In FrontPage, exposing a double-talking deceiver:
I read with disappointment Qasim Rashid’s recent piece in the Huffington Post. While professing to promote peace and understanding, Rashid denies the manifest facts that the Sharia penalty for apostasy is death and that Muhammad called for warfare against and subjugation of Jews and Christians. Far from peace, with all his disingenuousness masquerading as reform, Rashid succeeds only in widening the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.
That paragraph is a parody of Rashid’s opening paragraph to this piece, in which Rashid, a prominent Ahmadi Muslim, castigates Ayaan Hirsi Ali for supposedly misrepresenting Islam and Muslims, and challenges her to a public discussion and debate. The title of my article is also a parody of Rashid’s title, “An Open Letter to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Public Dialogue and Debate.” His piece wasn’t really an Open Letter to Ayaan at all, but an extended denunciation of her. Mine, accordingly, is less of an Open Letter to him than an exposure of his dishonesty.
That dishonesty starts with his challenge to debate Hirsi Ali – this was funny, as I myself have many times challenged Rashid to public discussion and debate, and he has repeatedly and contemptuously refused. His only response has been to insist arrogantly that he will only answer me when I produce a peer-reviewed piece. But of course his potboiler Islamic apologetics in the Huffington Post is not peer reviewed. Nor is the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom he wants to debate.
What Rashid really wants is not actual discussion and debate, but the big stage that an encounter with Hirsi Ali would afford him to spread his smooth deceptions and falsehoods about Islam. And he has many: previously he has whitewashed Muhammad’s support for torture and the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but no substance.
In his hit piece on Ayaan, Rashid piles on even more risible claims. He has, he says, “regular interactions with tens of thousands of Muslims.” Regular interactions with tens of thousands! How does this hyper-busy interactor have time to write any articles at all? Yet he will somehow find time next month, he brags, to appear “at Harvard University on a panel with various world leading Islamic scholars. Our dialogue will centralize around finding ongoing means of peace through dialogue and communication — just as Islam teaches and as Prophet Muhammad exemplified.”
Yeah, Muhammad was all about finding peace through dialogue and communication. Like this:
“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” (Sahih Muslim 4294)
Muhammad also ordered the deaths of Abu Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan, for making fun of him. 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)
Another hadith records that “a Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)
Rashid gives no hint that any such material exists, and even claims that Islam “prescribes no worldly punishment whatsoever for those who leave Islam, certainly not death,” linking to an article that claims that Muhammad’s notorious statement, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57), contradicts numerous Qur’an verses and is thus obviously false.
Neither Rashid nor his linked article explains how this simple fact glided by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which unanimously teach that those who leave Islam must be killed. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated:
The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.
If Rashid is correct that Muhammad’s prescription of death for apostates is plainly and repeatedly contradicted by the Qur’an, how did all these schools of jurisprudence get it wrong, and no one got the Qur’anic teaching right until the illustrious advent of…Qasim Rashid?
Rashid lapses into semi-incoherence as he claims that in his book he shows how the Qur’an and Sunnah “debunk” claims that Islam justifies “imposing Shariah, callings [sic] Jews and Christians pigs and monkeys, kill [sic] apostates, stone [sic] adulterers, hang [sic] homosexuals, and beat [sic] women in burqas.” He asserts that the “small minority” of Muslims who think Islam does justify such things “act in spite to Islam, not because of Islam.”
He does not explain, however, how all these misunderstandings of Islam became so widespread, such that now over 25,000 Muslims have joined the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and Libya. A “small minority”? Sure. But where did they come from? If the Qur’an so clearly teaches against all these things, why are there even 1,000 misunderstanders of Islam, let alone 25,000, plus many more in other jihad groups worldwide? Why are so many Muslim leaders either not grasping these points that are so elementary to Rashid, or failing to impart them to their young people?
