Surely this is anti-crusadertude Robert?

In Algeria as in many other Muslim nations MUSLIMS arent allow to practice their faith without a licence or belong to groups the government doesnt approve of. Robert Spencer has no problem with this.
No demand for more religious rights for Muslim from him. See his post lauding the Turkish state for banning women in hijab from education and many others like this.

"Islamic Tolerance Alert:"

yet this is what Spencer wants to do with Muslims in the west. Think thats why he wets himself over these stories - fantasising about doing this to Muslims.

Catholic tolerance alert

Catholics raize mosque and name square after fascist

http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2008/05/italy-rightists-raze-verona-mosque.html

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 8:00 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople

They are charging this woman with the offence of "“practicing non-Muslim religious rites without a license,” a charge that her lawyer says does not exist in Algerian criminal law."

So you are saying that the charge as stated above does exist? You know something that this woman's lawyer doesn't know?

Posted by: ausinfidel at June 8, 2008 9:03 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople

Either the charge does exist in Algerian criminal law or it doesn't. You seem to be trying hard to give the impression that it does but you give no evidence. In that case if the law doesn't exist you are doing this poor woman a disservice, which is ironic since you at the same time you seem to think you have the moral high ground.

Posted by: ausinfidel at June 8, 2008 9:25 AM

Do not sully the memory of Oriana Fallaci with your slanderous remarks.

Posted by: tanstaafl at June 8, 2008 9:41 AM

"They are charging this woman with the offence of "“practicing non-Muslim religious rites without a license,” a charge that her lawyer says does not exist in Algerian criminal law."

So you are saying that the charge as stated above does exist? You know something that this woman's lawyer doesn't know?

ausinfidel"

Im really not sure who to believe- there's a Christian newspaper, a Protestant minister, Robert Spencer , a lawyer and a policeman.

A quintet of untrustworthy types if you will.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 9:44 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople

Your facts are skewed. Fallaci hated fascists and according to the article in your link the "mosque" consisted of a prayer room in a building which is not identified further. I saw no reference to "Catholic" -- its inclusion here is your contribution.

As for your snide remarks about Robert, they are unwelcome here. His websites always endorse religious freedom provided that no religion seeks to impose itself upon the others and provided that basic human rights are not violated.

As for Turkey and the tiresome headscarf debate, if you know anything of Turkish history you would know that there the wearing of the headscarf, a symbol of Islamic belief, was constrained by Ataturk who knew that Islam itself had to be constrained. And it was, at least nominally -- Why else do you think that Turkey has made gains that other Islamic nations have not?

I am personally today aware of a divorced woman in the conservative central region of Turkey who dares not leave her home without a headscarf for fear of inviting harrassment, insults, and unwelcome propositions. This is what Ataturk tried to break -- the power of the headscarf to define a woman's religiosity, sexuality, and personal dignity, which almost surely leads to a decline in personal freedom and hence a decline in vital energy.

Because of the ban on the headscarf in university, all women are judged by the same standard -- academic ability. But if the headscarf is allowed there, one's degree of Islamic piousness is made obvious and those who don't comply are singled out. Once Islamic piousness is identified then it's likely that all the tenets of Islam will come to the forefront, and academic inquiry would then be constrained. Ataturk knew exactly what he was doing.

Here in the West, there is no need (yet) to restrict the headscarf, for it does not hold the same power over our female students. And so by a paradoxical set of circumstances, the banning of the headscarf in universities in Turkey is a step for freedom.

Posted by: Jen at June 8, 2008 9:57 AM

We should encourage the public interrogation of ex-Muslims. They must know something their former co-religionists do not know or are unwilling to acknowledge.

The body search is superfluous as she has converted FROM and not TO Islam. But there again, can you pass up the opportunity for a state sanctioned grope?

Posted by: western infidel at June 8, 2008 10:27 AM

Jen

"Your facts are skewed. Fallaci hated fascists"

She was a facist - and facists love her - theyve
even named a square after here

http://forum.expatica.com/lofiversion/index.php/t64105.html

"I saw no reference to "Catholic" -- its inclusion here is your contribution."

Much like Spencers inclusion of Islamic and Muslim in stories.

"As for your snide remarks about Robert, they are unwelcome here. His websites always endorse religious freedom"

So how come he supports the Turkish ban on headscarves?

