jews, and if there is less known in the West about what happened to the Zoroastrians (but see the historian Mary Boyce) and the Hindus (but see K. S. Lal and the late nineteenth-century compilation of Indian historians by Elliott and Dawson) under Islam, that merely reflects a cultural-historical bias that, one hopes, is even now being rectified. 1350 years of history show that the meaning with which Infidels naturally would endow the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" is not the correct one. There has indeed been all kinds of "compulsion" that over time caused conquered non-Muslim peoples to convert to Islam in order to avoid their miserable and insecure condition, to become one of the victors rather than continue as the vanquished.
Furthermore, the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" is hollow in another way, for within Islam, there is no freedom of conscience.Apostasy, the falling away from Islam, is treated as high treeason, treason to the Camp of Islam. It is punishable by death, and even today, that punishment is carried out by Muslims who do not wait for the government. And even where death is not imposed, there are other means -- taking away one's money, wife, children, one's everything (see the once-famous case of Robert Hossein, a Kuwaiti businessman who converted, or tried to convert, to Christianity, and what the Kuwaiti authorities did to make him bend).
There is "misinterpretation" of the texts of Islam. But that "misinterpretation" is not that which those engaged in terrorism for the sake of Jihad are guilty of. Rather, it is the apologists for Islam who have deliberately "misinterpreted" through careful omission, selective quotation, deliberate exploitation of the ignorance of Infidel audiences as to the real meaning of certian phrases, a meaning that they would be able to derive only if they had a good grasp of the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, as well as of the rules, within Islam, that deny individual autonomy, or such rights as the right of apostasy, now recognized everywhere in the non-Muslim world.
There are indeed "twisted interpretations of what Islam means." They are the ones put out by CAIR and smiling imams at open-mosque-nights, carefully planned as propaganda stunts (complete with the delicious chicken-with-pita and baklava at the end, so that those Infidels can leave with their stomachs gratefully full, and their minds not too keen or concentrated on the misinformation, the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, to which they have been subjected without quite realizing it). They are the ones that the bland writer for the Los Angeles Times apparently deeply believes in or, what now amounts to the same thing, is going as an act of faith and despair to pretend he believes in.
That way madness, and a growing menace, lie.
Posted by: Hugh at September 26, 2007 10:11 AM
"It's difficult to remove the tarnish of twisted interpretations of terrorists from what Islam means."
That's because the two are inextricably linked. Any attempt to discredit the terrorists would force CAIR or some other group to actually stand up for the infidel against a member of the umma. It would mean going against the imam who taught that person or persons the meaning of jihad. It would force a reinterpretation of the Koran. It would mean discrediting most of Islamic history.
Posted by: PMK at September 26, 2007 10:17 AM
Hi, Robert. I've been mulling over in my head your arguments for some time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the essence of your argument that terrorists are simply a case of Muslims' taking Islam and its teaching seriously?
I have held this belief, too, but lately I've challenging it. That's because it seems that Al Qaeda itself, and especially Osama Bin Laden, are beginning to seem less infected by Islamic ideology and more like extremely disturbed people, perhaps infected with certain pernicious western ideas (will to power, etc.)
In other words, it seems to me there are important ideological differences between Ali the carpet merchant and Osama the suicide bomber.
And, I also wonder, if one can distinguish the two without necessarily attacking your fundamental position. That is, Ali the carpet merchant may have false beliefs that are potentially dangerous, and that Islam may be a problem ... but it's not the same problem that we face with Al Qaeda.
I'm no expert, and I'm working a little bit on the gut level here, but it seems to me that Osama Bin Laden is acting more like a megalomaniac sociopath, who sees people as means to his own ends. And he is unconsciously using Islam as a pretext to his own sociopathy. He really sounds more like a Nazi than a Muslim sometimes -- and sometimes like a psycho-leftist.
I guess you'd ask for evidence: There's something about his shifting justifications for 9-11 and terrorism in general that is disturbing, and reminds me of a run-of-the-mill criminal (not that he is run-of-the-mill, clearly he's some kind of super-villain).
Let's take another example: The Taliban. They use drug money to finance their war (I think Al Qaeda does, too.) Um, whatever you say about Islam, I'm pretty sure the Koran's prohibition on alcohol covers heroin, too -- and by implication heroin trafficking.
Sorry if these thoughts seem unfocused -- I'm trying to clarify them. Am I on to something here? Or am I covering ground you've already well-covered?
Cheers.
at September 26, 2007 10:18 AM
Should be simple to remove the tarnish, just prove none muslims are innocent and not "wrong doers" who jihadist are free to transgress against.
Posted by: GrennBeck at September 26, 2007 10:31 AM
What is there to twist(??) as these are but just a few of the Sura's as well as hadiths' that direct warfare towards the unbelievers.
Have you ever seen a Muslim preacher on Western TV speaking of surahs such as these? The answer is more likely -no.
The problem which goes on day after day on the MSM is that no one ever and openly exposes the real sources of what creates the jihadists. But it is all there to see and read if anyone picks up a copy of the Qu'ran at Barnes and Noble to verify what you may read on the Jihadwatch site or any other site that discusses the Qu'ran. .
Have you ever seen Suras' such as these put on your TV screen and openly discussed by the MSM? The answer is again most likely -no.
Sura 9:29-31 (fight against Jews and Christians until they are subdued, because God's curse is on them)
Sura 9:52,73 (Muslims can expect either martyrdom/paradise or victory in battle. Unbelievers can expect only punishment from God. Fight hard against unbelievers, whose abode is hell.)
Sura 9:123 (fight the unbelievers surrounding you)
Sura 5:54 (Don't befriend Jews or Christians because they are unjust and unreliable)
Posted by: Mackie at September 26, 2007 10:33 AM
perhaps infected with certain pernicious western ideas (will to power, etc.)
Troll King,
Why do you call these "western" ideas? Muhammad sought earthly power 1400 years ago. China and India had advanced civilizations when Europe was still a backwater. They were built by people who sought power. History books are filled with the names of people who actually attained it, from the Chinese emperors to Mohammad to European kings, and so on.
The will to power is neither pernicious nor western. It's human.
at September 26, 2007 10:42 AM
Copied & pasted:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016084.php
The HAMAS Charter’s Article 7, in its conclusion, states: “HAMAS aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time it may take. The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: ‘The Hour [Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah! [Slave of Allah], there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. This will not apply to the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.’”
This genocidal call is justified by a hadith, a controversial ‘saying’ attributed to the Prophet Muhammad and described by the authoritative 9th century compilers al-Bukhari and Muslim – that since 1988 has become a commonplace belief among Islamists. On 12 April 2002, the PA-nominated Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi delivered a Friday sermon at Gaza City’s main Sheikh Ijlin Mosque, broadcast live on the PA’s TV. He quoted extensively from this hadith – even including the curious reference to the "Jewish" Gharqad tree, in preaching his specific genocide against “Jews” – and a global Jihad for all humanity.
Posted by: Josephine at September 26, 2007 10:47 AM
Muslim propaganda. Again.
'Cultivating the Great Lie into the 22nd Century...'
"Your sons & daughters will be Muslim."
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
at September 26, 2007 11:03 AM
As a practicing Mormon, I take umbrage to the false association of Mormonism with Islam. I see this as an attempt to further legitimize Islam by association.
This is another tu quoque fallacy spread by the dhimmi crowd. Latter-Day Saints are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, the Trinity, etc.
One association that does fit is that the average American understands Islam, which encompasses 100 times more practitioners than Mormonism, about the same.
Johnny American needs to get out the books and start reading about Islam!