Rashid’s departure from reality is exemplified by his claim that “nothing in Muhammad’s teachings summon Muslims to intolerance and war. On the contrary, Prophet Muhammad’s entire life is replete with examples of justice, compassion, and empathy — all to levels no human in history has ever matched.”
Ever! Look at all the justice, compassion and empathy Muhammad offers here:
“Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, ‘Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.’ Abu Qilaba said, ‘Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.’” (Bukhari 1.4.234)
With an example of “compassion” acting like that, it’s clear that Rashid is no genuine Muslim reformer, but is rather devoted to lulling non-Muslims into complacency. It is also no wonder that Rashid poses as wanting debate after ducking one for years.
But my offer stands. I call upon Rashid to accept my debate offer in a public forum, on a mutually agreed upon topic, arbitrated by a neutral and mutually agreed upon third party. I, like billions of non-Muslims worldwide, am sincere about reform through debate and dialogue. If Rashid is likewise sincere, then I look forward to his acceptance.
Jay Airahs says
SHINE A LIGHT
How can we hope to compete with such elegant words costumed in their finest attire?
All we have is simple words, skinny-dipped in naked truth to challenge Islam’s liar.
Ah! But wait, we also have the SUNSHINE; Islam you must beware.
Yes, it is time to open the windows and blinds to let in sunshine and fresh air.
Islam is like stinky fungus
“But, I have been here such a long time, replied the FUNGUS to the SUNSHINE.”
Pease don’t shine your bright light on me, said the slime of Islam; when revealed it retreats.
Spot On says
How very True. My sincere hope is that some of the most PC liberals will take a peek at the greatest resource on earth here at JW. At JW they can look back all the years to see the truth about Muslims and how truly wrong they are. I realize this is against their nature and will not likely happen to most liberals until they have a Muslim knife at their throat; but this is my wish for Easter. Hoping everyone at JW has a great Easter Holiday.
Billy Corr says
This prominent Ahmadi Muslim ought to go to Makkah and Madinah and tell the bearded scholars how spiffy it is to be an Ahmadi Muslim.
They’d soon put him right!
PRCS says
A little off topic:
Ayan Hirsi Ali was on the Bill O’Reilly program 2 or 3 nights ago, during which she cited Qur’an several times and articulated–to varying degrees–several tenets of Islam (conversion, pay a tax, or die; Christians have lost their way and Jews are confused; Allah accepts Islam as the only true religion, and others that left no doubt that such were–without question–part and parcel of Islam.
But she unfortunately undermined her own explanations by referring–several times–to ‘radical Islam’.
How can compliance with Qur’an be simultaneously labeled “radical” and why does she do that?
Jay Airahs says
She is likely trying to deflect the massive smear campaign directed against her.
She has even repeatedly used the expression that Islam needs to be ‘reformed’ (as if possible) and that still has not been enough for the lap-dog liberal media and their CAIR overlords to accept.
She is a unique threat to the Muslim regime.
The followers of the slave trade religion of Islam are infuriated by the thought of a black woman as capable as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and with her refusal to show deference toward Mecca. They feel very threatened that she will undermine the grievance mongering establishment of Islam. In some ways she is more of a threat than is Robert Spenser, not only because of what she says but because of the symbol of who she is considering her Somali past.She destabilizes the image of Muslims as victims.
Jay Airahs says
Oops — Spencer
cs says
True, she is brave enough and came under a lot of flack, no one protected her and gave support.
PRCS says
” likely trying to deflect the massive smear campaign directed against her.”
I don’t think that’s the answer, JB.
As she’s targeted by smear campaigns merely for telling what Qur’an (and some of the Sunn’ah) say. That doesn’t square with an attempt to deflect those campaigns.
What an eye-opener it would have been had she said something like, “Bill, we don’t call the Pope a radicalized Catholic, so why the radical label for fully compliant Muslims?”
Note: I’m not equating the two ideologies, of course, but am, rather, pointing out that the ‘radical’ meme is the kind of hogwash that makes honest and factual discussion about Islam pretty much impossible.
