• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

CNN falsely claims that Islamic law does not justify slavery

Nov 7, 2014 11:11 am By Robert Spencer

daesh-girls-slaves-isis-4“The CNN Freedom Project: Ending Modern-Day Slavery” has published a piece entitled “ISIS says Islam justifies slavery – what does Islamic law say?,” by Professor Bernard Freamon, who “teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History.”

We do not have a free press. On the issue of Islam and jihad the mainstream press is a one-party state, with a few dissenting voices allowed now and again on Fox. Another aspect of this is that what the mainstream does present about Islam is very often flatly false, as here. Professor Bernard Freamon claims that “the Quran established an entirely new ethic on the issue of slavery and ISIS’s selective use of certain Quranic texts to justify contemporary chattel slavery ignores this fact. First, consistent with the new ethic, the emphasis in all of the revelations on slavery is on the emancipation of slaves, not on their capture or the continuation of the institution of slavery. (See, for example, verses 2:177, 4:25, 4:92, 5:89, 14:31, 24:33, 58:3, 90:1-12.) There is not one single verse suggesting that the practice should continue.”

None of these verses actually calls for the freeing of all slaves. These verses all call for or recommend the freeing of slaves under certain specific circumstances. For example, 58:3 says: “And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” That is, those who divorce their wives but want them back have to free a slave before they can restore their marriage. This is not a call for universal abolition; none of the other verses he cites are, either.

What’s more, there is considerable evidence on the other side that Freamon ignores:

The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)

Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:

Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

But these facts don’t fit what the mainstream media wants you to think about Islam, so you will never see them on CNN. If CNN’s “Freedom Project” really wants to end modern-day slavery, it should stop spreading falsehoods about how that slavery is justified by those who perpetuate it.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: journalistic bias, Sharia, slavery Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. rasallah says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Those liars will go to hell
    Maybe they should read the quran and hundreds of hadiths themselves

    • mortimer says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 3:39 pm

      CNN=INACCURATE JOURNALISM

      Rather than MAKING UP THEIR OWN FACTS, why don’t CNN editors actually do research about the topic ‘SLAVERY IN ISLAM’???

      In fact, a HUGE portion of the text of Sharia law manuals is taken up by rulings about slavery. The percentage of Sharia law devoted to slavery is indication of its importance in Islam.

      Facts about slavery in Islam:
      -the largest slave trade in history was run by Muslims
      -Islam’s leading scholars agree that slavery is permitted by the Koran, hadiths and rulings and will continue until the Day of Judgment
      -120 million people died as a result of the Islamic slave trade
      -eunuchs guarded the Forbidden Mosque in Mecca until the 1960s and Saudi families kept slaves into the 1970s
      -the Islamic slave trade ended as a result of pressure from European governments
      -‘houris’ are sex slaves in paradise

      • mortimer says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 3:57 pm

        The very name ‘Islam’ (submission) is a euphemism that means ‘slavery’.

        No one is as ‘submitted’ as a slave!

        Muslims commonly call themselves ‘slave of Allah’. The rest of the world sees slavery as an evil, but not Muslims.

        • Champ says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 8:54 pm

          …talk about a picture that’s worth a 1000 words: islamic-slavery!

    • Jay Boo says

      Nov 8, 2014 at 8:39 am

      Messenger of Allah ?
      What the heck was a so called messenger of Allah doing using slave girls to indulge his uncontrolled sex gluttony?
      The Koran has many carefully calibrated verses attempting to provide cover for the sociopath satanic verse Muhammad.

  2. somehistory says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 11:26 am

    After the devil had bad ideas, he committed an outright evil…the first manifestation of evil…and told a lie to Eve.
    He is still busy today and his lies keep coming from all directions as people lie to protect islam. The devil lied, Eve died (and so did Adam) and through the devil’s lies, more people are dying.
    One day, the lies will end and the death the devil causes will end with them.
    This photo looks like something from a horror movie.

    • terry says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 11:52 am

      Sometimes one wonders, when reading something like this, how will spreading the truth succeed in reaching the masses when governments, academia and the media are filled with respected, academic-degrees-laden, professional liars!

      • somehistory says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 12:35 pm

        When reading your comment, it came to mind that the men who first knew about Christ were *lowly fishermen*…the so-called “uneducated and unlearned”…the claim was made about Jesus that he was just “the carpenter’s son”…and yet, the truth has spread because some people were not afraid to be thought of in those terms.
        The truth will always win over the lie.

      • somehistory says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 12:42 pm

        Many translations say , “unlettered and ordinary,” because they had no schooling such as the Pharisees and Sadducees had.
        The *learned* of the day were no different than those *professing* today and teaching that only those with degrees have any knowledge.

        • Budvarakbar says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 3:37 pm

          Some of the dumbest people I have know – had phd’s

        • citycat says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 7:51 pm

          A lot of their heads are reined in to a specific slavery, er service. Some worldly wisdom would not go amiss.
          Mind you, it don’t take a weatherman

  3. Rinzai says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 11:59 am

    The curse of Islam will dry up along with the Arabian peninsulas oil… mark my words

    • mariam rove says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 12:16 pm

      Amen! M

      • Rezali Mehil says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 5:14 pm

        Ehhhhh! …Shia Rove

        don’t you meam Ahem!!!

        More Later….

        Rezali

    • Living Thing says

      Nov 8, 2014 at 9:58 pm

      Very True…

  4. Threesixteen says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    People should understand the the death cult religion. They will say that they believe on their so called one god allah the moon good. A believe on one god (which god is this?) does not make one holy. You can believe in one devil right? Now a tree is known by its fruits. The manual of this religion promotes slavery. Period.