Posted by: detocquevilledisciple at September 26, 2007 11:05 AM
LA and the LA times, you would think that the failures of their own city would take priority. Fortunately very few read it these days they can’t give it away as fish wrap. They are telling us all about islam, this is coming from a city where a majority can’t pass a high school exit exam! My mom used to read it until I started telling her what their agenda was, I would ask, why don’t you just read Pravda, that did it. LA is a sanctuary city islamists move feely among them but these people evidently think that what they do there stays there. No they sleep and live in sanctuary cities they travel out of them to do their dirty deeds and then back again to hide out afterward. What the lunatics do in a city near you does affect you. The LA times, they cannot even figure out what to do about the problems in their own city so in classic leftard form they decide that since they are doing such a terrible job themselves they might as well tell us what we should think, what we have got wrong. You know clue us in, wink wink. Ha.
Posted by: tgusa at September 26, 2007 11:19 AM
When you have so-called academics, Hollywood celebrities, and biased and woefully ignorant "journalists" and other elites sincerely believe that Islam is just this wonderful, hand-holding, kumbaya singing, folksy religion that gets a bad name from ignorant, tobacco chewing, (evangelical) rubes in the hinterlands and continue to lie to the public and defend their so-called "moderate and enlightened" Muslim friends, then, we will continue to read this garbage. I'm not a Christian, but it is so easy to attack them in THIS country, yet, anything remotely negative abut a Muslim and its a Hate Crime. For these so-called media elites to even acknowledge the daily degredations against non-Muslims, women, children, animals, the environment, etc committed by Muslims would kill them. Where is the outcry from Melissa Etheridge and company about the truly horrible treatment of gays and lesbians in countries like Iran? No, it's so much easier to participate in a debate in a civilizied country and ask silly questions of silly presidential candidates if homosexulaity is natural or a choice. Hey, Melissa, try asking that question in Iran. So in their small minds, gay/lesbian discrimination is manifested in the "horror" of not being legally married in the USA. I'll bet those executed gay men in Iran wish they had such discrimination to contend with. Kevin Spacey, Spielberg, Bill Clinton, et al can travel all over the world bad mouthing this country. Yeah, it's not perfect, but how many Iranian actors or Saudi princes(esses) travel abroad slamming their country and expect to live upon return? I'm just sick of these people and their hypocrisy. Their smugness and lack of intellectual analysis offend me. It's a cliche, but if you don't like this country, then leave it.
Posted by: HOV Dummy at September 26, 2007 11:37 AM
'Ban headscarves' say half of Swedes
Published: 26th September 2007 08:44 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8608/
Islamic headscarves ought to be banned at workplaces and in schools - that's the view of half the people surveyed in a new Swedish poll.
The poll, the third of its kind taken by Uppsala University to measure Swedes' views of diversity, shows a rising number of people supporting a headscarf ban.
Related Articles
Failed asylum seekers to be paid to go home
25th September 2007
Brides' fathers banned from giving away daughters
21st September 2007
'Muhammad cartoon not racial agitation'
20th September 2007
Article Options
Discuss this (53 Posts)
In 2005, 43 percent wanted a ban on Islamic female head coverings. This year, 49.8 percent of the 1,065 people asked supported a ban.
The results the poll are open to some interpretation. The questionnaire asked people for their view on the banning of the 'slöja' or veil, indicating a garment covering the face as well as the top of the head, such as a burqa or a niqab. However, in common parlance, the word 'slöja' is often used to describe all sorts of female Islamic head coverings, including those that just cover the hair.
Hardening attitudes on the headscarf question were not the only sign of deteriorating race relations. More than one in three of those asked said they agreed with the statement that "many foreigners come to Sweden simply to take advantage of our social welfare."
On a more positive note, 80 percent of people said they had good experiences of contact with people of foreign origins. According to the study's authors only 5 percent have "extremely negative views" of immigrants - around the same percentage as last year, but higher than in 2005.
"There could be a link to how well the Sweden Democrats did in the last election - there are such tendencies in Sweden today," said Dr. Irving Palm, one of those behind the survey, to Svenska Dagbladet.
TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)
'Ban headscarves' say half of Swedes
Published: 26th September 2007 08:44 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8608/
Islamic headscarves ought to be banned at workplaces and in schools - that's the view of half the people surveyed in a new Swedish poll.
The poll, the third of its kind taken by Uppsala University to measure Swedes' views of diversity, shows a rising number of people supporting a headscarf ban.
Related Articles
Failed asylum seekers to be paid to go home
25th September 2007
Brides' fathers banned from giving away daughters
21st September 2007
'Muhammad cartoon not racial agitation'
20th September 2007
Article Options
Send to a friend
Printable version
Discuss this (53 Posts)
In 2005, 43 percent wanted a ban on Islamic female head coverings. This year, 49.8 percent of the 1,065 people asked supported a ban.
The results the poll are open to some interpretation. The questionnaire asked people for their view on the banning of the 'slöja' or veil, indicating a garment covering the face as well as the top of the head, such as a burqa or a niqab. However, in common parlance, the word 'slöja' is often used to describe all sorts of female Islamic head coverings, including those that just cover the hair.
Hardening attitudes on the headscarf question were not the only sign of deteriorating race relations. More than one in three of those asked said they agreed with the statement that "many foreigners come to Sweden simply to take advantage of our social welfare."
On a more positive note, 80 percent of people said they had good experiences of contact with people of foreign origins. According to the study's authors only 5 percent have "extremely negative views" of immigrants - around the same percentage as last year, but higher than in 2005.
"There could be a link to how well the Sweden Democrats did in the last election - there are such tendencies in Sweden today," said Dr. Irving Palm, one of those behind the survey, to Svenska Dagbladet.
TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)
'Ban headscarves' say half of Swedes
Published: 26th September 2007 08:44 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8608/
Islamic headscarves ought to be banned at workplaces and in schools - that's the view of half the people surveyed in a new Swedish poll.
The poll, the third of its kind taken by Uppsala University to measure Swedes' views of diversity, shows a rising number of people supporting a headscarf ban.
Related Articles
Failed asylum seekers to be paid to go home
25th September 2007
Brides' fathers banned from giving away daughters
21st September 2007
'Muhammad cartoon not racial agitation'
20th September 2007
Article Options
Send to a friend
Printable version
Discuss this (53 Posts)
In 2005, 43 percent wanted a ban on Islamic female head coverings. This year, 49.8 percent of the 1,065 people asked supported a ban.
The results the poll are open to some interpretation. The questionnaire asked people for their view on the banning of the 'slöja' or veil, indicating a garment covering the face as well as the top of the head, such as a burqa or a niqab. However, in common parlance, the word 'slöja' is often used to describe all sorts of female Islamic head coverings, including those that just cover the hair.
Hardening attitudes on the headscarf question were not the only sign of deteriorating race relations. More than one in three of those asked said they agreed with the statement that "many foreigners come to Sweden simply to take advantage of our social welfare."
On a more positive note, 80 percent of people said they had good experiences of contact with people of foreign origins. According to the study's authors only 5 percent have "extremely negative views" of immigrants - around the same percentage as last year, but higher than in 2005.
"There could be a link to how well the Sweden Democrats did in the last election - there are such tendencies in Sweden today," said Dr. Irving Palm, one of those behind the survey, to Svenska Dagbladet.
TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)
'Ban headscarves' say half of Swedes
Published: 26th September 2007 08:44 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8608/
Islamic headscarves ought to be banned at workplaces and in schools - that's the view of half the people surveyed in a new Swedish poll.
The poll, the third of its kind taken by Uppsala University to measure Swedes' views of diversity, shows a rising number of people supporting a headscarf ban.
Related Articles
Failed asylum seekers to be paid to go home
25th September 2007
Brides' fathers banned from giving away daughters
21st September 2007
'Muhammad cartoon not racial agitation'
20th September 2007
Article Options
Send to a friend
Printable version
Discuss this (53 Posts)
In 2005, 43 percent wanted a ban on Islamic female head coverings. This year, 49.8 percent of the 1,065 people asked supported a ban.