Jay Airahs says
PRCS
You stated that you do not believe that the reason for her using the term ‘radical’ is to deflect the smear campaign against her but you did not mention what you think is her motive.
Yes, you are correct that radical is hogwash and I would add reformed Islam to that as well However you failed to answer why would Ayaan Hirsi Ali use these expressions.
You questioned my comment but you neglected to follow up with an alternative.
PRCS says
From my first post: “and why does she do that?”
You responded that ‘she is likely trying to deflect”
I responded with the reason I disagree.
I didn’t give an alternative because I don’t know why she does that, but I don’t think your response explains her use of “radical Islam”
Perhaps we should each send an email to her to ask why she accurately explains why militant Muslims do what they do yet still refers to their behavior as “radical”. It remains a mystery to me.
PRCS says
My mistake: AHA appeared on the Bill O’Reilly program last night (not 2 or 3 nights ago).
It’s an age thing.
Western Canadian says
In a more literate age, the understanding of the term ‘radical’ would be clear: Going to the roots of the ideology. A radical (true) Christian refers to the old and new testaments, and lives by them. A radial (true) muslim does the same with islams vile and hate filled unholy books.
Western Canadian says
‘radial; muslim? Radical, obviously.
Hindu American says
No worries. “Radial” works too. The “hub and spoke” effect of the spread of islam and its ideology built on hate.
PrCS says
But, is she really referring to that interpretation of ‘radical” Islam? How about when that phrase is parroted by “journalists” and politicians? Or the man on the street? How do they interpret radical Islam? As the root, true Islam or the perversion they’ve come to believe literalism and blind compliance means?
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Rashid, a prominent Ahmadi Muslim, castigates Ayaan Hirsi Ali for supposedly misrepresenting Islam and Muslims
Hirsi Ali appeared on the awful Bill O’Reilly’s Spin Zone show last night. He asked her whether the Islamists represented all Moslems, and posited that they did not. When he asked his famous “So where am I wrong?” question, she told him. She said that he is wrong because the Islamists *do* represent all Moslems, because the Holy Ko-Ran contains the clear them that all other belief systems, including the Christians being uprooted, terrorized and killed in droves of late.
As is his habit, O’Reilly put on the spin, redirected the interview into his “If that is true…” mode and finished off the segment. It would never occur to a money hungry self-serving hypocrite like O’Reilly to actually read the Koran and see for himself.
RonaldB says
O’Reilly is a self-important, puffed-up flack with a conservative bent right now, but he absolutely can’t stand to be contradicted or shown up by a professional. He walked off an NPR interview one time because the interviewer was not showing proper deference to him, and persisted in asking him questions about his record. This is a professional news commentator walking off a hard interview, not a taxi driver.
He sometimes comes out on the right side, but should never be counted on to promote anything but himself.
Westman says
Authority on Apostacy from Islam
From Al-Azhar University, the Sunni(85% of all Muslims) “Vatican”:
“In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficient the Most Merciful.
Al-Azhr, Council of Fatawa.
This question was presented by Mr. Ahmed Darwish and brought forward by [name obscured] who is of German nationality. A man whose religion was Islam and his nationality is Egyptian married a German Christian and the couple agreed that the husband would join the Christian faith and doctrine.
1) What is the Islamic ruling in relation to this man? What are the punishments prescribed for this act?
2) Are his children considered Muslim or Christian?
The Answer:
All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Universe and salutations on the leader of the righteous, our master Muhammed, his family and all of his companions.
Thereafter:
This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.
As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.
Seal of Al-Azhar
Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhar.
Abdullah al-Mishadd (عبد الله المشد)
23rd September 1978.”
—
In addition to denying water and blinding the camel urine drinkers, Muhammad had more sadism in mind.
Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of ‘Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.
—
Islam, the ideology of sadists and warlords.