    CNN better wake up.

    Muslim Arabs forcibly took Africans for Slavery by raiding the East African coast. These practice was practiced on the East African coast by these Muslim Arabs for centuries. Most of those slave males were castrated. That is why there exists no evidence of these Africans in the Muslim Arab countries. Even before the rise of ISIS, slavery existed in different forms in these Muslim countries.

    Islam promotes slavery.

    • S7ev1e says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:21 pm

      Slavery has been an unfortunate part of History for thousands of years, and was very common when the Bible and Qur’an were written. Slave owners have used references to slavery in both books to justify its practice. Christian plantation owners would twist biblical verses to enforce their “Devine” right to practice slavery. They would read passages from the Bible to slaves convincing them (as if the whipping and beating wasn’t enough to keep them in line) that if they are obedient that their suffering will be rewarded in the next life when they are in “Heaven.”

      As long as there are religions there will be those in power that will use other peoples faith in god against them. Once they are brainwashed to not question the gospel, religious leaders have willing slaves to serve them. I’m not saying all religious leaders are bad, but history has shown the more power the church has the more people suffer. As the saying goes, “Absolute power corrupts Absolutely.”

      • deja vu says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 5:58 pm

        Slavery in Old Testament as outlined Exodus (c4000 years ago) is a very different concept than in Islam (7th century AD), which continues its barbarism to this day. I can do no better than quote this explanation:

        As you say, slavery was a common practice. However, while many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave several rights and privileges to slaves. God has allowed man freedom, because in His eyes all men are equal. But because sin existed, slavery existed, disease existed, famine existed, war existed and so on. But God instructed the Israelites to treat their servants properly.

        The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:21; Lev. 25:46).
        The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. (Ex. 21:20)
        The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11).
        The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
        The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
        The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
        The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
        When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

        In the New Testament Jesus described humanity as ‘slaves to sin’. In other words, their evil thoughts and actions enslaved them – and still do. But, in God’s eyes, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28). And from Ephesians 6:8, ‘….knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.’

        Remember, it was a devout Christian, William Wilberforce, who was at the forefront of abolishing slavery, a campaign he began in 1789. His efforts were constantly blocked by secularist interests. I quote:

        As early as 1789, he (Wilberforce) and Clarkson managed to have 12 resolutions against the slave trade introduced—only to be outmaneuvered on fine legal points. The pathway to abolition was blocked by vested interests, parliamentary filibustering, entrenched bigotry, international politics, slave unrest, personal sickness, and political fear. Other bills introduced by Wilberforce were defeated in 1791, 1792, 1793, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1804, and 1805.

        When it became clear that Wilberforce was not going to let the issue die, pro-slavery forces targeted him. He was vilified; opponents spoke of “the damnable doctrine of Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies.” ‘

        You say, ‘…. history has shown the more power the church has the more people suffer.’ History has shown no such thing. The greatest reformers in history have been Christians.

        This gives the lie to your claim that cruel plantation owners were ‘christian’. By their own definition, maybe, but not by the biblical definition, which is the only one that counts.

        • citycat says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm

          The bible is wrong. No one is the property of anyone. One is the property of oneself. Anything else is ego cowardly bullying.

        • somehistory says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm

          city,
          The God of the Bible knew there would be poor people and made provisions for these to be able to hold on to their land. If one became too poor to take care of his family, he could sell himself to another, and for this he was paid and taken care of. The *slavery* could only last for a certain number of years and then the person who sold themselves would be free once more.
          Kind of like the indentured servant, but more humane because the one who was *owned* knew he would not be forever indebted to another, nor would he have to buy his freedom.
          The main thing: Jews and Christians are not slave owners now. islam is the religion of slaves and those enslaved are mistreated and killed.

        • citycat says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 1:08 am

          some history, yeah, i dig that, Islam is still savage
          i mean to say the bible is wrong, not wholly, some wisdom there
          “the god of the bible”- i can’t dig it man

    • Budvarakbar says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 3:39 pm

      Islam === SLAVERY

      Just as SOCIALISM === COMMUNISM === SLAVERY

    • Dennis says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      A death cult that demands blood sacrifices.

  5. Wellington says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    A completely convincing refutation by Robert Spencer of Professor Bernard Freamon’s contention, though I strongly suspect that if Robert Spencer challenged the Professor to a debate, the latter would engage in that oh so predictable academic snobbery whereby Spencer would be dismissed and considered not worthwhile debating because he doesn’t have a PhD and is not a “true academic,” just an amateur——or something along these lines.

  6. Jeff says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Professor Bernard Freamon’s body of work shows his agenda of trying to whitewash all that is wrong with Islam. His Islam is not the Islam of Mohammad, the Qur’an and ahadith. It is an Islam that exists only in his mind.

    • dsinc says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:43 pm

      Like the complete idiot Karen Armstrong.

      • mortimer says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        Karen Armstrong believes ‘real’ Islam is Gnosticism (her own religion), rather than the religion promoted by the caliphs and their armies.

        She is inventing her own facts. Al Azhar University is the authority on Islam…not Armstrong.

        • Kepha says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 11:10 pm

          @mortimer–inventing “facts” has long been a mark of Gnosticism. That may be why it is enjoying something of a revival in our relativist day and age.

