Listen carefully to what Harris Zafar is doing here. He repeatedly says that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has the freedom of speech, but then says that he is “surprised” that Yale invited her because of her views on Islam, and “invites” her to speak not about Islamic supremacism, Sharia, and jihad, but to echo the Ahmadi line, falsely claiming that it is the largest single Muslim group, when actually it is a tiny minority that is denounced as heretical and persecuted in Pakistan and Indonesia. So Megyn Kelly was quite right to point out that what he was actually saying was that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has the right to speak but shouldn’t be given any forum unless she stays within the bounds of what Zafar and his group consider to be acceptable.
That’s not really an affirmation of the freedom of speech at all. Predictably, Megyn Kelly is being criticized for “exploding” at Zafar, when in reality she was exposing his smooth hypocrisy.
Note also Zafar’s laughable claim at the end of the clip, “We will never try to silence anyone. We want to respond to speech with our speech.” Zafar and his fellow Ahmadis, such as the repulsively arrogant and rude Qasim Rashid, are not really interested in discussion and debate at all. (In fact, Zafar agreed to debate me a couple of years ago, but never quite got around to agreeing to a time or place.) Instead, they generally resort to the all-too-familiar tactic of vicious ad hominem attacks against those they oppose, heaping abuse rather than engaging their arguments, and preening about their own peacefulness and tolerance while dishing out gutter abuse.
Megyn Kelly is right: Harris Zafar is no friend of free speech; he is a sly and cunning advocate for authoritarianism and Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech. I showed that over a year ago, in this January 2013 article: “Washington Post Publishes Muslim’s Sly Case Against Free Speech,” at Atlas Shrugs:
Ahmadi spokesmen like the strutting Qasim Rashid and the execrable Harris Zafar, the author of a recent Washington Post op-ed, carry water for the same Islamic supremacists who would cheerfully slit their throats if they were back in Pakistan, and instead target those who stand up for the Ahmadis and decry their persecution. In the WaPo, Zafar offered a manifesto for the destruction of the freedom of speech worthy of a true totalitarian – and emblematic of the Islamic supremacist war on free speech and all criticism of Islam.
“The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the view promoted by free speech advocates these days,” Zafar asserts, “is the intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free speech advocates promote individualism.”
This glossy Orwellian language, “uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people,” actually means “imposing Sharia upon mankind, and subjugating non-Muslims as inferiors under its rule.” That’s the unity Zafar envisions, as the Ahmadis teach Sharia supremacy even as they eschew violent jihad. Zafar makes this clear when he says that “the ultimate goal of Islam is to unite mankind under a single banner of peace.” The only unity of mankind that Islam’s core texts envision is that of the rule of Islamic law and the concomitant denial of basic rights to non-Muslims.
“In order to unite mankind,” Zafar continues, “Islam instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and respectful. It attempts to pre-empt [sic] frictions by prescribing rules of conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement.”
Actually, Islam doesn’t allow for the freedom of speech at all. And its idea of “fairness” and “absolute justice” includes the death penalty for apostates and institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women.
Zafar attempts to base his argument on Islam’s foundational book: “The Koran instructs people to speak the truth (33:71), to speak in a manner that is best (17:54), to speak to others kindly (2:84) and to refrain from inappropriate speech (4:149). With Islam’s guidance to purify our intentions, it promotes free speech when our intention is to serve a good purpose, promote peace, bring people closer to God and unite mankind. If, however, our intentions are to insult others or promote disorder or division, we should refrain.” He does not, however, mention Koran 3:28, which warns believers not to take unbelievers as friends (َأَوْلِيَا — a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), “unless you have a fear of them.” This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan — hence the familiar term taqiyya. The Koran commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase rendered here as “unless you have a fear of them” means that “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi’ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi’ites, “it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur’an 3:28.” The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda, among others, practice it today.
With evident distaste, Zafar claims that “the most vocal proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path, where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It fosters animosity, resentment and disorder.”
Note the sleight of hand: “With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism.” Zafar is implying that the Muslims who riot and kill because of perceived affronts to Islam are not responsible for their own actions, but that those who supposedly provoked them are. This is an increasingly widespread confusion in the West, willfully spread by people like Zafar and his Islamic supremacist allies. In reality, the only person responsible for his actions is the person who is acting, not anyone else. You may provoke me in a hundred ways, but my response is my own, which I choose from a range of possible responses, and only I am responsible for it.
But having established that if someone riots and kills in response to someone else’s speech, the fault lies with the speaker, not the rioter, Zafar drives his point home: speech must be restricted in the interests of “world peace”: “Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and unity.”
And who will decide what speech accords with “world peace and harmony,” and what speech does not? Why, Islamic supremacists like Zafar, of course. The argument that calling attention to the motives and goals of jihadists and Islamic supremacists so that free people can more effectively resist them will be dismissed out of hand.