The results the poll are open to some interpretation. The questionnaire asked people for their view on the banning of the 'slöja' or veil, indicating a garment covering the face as well as the top of the head, such as a burqa or a niqab. However, in common parlance, the word 'slöja' is often used to describe all sorts of female Islamic head coverings, including those that just cover the hair.
Hardening attitudes on the headscarf question were not the only sign of deteriorating race relations. More than one in three of those asked said they agreed with the statement that "many foreigners come to Sweden simply to take advantage of our social welfare."
On a more positive note, 80 percent of people said they had good experiences of contact with people of foreign origins. According to the study's authors only 5 percent have "extremely negative views" of immigrants - around the same percentage as last year, but higher than in 2005.
"There could be a link to how well the Sweden Democrats did in the last election - there are such tendencies in Sweden today," said Dr. Irving Palm, one of those behind the survey, to Svenska Dagbladet.
TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)
at September 26, 2007 11:45 AM
OT from Gates of Vienna
LT on September 21st:
The “Youths” of Södertälje
Youth gang blocks ambulance in emergency
An ambulance in a hurry was about to evacuate a woman who had become ill at a grocery in Hovsjö town center. But it didn’t get there - some 30 youths blocked it. When hospital staff told them to move aside, the youths replied “Why? We live in a free country!”
It was around three o’clock Thursday afternoon when the ambulance was summoned to an ill woman at the grocery. But it turned out to be a job more difficult than anyone would have assumed.
The ambulance had trouble getting through. Some thirty guys blocked it and refused to move. Also the police were called.
The staff begged for them to move. At last, they did, but when the police arrived, they were already gone.
Another one from LT on September 21st:
New shootings at police
A man pulled an air rifle at the street and started shooting against a police patrol in Ronna yesterday.
The perpetrator, who is known to the police, managed to escape the scene. The police are taking the incident seriously and classify it as an attempt to commit violence against a public servant [våld mot tjänsteman]. The two policemen are said to be all right.
If it’s dark outside, it is difficult to notice any difference between air rifles and real firearms, even for the police.
Posted by: Borg at September 26, 2007 11:49 AM
detocquevilledisciple
Christians believe that Jesus is God, not just the son of God, so you see, Mormons and Christians do not believe the same thing.
Posted by: Bar at September 26, 2007 11:51 AM
Muslims and Mormons
Muslims are a drain on the Treasury, call for the death of unbelievers, and are coddled.
Mormons in my experience are completely independent and generate wealth for the country, get along well with everybody I’ve known, and have a story to tell:
The militia was led by Colonel William Jennings, Sheriff of Caldwell County. At the time of the attack it consisted of 240 men from Daviess, Livingston, Ray, Carroll, and Chariton counties and included prominent men such as Charles Ashby of the Missouri state legislature and Thomas O. Byron, Clerk of Livingston County.
Although the massacre took place a few days after Missouri's governor, Lilburn Boggs, issued his infamous Extermination Order, most historians have now concluded that the militia unit had neither the time nor the opportunity to have received news of the order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mill_massacre
Just wait till the money runs out. Human DNA hasn’t changed.
at September 26, 2007 11:58 AM
"You - you sir, man on the street. What does 'Naziism' mean to you?"
"Me? Uh...well...there's that thing where they hate the Jews and blame them for everything."
"Yes, yes; whatever. Look, do you know what the central tenets of belief in Naziism are? Do you know what they think about charity, or social programs, or roadways, or industry or health care?"
"Well, I, uh...no, I suppose not."
"Hmph. Another ignorant nonbeliever."
One would think that to know the one fact, above - that first and unconditional fact, irrespective of roadways or Volksvagens or gold teeth fillings - would be sufficient. Some people on this side and on that other side feel otherwise, however. More pity the blind who claim to see; but do not let them guide you across a busy street.
at September 26, 2007 12:01 PM
Atlas has a good post on why this campaign of disinformation is being put forth and what the goals are. Every point of the 45 we can see happening the islamists have seen an opportunity and jumped on board. Also, I would not be surprised if 50% or more of our elected and non elected guvment personnel are communist insurgents. Far higher than the general population. It sounds paranoid I know, but the facts are there for all to see.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018269.php
If they ever come for you all you need to focus on is how many you can take with you.
The Holy Trinity. The father (God) the son (Jesus) and the holy spirit(Ghost). Get your facts straight or stay on the short bus.
at September 26, 2007 12:06 PM
"Didn't the Germans bomb England 3 days later after old Nel said that?"
No, Nev gave Shicklegruber the western part of Czechoslovakia in March of 1938, the Sudetenland, for the promise of "peace in our time." Famous last words, eh? Then Hitler quietly rolled over the rest of Czechoslovakia about a year later in March of 1939, no one said a thing. Peace in our time must have had a 365 day expiration date! Then there was Polish city of Danzig and the Polish corridor right before the non aggression act with Russia. After that treaty was signed it was Poland's turn on Sept. 1 1939, two weeks later Russia invaded Poland from the other side, no one seems to remember that! Denmark and Norway were next, then came France. On June 22 1940 France surrendered and almost to the day one year later Germany invaded Russia on June 22 1941. So much for the non aggression treaty! Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine and nearly Moscow is as far as the lunatic got.
Some people are defending AJ and saying he was treated rudely.
Some people don't deserve debate, Monkeyboy Ahwannajihad is one of them. Hitler didn't deserve a debate either, he deserved what he got in the end, it should have happened years earlier and needs to happen to Almondjoydinnerjacket soon. Some things in this world are so intrinsically evil and wrong they don't justify an intellectual debate. This man is the modern day Hitler. Not the 1939 Hitler mind you, he's the 1944 Hitler, maniacal, delusional and dangerous. Would you give the 1944 Hitler time to develop a nuclear device? Imagine, in regards to the Iranian President, think, David Koresh with and atom bomb, that's what we are talking about here.
at September 26, 2007 12:10 PM
When it's all tarnish, if you remove that you're left with?
Posted by: profitsbeard at September 26, 2007 12:12 PM
Doh!
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/09/democrat-08-com.html
at September 26, 2007 12:13 PM
**Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad.""**
Well, that confirms how screwed up this people is, when they contradict themselves. And the fact that someone is screwed isn't his religion's fault.
Personally, I always foud amusing to see all the people whining about Islam thinking it would be any beneficial to end terrorism. Considering whether Islam supports or not terrorism is completely irrelevant to the solution of the problem; some suggested solutions, like "banning the Kuran" show their authors as clowns who don't know a damn about the problem, and sometimes have a defined agenda.
Just the same clowns that pretend that Judaism and Christianity are anymore pacific than Islam:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1270038.stm
Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs
The spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, has provoked outrage with a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs.
"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover.
Rabbi Yosef is one of the most powerful religious figures in Israel, He is known for his outspoken comments and has in the past referred to the Arabs as "vipers".
Through his influence over Shas, Israel's third largest political party, he is also a significant political figure.
As founder and spiritual leader of the political party Shas, Rabbi Yosef is held in almost saintly regard by hundreds of thousands of Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin.
The Palestinian Authority has condemned the sermon as racist and is calling on international organisations to treat the rabbi as a war criminal.
'Arab terrorists'
Rabbi Yosef said in his sermon that enemies have tried to hurt the Jewish people from the time of the exodus from Egypt to this day.
Israeli Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit
"The Lord shall return the Arabs' deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world," he said.
Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole.
'Stirring up hatred'
Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfur urged international civil institutions and human rights organisations to consider Rabbi Yosef a war criminal in future.
The utterances were "a clear call for murder and a political an intellectual terrorism that will lead to military terrorism", he said in remarks reported on Palestinian radio.
He added that no punishment would come from Israel "because its political culture and action are in line with [the rabbi's] racist statements".