  7. Rob says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Somewhere on You Tube is a British Muslim ostensibly giving a lecture to an unseen audience on ISIS and the Caliphate.
    If I find it I’ll post.
    About 2/3 through, he almost salivates as he states ‘and it means we can have sex slavery again’

  8. Ayatrollah says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    This guy is a scholar? You should read the actual article. He gives verse 3.64, saying some use it to abolish slavery. Lol.

    It is talking about Christians worshiping priests and has nothing to do with slaves. What kind of academic would try and pass this shit off as scholarly work. But you need a little back ground in Islam to know where to look up to see if he is right.

    • Ryan English says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      Here is a link to an article that this “Professor” wrote in 2006 encouraging the Danish newspapers which published the Mohammed cartoon to be prosecuted. In it he states that cartoon was not free speech but was criminal. It also identifies him as a Muslim – what a surprise.
      http://www.nusrah.com/en/action-alerts/4271.a-danish-trojan-horse-law-and-the-muhammad-cartoon.htm

      • eduardo odraude says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 8:20 pm

        Ryan, excellent catch. The article you link to is so damning of Freamon (to me) that I’m quoting it below. Freamon wants cartoonists prosecuted for spoofing on Islam:

        A Danish Trojan Horse: Law and the Muhammad Cartoons
        Bernard Freamon

        JURIST Guest Columnist Bernard Freamon of Seton Hall University Law School says that Danish prosecutors should revisit their decision not to charge the Danish newspaper editors responsible for the initial printing of the satirical Muhammad cartoons before the worldwide violence over their publication and republication gets even more out of hand…

        People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use
        — Soren Kierkegaard

        It is my duty as a Muslim African-American law professor to offer a brief comment on the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad and the subsequent republication of those cartoons by other newspapers around the world.

        The incident and the furor it has created, including the violence and needless loss of life, raise profound questions about the continued viability of a liberal and universalist approach to free expression in our rapidly changing and increasingly pluralist world. Constitutional lawyers who want to blindly defend the action of the newspaper forget that the idea of freedom of expression evolves and deepens as history progresses; the issues surrounding free expression today are considerably different from the issues that confronted Justice Holmes when he penned his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States in 1919.

        By the same token, Muslims should also be deeply concerned because, by their reaction to the events, Islam-bashers (and even some so-called Muslim governments) now see that much of the Islamic world suffers from a huge complex about its role in history; they are craftily using this sensitivity to provoke Muslims to commit senseless acts of violence that do not uphold or further the banner of Islam and the values that the Prophet Muhammad sought to inculcate in all of us. It is indeed frightening that in many ways both sides are acting unthinkingly.

        Islam teaches that vilification of any religion, not just the Islamic religion, is reprehensible and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Those who want to scrub our public places clean with some sort of secular soap don’t seem to understand this or they don’t want to accept it. Muslim scholars assert that there are five primary purposes of the Shari’a. The second most important purpose, after preservation of life, is the maintenance and protection of religion in people’s lives. Many Muslims, particularly Muslims in the Arab world, also don’t understand this principle, as we frequently find all kinds of statements in the Arab press vilifying the Jewish religion and Jewish people. That must stop also. Two wrongs certainly don’t make a right however. The Shari’a demands that we must condemn any statement that vilifies someone’s religion, where the statement is made for no other purpose other than to vilify, ridicule, or foment hatred.

        Muslims are therefore very right to vigorously condemn the publication of the cartoons and to seek to punish the editors through the criminal law process. There is no room in the public square, it seems to me, for the race-baiter or religion-baiter who acts with the intention to injure or harm others. If these cartoons are in fact a Trojan Horse for such behavior the editors must be exposed and punished. We should remember that the Rwanda genocide was preceded by radio broadcasts that described Tutsis as “cockroaches” and supposedly innocently listed the names and addresses of people who were later murdered by Hutu mobs, simply because of their ethnic origin or association with the Tutsis. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda rightfully rejected the free expression defense offered by the radio broadcasters at their trial for genocide and crimes against humanity.

        There seems to be some support for my position in Danish law governing the original publication of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. Denmark ensures freedom of expression through application of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, which interprets and enforces the Convention, has recognized that freedom of speech is “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,” and that the right “is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.” This right of expression is particularly important for the media, which must “impart information and ideas on matters of public interest.”

        Freedom of expression under the convention is not, however, an absolute right. While section 1 of Article 10 of the convention broadly grants freedom of expression, section 2 imposes a number of important restrictions. For example, it allows restriction of freedom of expression when necessary “for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.” This would permit legal actions for libel and slander but it would also allow governments to criminalize hate speech. In fact, Denmark has such a criminal law, section 266b of the Danish Penal Code. That section authorizes criminal prosecution and conviction of any person “who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation…”.

        A Danish district court in Herning has interpreted the phrase “dissemination to wide circle of people” to include an e-mail listserv of 47 people and convicted a member of the Danish People’s Party for distributing an e-mail that contained degrading and insulting statements about Muslims. In addition, Danish courts have held that the statute covers both oral and written expressions, pictures, caricatures and also symbolic acts or objects. As a result, they have interpreted Code 266b to prohibit cross burning. In the area of hate speech or speech implicating racial or group discrimination, Denmark further restricts freedom of expression by its ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) (“ICEAFRD”). ICEAFRD obliges Denmark to “condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races.” Under this convention, Denmark may restrict hate speech when the circumstances, taken as a whole, show that such speech or expression promoted racial discrimination or hatred.