But Zafar doesn’t want us to worry about that, for he assures us that “Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted. Islam grants everyone the right to express disagreements with others. After all, the Prophet Muhammad called differences of opinion a blessing in society and never sought to censor or threaten those who verbally attacked him.”
Actually, according to a manual of Islamic law certified as reliable by al-Azhar, the foremost institution in Sunni Islam, Islam mandates death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention “something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.10).
Zafar plows on, however, as his argument becomes ever more fanciful, false, and divorced from reality: “According to the Koran, disbelievers called [Muhammad] ‘a mad man,’ ‘a victim of deception,’ a ‘fabricator’ and treated him as a liar. Some claimed he was taught by another person instead of receiving revelations from God. They called the Koran ‘confused dreams’ and ‘mere stories of the past’ and even tore it into pieces. Through this all, he courageously endured all verbal assaults. Rather than calling for any punishment, the Koran instructs us to ‘overlook their annoying talk’ and ‘bear patiently what they say.’ The lesson here for all Muslims is that we are not to be afraid of insults. Rather, we must have the same courage as our Prophet to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech. Muslims must learn how their faith instructs them to respond when they are verbally attacked. No riots; no violence. We respond to speech with speech, but our speech is to be better and more dignified.”
This sounds great, except for the fact that none of it is true. Actually, Muhammad responded to insults by ordering the murder of those who insulted him, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)
Then there was Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka‘b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)
Perhaps mindful of such material despite his denial that it exists, Zafar then slyly calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech of those whose speech he finds offensive – all in the name of “uniting people,” of course: “So while antagonists and enemies of peace create slanderous videos, cartoons or advertisements – like the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film, Pamela Geller’s new ignorant NYC subway ads and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon about Prophet Muhammad – let us not fall for their claim that an individual’s privilege to say whatever they want is more important than the higher principle of uniting people and saving this planet from a path of animosity, hatred and destruction. Rather than falsely accusing Islam of censorship, let us understand the beauty of giving higher consideration to mankind over our own personal privileges. And let us listen to the wisdom of the Khalifa of Islam, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who said: ‘Let it not be that in the name of freedom of speech the peace of the entire world be destroyed.’”
Instead, Zafar and Ahmad would have it that authoritarian controls on speech be imposed in the name of a spurious Islamic peace.
ralph says
Yes, this “Devil” is a follower of Satan and all of the Muslim’s follow this Satan… Lie to the Un-Believer; but tell the Muslim the truth… Just like God’s Angel told Hagar… Genesis 16:7 – 12… They will be Wild Donkeys and Against everyone and everyone’s against them and they even to their own brothers… What a Forest Of Barbarians and IDIOTS.
Huck Folder says
And his CULT is mohammedanism, SAME as the rest. A few years ago I read one of the UK Ahmadi’s long unctuous screeds about the genocide of the entire Banu Qurayza* clan. 800-900 boys and men from say from 11 to 70 years old were beheaded by mo’s brigands and the younger boys and all the girls and women given to the salivating lechers for sex slaves and anything else they wanted, 20% to mo personally, the rest divided up by mo’s commands.
After that long pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-religious article they decided – of course – that mo was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Bastards – may they all burn in hell.
* Wow, typing Banu Qurayza into Google, only needs the “banu” (without the quotes) for this to be the FIRST citation of nearly 84,000. So this is the most viewed page for those four letters.
That’s the same a typing in “haj a” to get the dirt on one of the worst islamists before baghdadi came along. The first citation is the Wikipedia article which gives all the details of Hitler’s BFF.
Beagle says
Megyn Kelly is the Left and Islamic supremacists latest target for defamation. Bill Ayers is in full demonization mode as well. That actual terrorists and deceptive opponents of our fundamental rights don’t like her means I should probably set the DVR so I don’t miss even one minute of her show.
Don McKellar says
Megyn Kelly has really emerged as a heroic truth-seeking reporter and journalist in recent years in the face of all the propoganda, artificial politically correct gobbily gook, and monied influence to white-wash Islam in the mainstream media. The curses that must be screamed in her name by these slippery taquiyya and kitman employing snake oil salesmen once the get out of earshot must be amazing! I would love to see somebody capture one of these guys in a secret voice recording after they get off air, having been demasked and in a barely contained fury!
voegelinian says
While Megyn Kelly may be wise to the Muslims (or honorary Muslims) like Zafar, she unfortunately showed recently that she remains naively gullible to those few Islamopologists who are trying a new tactic cleverer than the Good Cop — the Better Cop. The Better Cop is the Good Cop who realizes that some of the Kuffar are wising up; so he adopts an even glossier, slimier Moderation to keep the warier Infidels from pursuing the logic of their horrible awakening to Islam (i.e., to all Muslims): Enter Maajid Nawaz, whispering sweet jihad into Megyn Kelly’s ear, and she pretty much laps it up and coos.