"provided that no religion seeks to impose itself upon the others and provided that basic human rights are not violated. "

Ah yes - but Robert considers any Muslim practicing their religion "imposing itself on others"

In Turkey as in many Muslim families and countries it is common for one female member to wear a headscarf and another not to. They rub along just fine. I know hundreds of Muslim families like that including my own. Why wouldnt that be the same in Turkish universities? Virtually every other country in the world including the western world has Muslim female students in hijab and without studying together.

You seem to forget that the majority of Turks are against the ban. What happened to democracy when an act which hurts no one and which the majority approve of is stalled because of a dead dictator?
Your defending the indefensible.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 10:29 AM

"Your [sic] defending the indefensible." Speak for yourself, Istanbul. (And please stop dragging-out red herrings to mask the fundamental intolerance of Islamic belief and practice.

Posted by: John C at June 8, 2008 10:52 AM

"What happened to democracy..."

Are you "defending the indefensible"?

Posted by: western infidel at June 8, 2008 10:54 AM

"a dead dictator"

Would be Ataturk or Muhammad?

Posted by: western infidel at June 8, 2008 11:02 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople:

Robert includes references to acts by Muslims when they themselves are inspired by or quote from Islamic scriptures. In other words, he comments on Islamically motivated behaviour. Show me how the behaviour of your "Catholics" was motivated by Christian scripture.

Democracy means much more than just the rule of the majority. Included in the concept are notions of personal freedom and equality, which as I explained can be threatened when the Islamic symbol, the headscarf, is permitted in certain political and social climates where it can take on an importance far beyond its pragmatic value as a headcovering.

Why did you not address my comments about the Turkish woman, whom I know personally, who is afraid to leave her home without the headscarf? Hers is an example of how the headscarf (or,in this case, the lack of a headscarf) can become an explicit indicator of a woman's perceived sexual availability, a judgement which can be used to control and humiliate her. The fact that in your family women may or may not choose to wear a headscarf (and still get along, apparently)is irrelvant to the reality faced by many Turkish women in certain social settings, where the wearing of the headscarf is obligatory. Your family's broadmindedness is not endemic throughout Turkey.

If Turkey were an unwilling subject to Ataturk's dictatorship, then why did the Turkish people allow (nay, encourage and defend) his cult-like status which persists even sixty years after his death?

Posted by: Jen at June 8, 2008 11:22 AM

There are young women in AMERICA who would undoubtedly be murdered by their own fathers if they didn't wear the head scarf. As Muhammad said: "A woman's paradise is under the heel of her husband".

Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 8, 2008 11:41 AM

poetcomic1

"As Muhammad said: "A woman's paradise is under the heel of her husband"."

a complete lie. typical of this site.

The hadith your thinking of is the Prophets saying
"Paradise lies under the feet of your mother"

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 11:49 AM

istanbulnotconstantinople:

What if the mother is a Christian or Jew? Can you still find Paradise under her?

Posted by: Liberal Guy at June 8, 2008 12:08 PM

"Ah yes - but Robert considers any Muslim practicing their religion "imposing itself on others"

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople

Many people have to consider forced Islamic intrusion when.

...When Muslims are hired to work in infidel businesses they demand prayer time at work

...when Muslims demand special bathrooms

...when Muslims demand footbaths

...when Muslims take over breakrooms and turn them into mini Mosques

...when Muslims refuse Infidel doctors

...when Muslims infringe on the rights of the host countries citizens and then sue because they are not treated in a superior fashion

...when Muslims demand their laws replace the laws of the host country

...when Muslims demand Islam be taught in the public schools of the host country

...when Muslims demand the children of the host countries dress as Muslims

...when MUslim professors in college begin teaching Islamic doctrine to college students, failing those students who write essays opposing Islam.

...When Muslims infiltrate various government agencies to gather secret information related to Muslim terrorists.

...when Muslims demand their banking system replace the host countries banking systems

...when Muslims take over entire neighborhoods and then turn them into no-go zones for non Muslims

...when Muslims openly and violently protest in the streets over any perceived injustice.

...when Muslims attack and sometimes kill someone who has touched or dropped a copy of the Qur'an.

...when Muslims working in restaurants begin sprinkling the food with feces, urine, or other contaminants.

...When Muslims begin to recruit youngsters to become future suicide bombers.