        Under both these standards it appears to me that the Jyllands-Posten publication of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad with depictions and caricatures may very well be a violation of Danish Penal Code section 266b, if it can be shown that the editor knew that the religious sensibilities of Muslims would be deeply offended by the caricatures and that he intended to stir hatred and ridicule with their publication.

        In September, Danish prosecutors, acting on a complaint by Danish Muslim clerics, nonetheless refused to authorize a criminal prosecution of the newspaper editor under section 266b. In my view, this was a patent abuse of their discretion and a blatantly political decision. They ought to revisit it. The issue should be decided by a Danish court. Danish prosecutors certainly must know Denmark is becoming a hotbed of skinheadism and anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Do they want their newspapers to fan these flames? They should not wait until they have a situation like that in Rwanda before they act.

        Bernard K. Freamon is a professor of law at Seton Hall University, where he writes on Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic legal history

        [END OF FREAMON’S ARTICLE ARGUING FOR TIGHTENING RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH AND CALLING FOR PROSECUTION OF CARTOONISTS SPOOFING MUHAMMAD AND ISLAM.]

  9. Ayatrollah says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    I send him an email asking him to clear this up

    bernard.freamon@shu.edu

    I should get a job teaching Islam at a university. I think I can do better than this guy.

  10. Champ says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Even an elementary reading of the unholy quran proves that this ‘professor’ is full of beans …

  11. jewdog says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    There must be a huge cognitive dissonance between what people see Muslims do on the news and what various commentators and their “experts” allege that Islam actually teaches. In general, the bromides are being delivered either by Western academics or soothing Islamic taqqiya artists like Reza Aslan.
    It’s been said that the ultimate enemy of myth is circumstance. Circumstances are getting hard to ignore.

  12. Walter Sieruk says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Whatever Islam may or may not teach, this man made religion is greatly overruled by the Word of God. For the Bible reads in Exodus 21;16. “Whoever steals someone to sell them as a slave or to keep them for their own slave must be killed.” [E.R.V.]

    • S7ev1e says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm

      LOL! All religions are man made. Did you not know the Bible is a collection of rehashed stories and folk tales from prior cultures?

      • somehistory says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 2:56 pm

        Did you not know that there was no *prior culture* before the “Beginning”of the Creation by God? There were no men before the “beginning” to make up a religion. Therefore, the first commands about how and Whom to worship came from The Creator, not men.

        • Ron Williams says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm

          Those of us who prefer to see the world through the eyes of Science do not find this to be a convincing argument.

          Of course there were prior cultures, right back to the proto-humans, and commensurate attempts to explain their origin, in those times limited to magical creation myths, actions from ‘gods’. These ‘gods’ would have been, in the limited imaginations of these primitive humans, simply bigger, stronger, more puissant versions of themselves, or elements of their world, like animals. You can see this in primitive societies even today, for example in the creation myths of the Australian Aborigines, and their stories of the ‘Rainbow Serpent’, how they became black (really there is such a story).

          Or even not-so-primitive societies clinging to vestigial primitivism, it seems…

        • somehistory says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 7:17 pm

          Those of us who realize that science agrees with a *Beginning* and that something cannot arise from nothing, also shown by science (science can be defined as truth), do not find it incompatible with a Creator of earth and man on it.
          If there is a watch, there was a maker. If there is a house, there was a builder; if there is an atom that joins with other atoms until the matter is see-able through a scope or with the unaided eye, there was a Creator of those atoms, there was a Creator of those eyes that see the matter. And He still Lives. He still is engaged with men who wish to be engaged with Him.
          Your arguments that all of those who believe in a Creator, A True God, are just putting belief in myths and magic and are primitive, don’t hold water. If you want to think that He is a myth, that is certainly your choice, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the rest of us to join you in discounting the real evidence.
          The “professor” the article quotes on islam and slavery is discounting real evidence that contradicts his claims.
          And thankfully for the rest of mankind that hopes for an end to islam, its murders, slavery, rapes, theft, etc., there will be an end brought by the very God in Whom you do not believe.

        • duh_swami says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 6:57 am

          Therefore, the first commands about how and Whom to worship came from The Creator, not men.

          Exactly how did the creator god accomplish that?

        • boakai ngombu says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 7:38 am

          @Ron Williams

          some science: http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-are-odds-of-life-beyond-mere.html

        • somehistory says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 12:36 pm

          @duh,

          If one believes Jesus Christ and what He said regarding His Father, God, it’s easy to understand. Jesus said, “Did you not read that He that created them, male and female… (Matthew 19:4).”
          And after being created, they were given some instructions and their son Cain learned just how bad it was to commit murder (Gen. 4:10).
          Jesus also spoke of what happened with Noah (Matthew 24:7) and Noah was told he could eat animals but that he was to show respect for the animal’s life and that animals were different from people (Gen. 9:4).
          And Jesus told us how we are to treat each other, (Golden Rule: Matthew 7:12) and that we are to worship only God, His Father (Matthew 4:10) and these are the two commands that encompass all: Love God, love neighbor (Matthew 22:37).
          Things like that are in the Bible. That’s why I wrote what I did that you questioned. He hasn’t left us to fend for ourselves.

        • somehistory says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm

          boakai ngombu,

          Thanks for that link. Very interesting and well written.

      • deja vu says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 6:02 pm

        As an atheist can we assume you’re happy that these ISIS butchers will go unpunished?

        • somehistory says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 7:22 pm

          Good question! Can’t wait to see if it is answered.

        • citycat says

          Nov 7, 2014 at 9:14 pm

          Assume? Try religion for that.
          You presume. I don’t see your connection.