Israeli Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit also condemned the sermon, saying: "A person of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's stature must refrain from acrid remarks such as these."
And he added: "I suggest that we not learn from the ways of the Palestinians and speak in verbal blows like these."
Salah Tarif, the only Arab cabinet minister in the Israeli government, also criticized Rabbi Yosef, saying "his remarks add nothing but hatred".
Posted by: Tristan at September 26, 2007 12:21 PM
...and just what are Islams intentions?....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 26, 2007 12:34 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20990358/
165 insurgents reportedly killed in Afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan - Two battles killed more than 165 Taliban fighters and a U.S.-led coalition soldier in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday as President Hamid Karzai prepared to discuss the escalating violence with President Bush in New York.
WELL THAT 165 THAT WILL MAKE NO MORE TROUBLE
GOOD WORK GUYS
Posted by: Catherine at September 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Removing the tarnish is a lot like polishing a turd.
Quoting the bbc and pali spokemouths? Get a life asshat. The islamists want the destruction of all other religions, tristan the islamist poser wants the destruction of all religions (or does he?) who is a bigger threat to mankind?
at September 26, 2007 12:36 PM
Just the same clowns that pretend that Judaism and Christianity are anymore pacific than Islam
--posted by Tristan
Okay, so you claim Christianity and Judaism are as bad, as violent, as bloodthirsty as Islam, and then all you do is quote one Jewish fanatic!
Please demonstrate that the "religion" of Judaism and Christianity is as bloodthirsty as Islam using text samples. Prove it, by referencing quotes from the texts themselves.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 26, 2007 12:40 PM
'"We're not surprised," said Safaa Ibrahim, executive director of the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's difficult to remove the tarnish of twisted interpretations of terrorists from what Islam means."'
So what, in the eyes of Mr Ibrahim, does Islam "mean" if it is not what 'terrorists' say it means?
For instance, is Hamas - an openly supremacist, totalitarian and theocratic movement that openly advocates genocide and is supported by CAIR - a closer approximation to "what Islam means"?
His statement is meaningless.
Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at September 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Good video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gBT8vKhBns
Separation
at September 26, 2007 1:10 PM
From the same video maker:
Who is allah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMu79XbYJwc
at September 26, 2007 1:14 PM
Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering.
--- God talking good old-fashioned murder in Koran 33:60
at September 26, 2007 1:26 PM
"The Los Angeles Times tut-tuts the "ignorance" of Islam that has led Americans to think that it is different from Judaism and Christianity, and encourages violence. Now where could they have gotten crazy ideas like those"?
We live in an age of propaganda. Newspapers (Hearst, etc.) were once the only sources of propaganda before the advent of radio and TV, but the move from mainly print media to radio, TV, etc. in the past century has intensified the power of propaganda. However, occasionally reality is captured in ways government or corporate media cannot control, and the photo of the Muslim security lady frisking a nun at the airport in Detroit did capture an absurdity and fraud that denies reality with regard to Islam and the doctrines of Islam that motivate Jihad. To say Jihad is not motivated by Islamic doctrine is absurd-it's propaganda to deny that Islamic doctrine promotes Jihad.
The Internet may prove to be the means by which the age of propaganda comes to an end. It will prove to be the disolvent of the age of propaganda so long as no single group controls it. However, anywhere the Internet is controlled it will intensify the power of propaganda and make it no different from the L.A.Times.
at September 26, 2007 1:34 PM
"nor any other Muslim group in the West has ever attempted to untwist the "twisted interpretations of terrorists."
That's not true, Mr. Spencer. A leading Islamic seminary in the U.S., the Zaytuna Institute, has published rebuttals and refutations to the "jihadist" ideology exhibited today by Al-Qaeda and its ilk, and goes after radical ideologues like Sayyid Qutb.
I suggest you read those excellent pieces before jumping to inaccurate conclusions.
Posted by: murad_ahmed at September 26, 2007 2:06 PM
Just judging from my personal experiences, members of the LDS church seem to be very honest, trustworthy, and helpful to the extreme. I'm only 42 years old, but I can't seem to remember Donnie and Marie Osmond coming on their TV show and advocating the murder of non-Mormons nor do I recall any LDS church members hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into buildings to kill and maim innocent civilians. I can't recall ever seeing a large crowd of LSD church members on TV burning American flags and screaming for Israel to be destroyed nor have I heard of any Mormons beheading any one.
A large percentage of Islam's adherents, on the other hand, seem to have a tendency towards racism, total intolerance of other faiths, and a hate-filled pyschopathic desire to kill and destroy everything in their paths. Topping their list of things to destroy is the state of Israel. They applaud loudly as innocents are killed and mutilated in cold blood, and their lust for turture and murder seems to know no bounds.
While I might be 'ignorant' concerning a hell of a lot of things I'm not blind nor stupid. It doens't take a genius to see the differences between Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam. The bible says, "Judge the tree by the fruit it produces." That's a pretty simple test, and the fruit produced by Islam seems to be putrid and rotten to me.
Stand firm in the faith people! The attacks on us will only grow more shrill and intense as time goes by. Pray, plan, and prepare to take care of yourselves and your families. The enemy is ready for battle- are you?
at September 26, 2007 2:22 PM
"nor any other Muslim group in the West has ever attempted to untwist the "twisted interpretations of terrorists."
That's not true, Mr. Spencer. A leading Islamic seminary in the U.S., the Zaytuna Institute, has published rebuttals and refutations to the "jihadist" ideology exhibited today by Al-Qaeda and its ilk, and goes after radical ideologues like Sayyid Qutb.
I suggest you read those excellent pieces before jumping to inaccurate conclusions."
-- from a Muslim poster above
There is nothing I can find at the website of the "Zaytuna Institute" run by Hamza Yusuf, a convert to Islam and author of "Caesarian Moon Births" that suggests anything that should truly be of comfort to wary Infidels. Attacking Al Qaeda and Sayyid Qutb is not enough; are the underlying passages in Qur'an and Hadith, or the details of Muhammad's life that inspire others to go and do likewise in ways that menace the wellbeing of Infidels, subjected to any analysis or criticism? Not at all.
What one sees is another taqiyya operation, with a smooth "revert" at its head, who for all I know is pulling in grant and government money with the entirely false presentation that he is "reforming" Islam or presenting "the true, the peaceful" Islam.
One can see at a click that the most pressing world matter for Hamza Yusuf appears to be "Palestine." By this one means the unconscionable refusal of the Infidels of Israel to surrender their legal and historic rights. Hamza Yusuf of course deeply pretends to believe that the local Arabs, renamed the "Palestinian people" after the Six Day War, for obvious propagandistic reasons, lived in a non-existent administrative unit of the Ottoman Empire called "Palestine (there was no such unit), since time immemorial, which itself can easily be disproved by consulting the demographic and cadastral (land ownership) reocrds for the Ottoman vilayets (and sanjak of Jerusalem) in question.
The website of the "Zeytoun Institute" does not inspire confidence -- except in the fact that it is, as far as Infidels are concerned, merely one more attempt to hide the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and what better way to do it than to ostentatiously "attack" -- but without any real force, or any analysis of the texts that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups rely on, which are simply the received texts of Islam, unmodified, and not misinterpreted -- others as being "terrorists."
This might, six years ago, or four, have fooled some. But it gets less and less plausible, as people begin to wake up, and observe, and read passages from the Qur'an and Hadith. I don't see how Muslims think they can indefinitely fool Infidels, or put off their acquiring a basic knowledge of what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith.
Posted by: Hugh at September 26, 2007 2:39 PM
@troll_king.. nomen est omen
Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 26, 2007 2:45 PM
Perhaps the Los Angeles Times would like to "untangle" the meaning of the following excerpt from the Kuran:
"And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found, besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the poor tax upon them following their conversion to the ways of 'al-lah.' "
Or perhaps it would not. Perhaps the Los Angeles Times would prefer to continue putting millions of Americans' lives in jeopardy by NOT reporting the actual 'meaning' of Islam (which is jihad warfare against the 'unbelievers') to the public as opposed to doing anything worthwhile.