Wellington says
I agree with your analysis here, voegelinian, and think it a good one, though I would add a modest element of optimism by noting that Kelly is moving in the right direction, though of course more movement is necessary. She is after all, in addition to being beautiful, highly intelligent and seemingly ready to learn more. I reminded here what Paul Johnson, the great English historian, said of Harry Truman, to wit, he was ignorant but he learned fast. Hopefully Kelly will do the same where an accurate knowledge of Islam is concerned.
Jay Boo says
Every Muslim says (No god but Allah)
but what does this English translation here really mean.
Muslims claim that we must use the Arabic language.
A moment of free speech eviscerates evil’s veil.
Look at the shame faced Iraqis to understand their Islam’s meaning
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/yazidi-parliamentarian-we-are-being-butchered-under-the-banner-of-there-is-no-god-but-allah
also at Youtube if you wish to share
with moderate claiming Muslims
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Muslims claim that we must use the Arabic language.
By hiding in a self-wrapping of exoticism, Moslems have perfected the art of not being held responsible to their facts, which are very bad facts. It would be impolite, of course, to ask them what this ayat does mean in Arabic. Maybe Spencer can tell us; my bet is that he’ll say it means… there must be no god but Allah. Wow, that’s a tough one. Claiming idiom is akin to the oft used claim about being taken out of context.
With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation…
Which requires an admission that Moslems purposefully let themselves be provoked, and at a low trigger threshold. Those political cartoons come to mind.
*** 610 * 624 * 632 * 664 * 711 * 1492 * 2001 ***
So Megyn Kelly is a lawyer, and she’s patting herself on the back for cross examining and exposing a professional liar. Doing this is no feat, and anybody with common sense would know his line is bullsheet on its face, with no questions at all.
Note that Kelly didn’t do what Spencer does here in his follow up: put the facts to the lie. She avoided that either through willful ignorance (probable) or in the knowledge that to use the facts of Islam against a Moslem lying about Islam would be impolite because those facts are so terrible, so leave Islam out of this not only out of politesse but also because it would be personally dangerous (possible, but I don’t think she’s that smart).
anon says
Hesperado
Well maybe Spencer is better at skewering them, but no Muzzie wants to debate him and he largely speaks to those who know that Islam is bad.
Kelly OTOH has a national show and Muzzies will come on and try to debate her and they end up looking real bad. It’s still a win, just not the sort you approve of.
Jay Boo says
All pious Muslims practice their lying skills at least five times a day.
Salah says
Robert rightly wrote:
“Actually, Muhammad responded to insults by ordering the murder of those who insulted him…”
Muhammad’s only response: Assassination!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/03/assassin-english.html
Jay Boo says
Some of the 911 bombers came in to the US on Student Visas.
This is what these Muslim Student Organizations seek to defend.
Burt says
Well done Megyn Kelly, a true feminist, unlike the rest in the media who call themselves feminists but don’t give a moments thought to the real oppression and enslavement of women.
Jay Boo says
What are our Universities becoming?
— Pedophile State University abuses children and the Penn State bumper sticker locals rally to back up the revenue generating football team.
— Brandeis University attacks the freedom of speech with Muslims liars and knee-jerk liberals coming eagerly to defend it for doing so.
Wellington says
Jay Boo: I agree with so much that you write, but what happened at Penn State has been a witch hunt. I would not include Penn State with what Brandeis did. There is no comparison. None.
Joe Paterno at no time covered up for Jerry Sandusky and Curley, Schultz and Spanier, I am convinced, never did either. The Freeh Report is seriously flawed as many have pointed out (including by a former Governor of Pennsylvania and Attorney General under Bush 41, Richard Thornburgh). Of the four in question, Tim Curley, the AD, came the closest to the truth about Sandusky, but when he conveyed his suspicions to the certified psychologist who ran Sandusky’s Second Mile, this psychologist said to Curley that he (Curley) was mentally ill if he really thought that. Child molesters groom the community as well as their victims and suspicions don’t add up to solid evidence. It took the Commonwealth of Pennslvania years to formulate the case against Sandusky and it had the investigative resources to do this, something the four men in question most certainly did not. In hindsight, it looks to many that these four men participated in some kind of cover-up. But in truth they can really only be accused of being bad detectives, not bad men.
It has been a travesty of justice that has happened and I remain optimistic that, long term, the truth will prevail in this matter. For the record and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an alumnus of Penn State but I assure you, Jay Boo, if I had determined that one or more of these four men were guilty of knowingly covering up for a pedophile, I would have come down very hard on the university that I love.