        • RonaldB says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 8:07 am

          “As an atheist can we assume you’re happy that these ISIS butchers will go unpunished?”

          I’m an atheist.

          I don’t see how your conclusion follows. I do not believe in an afterlife, so of course I don’t believe the ISIS killers, or the Nazis, or Hitler or Stalin suffers after they die. They die, and their happiness and/or suffering ends, like everyone else.

          Now, believing something doesn’t mean I agree with it. But wishes don’t put wings on horses. Just because I believe that vicious killers will not suffer in an afterlife doesn’t mean I think it’s just. It’s just the way it is.

          I can’t resist taking a pot shot at somehistory’s proof of God.

          1) Everything has to have a creator.
          2) The universe is part of everything.
          3) The universe has to have a creator.

          The fly in the logic, of course, is that by the first claim, the creator has to have a creator. Who created God? But, if God can exist without a creator, the first claim is wrong. So, the logic is flawed. There is NO proof of God.

          Of course, there is no proof that God does not exist. So, it comes to a matter of belief after all.

        • somehistory says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 10:33 am

          RonaldB,

          And to you, no pot shots, but, I have to say this:

          Science supports the fact that you can’t get something from nothing. If there was no Source of energy, life, matter etc., there could be no energy, life, matter, etc.
          And because you don’t believe in a Creator, you say that to believe in One means a person has to believe that for a Creator to live, He must have had a Creator.
          With this fact, I totally agree: And that to believe is a matter of belief after all because one cannot prove that God does not exist.
          So, it all comes down to: on what side does one fall? The side that says since the existence of God cannot be proved…or disproved…, therefore He does not live, or the side that says science points to a Source for our lives, our very existence, and is backed up by how a person lives that life when they put faith in a Creator?
          Science has supported the person of faith and prayer to God as being healthier and happier on the whole. History supports a Man of faith, Christ, and those who followed Him.
          Each one must make his or her own choice as to whether to believe and put faith in a Supreme Being, or to go it alone, with only other earthly creatures as comfort and support. I cannot prove He exists and made mankind, but I don’t have to. For me, it’s a given.

        • somehistory says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 10:44 am

          Also to RonaldB,

          You wrote: The fly in the logic, of course, is that by the first claim, the creator has to have a creator. Who created God? But, if God can exist without a creator, the first claim is wrong. So, the logic is flawed. There is NO proof of God.

          When it comes to this “flawed logic” scenario, the person who believes in evolution runs into the same issues. He tells us that everything came from a speck or something in the universe, in space or under the oceans, and when asked from where did the speck come, or from where the oceans arise, or space, or the universe, there must have been a previous speck, or something that made the oceans, or the big bang happened and the universe came to be, but then, from where could a big bang arise, because it would need energy and matter and….
          I find that my belief, supported by science and history, that the Source for the oceans, specks of dust, the universe is the Creator, makes a whole lot more sense.

        • RonaldB says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 1:24 pm

          To Somebody,

          Debating issues using logic is lots of fun. The debate is all in good fellowship.

          Having said that, you say:

          “Science supports the fact that you can’t get something from nothing. ”

          This is not strictly true. In quantum mechanics, virtual particles are constantly appearing and disappearing. Some theorists have speculated the universe appeared as a virtual particle, and stuck around. This is speculation, mind you and doesn’t prove anything. But, science has not conclusively proven that you can’t get something from nothing. Quite the opposite.

          “Science has supported the person of faith and prayer to God as being healthier and happier on the whole. History supports a Man of faith, Christ, and those who followed Him.”

          The evidence, if such exists, that people who believe in God are healthier than people who do not…is not evidence of God. It’s a celestial bribe. If I were happier believing that gravity can be reversed through concentration, I might be happier…but deluded.

          “When it comes to this “flawed logic” scenario, the person who believes in evolution runs into the same issues. He tells us that everything came from a speck or something in the universe, in space or under the oceans, and when asked from where did the speck come…”

          There are actually two approaches to evolution. The first approach is intra-species evolution. This involved small changes within a species, such as the darkening of butterfly wings in a smoky environment, or the development of antibiotic resistance within a bacteria. These type of changes are documented and accurately modeled, mathematically. No physician should be allowed to practice medicine who does not acknowledge intra-species evolution, because that doctor would not recognize the danger of antibiotic-resistant microbes.

          The second approach to evolution is the development of species. This is the theory that man did, indeed, develop from one-celled organisms. There is strong circumstantial evidence for this type of evolution, but there is no mathematical model, using current genetic knowledge, that comes close to describing it. There are speculations.

          Now, where did the original one-celled organisms come from? As you said, where did the original spec of matter come from? If there was a big bang, where did the first appearance of the proto-universe come from? It’s not science to throw back your hands, and say “God created it.” Science always investigates deeper into origins, looking for more universal models.

          Yes, there is room for the belief in some type of God. I don’t share that belief, but I do not claim that science rules it out. That would be akin to saying “we already know everything”. And no, I’m not an agnostic. To me, the possibility of God is not worth considering. I recognize, though, there is not a proof for my position.

          There is a world of difference between the mostly collegiate debates between atheists and Christians, and the approach of Islam, which is to kill anyone with a different belief. As Benjamin Franklin said, “If we do not hang together, we will certainly hang separately.”

        • RonaldB says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm

          Correction: Not to “somebody”; to “somehistory”.

          My apologies.