The staff and editors of the Los Angeles Times are evidently blissfully unaware that THEY are the 'unbelievers' as much as anyone else who isn't a Muslim and as such are subject to the same first degree murder as are all "unbelievers" by Muslims (and which the LA TIMES staff has closed its eyes and minds to).
Heads will roll. So go back to sleep, LA TIMES. No one will miss ye.'
Posted by: pythagoras at September 26, 2007 2:47 PM
Mr. Hugh,
Your comments are ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst.
Here are links to the two pieces, one by Shaykh Zaid Shakir of Zaytuna Institute, and another by Shaykh Abdul Hakim Jackson.
"Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare"
http://www.zaytuna.org/seasonsjournal/article.cfm?article_id=63
"Jihad in the Modern World"
http://www.zaytuna.org/seasonsjournal/article.cfm?article_id=82
---
Muslims don't "need your confidence", Mr. Hugh, in tackling the jihadist ideology.
For you, anything positive done by Muslim scholars is "taqiyya" ... a disgusting and shameful remark. Save your bigotry for another day.
Posted by: murad_ahmed at September 26, 2007 2:49 PM
murad_ahmed:
It is simply NOT possible for non-Muslims to trust any Muslim or anything they write or speak to any non-Muslim.
The fault lies squarely with Islam. Why should anyone trust ANY ideology that has killed as many innocents people as this???
This is not "bigotry."
It is reality.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 26, 2007 3:01 PM
murad_ahmed:
I would never confuse arrogance with sophistication, or confuse Hugh Fitzgerald's scholarship with bigotry.
From a historical perspective, and that perspective widens daily, the reputation of Islam and Islamists precedes itself in a particularly hideous fashion.
Instead of going on the offense, why don't you defend some of the above Qu'ranic quotes or the devil you call a prophet?
Posted by: CapitalistGig at September 26, 2007 3:01 PM
It is literally impossible to take the violence out of Islam. To do so would require renouncing Mohammed and Allah. Face it: it's a predatory belief system that should never be called a religion. How can one worship the Sunnah all those murderers the Companions committed on Mo's behalf?
Islam is disgusting and extremely dangerous. Indeed, it's the biggest problem on Earth.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 26, 2007 3:23 PM
What murad doesn’t understand is that even if they renounced jihad, big, little, peaceful, violent, it is all of the other things we don’t want any part of like forced conversions, primitive barbaric mob justice/lynching’s over even non existent slights, honor murders, the segregation of men and women, the demands that everyone submit to their beliefs and traditions and on and on. Jihad is war if we go on fighting them for another 1000 years it would be no different than the last thousand. Every where muslims go and gain a majority we see this happen go ahead name one place that it hasn’t.
Tarnished, twisted interpretations? It is not only the LA/NY times Red Ted Kennedy thinks we are the terrorists. Yes Americans you didn’t know it but you are committing acts of hate against the muslims at an alarming rate! Therefore there must be an amendment against you, he said so yesterday on the senate floor. Yes to Ted the American public are the terrorists, what a twisted interpretation. Outrageous, a national smear campaign being conducted by a senator he and all his truly are the enemy. Can’t find a story on it, hmmm, I wonder why not?
at September 26, 2007 3:30 PM
Now this is key to understanding what the root cause of it all is. No matter what so called "peaceful Muslims" say...there is no way to deny Islam is not responsible for producing Jihadists...
BECAUSE THE JIHADISTS ARE MORE COMMITTED TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE QURAN THAN THEY ARE!!!
Posted by: SoteriA at September 26, 2007 3:38 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018573.php
Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 26, 2007 3:50 PM
Scribe 10 wrote:
(About Al-Qaeda treatises meant for Muslim consumption) It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices.
....................................
Thanks for posting this article, Scribe10. This week we had the spectacle of Ahmadinejad ranting about the "Big Powers'" (mostly the US and Britain, I assume) supposed shortcomings--exploiting third-world nations, causing global warming, failing to respond in an adequate manner to Hurrican Katrina, and the sub-prime lending crisis (this last is my personal favorite!). The image of the head of an oppressive theocratic police state getting exercised about adjustable-rate mortgages in another nation is beyond ludicrous.
A lot of these criticisms are debatable--but even if they were all entirely valid, would the spectacle of Adolph Hitler lambasting the US over race-relations in 1938 have been any more absurd?
As with the above article, it is clear that the ire of Islamists against the West is not based on slow responses to natural disasters by FEMA. This is meant entirely for Western consumption.
Disturbingly, though, at least a few are buying this. Ahmadinejad got a lot of applause at both Columbia--from assorted useful idiots who believe Bush is the great evil in the world--and at the United Nations, by people who want to see the US twitted, and are not fastideous about who is doing it.
at September 26, 2007 3:51 PM
It is up to the muslims to untwist themselves from the Jihadists. If they don't, Americans will toss the baby out with the bathwater.
The Muslims know it too.
Posted by: credit man at September 26, 2007 4:20 PM
scribe10 - thanks for the Raymond Ibrahim article re. two faces of al-qaeda.
Perhaps, though, it is not just Al Q - perhaps they are typical of the way the Muslim world deals with non-Muslims, period - they will tell us whatever they think we want to hear, whatever will sway us or confuse us, without themselves meaning a word of it (so 'Palestinians' talked popular revolution to the Soviets and aggrieved nationalism to America) but the underlying agenda is always, implacably, Muslim and Quranic.
Some time ago I read, linked to an otherwise quite sensible Christian website here in Australia, a bizarre article written by one Mr Christopher J Davey who purported to be a former Christian Zionist who had 'seen the light' and was now a zealous supporter of the Poor Palestinians. Davey seemed to be arguing that we in the West had brought down upon us the righteous wrath of the Muslim world - e.g. 9/11 - by our support for the Evil Israelis. (The article as a whole was also a textbook demonstration of how anti-Zionism morphs effortlessly into a truly virulent anti-Semitism).
Now - having read Ibrahim's article as linked by you, all is explained. I see that Davey is blindly parroting a line similar to that which Ibrahim defines as Al Q's 'for western consumption only' argument (resisting oppression, etc.) while being either ignorant of (or, more scarily, disingenuous about) the totally different arguments that are used within the Ummah.
I already had a letter to the website, and a letter to the relevant Council of Christians and Jews, drafted; but Ibrahim's piece has brought things into focus for me, beautifully.
Hugh Fitzgerald's phrase - 'nonsense and lies' - grows more and more apposite every day.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
at September 26, 2007 4:22 PM
It is not difficult to remove the Tarnish. It is simply impossible.
Should there be any question as to why the Public sees Violence in Islam? Dispite the Filtering the subject recieves in the News, (Ineedajobs speech at the UN couldn't even make the Front Page of the Local Newspaper. Let alone a seperate story. The Man pretty much declaired War on the US and Israel) people know when something stinks, it is usually just as bad.
Encouraging is the Lack of difference between the College/non-Collage segment. Makes one think all the Multi-Cultural Preaching on Campus is suffering a Hard Sell. Especially when even "Dummies" get A's on the Subject Material.
It was plesent to listen to PBS'ers lamenting Statistics showing that People Live in Neighborhoods reflective of their own "kind". Surveys showed that the vast majority of those polled believed in "Diversity". Reconciling the Difference was a problem they couldn't understand.
The Consept of Political Correctness forcing people to lie Publicly, to avoid the Spotlight of others Adjenda is completely beyond their Intelectual insite.
Columbia made US look bad in the Middle East. While making Columbia look Bad to Americans.
Liberals driving Nails into their own Coffin.