This is all written in a spirit of friendship, Jay Boo. But I felt compelled to convey what I did to you. I could have conveyed a great deal more but I thought this would be enough here on this thread. Take good care.
Jay Boo says
Wellington , I mean no disrespect to you or any student who went to Penn State for they are not responsible for the actions of the perpetrators.
As an alumnus of Penn State I suspect your insight might be clouded by the extremely well financed Penn State nostalgic rah rah media blitz campaign and high paid lawyers to hide the trail of a cover up.
You mentioned
“It took the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania years to formulate the case against Sandusky and it had the investigative resources to do this, something the four men in question most certainly did not.”
Yes, but why did it take so long?
The four men in question had a wall of football fans and people feeding off of Penn State football revenue who did not want to allow the truth to compromise the Penn State name brand. With that amount of financial backing and let’s be honest (thousands of fans that would back the team no matter what) it is difficult to believe that there wasn’t a cover up.
Institutions protect their own first of all. The Catholic church for example.
You mentioned
“Joe Paterno at no time covered up for Jerry Sandusky and Curley”
I believe you are correct. However it appears he did what many Catholic clergy have done, that is rationalize it all away and pretend it will go away on its own.
Yes, I too hope that the truth will prevail in this matter but I hope it will not become Penn’s State’s media version of the truth but the actual truth.
My fear is that the institution will eventually fall back into old bad habits of football uber alles thinking.
Wellington says
It won’t fall back into the bad habits, Jay Boo, because the bad habits never existed in the first place. This claim that football was God at Penn State is itself largely to compeltely false. It’s very much a straw man. Yes, football was (and is) a huge part of State’s identity and generated very large sums of money, but this doesn’t translate into one or more of these four men 1) knowing that Sandusky was a child molester, 2) having the evidence to prove it and 3) knowingly covering things up——–though many make this “leap of faith.”
The very year that this whole tragic tale unfolded, Penn State’s football team was tied for first place with Stanford respecting the graduation rate of its players. Until November 2011 when the Sandusky investigation by the Commonwealth was revealed to the public, Penn State had never had a single NCAA violation in any sport. It always played by the rules and still won.
The reason why the investigation of Sandusky took so long has nothing to do with Penn State in any manner holding it up. This investigaton was conducted out of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office and it is simply the case that many investigations take a long time before a grand jury is called. The fact that you asked the question as you did, implies a stalling tactic or something along these lines by one or more at Penn State. No such thing happened. Also, keep in mind that Sandusky was a clever man for many years and groomed his victims most carefully and furtively. At the same time he was very successful at promoting himself in the State College community as a model citizen who helped wayward boys. Also remember that he no longer coached at Penn State after 1999, though he did have emeritus status there.
Finally, while Paterno, Spanier, Curley (especially him) and Schultz suspected Sandusky, they had to be careful for liability’s sake not to make a charge against him that they could not prove in a court of law. Indeed, Sandusky could have sued them and Penn State for defamation if they failed——and I think they were sure to fail because, while they had bits and pieces of information, they simply didn’t have enough to proceed against Sandusky. Then too, the evidence shows what regular people invariably do when it comes to their attention that someone they know might be a child molester——-they come up with all kinds of scenarios, however remote, that allows them to think that the person they suspect really is innocent. This is highly typical behavior by normal people and this certainly occured with all four of these men.
A professor of sociology at Penn State wrote a most interesting article in which he said that all those out there accusing the four men of a cover-up are full of crap if they thought they would have acted any differently. Only two or three people out of a thousand, this professor maintained statistics showed, would have pursued things more than these four men did, and those two or three would have to be obsessive-compulsive types.
Look, I could go on about many matters here, for instance the screw-ups and arrogance of the NCAA, the 1998 State College Police investigation (which had nothing to do with Penn State) of Sandusky which was dropped, yet a second certified psychologist maintaining that no way was Sandusky a pedophile, the pusillanimous actions of many on the Penn State Board of Trustees, the changing story told by Mike McQueary (btw, incredibly the Freeh team before they issued their Report never interviewed McQueary), etc., but, again, this is not the thead for it. I can, however, assure you that my insight is not clouded by being a Penn State alumnus. I have made every effort to look at this first and foremost from a legal perspective since I am a lawyer. The case against Joe Paterno for anything is non-existent and the case against Spanier, Curley and Schultz is very weak. It is a tragedy that an extremely good man, Joe Paterno, who helped hundreds upon hundreds of young men to become better men, has had his extraordinary legacy tarnished as he has. It is a tragedy in and of itself, though I see now where defenders of Paterno (and the other three) have been likened to 9/11 truthers. I’m sure you will understand why I find this comparison disgusting.