...when Muslims infiltrate various police and security agencies and pilfer records regarding suspected terrorists and relaying that information to various Islamic groups as an early warning system.

all these and many more are directly related to Muslims wanting to enforce their religion upon the host countries

Muslims intend to force Islam upon the world , inch by inch..

and the world is beginning to fight back

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 8, 2008 12:16 PM

Liberalguy

"istanbulnotconstantinople:

What if the mother is a Christian or Jew? Can you still find Paradise under her?"

of course -the hadith is general and doesnt mention any religion- in fact it was mentioned about a Muslim who had a pagan mother

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 4939
Narrated by Mu'awiyah ibn Jahimah

Jahimah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, "Messenger of Allah, I desire
to go on a military expedition and I have come to consult you. He asked him if he had a
mother, and when he replied that he had, he said, "Stay with her, for Paradise is at her
feet."

Ahmad, Nasa'i and Bayhaqi, in Shu'ab al-Iman, transmitted it.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 12:30 PM

INSTANBULL: "Im really not sure who to believe- there's a Christian newspaper, a Protestant minister, Robert Spencer , a lawyer and a policeman.

"A quintet of untrustworthy types if you will."

RESPONSE: So, a Christian newspaper and a Protestant Minister are "untrustworthy types", eh?

Sounds like bigotry to me.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 8, 2008 1:09 PM

istanbulnotconstantinople:

Your response to Jen seems to illustrate that you are simply close-minded.

First, calling Fallaci a "Fascist" is a massive historical inversion that reveals a close-mindedness and reliance on polemical words and ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned argument.

Fallaci was one of the earliest anti-fascist agitators, and a rarity in that she was not a communist. Many Liberals and other non-Communists supported fascism out of their fear of communism. Fallaci did not, see recogonized the violence and suppression of individuality and freedom inherent in the practice of both ideologies. Her stance on (political) Islam did not emerge from a sudden embrace of Fascism that she had spent decades fighting against, but instead emerged from a recognition that the ascendant political ideologies inspired by Islam emerging from the Muslim community and world were anti-liberal and anti-freedom just as Fascism and Communism were.

Succinctly, her anti-Islam stance emerged from an anti-fascist ideology, not a fascist one.

Second, Jen provided a clear argument as to why defenders of liberty and religious freedom accept and even champion what superficially appears to be a limit on personal freedoms that a ban on headscarves represents. Instead of responding to her argument, you simply repeated your decontextualized and largely mindless statementent "So how come he supports the Turkish ban on headscarves?" YOu need to go back and read Jen's response and reply specifically to it.

Another example of the headscarf ban is in France. Orginally, I mocked the French for this highly illiberal act until I was informed of the context.

In France, in many of the muslim dominated 'banlieus' (literally translated as "suburbs" be better translated as "ghettos," "projects" or "tenaments") women face a stark choice: either wear a headscarf or be raped.

The circumstances were that women from the banlieus would shed their headscarves when leaving the banlieus and entering universities, because they had no desire to ever wear them and only did so out of fear of rape in the banlieus.

However, the problem emerged that word would get back that these women were choosing not to wear the headscarf at university and thus would face the threat of rape when they returned to their homes in the banlieus, even if they wore headscarves there.

Thus, the ban on headscarves in France made it possible for these women not to have to face the choice between wearing the headscarf and being raped, because no one can critique them for not wearing the headscarf because they are legally forbidden from doing so.

So when the choice is between women having to choose between wearing a headscarf or being raped versus wearing a headscarf or being able to go to university, I side with the former over the latter.

The simply fact of the matter is, despite the rhetoric, there is a hierachy of rights. The right to security of person trumps freedom of religion.

Just because one believes that one's religion calls on them to do violence against, for example, homosexuals, does not priviledge your right to religious freedom over their right to security of person.

Posted by: GeorgetownPress at June 8, 2008 1:21 PM

GeorgetownPress:
Thanks for coming to my defence. The headscarf issue is one of the most difficult to analyze and explain to people who see it as a simple matter of personal and religious freedom. At one time, just as you did, I would have supported the right of Turkish women to wear the headscarf in university. But now having lived there and experienced the pervasive power of Islam in controlling daily life, and having read so much more widely, I realize it's a very complex issue. If we could guarantee that every woman wearing the headscarf has done so of her own free will and not because of fear, coercion, indoctrination, etc., it would be a simple issue to support a free choice. As it is, it's a powerful symbol on many levels, not the least of which is political Islam, and so demands constraint.

Posted by: Jen at June 8, 2008 3:07 PM

Comeing to a western nation near you you dumb dhimmi look very closely what your goverments are doing to your childrens future.

Posted by: spcbat at June 8, 2008 3:13 PM

"Istanbul not Constantinople"

The city of Constantinople - Kônstantinoupolos - was consecrated by St Constantine the Great in 330 and flourished for 1,123 years, until 1453, when it was conquered and occupied by the Mahometan Turks. The city has thus been occupied for 555 years.

Constantinople NOT Istanbul.

Posted by: StrulZigelboim at June 8, 2008 4:20 PM

When they say “Practicing non-Muslim religious rites without a license.”

I think they mean breathing.

Posted by: Celsius at June 8, 2008 4:58 PM

I think that those champions of "tolerance" and "interfaith dialogue" should go after the Algerian police, for preventing the woman from having an "interfaith dialogue" with her fellow Algerian citizens.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at June 8, 2008 5:42 PM

"Istanbul not Constantinople"

The city of Constantinople - Kônstantinoupolos - was consecrated by St Constantine the Great in 330 and flourished for 1,123 years, until 1453, when it was conquered and occupied by the Mahometan Turks. The city has thus been occupied for 555 years.

Constantinople NOT Istanbul.

Posted by: StrulZigelboim at June 8, 2008 4:20 PM
=================================================
Let's not forget about all of the other muslim-occupied territories: Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., most of which were Christian lands until the muslims invaded and occupied these lands. Due to muslim oppression of non-muslims, these are now muslim-majority lands.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that they are muslim-occupied territories.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at June 8, 2008 5:51 PM

istanbulnotconstantinople,

We get it that you don't agree with Robert's points of view. We get it that you are hostile.

If you can't make your first comment on an article without referring to Robert, I'm sorry for you.

You're becoming a bore.

Posted by: Abscedere at June 8, 2008 7:11 PM

They're just shooting themselves in the foot.

They stopped this Christian woman in the public street - in broad daylight? - and asked her:

"Why did you convert to Christianity, why did you forsake Islam?"

Don't they know ANYTHING about Christians...especially, new, enthusiastic Christians?

I wonder what kind of answers they got?

Maybe they got answers like THIS:

"There was a great difference between the Qur'an (Muslim holy book) and Injil (New Testament). In the Gospel it was like talking to God as a friend. In Islam you are a servant. I accepted Jesus because He practiced what He preached—and He gave me fellowship with God."

Or like THIS? (the story of an Algerian convert named 'Dis'):

'when I learned about Jesus in the Qur'an," he explained, "I liked Him. I thought, If God gave me a choice, I would follow Jesus. He is not a man of war." The attraction grew as he listened to Christian radio. Then, one night, Dis had a vision of a heavenly being who informed him that Jesus was Lord. At that moment, his heart was transformed.'

Or this: "We just want to center on Jesus. The gospel has to be practical; not just words, but actions". What kinds of actions? - well, things like prayer for healing. Nothing warlike. Exactly the reverse.

"Believers gather daily in homes for prayer and to experience dreams, visions, healings, and deliverance. Even former terrorists, Muslim leaders, and sorcerers are coming to faith. In fact, such occurrences are so much a part of church growth that they are not regarded as extraordinary."

And this:
'What is happening and what has happened in Algeria, such as the massacres and killings in the name of Islam,1 has [sic] led many, when asked what the difference, in their view, was between Islam and Christianity, to declare: "Christianity is life, Islam is death." '

(Quotes are from two articles:'God's Time for Algeria', in Christianity Today, January 2007, and (final quote) from 'Christianity is Life', in Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2001).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 8, 2008 8:01 PM

New readers take note.

You are being presented, through 'istanbulnotconstantinople' with a quick introduction to the typical mindset and debating techniques of the Mohammedan Disruptor.

Observe first of all the insultingly supremacist choice of nickname. This creature clearly approves of the mass murder and mass rapes and mass enslavements, the vandalism and pillage, by which the Christian Greek city of Constantinople was made 'Muslim' by the Muslim invaders, when it fell in 1453 on Black Tuesday, 'The Last Day of the World'. He is deliberately attempting to rub salt in the wounded memory of Greek Christians and indeed of all historically-minded Christians who view this past event as a disaster and grieve for those who were slaughtered.

Observe also this statement: "Im really not sure who to believe- there's a Christian newspaper, a Protestant minister, Robert Spencer , a lawyer and a policeman.

A quintet of untrustworthy types if you will."

Leaving aside the attempt to distract, by invoking stereotypical prejudices about lawyers and policemen, note that 'istanbul' seems to regard the fact that something is 'Christian' as completely sufficient proof that it cannot be trusted.

This is straight out of the Quran: Muslims are taught that no kafir, or non-Muslim, is to be trusted. Paranoia about kafir, and contempt for them, is taught by passages such as this:

Qur’an 3:118 “Believers! Take not into your intimacy those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, and Christians). They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths. What their hearts conceal is far worse. When they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say unto them: ‘Perish in your rage.’”

And these (summarised):
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.

3:73 Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim ('believe in none except those who follow your own religion').
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends.
5: 42 - 'They [Jews, Christians, non-Muslims] listen to falsehoods and practise what is unlawful.

This prima facie assumption that all non-Muslims qua non-Muslims must not be believed, and cannot be trusted, is also present in sharia. Even where sharia is not officially 'on the books', many of its provisions still shape Muslim attitudes.

In sharia law the life of a non-Muslim is regarded as being less valuable than the life of a Muslim. A Muslim may be executed for killing a fellow-Muslim; but is not liable to the death penalty for killing a non-Muslim.

Non-Muslims are not permitted to testify against Muslims in court.

Dr Mark Durie, acting as expert witness for the accused in a notorious court case in Australia in which Muslims accused two Christian pastors of racism and discrimination (because of soberly critical statements the Christians had made about Islam),

on page 82 of his witness statement

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/pdf/313278_VCAT_-_DOCUMENTS_RELATIN.pdf

summarises some of the conditions of dhimmitude:

"Dhimmi testimony is not valid against a Muslim. This principle applied throughout the whole Islamic world in one form or another before the colonial period.

"If a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christian’s own testimony was not valid in their defense.

"This also entrenched a principle that non-Muslim versions of events are regarded as suspect and unreliable."

Curiously enough, one also finds that Islam permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in order to advance Islam (that is, in order to enable Muslims to gain ascendancy, temporal and political ascendancy and dominance, over non-Muslims).

Nonie Darwish recalled: "On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions", and the first of these was "Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam."

So, new reader to this site, you must bear in mind two things when attempting to argue with any Muslim who turns up.

a. THEY are permitted to LIE to you, if they think that lying will help them, the Muslim, to gain the upper hand over you, the non-Muslim.

b. They have been taught that it is YOU who are out to get them, YOU whose word cannot be trusted, YOU who are - qua kafir - a liar. So in lying to you they feel perfectly justified - after all, you're out to get them, they have got to 'get' you, first.

How can two people communicate at all, when the kafir cannot trust the Muslim to tell the truth - and the Muslim is also starting from the assumption that all kafir are liars?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 9, 2008 1:31 AM

I have been reading several comment threads here on Dhimmiwatch; ones that "istanbulnotconstantiople" has participated in, and I've found some interesting patterns.

First of all, it appears that he only posts on Dhimmiwatch, and not on Jihadwatch. Maybe he thinks this is a "softer" target?

He usually starts attacking Robert, then points out some way Robert or the rest of us are biased, and points out how "Christians do it too!"

Then, as has been pointed out already on another post, after evidence is produced against his original argument, he shifts tactics, usually bringing in completely off-topic stuff, and then disappears.

I'm still waiting for a simple answer of where he found a quote he claimed Mo made.

So, to you, I ask again: Why couldn't you answer that, since you produced a full notation when someone else seemed to mis-quote him? Huh?

Posted by: Mo Foe at June 9, 2008 3:03 AM

Mo Foe:

"it appears that he only posts on Dhimmiwatch, and not on Jihadwatch"

If he now turns up on J.W, we're holding YOU personally responsible!

Posted by: western infidel at June 9, 2008 8:28 AM

OK. Unlike many Muslims (and hell, lots of other folks, too) I take responsibility for my actions!

But, after the treatment he's gotten here (actual evidence shown to him, is irrelevant arguments pointed out as such, and his errors used against him), I would be very surprised if he turns up anywhere near this site any time soon.

I mean, it must really insulting for a Muslim to find his "superior" ways ignored, mocked and found wanting over and over!

Posted by: Mo Foe at June 9, 2008 11:42 AM