Do Demoncrats want the endorsment of Radical Islam? Radical Islam seems to like carrying their Water.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 26, 2007 4:40 PM
Removing the "tarnish" of terrorism from Islam would be like removing tarnish from rust. It cannot be done. Anyone retailing products and theories to do so are charlatans and flim flam artists.
at September 26, 2007 4:41 PM
The two articles to which one "murad" offers a link at 2:49 p.m. have been read. They are absurd. The refusal to admit that Islam posits a state of war -- but not necessarily, please not, of active warfare (that can only occur when conditions are ripe, and right, and when other means of achieving the same ends are not available or not sufficiently effective) -- in the first article is flatly contradicted by all the scholars -- the Muslim as well as the non-Muslim scholars -- of Islam. For more on this, simply consult the Muslim Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults whose works are being collected and reprinted -- see, for example, "The Legacy of Jihad." There is not a Western scholar of Islam, in the great age -- from about 1860 to 1960, before the last generation of linguistically well-educated self-assured Western scholars, of the kind represented by Joseph Schacht and Snouck Hurgonrje, died out and were replaced, first by cold warriors eager to see Islam one-dimensionally as a "bulwark against Communism" (the Islamic studies at Columbia of Arthur Jeffrey giving way to J. C. Hurewitz, and he, in turn, has now given way to assorted massads, dabashis, khalidis, as well as non-Muslim bulliets who defemd the faith as well as any Muslim) -- not a single one, who did not recognize that Islam posits a state of permanent war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. [At this point a few Muslims will start shriekinig about the "Dar al-sulh" but they know perfectly well that that is a very temporary and largely unimportant description, under unusual circumstances, and hardly mitigates the opposition in which Dar al-Islam uncompromisingly stands in relation to Dar al-Harb].
The tedious misinformation supplied, the belief that Infidels are infinitely foolable when the texts of Qur'an and Hadith are a click away, when the scholarly works -- the real things, not the john-esposito-cum--carl-ernst-cum-michael-sells-cum-bruce-lawrence nonsense (see, and be amusedly appalled by, the contents of "The New Crusade: Constructing the Muslim Enemy" ed. by Emran Qureshi and Michael Sells).
Many are getting tired of the same old stuff. They can listen to the witnesses, those who were born into, and raised within, Islamic societies: Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina all come to mind. These people tell the truth. They do not prevaricate, do not put on the kind of sly face that Ahmadinejad offers, are not oily, but straightforward. We can compare what they say with the texts, tenets, atttidues of Islam. Anyone can -- merely by going to the Internet.
It's just too late to keep the world's Infidels, five-sixths of the world, pr at least a significant number of them, from at long last finding out -- really finding out -- about Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at September 26, 2007 4:48 PM
Pew Forum senior fellow John Green said that respondents' knowledge of Islam might be even lower than the survey results suggested. Respondents "tend to overestimate their own knowledge, so these figures may well underestimate their lack of knowledge,"
Thats a valid statement. But it begs the question, is John Green himself conversant on Islam? If he is only mildly so, what gives him the confidence to make such a bold statement.
The corollary of Green's statement, is that only those who are conversant on Islam are able to assess if Islam's reputation in America is justifed or not. Members of JW/DW are fairly knowledgable on Islam. If he did a survey of JW/DW, he will find a far greater proportion then the norm, that Islam's reputation in the US is not only justified, but alarmed that only 35% of Americans had a negative opinion of Islam.
Posted by: DP111
at September 26, 2007 4:57 PM
All:
Scribe10 has posted a link to one of the best, most-telling articles on this entire subject from Raymond Ibrahim in the Chronicle for Higher Education. Details the jihadist's open contempt for the Western PC elite and their wholesale purchase of Muslim propaganda (i.e. they hate us because of Palestine, the Iraq war, American imperialism, etc.)
Here, in their own words, you'll see them quite clearly insist that Islam hates us because we are infidel. The rest is just a smokescreen to dazzle our moronic over-educated "intellectual elite" who hate us because of...well...EVERYTHING (though they manage to somehow rationalize staying in this country in their cushy, do-nothing jobs at our Day-Care Universities).
Read it all.
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=8ytztvdt6sy6x5p550p2m258myk1c1nm
Posted by: JohnAdams at September 26, 2007 5:06 PM
Wonder if this could help explain things just a little
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpdzNUIxyos&mode=related&search=
Yep short and sweet
Posted by: Catherine at September 26, 2007 5:07 PM
Could the Mohammedan Safaa Ibrahim be speaking with forked tongue when he says, "It's difficult to remove the tarnish of twisted interpretations of terrorists from what Islam means[?]"
Is he so ignorant of his koran that he calls the "terrorists'" view of Islam as twisted?
Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 26, 2007 5:09 PM
ostentatiously "attack" -- but without any real force, or any analysis of the texts that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups rely on, which are simply the received texts of Islam, unmodified, and not misinterpreted -- others as being "terrorists'-Hugh
----
Muslims don't "need your confidence", Mr. Hugh, in tackling the jihadist ideology. For you, anything positive done by Muslim scholars is "taqiyya" -murad_ahmed (Jihadi Guest, wearing a Burka)
--------------------------------
Ms. Ahmed, exactly how are you tackling Jihad? Do you know without Jihad, there is nothing to Offer by Islam? Perhaps, reRead what Hugh wrote above.
Why is Islam so full of contradictions? A whole lot of us here believe Islam is un-mendable. There is nothing your organization can do to improve the image of Islam, unless, of course you were to re-write Cowran, and erase the Hadidth etc, which are cursing other religions. We simply doubt whether the Muslims have balls to do that. I know your kinds get very easily irritated when others criticize your pathetic religion. There is something inherently wrong with your kinds, that they are unable to rationally speak or discuss without averting to violence. What is exactly that you are referring to "anything positive done by Muslims"?
If you want to do something positive, then change the negative content in Cowran/Hadidths(Surahs)! That is a kind of positive 'thing' will give us 'Kufir' the confidence that your kinds have eventually seen the light! Until then, as we say to your kinds, go to hell!
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at September 26, 2007 5:16 PM
Here is the place on the internet to read the quran and hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
at September 26, 2007 5:32 PM
Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 26, 2007 5:32 PM
Or you could go here?
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/audio/Prophet_of_Doom_Letter_to_the_Reader.mp3
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam
at September 26, 2007 6:02 PM
I think that the side-by-side comparison of Mormon and Muslim is worthy, albeit in this Pew poll, accidental.
Both derive from established religions. Their founders, Muhammad and Smith, had political agendas and personal desires that were inconsistent morally and/or legally with established beliefs. Not content to live within the boundaries, the "chains of oppression" forced upon them, they decided to rewrite the religious texts as they existed. Their authority to do so given by none other than God Himself, whom had appointed them "prophets" and given them a new message to carry to the people. In both cases the messages or visions they received were given under mysterious circumstances, unwitnessed by others, irreproducible, and unsubstantiated.
Between those given above, and others, the similarities beg one to ask if Smith was emulating Muhammad in his methodology. It also begs one to ask what were their followers thinking? Did they truly believe these men, or did they merely allow them their authority because it conferred legitimacy to their own beliefs?
Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at September 26, 2007 6:21 PM
murad_ahmed said
Your comments are ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst. [...] For you, anything positive done by Muslim scholars is "taqiyya" ... a disgusting and shameful remark. Save your bigotry for another day.
Gosh, what a surprise. Someone pops in and cries "bigotry", "racism", and/or "islamophobia", with no pointers to any particular bigoted or racist statement (which admittedly would be difficult, since they don't exist), and then disappears.
Never saw that one before.
Posted by: special_guest at September 26, 2007 6:34 PM
The PEW poll linking Islam and Mormonism is no accident.
I just took a Zogby poll where the same "linking" was done...
It's because Mitt Romney is Morman.