Again, Jay Boo, I write in a spirit of friendship, not hostility, but having read the original grand jury report many times over, having gone through hundreds of articles on this matter, having gone through the Freeh Report and the Paterno family retort to the Freeh Report, et al., I have concluded that the case against Penn State has been very badly mangled and that emotion, rather than reason, has prevailed in this whole mess. It’s why I refer to it as a witch hunt. Now back to the fight against the greatest of enemies, eh, my friend?
thehalalporkchop says
Your typical mendacious grievance mongering taqiyya artist.
Thanks M Kelly. More and more people are getting their #.
Keep up the good work even if Fox is 20% Saudi owned.
Truth says
The Muslim prophet Mohammad is an evil child molester (he married a 6 year old little girl) and an evil supporter of slavery. Nobody should follow the piece of trash Mohammad anywhere.
Sam says
I hope Megyn will become another Pam Geller. Thanks Megyn
mortimer says
Zafar objects to ‘confrontation’, yet fascists need confronting!
His solution is to let Islamic fascists push others around and maintain the upper hand with no one calling them out.
mortimer says
Zafar is a case of TYPICAL ISLAMIC BAIT-AND-SWITCH!
Firstly, agree with free speech.
Secondly, switch and disagree with free speech.
Thirdly, say free speech is for people who agree with Islam.
Anushirvan says
The only reason why Ahmadiyya muslims are considered beyond the pale is NOT because their version of Islam varies all that much in comparison with the 4 Sunni madhabs, but simply because the founder of Ahmadiyya Islam has breached the seal of the prophets, elevating himself to a status equal to that of Mohammed.
Which is shirk / bid’ah, because in Sunni Islam, Allah’s guidance has been transmitted to Mohammed alone and not to a successor.
The same accusation is also leveled against all Shiites, simply because they consider their imams – descended from the Ahl Al Bayt – to be infallible.
Again shirk / bid’ah, because only Allah can be infallible and his prophet is the only one whose example has to be emulated. Shiite imams should not claim divine authority. But Shiites claim they have.
And last but not least, the same accusation is also leveled against Sufis. There are (and have been) as many Sufi schools of thought (tariqa) as there have been independent scholars elevating themselves to the status of a muslim saint (Pir), acting as a spiritual guide for the performance of dhikr, involving ritualized practices of recitation, singing, music, dance, incense, meditation, ecstasy, and trance to get closer to Allah .
Which amounts to the same thing: shirk / bid’ah.
Across these subdenominations of Islam, the implementation of Sharia Law is exactly the same and not open to differing interpretations. Simply because this would be the essential cornerstone of ALL Islam.
Islam = Sharia + emulation of the prophet
Apart from understanding why muslims are continually at each others’ throats, these non-essential ‘additives’ (infallibility of imams, self-proclaimed sainthood / prophethood and heavily ritualized spiritual practices) don’t really make any difference with regards to the correct implementation of Sharia Law in the long run.
In essence, THEY ALL BELIEVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING !
R Cole says
That was the full magic carpet.
The moderate Islamic sharia ride.
:: ::
Lofty words but what are they saying.
Putting aside the forced conversions that highlighted the early years of Islam and the conversions due to subjugating laws [and hefty taxes] that made it difficult in any Islamic country to be a non-Muslim – you wonder how it is that intelligent people can be seduced into converting. A huge part of Islam’s appeal – is that it’s designed so that the person sees oneself as being superior [read: better than others].
Then we get on to its absolutism [cruel and unusual laws] and the uptopian vision that supports it. Enter ISIS.
Hirsi Ali
There is nothing worst for Islam than to have former Muslims unrestrained. In most parts of the Islamic world former Muslims are either jailed or if they are freed [after having been detained] have their freedoms severely restricted – are often followed by police and have their passports or other travel documents confiscated. But here is one that is not only free but free to speak on their knowledge of Islam – which would normally be Muslim preserve.
What is worst for a utopia than someone in it pointing out the flaws in its vision.
Absolute Islam
First one has to be moved by the superior vision Islam offers – then to understand how affronts and challenges can create discord around the body of thought – then to be so moved as to work with Muslims to create laws – that would protect the substance of the vision.
Only – except in the US this is unconstitutional. There can be no laws made in favor of religion or bar freedom of speech and expression – in this regard. There can be no Islamic shari’a laws – no matter how fine a platter the advocacy for them is placed on.
It’s by the people – for the people.
Not by the religion – for the religion!
There can be no dissidents under Islam in the United States.
RodSerling says
Robert wrote that “…the Ahmadis teach Sharia supremacy even as they eschew violent jihad.”