Jay Airahs says
Qasim Rashid has no genuine interest in debating Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Like other Muslims he is desperate to discredit her person while disguising his attack as a debate because he cannot defeat her truths that reveal Islam.
David says
The Hadiths are not the authoritative Word of God. Anyone serious about reforms must discard applying hadiths as their source can not be indisputably proven.
Muhammad left only one authentic Word of God and that is the Holy Quran.
Militant Islam uses Hadiths to support their violence clearly contradicting passages in the Quran which forbids Muslims to attack first when read in context.
What Hadiths do expose is the motives of those who quote them and resort to them, to kill and plunder and conquer. That many of them were made up to support the killing and violence that went on and is going on. Why otherwise did Islam need any Hadiths??? They already had the Quran and were told it was perfect but because it wasn’t enough to go on killing sprees they had to find a way to get the Prophet to ‘support them’ after He had died so they made up these ridiculous stories about Muhammad loving violence so that they could contine to perpetuate it and continue to conquer.
The need for hadiths arose among the military ambitious intent on ruling and conquering when they discovered there was no aggressive clauses in the Quran such as 2:190 which says Muslims cannot attack first. So they had to create ‘sayings of Muhammad’ which said they could attack and kill whom they wanted.
The only hadiths which are authenticated are those quoted by recent Prophets which changes their status to the Word of God. I.e. The Bab and Baha’u’llah as Prophets of God intrinsically knew the true hadiths from the false.
Muhammad was an upholder and defender of the vicrime of oppression yet in many hadiths after His death He is being portrayed as a violent murderer by those who could not find a mandate from the Quran to go forth and mass murder.
if the Quran gave such a clear mandate to mass murder there would have been no need of all these malicious hadiths.
Muhammad fought against savagery and barbarism. Refer to Arabian history then. The Quraysh buried their daughters alive if the first born was a girl. Those who supported this barbaric tribe attacked Muhammad and despite treaties whether Jew or Christian if they attacked and harmed people Muhammad was opposed to them.
But all these hadiths saying Muhammad did this or that evil act are complete fabrications and lies and can never be proven because of that.
Unfortunately these hadiths are what is ruining Islam today because they are being followed like they are part of true Islam yet in truth have nothing to do with the religion of Muhammad.
Looking at the Quran without Hadiths like us Baha’is do gives a peaceful view as the mass murdering psychic is not endorsed in the Quran but in the hadiths which are not authoritative.
Scott says
I’m quite sure Robert would set you straight on the above. The Quran does indeed call for violence in and apart from the Hadith or the Sura. He’s made a career of pointing this out.
Are you new to this site?
Wellington says
As I and many others here at JW, David, have conveyed to you before, the Koran alone is awful enough. I have read the entire Koran, all 114 suras, and I found it the most dismal, repetitive, turgid, desultory and disturbing religious work of any religious work I have come across. Sura 4:34 should alert everyone to what Islam intends for women. And verses 8:39, 8:60, 9:29, 9:5 and 47:4 are just a handful of other verses (and there are plenty more) that should serve as a red light to people of sense.
The Koran is reprehensible, boring and stupid. It’s the worst holy book of all time. Wake up, David.
Champ says
“The Koran is reprehensible, boring and stupid. It’s the worst holy book of all time.”
Indeed, Wellington! …you’ve just described an *unholy* quran.
RonaldB says
Hello Wellington,
I appreciate your collection of Koranic references, knowing it must have cost you several brain cells to actually read through the Koran.
One thing to keep in mind is that when you’re disputing with a Baha’i, you’re not dealing with a free agent. The Baha’is have an official view of the Koran and Muhammad, and Baha’is are no more free to engage in individual speculation than orthodox Muslims are. The difference is that the Baha’is enforce their uniformity with banning and shunning, rather than burning and stoning. But, a Baha’i who actually considered an interpretation counter to that of the Baha’i unelected rulers, would find himself dropped from membership without any chance to defend himself, and shunned by his family and former friends for fear they would encounter the same fate.
https://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/comments/18536
Wellington says
Thanks for those links, RonaldB. Well, I have to give the Baha’i faith this much and that is, rather like the Amish, they only ban and shun rather than burn and stone. Would that Muslims worldwide follow the Baha’i faith here.
All major faiths threaten some kind of punishment in the next life for not doing this, that or the other thing or not believing in this, that or the other thing, but only Islam threatens not only about the next life but in this life as well, and what is worse it ain’t Allah alone who will harm you in this life for not being “proper” (if it were only Allah, who is a total fiction, then Muslims would be far, far less of a problem). No, unique to major religions, Islam allows its deluded believers to harm people in this world for sundry reasons. Arguably herein lies the single most disturbing aspect of Islam. After all, who gives a damn about the rot Muslims believe IF only they never used force or asked for special treatment IN THIS WORLD?
wallace says
The “holy” quran eh? David you sound like the potus. In the words of Christopher Hitchens “babble , don’t waste my time”.
Anthony says
@David, in the Koran Surah 33:21,it says that Mohammad is good example that Moslems must follow, but how to do if there’s no Hadits to explain his actions and sayings ? You can see how he implemented the teaching of Koran in those Hadits, that’s Sunnah Nabi.. That’s why the Moslems that understood the Sunnah is called Ah al sunnah wa al-jemaah, the Sunnis.
Koran can’t stand without Hadits and Sirat Nabi/Biography of Mohammad.If you read Koran alone,you’re not going anywhere
Western Canadian says
David, you poor ignorant, floundering fool. Quite a few of the regular posters on this board, are vastly better informed about and familiar with the vile and hate filled koran than you are…. You are either a fool, or a liar. And probably incapable of knowing which.
RonaldB says
“Far from peace, with all his disingenuousness masquerading as reform, Rashid succeeds only in widening the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.”
Rashid is far more interested in narrowing the gap between himself and real Muslims than he is between himself and non-Muslims. The more the Amadiyyas are persecuted by mainstream Muslims, the more the Amadiyyas follow them and lick their heels.
Rashid is actually following Amadiyya doctrine, which claims that the only correct interpretation of Islam (their interpretation) is correct. If you visit their website, you’ll see some of the tricks they use.
1) There is no abrogation. They are therefore able to use any Koranic passage they want to prove any point.
2) As Robert mentioned, they pick and choose from among the hadith: anything which contradicts their interpretation is unreliable. Anything supporting their interpretation is consistent with the rest of Islam.
3) Ditto for the Koran. Anything contradicting their interpretation is specific to the time and place, using their interpretation of the hadith.
Here is something else to consider. The Ba’hai are also a branch from Islam, although even the Ba’hais don’t consider themselves Muslim anymore. But, they revere Muhammad and the Koran. Here’s something you likely didn’t know: the Ba’hai operate under an extremely authoritarian structure, not allowing any internal debate on actions or doctrine. Any Ba’hai running afoul of the dictates of the ruling council will find himself banned and shunned…no trial or hearing.
Now, what happens if the ruling council somehow finds that the “correct” interpretation of the Koran and Muhammad are not so peaceful after all? Is there any debate in Ba’hai? No! Would the Ba’hais suddenly grow courage and defy the ruling decrees? Your guess is as good as mine.
I don’t know anything about the ruling structure of the Amadiyyas, but I would be extremely curious if the discussion of Amadiyya doctrine is open to internal debate, or if Amadiyyas, like the Ba’hais, are expected to simply wait and implement the pronouncements of their leaders.
Scott says
Robert’s analysis is of course, thoughtful and accurate.
The issue is that ALL of the Islamic Apologists quietly invoke the Muslim concept of “Taqiyya””
See this site for one of many definitions: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimdeception/taqiyya
Taqiyya is one of Islam’s most potent weapons. When Mr. Rashid tells us all his lies and then with straight face tells them to the young and impressionable as well as the MSM, he does so without need of so much as wince. Why? Because he is fully invoking Taqiyya.
Robert of course knows this far better than most of us, but I really do wish that not only Robert, but many others would start to make this Muslim practice of deceit to non Muslims a loud and clear fact.
It explains why we in the “West” think that Iran “cheats” on things like their nuclear weapons programs.
We (and correctly so), in the “West” see this as cheating. The Iranians see it as a tenant and duty to Islam to lie to non Muslims for the express purpose of advancing Islam.
This is also true of all Islamist groups be they Shite or Suuni.
Hamas does this when it attacks Israel.
The Palestinian Authority says this when they say the want “peace”.
There are so many examples of this that it all gets lost in the fog of the Western “Leaders”statements and the MSM in the following line of logic: “Oh, when they say Death to America or Death to Israel, they really are just being rhetorical”. The problem is that the Uber Progressive Left wants and NEEDS to believe this to continue their aid to the deception.
When Taqiyya is used most effectively is when the West believes the lie and when the Fundamentalists tell the actual truth, it can then be dismissed by their Leftist lackeys.
This is just one of the many facetted problems where by Islam (which is really a supremacist cult), has sold itself as a religion. A religion of Death to all who oppose them. Note I said, “Fundamentalists”, I did not say ALL Muslims nor did I use the term “Radical”. There is nothing radical about their behavior if you are a devout Fundamentalist Muslim.
Most Muslims may be aware of the many problems the Quran presents them in their daily lives and can ignore them. Most are aware of the issues and willfully ignore them. It only takes 10% of the “true believers” to amount to over 100,000,000 “Fundamentalists”, all of whom are completely comfortable with the concept of “Taqiyya”.
This is what we are up against and Robert so nobly fights on a daily basis…..
Savvy Kafir says
It’s too bad that BS like this still passes muster with the folks at HuffPo. A little fact-checking would be nice, before someone is given an audience of that size.
zaba says
And who is that audience?
What else do they read?
Paul Emmett says
This is taqqiya, plain and simple. The Quran and Hadith are chocked full of brutality and sadism. Isis justifies everything they do based on literal readings of the Quran.
Moreover, it is considered heresy to pick and choose parts of the Quran, except when abrogated by more recent passages. The more recent passages are the most violent, supremacist and sadistic.
mortimer says
Ahmadi Muslims are professional liars because they must begin every discussion by misrepresenting their sect as mainline Islam, when it is actually a modern Islamic heresy.
There should be no surprise then, that Ahmadi Muslims are factually, truthfully challenged.
The premise of Ahaddiya is that a reincarnated Mohammed abrogated violent jihad. Over a billion orthodox Muslims believe that violent jihad is eternal and cannot be abrogated.
Barry Kendall says
It at first seems odd that Qasim Rashid, an Ahmadi Mulsim, would defame Ayaan Hirsi Ali when Ahmadis are persecuted and even killed by other Muslims where and when they can do so. The reason Rashid is defaming Ali is that he is probably afraid of reprisals against his friends and relatives back home if he does not.
Jack says
I don’t think Rashid is going to step up to the plate and take a swing. He may step up to the plate, get weak kneed and then turn tail. Robert it’s a shame you don’t have a female stand in to switch at the last moment to see how he would handle debating against a woman. The nerve, of coming to this country and declaring; no too much free speech, it interferes with our religion so you must limit Freedom of Speech. Then the ultimate insult is stating that our Constitution is too old over 200 years it doesn’t meet our needs today.
If they liked living without freedoms then pack up your bags and go the Hell back from where ever you came from because no one forced you to come here. If you come here, you conform to the way of our life not the other way around.
Robert, get this guy on stage and totally humiliate him about his lying about his religion. I’m sure this all part of BOs comprehensive plan. So far it looks like we’re loosing the battle.