        • somehistory says

          Nov 8, 2014 at 2:43 pm

          To RonaldB,

          No apology necessary, but since you offered one, it is accepted.
          It doesn’t hurt me that there are those who don’t believe in a Supreme Being any more than it hurts those who don’t believe that I do.
          The *science* I refer to is what scientists who study the beginnings of matter and life have done to try to prove how it all began. Some enter a lab and begin putting things together in order to *create* life…from nothing.
          But, it might just escape their notice that…they are using things already in existence and they…themselves…are there taking action in order to prove that life began spontaneously on its own, without a Creator.
          And the closed jar of meat experiment, the open jar experiment, and countless others that show life comes from life.
          Many scientists who said they did not believe in a God also said they couldn’t find anything to prove life came about without One and some even said they wished they believed. If I am remembering correctly, Sagan was one of those. Other scientists have believed even though their science could not prove He lives.

          The changes that come about inside organisms…that some refer to as evolution…is accepted because there is evidence to prove it happens. A study was done a few years ago where pregnant women were given little meters to wear that would record everything they ingested…in their lungs…and followups done to show what changes to their DNA were wrought by pollutants the mother breathed. A mother can pass immunity to disease to her child because of having had the disease to which her mother had not passed the immunity. Adapting to different temps and altitudes happens with people all of the time.
          This is all different than saying that man did not need a Maker in order to come into existence.

          I believe that science has proven that life did not occur spontaneously. But even if I had never read any science, never heard any scientist speak or gotten their words third person, it wouldn’t matter. I believe because it makes sense to me and because, like I said, Jesus Christ is a Man who lived and has been written about by historians. And because I have seen things that to me were things no man (or woman) could have done, have studied history enough to see prophecy has been fulfilled time and again, and there is one thing that no scientist or unbeliever can explain: Love.
          Scientists have tried to understand gravity, magnetism, and countless other *laws of creation*…or *nature*…but none can explain love sufficently.
          The Bible says, “God is Love.” He has certainly shown His love for mankind. Just think of His wonderful creation of the human brain.
          Yes, debate can be worthwhile. Christians and those who do not have a *faith* can, and often do, respect each others right to make choices. I recognize your God-given right as a free moral agent…created to make your own life choices…not to have a faith.
          islam has made the existence of evil all too apparent and evil doesn’t recognize that right for either of us.

      • eduardo odraude says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm

        Mistaken, S7ev1e. All religions are partly man-made. All religions are man-mediated and to one or another extent clouded, and in some cases utterly twisted, by human receivers. That only means religious people should be humble about what they “know,” since they can’t know anything perfectly. We all see through a glass darkly. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing to know.

        Anyway, leaving aside the religious question, S7ev1e, there is another sense in which you are off track. Let’s suppose for a moment that all religions are pure fantasy and nothing more. Nevertheless, some religious fantasies lead over time to open social orders, and other fantasies lead to totalitarian social orders. Your approach however abandons intellect by throwing all religions together and refusing to distinguish among different theologies in terms of their different social ramifications. But those ramifications are different. Islam leads to an illiberal order over time. One sees this even in Indonesia, supposedly a liberal Muslim state — Sharia is growing there, and even where sharia is not yet established in Indonesia, people have to have religious identity cards! That’s the best Islam has in a state. And it’s only that way because it’s so far from the Islamic heartland in the Middle East. Judaism and Christianity, by contrast, lead over time to open societies. It is not hard to point to the core doctrinal reasons for that, and for Islam’s totalitarianism. You don’t have to be Christian to recognize that Christianity led over time to the separation of religion and state, to the Enlightenment, to basic human rights, and to a culture of individual creativity. You just have to drop your overly vague and undiscriminating approach to “religion.” Look at Chapter 8 (it’s very short) of Daniel Boorstin’s The Creators. That chapter is an excellent look at the tremendous difference, in social terms, between Judeo-Christian theology and Islamic theology. Or look at what the excellent historian Stephen Morillo says about the legal-contractual framework of European societies, a framework that he says goes all the way back to the fact that the Hebrew and Christian Bibles portray God as making covenants — contracts, with human beings. Morillo in the same place points out that the Islamic deity has a much more “autocratic” relation with humanity.

      • Kepha says

        Nov 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm

        @S7evie:

        Oh, great and wise one, please enlighten this iggerent hay-ick.

  13. Boston Tea Party says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    “Traditionalist interpreters conclude that slavery is lawful in Islam simply because there is Quranic legislation regulating it, suggesting an implied permission. Even the traditionalists must acknowledge, however, that all of the Quranic verses on slavery arise in contexts that overwhelmingly encourage emancipation. ”

    Oh, must they? Do you advocate any other courses of action besides saying “they must?”

    “Why is this? It is because the Quranic intendment contemplated a gradual disappearance of chattel slavery. This is exactly what has happened in history. ISIS refers to the disappearance of chattel slavery in the Muslim world as an “abandonment” of the Shariah. ”

    Oh right, it wasn’t the triumph of the global abolitionist movement from the Christian UK and other countries of the west, and the complete military, technological and economic hegemony of the west over the failed civilization of Islam that led to the abandonment of slavery in the Muslim world—no, it was the pioneering anti-slavery message of the Quran. What a joke.

  14. Champ says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Nowadays, only a lazy fool relies on the lamestream media for an education–especially where islam and company are concerned. We must take responsibility for acquiring the ugly Truth about islam by reading the unholy quran, and other islamic texts, ourselves.