I’ve heard and read many times over the years that Ahmadis reject violent jihad. I’ve never seen any evidence to support this claim. Where are the quotes from Ahmadi scriptures that say that Ahmadis should reject all the violent jihad/qital verses of the Qur’an? Where is the evidence that the majority of Ahmadi Muslims reject violence, including violence in self-defense or defense of the religion? Even from the deceptive Ahmadi apologists in the West, I have yet to see even a feigned rejection of violent jihad in defense of Islam, Qur’anic or otherwise. Instead, all I see from them, on the topic of violent jihad, are apologetics and polemics.
RodSerling says
Harris Zafar doesn’t reject the violent verses of the Qur’an. Rather, he claims they are all justified in defense of the freedom to practice the religion and worship God, as reactions against religious “persecution,” etc. Even through all of his deceptions (e.g., see below), he still argues that violent jihad in defense of Muslims’ freedom to practice Islam is completely valid. Here is Zafar [my brackets and bolding]:
p. 42 “…Taking all of the aforementioned verses together establishes the fact–not simply an opinion–that fighting in Islam is only permitted as a response to religious persecution so that anyone’s practice of faith is exclusively due to one’s worship of God, not due to any societal or governmental pressure or compulsion.”
p. 43 “Whatever justification such Muslims may feel for these battles [Palestinians vs Israelis, Pakistanis vs Indians over Kashmir, etc.], they cannot be called “Jihad,” as the Quran is abundantly clear that this lesser Jihad is only justified as a self-defense in the face of physical persecution due exclusively to one’s belief in Islam. It is solely meant to protect houses of worship from being destroyed and from followers of any religion being persecuted for their faith.”
p. 44 “[The Qur’an] established that fighting is only allowed in self-defense for the freedom to practice one’s faith.”
Demystifying Islam: Tackling the Tough Questions
By Harris Zafar
http://books.google.ca/books?id=O5XAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=zafar+harris+defense+jihad+violence&source=bl&ots=dzHkI54Aga&sig=5JvJtoDMpWtJdBqhXiLvGoIHmDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ffAdVLOkIMqzyATa_oFI&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=defense%20jihad%20violence&f=false
RodSerling says
p.s.
-“persecution” = anything against Islam and sharia
-“freedom the practice one’s faith” = freedom to implement sharia
Jaladhi says
This guy is a total liar just like the rest of the Muslims! They lie so much that hey believe their own lies as the truth. These liars should be exposed at every opportunity but I doubt very much if the MSM is capable of doing that mostly because they are ignorant and they the lies told to them by Muslims.
Ahmadias are just as Muslims as the rest of them – they follow the same Quran and pray to the same Mo/allah – so whats the difference between them and other Muslims. None, yet other Muslims don’t regard Ahmadis as Muslims.
Wellington says
I agree with all you wrote, Jaladhi, but what stuck out for me the most from your post is your saying that Muslims lie so much, engage in deception so much, that they “believe their own lies as truth.”
Yes, they do. In other words, they have brainwashed themselves. Very sad but very Islamic.
duh_swami says
I turn that zafar character off, and that reformer guy Jasser as well. I already know what they are going to say.
All the talking heads at FOX talk out of both sides of their mouths at once about Islam…Kelly probably the least, but she is not exempt. Instead of repeated appearances of taqiyya artists, how about Kelly invite Spencer for a talk on ‘core texts and causes’.
PRCS says
How about she invites RS the day AFTER she gets Anjem Choudary on the program.
Champ says
testing
pongidae rex says
So Islam is about:
“cultivating love and understanding among people”…
How is it possible that people who say drivel like this are not laughed out of serious discussions? If the road to ‘love and understanding’ under Islam is littered with headless corpses, torture victims and scattered body parts, heaven help us if Islam ever becomes violent.
Uneasy One says
I am a leftist. But I am no tr0ll. If my comments are removed or nobody has a positive take on my comments, I’ll leave and never darken your door again.
We all know the guy was lyin’ no question about that. But I think that Ms Kelly got ahead of herself and didn’t let him far enough out on that limb before she sawed it off. To an impartial observer, it would look like she was picking on a guy who loved free speech as much as she did. Nobody hates free speech as much as muslims and radical feminists. but he merely expressed surprise at the choice and invited a dialogue.
I have some respect for your opinion Mr Spenser, and if you say that the muslim was contradicting previous statements he had made to other audiences, I believe you. That’s the muslim way.
But it’s time my fellow lefties are awakened to the danger we all face – and Megan, BillO or Rush ain’t gonna do it. If I hear from Fox News that the sun is shining, I’m gonna hafta look outside.
But you can go on a leftist website and mercilessly trash any religion in the world – except islam. No matter how diplomatic you are about Mo’s actual life, a flock of attackers will descend and the comment will likely be removed.
That has to change. Leftists can be stupid, sometimes, but we ain’t alone in that. Bush relentlessly told us islam was a religion of peace, and he and Cheney financed, armed and trained that “Sunni awakening” they were so proud of. Reagan gave us Al Queida to beat the Russkis.