Posted by: atheling at September 26, 2007 6:48 PM
Well, he IS, after all, welcome to provide examples of "bigotry", etc at his convenience...better know in our "bigot"ed circles as:
"put up or shut up"
We shall see...
Posted by: jcom972 at September 26, 2007 6:50 PM
linking islam to Mormonism?
LMAO...puhlease!
Pew & Zogby, after their past antics, don't surprise me at all they'd try to make a leap like that...
one that even Evel Knievel wouldn't try!
LMAO
at September 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Yes there has and is an orchestrated effort to smear other religions. First it was the Jews but now it is Christians and Mormons. This is predictable I would expect that if we had a significant number of Hindus or Buddhists the same would be happening to them. I know some Mormons they are good people who don’t forcibly convert anyone, don’t treat their women like cattle, don’t behead those who insult Mormonism, don’t participate in honor killings among other things. I find it particularly disturbing that some westerners are joining in on this smear of other religions with the islamists. Convert! You are already way ahead of the islamists in your hatred and willingness to smear the other non lethal voluntary religions. Go to a veteran’s cemetery and you will see that most if not all headstones bear a religious symbol. So when the crap hits the fan all you smearmongers no matter what you purport to be, get ready to be wiped out in an afternoon by the islamists. And if any of them continue to smear any of us they better be prepared to be turned away when they come calling for camaraderie for us to let them in the gate. I am not as kind as many of my compatriots and I will not allow it. We are making a list, we will be checking it twice, were gunna find out who’s been naughty or nice.
Posted by: tgusa at September 26, 2007 7:29 PM
US Military Hotbed of Hate?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/241814.php
“Kennedy said a hate crimes amendment should be attached to the defense authorization bill because members of the U.S. military commit a significant number of hate crimes.”
They are the enemy, he is one of the leaders. The Minutemen hold their heads in shame for what the citizens of their state have put forward in the senate.
at September 26, 2007 8:13 PM
I am hesitant to condemn someone who claims to be attempting to reform Islam, but I go by the motto "You shall know the tree by its fruit."
I can't wait for the day when I can listen to the news without hearing about Muslim terrorists incidents in multiple countries, Muslim wars against multiple religions, Muslims mutilating girls in multiple countries, Muslim rioting in multiple countries, Muslims having trouble adjusting to the 21st century, Muslims, Muslims... Enough! I'm sick of it!
Posted by: Surak at September 26, 2007 9:24 PM
one Jewish fanatic
Oh, yes, one Jewish fanatic who is nothing more than, well, the head of the major Israeli religious party!
Removing the tarnish is a lot like polishing a turd.
Quoting the bbc and pali spokemouths? Get a life asshat. The islamists want the destruction of all other religions, tristan the islamist poser wants the destruction of all religions (or does he?) who is a bigger threat to mankind?
Are the crazy rabbis palis spokesmen, stupid piece of sh1t??? Think before posting, retard. Now what, do you also doubt the BBC??? Do you think they made this story up??? Look moron, google jewish fundamentalism. My point here was not to negate AQ's objectives, it was to correct the perception that the others two religions are any better. The extreme versions of Judaism are much worse than radical Islam, but since it doesn't affect the West, who the hell cares?
No, my other point moron. All you guys discussing Islam are pathetic. What use is there to it? Let's say it is evident for everyone but Muslims that Islam encourages violence. What practical use does this conclusion have? How will this help fighting AQ terrorism?
Do you think Spaniards have tried to find out whether Basque leftist ideology encouraged ETA terrorism? Or whether Brits tried to find out if catholicism, or Irish nationalist ideology encouraged terror?? No, they simply fought them. So what is all this about?
Posted by: Tristan at September 27, 2007 9:05 AM
The writer's name is Theo Milonopoulos of the above article. Now Im of Greek descent and I know a greek name when I see it.
This guy should know better. Every Greek kid knows that Greeks (christians) suffered under muslim rule when turkey over greece and asia minor (thats todays turkey --there were no 'turks' in asia minor BEFORE 1100 AD!) and punished, killed , millions of greeks not because they were a different race than the turks but because they were CHRISTIANS and the turks were MUSLIMS and were following shiaria law (all the nonmuslims had dhummi status--and if you were caught with a bible you were dead). The Greek Orthodox eastern orthodox church taught greek and bible studies in secret because of this. millions of chrisitans were killed (and the armenians were almost wiped out the last holocaust against them (also christians) happened in the early 20th century. it was only in 1821 that Greece was finally able to overthrow muslim rule.
this guy theo should know better. As a Greek myself I wish I lived in L.A. I'd go meet him, smack him across what can only be a head without a brain in it, and say 'you MALAKA your grandfather suffered because of islam was that 'ignorance'."
This idiot should know better.
Reminds me of what Michael Savage says against liberal jews in America (michael is a conservative and jewish) and how they have betrayed america. Thats how I feel about this little creep. There is no way on here his dad or somebody in the extended family did not tell him what the Greeks and Armenians went through! He has no excuse. of course he wants to kiss up to his l.a. times liberal editors.
But everybody has their chamberlins I suppose.
I am floored by HIS ignorance though. Amazing.
And yes there were NO muslims in what is today turkey (asia minor) before 1100 AD. But they raided over the years and won land IN THE NAME OF JIHAD. Before them there were only Greeks, Armenians, Romans and Celts there.
Thats right CELTS~! small bands had settled under the byzantine times because they were good farmers and were invited. THE IRISH belong in turkey more than turks do.
ITS ISLAM STUPID.
ITS ALL ABOUT ISLAM.
ISLAM = The OLD SCHOOL NAZISM
deal with it 'theo' you disgrace to your christian heritage. May God see you and judge you and yours you slime.
God Bless America
God Save The Queen
God Have Mercy On Europe!
at September 27, 2007 9:46 AM
My point here was not to negate AQ's objectives, it was to correct the perception that the others two religions are any better.
--posted by tristan
What about Christianity? Still waiting for you to show that Christianity is as violent, intolerant, malevolent as the cult of muhammad.
C'mon, show us. Use text, chapter and verses.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 27, 2007 9:51 AM
oh and Mormons are not like radical muslims, theo you pin head. Mormons dont strap bombs to their asses and shout 'lalalallalalalalalalalalalalalallala' and dance when other MUSLIMS crash airplanes into the worldtrade towers. The one mormon I know cried like a little kid when the towers fell like all decent people did. Go take a long walk off a short pier theo you evil bastard.
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at September 27, 2007 9:52 AM
Why would I waste my time with you? You lefties are dumber than rocks besides I am a retard remember asshat? So if you are asking a moron what this is all about that makes you sub retarded but you probably already knew that didn’t you? I’m sure you hear that all the time right? C’mon be truthful for once you can do it. No doubt you are a filthy islamist poser or sympathizer you belong with them. So are you here because you are a yellow bellied sap sucker a dimwitted islamopologist or do you just enjoy raping women? you probablly hate them too having been laughed at all your life by women. Go back to your Jew hating club loser.
Posted by: tgusa at September 27, 2007 10:12 AM
Tristan wrote:
"My point here was not to negate AQ's objectives, it was to correct the perception that the others two religions are any better. The extreme versions of Judaism are much worse than radical Islam, but since it doesn't affect the West, who the hell cares?"
Not worse, but MUCH worse. I would absolutely love to see you back that statement up with a shred of evidence to support it, unless of course you believe the attack on the towers to be Zionist conspiracy.
A single example of a lunatic Jew calling for Arab genocide is not equivalent in any way shape or form to the systemic assault of the Islamists against all differing faiths...period. Being a Jew is a proferssion of faith, being an Arab in an ethnic racial trait. Apples and oranges. In un derstand that they are very few in number, especially in the ME, but does there not exist the Arabic Jew?
Tristan also wrote:
"No, my other point moron. All you guys discussing Islam are pathetic. What use is there to it? Let's say it is evident for everyone but Muslims that Islam encourages violence. What practical use does this conclusion have? How will this help fighting AQ terrorism?"
Pathetic? Well, Tristan, as pathetic as we may be, Islamic texts are being used to condone violemce in the name of Islam. It really is that simple. The Qur'an is not a classified document, it is available to all to read. Give it a whirl in between your religious moral equivalency ranting.
If the rest of the world, independent of all Muslims, agree on violence being historically inherent in Islam and supported by their canonical texts, then at least an appropriate response to aggressive Islamic expansionism can be undertaken.
The logical plausibility of both all non-Muslims agreeing on violence in Islam and all Muslims denying that premise, is non-existent, and therefore, not worth discussing.
at September 27, 2007 11:03 AM
"The extreme versions of Judaism are much worse than radical Islam..."
Let's look at the record and compare.
Muslims murdered 70-80 million Hindus, and continue to massacre Hindus in India.
Muslims murdered 1-2 million blacks in southern Sudan. Muslims continue to engage in slavery in Africa.
Muslims decapitate Buddhist monks in Thailand.
Muslims decapitate Christian girls in Indonesia.
Muslims murdered more than 300 people at a school in Beslan, Russia, and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds more at a theater in Moscow.
Muslims have persecuted Persia's ancient religion Zoroastrianism almost to the point of extinction.
Muslims have persecuted Persia's newer religion Baha'i to the point that the latter moved their world headquarters to Israel.
Muslims have cut off the genitalia of millions of girls around the world; prohibited them from education, employment, driving or voting; murdered them as a punishment for having been raped.
Jews have won roughly 1500 times as many Nobel prizes per capita as Muslims.
You owe your polio-free life to Jews.
You owe your ability to instant message to Jews.
You owe the seven-day week and a day of rest to the Jews.
Europe was the home to the majority of the world's Jews in the time of Europe's ascendancy. Europe murdered the majority of its Jews and imported 20 million Muslims. Europe is currently imploding. The 2000 year old European civilization will die within the next century.
Any rational person ought to be able to decide who has benefited civilization and who has undermined it. Back under your rock with you.
Posted by: Surak at September 27, 2007 11:33 AM
Famous Jews in history:
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David (Psalms), Solomon (Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes), Isaiah, Jesus, Einstein
Famous Muslims in history:
Muhamad, Yasir Arafat, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ruhulah Khomeini, Usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mahmud Ahmadinejad
at September 27, 2007 11:58 AM
Tristan,
Shas is not the dominant political party in Israel, Kadima is.
Yosef, a founder of the Shas party is a spiritual leader of it, not the official political representative. He does not sit on the Knesset.
He was admonished for his statement by Sheetrit, per your pasting, even though his position was clarified by Shas spokesmen.
He was also the victim of an attempted assassination attempt by a Palestinian group.
He has some odd views on the Holocaust victims as well.
He has called for and sought peace with Palestine, historically.
Israel has not now, nor has it ever, engaged in a political movement of Arabic genocide that is supported by statements such as the one by Yosef Ovadia, contrary to your position that you are trying to put forth here at this site.
This has devolved into a completely different discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. he situation is dire, but your "it is all the fault of the Jews", is unsubstantial ansd will not fly here.
I must reference one quote of mine to which you responded to.
"calling for Arab genocide is not equivalent in any way shape or form to the systemic assault of the Islamists against all differing faiths...period."
Your response:
"So you think it is any better because it was directed against an ethnic group and not against a religious one. What kind of idiotic argument is that?"
I agree, it would have been idiotic if that had been my statement, but alas, as all can see, it was not.
My actual contextual statement, with your intentional omission in italics, was:
"[A single example of a lunatic Jew] calling for Arab genocide is not equivalent in any way shape or form to the systemic assault of the Islamists against all differing faiths...period."
There is a major difference, but you already know that.
All in all it was a nice rant. You could have just linked those articles instead of cutting and pasting them. The only problem with some of yourn statements is the the lack of factual evidence to support them, but hey, why let facts get in the way of some juicy Jew-hating propoganda, right?
Your disingenuine attempt to take my words out of context, which I can not believe you thought you would be successful at, is quite telling.
(awake)*crosses Tristan's name off the board*.
Next!!
at September 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Nice job awake and Surak of putting to bed Tristan's absurd and ridiculous attempt at finding a 'moral equivalence' between Judaism and Islam. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can manage to continue peddling this 'moral equivalence' bit when it is abundantly clear that there is one and only one religion that routinely, and unabashedly, performs the most heinous of crimes on an almost daily basis. No prize, folks, for guessing which religion I am talking about!
Posted by: Razdan at September 27, 2007 1:22 PM
Tristan:
You know absolutely nothing about anything. You have no power to convince anyone with an IQ over 65 that anyone other than yourself is a "moron."
Picking your lame attempts to debate is a total waste of time. You refuse to see or hear anything that contradicts what you choose to believe.
So go revel in your ignorance--it's your funeral.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 27, 2007 1:56 PM
I would be happy to hear from the site administrators where my last post has gone. Meanwhile, I will adress the post that came after it.
"Shas is not the dominant political party in Israel, Kadima is."
I said "religious parties". Read better.
"Yosef, a founder of the Shas party is a spiritual leader of it, not the official political representative. He does not sit on the Knesset."
1.What the hell does it matter, since it is the spirirual (i.e. ideological leader is) and the crazy Israelis who accept him do?
"He was admonished for his statement by Sheetrit, per your pasting, even though his position was clarified by Shas spokesmen."
Oh wait lol, do you really believe he was only referring to Arab terrorists (I wouldn't have anything to say about it if he did) and not to the Arab people as a whole, as it was clearly the case??
Don't be stupid. If we were talking of a Muslim making similar statements about Jews, and another Muslim "clarified" them in the same way, would you believe him?
Now an interesting question genius. If the crazy rabbi only refferred to Arab terrorists, then WHY THE HELL WAS HE ADMONISHED??? Can't you see how you contradict yourself in your attempts to apologize this human trash??
"He was also the victim of an attempted assassination attempt by a Palestinian group."
And that excuse his comments? Pathetic. Again, would similar declarations by a Muslim be understandable if he had been the object of an assassinatino attempt?
"He has called for and sought peace with Palestine, historically."
Only if it could help save Jewish lives.
"Israel has not now, nor has it ever, engaged in a political movement of Arabic genocide that is supported by statements such as the one by Yosef Ovadia, contrary to your position that you are trying to put forth here at this site."
I don't think it was because they lacked the intentions. Suffice to see how they elected the porky Sharon, who is a Jewish version of Adolf. And I think what they are doing in Palestine is enough already.
"it is all the fault of the Jews"
I didn't say that, you are making this up. Rather, you WISH I said that.
I must reference one quote of mine to which you responded to.
"calling for Arab genocide is not equivalent in any way shape or form to the systemic assault of the Islamists against all differing faiths...period."
Your response:
"So you think it is any better because it was directed against an ethnic group and not against a religious one. What kind of idiotic argument is that?"
I agree, it would have been idiotic if that had been my statement, but alas, as all can see, it was not.
My actual contextual statement, with your intentional omission in italics, was:
"[A single example of a lunatic Jew] calling for Arab genocide is not equivalent in any way shape or form to the systemic assault of the Islamists against all differing faiths...period."
There is a major difference, but you already know that.
Good try, but it seems you also forgot something:
Being a Jew is a proferssion of faith, being an Arab in an ethnic racial trait. Apples and oranges.
So, and considering I also posted an interesting article about Jewish fundamentalism who invalidated your argument of "a single lunatic Jew" (unless it was erased so I will post it again) what was this about?
"All in all it was a nice rant. You could have just linked those articles instead of cutting and pasting
(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.)