  15. RobertMiller says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    We can divide Muhammad’s prophethood into three phases: a 13-year period during which he made no raids and took no slaves, a period of several months in which he made raids and collected ransoms, and a period of nine or ten years in which he conducted battles as well as raids and took slaves as well as ransoms. When entire communities were destroyed, there was no one left to pay any ransoms, and the only way to make use of captives was to sell them as slaves or use them as slaves. The Sira describes the taking of many hundreds of slaves at various massacres and battles conducted by Muhammad. Every major hadith collection includes sections providing amazing detail regarding the permissible treatment of slaves according to the words and deeds of Muhammad. That is why every major Sharia school also provides detailed treatment of this matter. It is true that Muhammad sometimes encouraged his followers to buy or release slaves into freedom. This is not surprising, because Muhammad himself had more slaves than he could use. He could probably get a higher price for them if other guys gave other slaves their freedom and reduced the supply and the glut on the market. Furthermore, the excessive slave collections of his followers probably became a nuisance and hindrance to his military operations. So Muhammad had selfish and practical reasons for wanting his followers to free some of their slaves, which had nothing to do with any moral consideration at all. In fact Muhammad was very cruel to captive girls and women, who were permissible for sex as soon as they were captured. I find it very hard to believe that Bernard Freamon is unaware of all this. When people try to maintain the lie that ISIS is “un-Islamic,” they inevitably end up lying about Islam itself, and Freamon’s entire article is nothing more than a giant lie about slavery in Islam. We can’t change the world by pretending the world is something different from what it really is and telling elaborate lies about it. We have to deal with the truth, and deal with the world as it is. The angelic Islam proposed by Freamon does not exist. We have to deal with the one does exist and talk honestly about it.

    • Dave T says

      Nov 8, 2014 at 10:16 am

      “We can’t change the world by pretending the world is something different from what it really is and telling elaborate lies about it. We have to deal with the truth, and deal with the world as it is.”

      Exactly right Mr. Miller.
      As Pam Geller often quotes from Ayn Rand:

      “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

  16. JN says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    The specified quranic verses equates freeing a slave to a fine that one would have to pay for a misdemeanor. How is that emancipation of slaves? That sounds to me a punishment to the muslims. Hence I would argue that those very verses actually promote slavery.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 7, 2014 at 4:09 pm

      Muslims freed slaves when they grew old and unusable. Then they were forced to sit in the street and beg. So compassionate!

      Why did Islam enslave tens of millions of slaves in the first place? There is no argument that slavery is ‘compassionate’. Slavery is barbaric.

  17. abad says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Satan is the Father of the Lie.

    Muslims consider it moral to lie. (Taqiyya)

    Muslims worship the Father of the Lie.

    • olive says

      Nov 9, 2014 at 1:28 am

      Exactly

  18. Guest says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    What a liar!! I looked up each of the verses he lists, and they all assume that people HAVE slaves. Then the owner can free a slave to buy a few points with allah. Not a single verse abolishes slavery. The closest might be 2:177, which lists freeing slaves among other good deeds. Again, the assumption is that one has slaves as part of one’s wealth, so that a few can be freed when the master’s in the mood to:

    “Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.” http://quran.com/2/177

  19. Rob says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    Will this wake up the Brits?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/63032523/queen-elizabeth-murder-plot-foiled.html

  20. DavidE says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    Slavery in Islamic counties still exists and the only reason it was abolished in others was because of Western pressure.

  21. Salah says

    Nov 7, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    “We do not have a free press. On the issue of Islam and jihad the mainstream press is a one-party state…”

    And what exactly are we going to do about it?
    I suggest a massive media strike.
    These liars depend on your money and mine to keep lying and lying again. Let’s cut the funds. Today, we don’t need the MSM anymore, thanks to the internet.
    I stopped watching TV and reading newspapers since 2008. But…I have the internet. What else do we need? Why keep financing these bunch of liars?

    • terry says

      Nov 8, 2014 at 10:36 pm

      Good idea, Salah!

  22. Peter davies says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 12:59 am

    Media lies – look at who owns large chunks of them ALL – CNN ABC etc .
    .
    Nothing could be further than the truth than their claim is
    .
    No less than FOURTEEN TIMES is this referred to in the koran. It DOES “justify SLAVERY.
    .
    Ma malakat aymanukum (“what your right hands possess”, Arabic: ما ملكت أيمانکم‎) is a reference in the Qur’an to slaves.

  23. Ralf says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 5:27 am

    That is interesting: The German TV Station ‘ZDF’ just had a documentary about Mohammed that he would be so upset about what people are doing in his name: so everything has nothing to do with Islam and Mohammed.
    Interesting how the the populace is being deceived by the media and in Germany you have to pay a mandatory media-fee which has been ordered by the state and has been invented – as far as I know – by Mr. Goebbels…

  24. fair_dinkum says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 5:38 am

    “Professor Bernard Freamon”

    that sounds as fake as the logic applied..

    these quotes dont condemn slavery..and his kind always assume people are too lazy to check..?. or it all comes down to interpretation.? hogwash.

    hogwash is a good word to use on here..

    look, prof beasly or whatever your name is..youre not dealing with idiots. you cant expect everyone to swallow your tripe without question. the trpier it is, the more we ll denounce.

  25. Steffen Larsen says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 6:08 am

    A classic and iconic photo from Egypt a few years ago, of women being herded like cattle:

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypt-women-herded-and-tied-like-camels/

  26. duh_swami says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 7:46 am

    The title ‘Professor’ as a symbol of credibility is misleading at best. There are lots of ‘Professors’ who profess BS.
    Generally a Mahoundian ‘Professor’ is called ‘Imam’. We know what they profess is BS. The very first Professor in Islam is Allah, followed by Professor Gabriel, and Professor Mahound.
    The unholy trinity of Islamic Professors. Professor Freamon is just another one ubem…

  27. kevin says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 8:43 am

    (Sura 2:178) O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

    “the slave for the slave” if a muslim kills another muslims slave, then allah allows the victim slave master to kill one of the assailants kept slaves as revenge and that is equal justice according to the god of the muhammadan’s

  28. Ric says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Apologists when it comes to Islam are a dime-a-dozen in the mainstream-leftist-media… CNN being one of the worst; however, they have competition throughout the Western media… CBC, BBC and the list goes on. It is we, Western-Civilization, that are the Great Satan, not this psychopathic cult, Islam, in the eyes of the Western-leftist’s.

  29. BC says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 9:37 am

    ” by Professor Bernard Freamon, who “teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History.”
    So this is what an expert in the filed has to say? Islam and Muslims have a long and well documented relationship with slavery, predating the Atlantic slave trade, in which they were leading entrepreneurs, by many centuries. The word for black people in Arabic is actually slave. One has to wonder what works this ‘professor’ has been studying.

    • voegelinian says

      Nov 8, 2014 at 2:06 pm

      “Islam and Muslims have a long and well documented relationship with slavery, predating the Atlantic slave trade, in which they were leading entrepreneurs, by many centuries.”

      Not only were Muslims the leading entrepeneurs and traders in slavery, they were the leading practitioners in slavery. They also arguably were the cruelest enslavers in all world history in terms of violent mistreatment of their slaves. They had the largest slave network Empire in all world history for nearly a millennium before the Europeans got in the game. Indeed, in addition to enslaving hundreds of millions of black Africans (and in the process killing off through starvation, beatings, torture, and forced castration millions), for centuries before Europeans got in the game, Muslims also enslaved a million or more white Europeans (which prompts me to ask pleadingly, Where are my 40 acres and a camel…?), mostly as human booty captured in their relentlessly frequent razzias (pre-modern Islamic terror attacks) on the coastline of southern Western countries (Greece, Italy, France, Spain) and in the infamous Mediterranean piracy that went on for centuries until finally stopped by force in the early 19th century by that fledgling upstart nation “America”. (It’s arguable that when the West did get in the slavery game in earnest, beginning in the 16th century but only really picking up steam in the 17th-18th centuries, they surpassed the extent of Islamic slavery in geographical scope and in numbers — but never came close to approximating Islamic style physical cruelty nor fanatical religious motivation.)

      • Uncle Vladdi says

        Nov 8, 2014 at 9:16 pm

        The West didn’t surpass muslim slavery in scope and numbers, simply because Westerners were still only buying their stock of slaves FROM the muslims. It was the muslims who ramped up the scope and numbers to increase the supply in response to the new demand.
        Besides, the muslims are still at it TODAY, holding over a million (mostly black) slaves in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and elsewhere (!)

  30. ONISAC says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Folks that are ignorant on any subject should at least keep silent.

  31. Uncle Vladdi says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    Telling lies in public for money in order to protect a crime-gang is a form of FRAUD and public deception. In many countries, fraud is considered a crime.

  32. Seabeesrule, says

    Nov 8, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    These stupid arrogant left wing elitist Islam kow towing professors and journalists would be the first to be massacred in their vision of a totally multicultural America with muslims calling the shots! And it just sickens me to no end the pandering misinformation that is put out lolling naive uninformed Americans into lala land as if everything is ok with muslims as theyre mostly moderate.. They love usa too… Yeah they love it like a lion loves the dear… They see our wealth and hospitals and infrastructure and covet it all of it bec they cannot produce a worth while sustainable society … We’ve all seen the pictures of those hellish 3rd world countries.. That’s where they come from and that’s where they need to go back to! I am Hopeful the new republican muscle will get tough on Immigration and sharia law and muslim brotherhood that has infiltrated our land in our schools in our communities , and in our givernment! Wake up America! We’re going to be in a huge mess same as UK and Sweden and EU! The muzzrats are breeding faster than our citizens ….faster than rats.. And building super mosques everywhere as though they are expecting a huge population coming… Prez Obola has 2 years left to destroy this country as much as we let him…speak up speak out! Write all repubs recently elected.. Tell them your fears your concerns.. And just maybe we will all be heard?!? God bless America! Damn all her vicious murdering enemies!!!

  33. Ryan Muhammad says

    Nov 9, 2014 at 5:23 am

    On their Facebook page, Seton Hall University School of Law posted a link to his story. I posted my detailed reply, exposing his lying by omission propaganda piece. Facebook limits the length of comments, so I had to divide my comment into 3 sequential parts.

    Mine, so far, is the only comment. For those with Facebook accounts, please post your comments as well to inform the University that many people are aware that slavery is Islamic and we are not buying the whitewashing of Islam by their so-called Professor.

    https://www.facebook.com/SetonHallLaw

  34. Cindy Mccoy says

    Nov 9, 2014 at 8:46 am

    How can these people think they can keep lying about this religion and no one will find out??? Anyone can read their religious material!!!! And it plainly says the things they are lying about. You would think that they would be ashamed but they are not!!!! They just keep thinking that people with a brain will buy it but we do not!!!!!! Now those who just believe everything they hear and never check it out, well they are easily brain-washed. It is so sad in a day when we can find info at our finger tips and to remained uninf

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.