Meanwhile, Bush’s Saudi friends are building Wahhabi mosques everywhere they can buy land. Peaceful muslims come here and have 10 kids who are radicalized in those mosques.
Don’t get me wrong, here, Obama is still pushing the religion of peace crap, but at least he is taking some action against IS. But I think he has seriously underestimated the problem
islam is a religion of war, hatred, intolerance and conquest. It’s prophet was a brutal, rapist, slaver. To condemn that is to condemn Mohammed and be apostate – if you’re muslin- or a blasphemer if you’re not – subject to the death penalty by any muslim wants to carry it out.
Wellington says
I am a conservative and have many disagreements with those on the left but I welcome your comment to the effect that Islam is coming after all of us and here we need to bury our differences and present a united front against the one major faith, as Bertrand Russell noted almost a century ago (and Russell, of course, was very much a man of the left), that is totalitarian in structure and ideology. Islam is essentially spiritual fascism and, as such, a mortal enemy of liberty. It is the only religon that calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever and is pretty much deep bad news across the board. No reason for leftists and those on the right to be at odds on the matter of Islam, though I would note that to date definitely more on the right have come to understand the danger Islam poses than have those on the left. Time for the left to catch up here.
Uneasy One says
“Time for the left to catch up here.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I believe in Scandinavian style socialism and oppose all forms of totalitarianism. I look into Putin’s eyes and see pure KGB.
But I can’t make a reasonable comment on a leftist site about islam without being censored.
There are a couple of prominent leftists like Ali herself and Sam Harris who know and speak the truth, not enough.
PRCS says
I used to visit NewsHounds, just to test your claim.
And you are quite right.
From August 21, this idiocy from staffer Priscilla:
“Given her belief that American Christians are under seige, Andrea Tantaros has either an incredible lack of self awareness or she just doesn’t care about her own double standard when it comes to her hatred of Islam. Tantaros, who claims to have studied the Koran, was accused of promoting hate speech when, during a speech at Guilford College, she called Islam “a religion of hate” and made some other equally offensive, stereotyping comments. She has used her Fox News platform to make similar inflammatory and ignorant remarks about Islam which she says is “the most intolerant religion in the world.” On yesterday’s Outnumbered, in yet another Islamophobic rant, she, once again, demonstrated that she doesn’t know shit about Islam. But then she thinks that atheism is a religion that is being imposed on Americans….
While Tantaros claims that Islam is intolerant, she has nothing to say about homophobic “Christian” hate groups and pastors whose comments are documented on Right Wing Watch. But that doesn’t stop her from saying stupid shit like “Muslims won’t stop killing us until everybody in this country is a Muslim or is ruled by Muslims.” While Christians certainly have their own unsavory history of forced conversions and killing of “infidels,” Tantaros says that the goal of Islam is “to kill or convert,” and that this ultimatum has been its modus operandi “for as long as anybody can remember” – an assertion that is highly offensive to the millions of peaceful Muslims, including those in the US, who aren’t forcing conversions to Islam.
Yesterday, during a discussion about the savage death of James Foley Tantaros proffered this gem:
They’ve been doing this for hundreds and hundreds of years. If you study the history of Islam, our ship captains were getting murdered. The French had to tip us off. I mean these were the days of Thomas Jefferson. They’ve been doing the same thing. This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. It’s the only thing these people understand. And all we’ve heard from this president is a case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them.
Tantaros is referring to the Barbary pirates who weren’t jihadists but, rather, Muslim men who attacked ships, off the North African coast, for plunder and slaves. In other words, they were in it for the money as were American privateers during the Revolution. Ironically, the Treaty of Tripoli, established between the US and the Barbary states, stated that the US “is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” (Bet Tantaros doesn’t know that!)
She also doesn’t seem to have any sense that Islam has produced great civilizations (think algebra) which peacefully coexisted with Christians and Jews (Spain, during the Convivencia) while European Christian countries were persecuting Jews. When the Catholic conquistadors conquered the America’s, they engaged in forced conversion. When the Muslims conquered their lands, Christians and Jews were ONLY required to pay a special tax.
What Tantaros doesn’t seem to understand is that radical Islam and ISIS are aberrations of Islam – as those who murder abortion doctors, vandalize clinics, and preach violence against gays in the name of Jesus are aberrations of Christianity.
When anybody (especially those evil atheists) dares to challenge the intrusion of Christianity into the public square, Fox is all outraged. Yet, Andrea Tantaros can make stupid and hateful Islamophobic comments, on a national “fair & balanced” news network. Not for nothing is Fox News, “the place where you can bash Islam with impunity.” But Fox hosts love Jesus so it’s all good…
It’s true that Tantaros has a flawed understanding of Islam, but dear Priscilla, in her absolute stupidity, epitomizes much of the Left’s thinking.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply. Welcome aboard. By all means, bring as many fellow leftists over to the realization that what Bertrand Russell said about Islam is eminently true.
One other comment. It’s this: Old-fashion liberalism of the Harry Truman and Clement Attlee kind is still one I have differences with, for instance how much government should exist or how how high taxes should be, but these old-style liberals were quite sensible about calling out evil and dealing with it, basically as good as the old conservatives, in fact at times even better. But beginning in the Sixties, liberalism began to fail big time in dealing with evil. It got horribly morally relativistic. That’s why another old-fashion liberal, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said that the greatest failing of modern liberalism is its inability to recognize and deal with evil.
Well, nothing is more malevolent than Islam. A few things as much, but none more. Time for the collective left to have an epiphany about this.
RodSerling says
Uneasy One,
You wrote: “To an impartial observer, it would look like she was picking on a guy who loved free speech as much as she did.”
Perhaps, if the impartial observer was inattentive to what was actually said.
“Nobody hates free speech as much as muslims and radical feminists. but he merely expressed surprise at the choice and invited a dialogue.”
He didn’t merely express surprise.
Zafar misleadingly claimed that Hirsi Ali called for the military conquest of Muslims (in fact Hirsi Ali is referring to military conquest of militant groups and supporters of terrorism, not Muslims broadly), and absurdly claims that she “espouses” a radical militant view of Islam. He expressed “surprise” that a prestigious institution like Yale would invite such a person to speak. He further clearly implied that he found it “troubling” that Yale invited her to speak, when he was about to talk about what he found “more troubling” (i.e., more troubling than the fact that she was invited to speak at Yale).
Zafar, by the upshot of his own words, was clearly disappointed (at the very least) that she was invited. He later claimed to be glad she was invited. (Think about that: His story is (a) that he’s troubled that Yale invited someone to speak who calls for the military conquest of Muslims generally, and (b) that he’s glad that they invited this same person to speak). Kelly was right to jump on this obvious contradiction, in my opinion, especially given the limited time frame of these segments, where Zafar is ready to expound on the wonders of Ahmadi Islam given the opportunity.
Thinking From First Principles says
OK folks, please let the light bulb go on now.
THIS is why you don’t have Muslims denouncing the horrific acts being done by other Muslims in the name of Islam.
I had a co-worker from Bangladesh who taught me this about Islam thirty years ago. These limits on critical speech are deeply ingrained in the Muslim psyche. Your speech cannot criticize the behavior of another Muslim, period. If you see another Muslim commit a wrong act, you may not mention it – it is between that Muslim and Allah and you may not say anything under any circumstances or it is a sin. And even beyond that, even where the thing is not strictly wrong or bad, you may not make mention of anything that you know another Muslim would not want talked about. Period.
So the silence of the Muslims simply their putting faith into action on this deeply ingrained belief, and understand that you will never hear the criticism and condemnation of horrific acts that we in the West are looking for.
RodSerling says
ThFFP,
That’s not broadly true. Yes, Muslims are instructed not to unduly say critical things that would get their fellow Muslims in trouble or bring them to misfortune, especially when the authority is non-Muslim. But enforcing Islam takes precedence over this. Hence, blasphemers, apostates, etc., are reported to the Islamic authorities. The Qur’an says the true believers are those who command the right and forbid the wrong, in words and deeds. If Muslims fail to do this, the Quran says they risk being punished by Allah. The Quran and Hadith are clear that Muslims must police their communities, opposing un-Islamic expressions and actions.
Protecting the image of Islam also takes precedence over protecting the image of individual Muslims. Zafar in the above segment talks about the reform of Muslims, not the reform of Islam. Muslims can be criticized and reformed; but true Islam, being perfect, according to his logic, cannot and should not be reformed.
Dave J says
All Muslims believe in jihad – it is their “holy duty” under Islam. But it is carried out in a manner suiting each individual, some by murder and suicide bombings, others by infiltration and maximum reproduction. The fact that Muslim women have such low status and follow orders so well makes them perfect for this duty.
This explains the almost complete lack of criticism or repudiation of violence by “moderate Muslims”, hint – there aren’t any. That Western countries would allow, even welcome Muslim immigration and financially support them as they engage in this traitorous behavior boggles the mind. It indicates some sort of white guilt/death wish is going on in the few remaining democracies.
Free speech only means praising Allah, just like equality means submission in Sharia land.
GbA says
I just read every comment from top to bottom and here is a huge shout-out for everyone who sees and writes the truth about Islam. Also a gigantic thanks to Robert Spencer for teaching us the truth.
P.S. Megyn, read the Qur’an and books by Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel .