While Pamela Geller lives under armed guard over a live and imminent threat from the Islamic State, Daniel Pipes seizes the opportunity to…defend the freedom of speech and decry the threats against her? No. He chose instead to attack her ad criticizing Islamic anti-Semitism.
More below, and Pamela Geller has additional important information here.
“SEPTA ad campaign a spectacular failure,” by Daniel Pipes, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 26, 2015:
Did a controversial, austere, black-and-white advertisement that ran for one month on Philadelphia buses achieve its goal of winning sympathy for Jewish victims of Muslims?
The ad was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative and placed on buses operated by SEPTA, the regional-and state-run authority. The ad read: “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran. Two thirds of all U.S. aid goes to Islamic countries. Stop the hate. End all aid to Islamic countries. IslamicJewHatred.com.” A November 1941 photograph ran with the caption, “Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world, Haj Amin al-Husseini.” SEPTA received $30,000 to run the 30-by-80-inch ad on 84 buses out of SEPTA’s 1,400 buses during April.
No, the ad failed to achieve its goal, and spectacularly so. Count the ways:
To begin with, the text is factually inaccurate. Husseini was never “leader of the Muslim world.” He was a British appointee in the Mandate for Palestine, where Muslims constituted less than 1 percent of the total world Muslim population.
The term “leader of the Muslim world” is a perfectly reasonable summation of Husseini’s power and influence. Yes, he was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the caliphate, by virtue of his position alone as Mufti of the third holiest city in the Muslim world, Husseini had as good a claim as anyone to being the foremost authority in the Muslim world as anyone.
What’s more, the British appointment is not remotely the whole story of the Mufti’s influence. While he lived in Berlin from 1941 to 1945, he made broadcasts from Berlin in Arabic, appealing to the entire Arabic-speaking world to support the Nazis, and raised up a Muslim SS division in Bosnia, where no one seems to have rejected his authority on the basis that he was a British appointment for Jerusalem only.
Even as National Socialist Germany collapsed in defeat and ruin, he didn’t lose his influence. In 1946, the Arab League appointed al-Husseini not just a member, but the chairman, of the Arab Higher Committee. The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan from 1946) and Yemen (North Yemen, later combined Yemen). Are those countries not the heart of the Muslim world?
The Arab Higher Committee, with Husseini as its chairman, wielded so much influence that it was given the same diplomatic status as the Jewish agency for Palestine in the partition of Israel in 1948. The political committee of the general assembly of the United Nations, without a dissenting vote, decided to invite the Arab Higher Committee to testify before it on the issue of Israel and the Arab Muslims.
Second, Husseini’s meeting with Hitler did not represent a permanent or universal alliance between Muslims and Nazis; it was a one-time, opportunistic consultation between a fugitive Palestinian figure and his patron.
Pipes reveals that there is a bit more going on in this photo than a “one-time, opportunistic consultation” by noting in passing that Hitler was Husseini’s “patron.” (Incidentally, Pipes’ reference to Husseini as a “Palestinian,” however, is anachronistic, as the Muslim Arabs of Palestine were not referred to as “Palestinians” until the Soviets and Arafat invented the “Palestinian” nationality in the 1960s, so as to defuse Israel’s image as a tiny Jewish state arrayed against numerous surrounding huge Arab states: an even smaller people was invented, menaced by the mighty Israeli war machine.)
In any case, “Husseini’s meeting with Hitler did not represent a permanent or universal alliance between Muslims and Nazis,” but the meeting was far more than a “one-time, opportunistic consultation,” either. Husseini was important enough in Berlin to play a role in the Third Reich’s extermination of Jews. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann, testified that “the grand mufti, who had been in Berlin since 1938, played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he had been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considers this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and has constantly been cited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber in Auschwitz.”
The statement referred to in the affidavit was made by Eichmann in his office in Budapest on June 4, 1944; the confirmation by Wisliceny was given some days later, also in Budapest.
Further, according to testimony at the Nuremberg trials, “the mufti was a bitter arch enemy of the Jews and had always been the protagonist of the idea of their annihilation. This idea the mufti had always advanced in his conversations with Eichmann.”
Eichmann had before all this been in charge of efforts to deport the Jews from Europe. After the Mufti weighed in, the Nazi efforts shifted from deportation to extermination — confirming Wisliceny’s account.
Third, the ad’s demand makes no sense: How does ending $10 billion in U.S. military assistance to Afghanistan “stop the hate” against Jews? How does continuing it encourage “Islamic Jew-hatred”?
As Dr. Pipes well knows, anti-Semitism is rampant in the Islamic world, including in Afghanistan. The ad is calling for U.S. aid to Muslim countries to be contingent upon their efforts to end anti-Semitism — efforts which are non-existent at this point. U.S. aid continues to encourage “Islamic Jew-hatred” (Pipes’ sneer quotes betray his unwarranted skepticism regarding the concept) by doing nothing whatsoever to counter it.
But more important to the ad’s failure was the hostile response it provoked. Rather than win support for Jews as victims of Muslims, it instead rallied the Philadelphia establishment to support Muslims as victims of Jews. A Jewish Exponent headline summed up the reaction: “Contempt for SEPTA Bus Ads Brings Groups Together.” Mayor Nutter convened an outdoor meeting under the city’s famous LOVE sculpture that brought together activists, clergy, journalists, and intellectuals, where he denounced the “misguided and opportunistic political tactics” behind the bus ad….
Pipes goes on in this vein for several paragraphs, detailing the opposition to the ad from various Leftist multiculturalists. It is surprising that he accords such respect to this opposition, since those he invokes — the Philadelphia mayor, Leftist Jewish groups, a Roman Catholic archbishop — have never shown any awareness of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat or of Islamic anti-Semitism, or any indication that they have any will at all to oppose them, even with the most watered-down and empty of gestures. Nor will he ever win their love except by engaging in empty, toothless gestures of his own. One would think that he would have been tipped off to how clueless and compromised SEPTA is by the fact that it, as he puts it, “sent a long valentine to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)” — but he seems to think this is more our fault than SEPTA’s.
If the first rule of advertising is to make sure to convey your message effectively, this inaccurate, strange, and aggressive bus advertisement must rank as an all-time disaster, damaging the cause it meant to serve while helping those it intended to harm. It’s like a Coke ad that sends customers flocking to Pepsi.
In reality, the ad seems to have very neatly smoked out those who are compromised and unwilling to state unpopular and unwelcome truths from those who are willing to grasp the nettle and stand for the truth no matter what may come from the cowards, trimmers, and collaborators of the world.
But as an alternative, Pipes offers his “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” mantra, which stands out now as one of the most spectacularly failed analyses in the entire sorry history of the “war on terror”:
How might have the ad been more effectively composed? Simple: by distinguishing between the religion of Islam and the totalitarian ideology of Islamism, as in, “Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution. Non-Muslims and patriotic Muslims must band together to fight ISIS, Boku [sic] Haram, CAIR, and ISNA. Islamist-Watch.org.” The picture might have featured novelist Salman Rushdie talking to television host Bill Maher, a liberal who criticizes radical Islam.
“Moderate Islam is the solution,” eh? Well, here we are almost fourteen years after 9/11, and where is it? There is Zuhdi Jasser, there is Tawfik Hamid, there is Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, there is a handful of others, but what they offer is a non-traditional Islam with no foundation in Islamic theology or history, and no significant backing among Muslims. There is no large-scale movement among moderate Muslims to combat the Islamic State, Boko Haram, and other jihadis, much less CAIR and ISNA. There is no moderate Muslim organization with a large membership or influence among Muslims. I share Pipes’ hope that such an org eventually arises, but how long are we going to keep counting on it when it is so obviously not happening?
It’s a soothing solution for the ignorant and uninformed (such as Mayor Nutter, Catholic archbishops, liberal rabbis, etc.), but it is hardly a viable solution, and it is a manifestly failed analysis. Yes, Dr. Pipes, such an ad would have made everyone feel good. But it would have recruited absolutely no “new cadres for the battle against our common foe, the Islamists,” and would not have sparked the public debate that our ad sparked, that drew attention to numerous important issues, including the war against the freedom of speech, the nature of Islamic anti-Semitism, and more.
Failed analysis is not the solution; it’s the problem. Want proof? Run your ad, Dr. Pipes, and see what will happen: absolutely nothing.
WhatsUpDoc says
I can’t believe Daniel Pipes, may be he had a brain seizure.
Well Daniel, lets see if you can prove that Jew hatred does not exist in Quran. After all this is the ad is all about not Mufti.
sebastian cazeiro says
I am shattered, I can´t believed. Are you trying to make a buck?
WhatsUpDoc says
Buck goes long ways!
julietsm says
Daniel Pipes has been a friend of mine on Facebook for many years. But he has come down on the wrong side of one too many issues. That’s it! I am unfriending him right now! This is unconscionable!
Bamaguje says
Me too… I’m totally disappointed in Daniel Pipes whom I greatly respect.
It is improper and counterproductive for anti-Jihadists to battle each other in public.
It undermines our struggle, and gives ready ammunition to our all too many detractors
We should be standing to together, not tearing each other apart.
If Dr Pipes has any differences with AFDI, he could have spoken privately with Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer rather than wash out dirty linen in public.
Angemon says
Pretty much… :/
julietsm says
You said a mouthful!
I have come to realise that many in the counter jihad are just flat out fakes. I suspect that many of them are seriously just in it for the money. How sickening is that?
gravenimage says
Failed analysis offered as remedy to “failed ad”
………………………..
Well, *this* is depressing. While I have long known that Daniel Pipes had rather too much irrational exuberance regarding the existence and efficacy of “moderate Islam”, I *never* expected him to attack a fellow Anti-Jihadist, let alone one who is now under 24-hour security due to the threat of anything but “moderate” Islam.
I had intended to feature him in my “Heroes Against JIhad” series—I’m going to have to reconsider.
julietsm says
I should say so!
I always told him that I disagreed with his stance that moderate Muslims would be the answer to all of our problems with Islam. This time he has gone too far – attacking a fellow counter jihadist? In my opinion he is now persona non grata in the movement.
Daniel, this is a mistake you will not recover from. you are acting on the enemy’s side here!
at least, you are persona non grata in my book!
spot on says
Daniel Pipes must not comprehend his own books. I think he spent too much time with Bush.
sinantara says
what catholics and liberals and most people in the west will never never understand is, that hate can be a tenet,an integrtal aspect of religion, part of religion, a religious duty. The west is grown on Christian roots and the new testament says God is love… A God who hates has become unimaginable.
People are strong in denial, like those living under the smoke of Dachau and wished it away. History of mankind has shown that there had been gods that demanded to be fed on human hearts, demanded man to die on the battle field to enter a heaven of enduring drunken violence. Headhunting and cannibalism have been religious duty. Or burning people in wicker baskets. But these facts have become quaint memoribilia from we have distanced ourselves by counting the ages between. Now we are all liberal democrats aren’t we. Francis Fukuyamas idealism is telling. But the human mind is still able to turn to adoring Moloch, the Thugs were sincerely religious and human too. And a God who hates is not an oddity to be discounted as an error in judgement by lost souls like Pamela. It is there, black on white, cried form a million minarets, recited, learned by heart, in our midst/ But leberals are like the degenerated Eloi in Wells “Time Machine. They are eaten by the Morlocks but have no clue.They have worked so hard to create this welfare utopia, where people all love each other, they can not and will not believe that people can not be like them, despise them, hate them, because their God tells them to. They think they have won out over history, they think that since civilization has overcome Hitler and Stalin, mankind now can do by saying not anymore, I don’t want to hear about it… Adds will not do because liberal democracy is a top achievement of mankind and we don’t want to admit and accept that we are not yet there, that to love peace you still have to be ready for war that the their politics have lead to looming disaster…
Zimriel says
To fill in here, Daniel Pipes’s academic background actually is in Islamic treatment of non-Arab subjects; unlike our host’s background, or mine, or Reza Aslan’s. Pipes’ thesis may be read online as “Slave Soldiers and Islam”. This book is as good as Patricia Crone’s “Slaves on Horses” and is twice as readable; and I do not say this lightly.
Quite literally, Pipes should know better.
sheik yer'mamih says
Looks like Pipes is trying to endear himself to the talking heads by sounding off as a “moderate”, whereas we are vilified as “radicals”.
The muftis role during the Hitler era should not be underestimated.
Apropos aid to Afghanistan: when we aid such a hellhole with billions and build mosques and madrases it is highly unlikely that Jewhatred will subside. It is just a few years ago that a Frankfurt rabbi was stabbed on his way to the synagogue by a few Afghans, so the threat is very real.
It is tragic that Pipes doesn’t get it. Its even worse if he does get it and uses smears on Spencer/Geller to endear himself to our enemies as a “man of reason.”
Angemon says
sheik yer’mamih posted:
“Looks like Pipes is trying to endear himself to the talking heads by sounding off as a “moderate”, whereas we are vilified as “radicals”.”
That would be my guess too. He’s not the first one to take such a stance – I was equally surprised, for example, when Michael Coren suggested that the muhammad cartoon exhibit was “irresponsibly provocative”.
Jack Diamond says
Michael Coren has Robert Spencer on his show and is to be commended for that.
But Coren’s reaction to the Muhammad cartoons would be of a piece with past opinions–
whether to remarks by Wafa Sultan or when he had Coptic priest Father Zakaria Botros on as a guest and had to hear some awful truths. To Coren, there is nasty radical extremist Islam and the moderate Islam of the good peaceful Muslims. Hugh Fitzgerald analyzed one of these shows here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/fitzgerald-the-michael-coren-show-we-are-all-homers
The Muslim guest predictably used Daniel Pipes as a witness, as someone also “appalled” by things Wafa Sultan had said (Pipes lends himself to this, he was appalled by Oriana Fallaci’s remarks at the Annie Taylor Awards too).
Watch MIchael Coren’s interview with Father Zakaria (from 2009) and how shocked he is to hear Father Zakaria say: “Muslims pretend to be nice people”
Coren “oh but this is so jarring to Canadian ears”
Zakaria “the Westerners are very naive.”
Coren “surely most Muslims are peaceful people”
Zakaria: “Naive.”
Coen “you think every Muslim is like that?!”
Zakaria “look, every true Muslim is like that. A moderate Muslim polite and moderate. But when the Islam prevails, all of them, they will become true Muslims…we know them because we live among them fourteen centuries! We live among them and know them very well. But the Western people did not live with them so they just only see the peaceful way. But one day will come and they will know the truth but it will be too late, I’m sorry to say that.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No0gjUjg2hw
In the full interview Father Zakaria spells out to Michael Coren that moderate Muslims are not true Muslims. “if they follow the commandments of the Qur’an and the hadith of Muhammad they will become true Muslims..like Bin Laden, terrorists.” Coren responds with a lecture on how many Muslims fight fundamentalists and that Muslim rule in the early Medieval world and other periods was tolerant “the Ottoman Empire was no worse than any Christian Empire.” (oh, brother). Zakaria responds “I don’t compare between the people of religions. I compare between the books of religions. I compare between the Qur’an and the New Testament…all the commandments in the New Testament are for peace and love. No word for killing. But when you read the Qur’an and hadith you will find 53,000 (sic) verses speaking about killing. So we compare.”
Then Coren proves he has no understanding of the source of the death penalty for apostasy
epistemology says
That might be an idea, that he wants to appear as a “moderate” Islam critique, but I can’t understand him. He might talk about his ideas to Robert and Pamela in private. No problem if people don’t agree on certain issues. But publishing an article like that, that’s stabbing the two from behind.
We have to get together, unity is strength. The muzzies will rejoice about a dissent like that in our camp. Pipes should have learned by now that Islam is the vile Nazi ideology and not something like Islamism. There is no difference. Erdogaga Turkey’s Ottoman sultan said “There is only one Islam” One of the rare occasions I agree with the bastard.
Jon Sobieski says
The Hitler ad did smoke out the useful idiots and that is a good thing. Any jewish or muslim cleric who joins these “interfaith” alliances are useful idiots. Pipes doesn’t seem to understand that. Not surprising, he still thinks there is a moderate islam, despite the fact ‘moderate islam’ has no koranic foundation, or history or significant movement.
Theodoric says
“The religion of Islam” = “the totalitarian ideology of Islamism.”
“The totalitarian ideology of Islamism” = “the religion of Islam.”
There is no “moderate Islam.”
The Quran, and Muhammad, had a name for “moderate Muslims:” they are called “Hypocrites.” They were the guys who wanted to enjoy all the benefits of being a Muslim – but didn’t want to do any fighting. The Quran despises them. They are considered hardly better than apostates.
Scott says
Of all people…..
Shocking coming from Daniel Pipes……
I didn’t think he had Bill OReilly’s foolish analysis in him?
sarah91 says
From the evidence Robert gives, I agree that Pipes was not giving due credit to the influence of the Grand Mufti.
I also agree with Robert that “moderate Islam” is not a solution, at least not at this time. “Moderate Islam” still believes in a holy book that is filled with hate toward unbelievers. Therefore, we unbelievers would be extremely unwise to promote it.
However, that does not mean that this ad was effective in rallying support for the counter-Jihad cause. Smoking out “those who are compromised….” does not seem like such a fantastic outcome to me, if “those who are compromised…” end up getting more sympathy than those who understand and oppose Jihad.
Although I think the intended message of the ad is correct and important, I am not convinced the ad was effective. It is certainly provocative, but I think it provokes revulsion rather than a desire to learn more. (The exceptions being people who already have some clue about Jihad, thus preaching to the choir.)
If we want our views to become mainstream, I think it would be a good idea to present ideas in a way that mainstream people find interesting and acceptable. If we want to remain on the sidelines, then sure, keep running ads that are difficult to understand and make us look like haters.
I do want to be clear that I think Robert has done a tremendous job, in the big picture, of educating people on the Jihad threat. Perhaps more so than anyone else. However, unless some evidence comes out showing that this ad won support for our side, I think it was probably a tactical error.
mortimer says
Husseini was highly political and acted as “leader of the Muslim world”. In 1931, Amin Al Husseini was founder and President of the World Islamic Congress. In 1944, he attended the creation of the Arab League. After WWII, actively shaped the agenda of the Muslim world. In 1951, Amin Al Husseini was President of World Islamic Congress.
Daniel Pipes is quibbling and one wonders why. He must be trying to cultivate interests to support his group.
Cicero says
But ,is it a tactical error ? Sure it is arresting. It might even be. Viewed as outrageous .BUT it arrests the viewer.sattention. It causes the reader of the ad to pause , reconfigure his. Neural synapses. Heaven forbid. It might even arouse. One.s curiosity and encourage further thinking, reflection research and debate.
Like this poste I also admired Pipes. It is most ungallant of him to criticise and tear donn Ms. Geller,s efforts to alert the world to the argue of Islamic ideology and its threat to the rest of the world,s culture and civilisations. Counter -jihad can be operated in many forms.
Shame On you Daniel Pipes!
julietsm says
I once admired him, too.
He has sold us out. he has certainly sold Pamela Geller out.
I echo your sentiment. Shame on him!
I’m unfriendin him, but not before I give him a piece of my mind!
Januk36 says
“Third, the ad’s demand makes no sense: How does ending $10 billion in U.S. military assistance to Afghanistan “stop the hate” against Jews?”
—
Wrong question. Was there any instance of investing in muslim “allies” that didn’t backfire ? Most recently with the strengthening of IS just because after Assad crossing one of the many many many red lines ?
I don’t think that the purpose of the add can be reduced to fighting anti-semitism. I pretty much don’t care about religion as such but much more seeing totalitarian tendencies in western democracies. The add exposed bigots and haters in guise of “democrats” and “liberals”.
Furthermore I have given up to distinguish between “islamism” and “islam” the moment I realizied that the ideological basis is identical and more importantly since I’ve got fed up with the carousel of introducing new terms/labels in order to obfuscate century old ailments…. It’s not islams, it’s islamism, it’s not islamism, it’s al-kaida, it’s not al-kaid but boko-haram, it’s not book-haram,
There are many names for intolerance.
Westman says
There is an old farmer story about one farmer selling a Plow Mule to another dirt farmer. The second farmer goes back to the first and says, “You told me all I had to do was cluck and the mule would start pulling”. He don’t move! The second farmer goes over to the first farmer’s work field, picks up a board, and whacks the mule over the head and says, “cluck cluck”, and the mule immediately starts pulling the plow. The second farmer says, “First you gotta’ get his attention!”
The bus ad is, admittedly, a board but that’s what it takes to get media-innundated people thinking.
Westman says
Correction: The farmer who sold the mule goes over to the second farmer’s work field, picks up a board, and whacks the mule over the head and says, “cluck cluck”, and the mule immediately starts pulling the plow. The first farmer says, “First you gotta’ get his attention!”
Joseph says
@ Westman
NICE anecdote,I never heard that one before.
hope you won’t mind if I use it.
Westman says
Until the “moderates” strike the anti-semitic, slave-approving, apostate-killing, mutilating, woman-demeaning, Ideology from the Qur’an and Hadiths, and declare it to the world, there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam. There are “moderate” Muslims; there is no moderate Islam.
Perhaps Dr. Pipes could take a trip to Egypt’s Al-Ahzar University and explain how the “scholars” can remove the anti-jewish references from the Ideology. Certainly his soft, kind, approach would keep him out of prison.
Bezelel says
pipes is another self appointed art critic with an uneducated opinion. The ad was educational to myself on probably many others who had no idea of muslim collaboration with nazis. So much is missing from mainstream history books. All of the Holocaust documentaries I’ve seen don’t seem to mention it. The facts are what is important and just because they are inconvenient for the leftist agenda doesn’t change the facts. BTW how many “moderate muslims” band together to do anything good? Katrina? Haiti? Anything anywhere? It’s a case of the ticks calling themselves superior to the host. pipes needs to stay out of advertising.
Rev. Albert W. Kovacs - UCC says
The courage of Pamela Geller, and her colleague Robert Spencer, reflect the heroism that made this a colony of free people, and only that will enable the freedom of Americans as we approach our 240th year. Muslim subservience is contrary to the Judeo-Christian principles that guided this nation’s founders in war and peace. We can only be free as long as we are brave – like Ms. Geller – who walks honorably in the footsteps of Queen Esther. She exposes the butchers of Islam for what they are, and the ” ‘fraidy cats” who massacre defenseless women and children. Their heads should be bowed in humiliation and shame!
guest says
Et tu, Daniel?
mortimer says
The ad successfully made the connection between fascism and the Muslim Brotherhood, PLO and their evil offspring.
Daniel Pipes’ distancing himself from counterjihad seems to indicate he is working on ‘reforming Islam’…which he believes in as some believe in the unicorn, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
Edgar Allen says
I’ve lost all respect for Daniel PipeS. Anybody who peddles the non-sense about the difference between Islam and Islamism is intellectually dishonest, or a coward, or both. Just like Tony Blair, among others.
Erdogan summed it best, in, of all places, a Daniel Pipes page:
Reacting to the term, “moderate Islam,” Erdoğan stated,
“Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails. This expression is wrong. The word Islam is uninflected, it is only Islam. If you say moderate Islam, then an alternative is created, and that is immoderate Islam. As a Muslim, I can’t accept such a concept.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/06/erdo287an-turkey-is-not-a-country-where
He said pretty much the same thing at other occasions:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/turkeys-pm-erdogan-the-term-moderate-islam-is-ugly-and-offensive-islam-is-islam
“The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam”
“Moderate Islam” of course is a fiction, clinged to by many, because they are afraif of facing the truth.
Daniel Greenfield as usual ahs the best essay to summarize this fantasy
“Moderate Islam is our new religion.”
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/09/moderate-islam-is-our-new-religion.html
John says
I once believed Mr Pipes would lead the academic world against Islamic doctrine. I gave up on him more than half a decade ago due to his rather annoying drivel about moderate Islam being the formula for world peace. His influence has been massive in the academic world and it will take nothing short of a miricale to get conservative thinkers to abandon his false paradigms.
Sabri S. says
Great job Daniel!…i was beginning to think that there
Were no intelligent thought leaders left in America. Those
Garbage ads were virtually ignored, and the biased photo
Fooled no one. What next, jews will be whining about religious
Oppression next?…the us out of the middle east….the jews out
Of palestine…now!!!
Joseph says
@ Sabri S.
If I were you, I would be more afraid of traitors in your own camp.
Angemon says
Sabri S. posted:
“Those
Garbage ads were virtually ignored”
Actually, no. They were the subject of controversy, there was discussion on whether they should be allowed or not and as such they got to much more people, people that live outside the area where the ads ran.
“and the biased photo
Fooled no one”
The photo is real. Why should anyone be “fooled” by looking at it?
“the jews out
Of palestine…”
There is no “palestine”. There’s only Jewish, Christian and pagan lands occupied by the descendants of arab invaders.
Paleologos says
This is surprising and disappointing crap from Daniel Pipes, whose opinions I gave credence to until now.
Those who want to understate the role of the nefarious Haj Amin al-Husseini need to read this article …
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5292/clueless-lefties-completely-ignorant-about-hitlers-ties-to-the-muslims/
… excerpted in part … under a picture of Haj Amin al-Husseini and Hitler …
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Proudly Inspects Muslim SS Unit
For the extremely ignorant, here’s a brief tutorial on Hitler, the Nazis and their Muslim friends–the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who met with Hitler and advised him to finish the job on the Jews and speed up the Final Solution, and who begged Hitler to export the Final Solution to Israel and the rest of the Jews in the Mid-East and North Africa; the special Muslim division of the SS–*** UPDATE: actually TWO Muslim SS Divisions as reader sewsalot points out ***; and the close relationship, even decades after WWII, between the Nazis, their ODESSA organization for SS officers, and the Muslims–the reason why so many wanted Nazi war criminals like Aribert Heim a/k/a Tarik Hussein Farid and Alois Brunner were shielded for life in Syria and Egypt, respectively, and why the SS helped Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Egyptians in their attempt to build nuclear and other missiles to kill Jews. And that’s not to mention all the concentration camps in North Africa, which the Nazis enlisted their Muslim buddies to guard (and to round up the Jews for).
But, hey, these are all irrelevant, right? So insignificant.
**************************************************************************************************
Westman correctly states earlier on this thread …
Westman says
May 26, 2015 at 10:26 pm
Until the “moderates” strike the anti-semitic, slave-approving, apostate-killing, mutilating, woman-demeaning, Ideology from the Qur’an and Hadiths, and declare it to the world, there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam. There are “moderate” Muslims; there is no moderate Islam.
To Westman’s comment I would add: You still have to keep an eye on “moderate” muslims because you never know if/when “jihad syndrome” will hit. This is a term Robert invented years ago, with copious supporting data. The point being … we all know the intrinsic evil of islamic doctrine … so how is any follower of islam above suspicion?
R/
Paleologos
profitsbeard says
An ad that does not get attention fails.
Pious and soothing treacle about “moderate Muslims” has been spewed for a decade and this unicorn has yet to materialize.
Why, Daniel?
Because Islam itself is not moderate.
“Moderate” Muslims are de factoapostates, and will be killed off by their devout Muslim cousins when those militant fundamentalists gain power and start the Koranically- sanctified slaughter.
Pipes is dreaming when he should be having a nightmare.
John says
Pipes lives under the illusion that ISLAM can be reformed, it cannot.
The fascist nature of the belief system is too entrenched.
Islam is a religion that is anti-intellectual and restricts learning. Any thinking that conflicts with the Koran is resisted, free thought is opposed. Which leads to a rigid inflexibility, ignorance and suppression. Such restrictions also leads to poverty which further reinforces extremism.
This extremism then acts as positive feedback mechanism that reinforces this characteristic killing anyone who dare tries to reform the religion, locking it into it’s negative character.
. In the Koran there is verse after verse which incites violence to others. The instances of this FAR exceed the old testament and as a result an extreme rational is far more reinforced.
The last and most important characteristic which prevents this religion from being reformed is that their prophet, who is seen by Muslims to be an example of God’s will, was a killer and a bandit, this cannot be ignored.
It is very hard to reform a religion who’s major prophet was a killer, who permitted the killing of non-believers.
So how can a religion be reformed when it’s principle agent was a killer and a religious fascist? It can’t the only way is to rewrite the history of Mohammed and the Koran. How can that be achieved when the Koran is seen as the word of god?
Such a religion cannot be reformed
Cecilia Ellis says
“If the first rule of advertising is to make sure to convey your message effectively, this inaccurate, strange, and aggressive bus advertisement must rank as an all-time disaster, damaging the cause it meant to serve while helping those it intended to harm. It’s like a Coke ad that sends customers flocking to Pepsi”
– Maybe this will do the job for Daniel Pipes: Take any of the Quranic mandates for killing the Jews, Christians or non-Muslims; identify those verses by sura and verse; have those verses printed on the buses for all to see. Should that be considered too provocative, there is always the “best of people” (Qur’an 3:110) – Muslims – and the “most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6) — unbelievers. That should do it. It will be “like a Coke ad that sends customers flocking to Coke.”
Buraq says
It’s Pamela Geller who’s daring to be a Daniel, and the critic, Daniel, should pipe down. He’s a clown on this particular issue.
More Ham Ed says
I’ve never seen a “moderate” version of the unholy ko ‘ran.
Ah, the aroma of a toasted ham sandwich, with cheese, more ham!
cs says
What is going on with this guy?
He used to be a very good writer.
Champ says
Wow with friends like Daniel who needs enemies …yeah Daniel certainly has redefined himself, hasn’t he?
Sometimes it’s best when you say nothing at all.
Elliot says
I often write to Daniel to tell him when I think he’s right. He always responds. This time I told him in no uncertain terms how WRONG he is. He didn’t write back! Nutf said
I urge you all to write to him and tell him what u think of his verbiage
julietsm says
I fully intend to give him a piece of my mind about this. He has been my Facebook friend for many years but I fully intend to unfriend him after I told him in no uncertain terms what I think about what he said.
He is persona non grata to me now. To the entire movement, I should think!
Januk36 says
I left a comment on Pipes Page even before I had seen the topic opened on Jihad Watch.
Strangely, no comments have made it past “moderation” so far….
I’m not rooting for yet another conspiracy theory but rather assuming that the barista is serving exquisite lattes to the moderaters that only follow “best practices in publishing and serving your master”.
Edward Cline says
I tried to leave this comment on Pipes’ column, but the site goes goofy every time I try, so I gave up. What I’d have said was that no distinction can be made between “moderate” Islam and “extremist” Islam. They’re one and the same. “Moderate” Islam contains the same germs of totalitarianism as does “extremist”; the only difference between them is time. Poison is poison, whether or not it’s coated with coconut icing.
Januk36 says
Edward, I agree and whenever I have discussions I try to refer to the pivotal role model or fundamental scriptures of an ideology. The sleigh of hand of speaking of “moderates” serves only the purpose moving from an objective discussion to a personal level no longer concerned with ideas but with human behaviour that might or might not be relevant to the actual questions.
Edward Cline says
I’ve maintained my position about Islam for years, and I’ve also subscribed to Pipes’ site for as long. I’ve also driven home the point about there being no fundamental distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” (aka “radical” and other redundant qualifiers) Islam. Pipes claims that “extremist” Islam is totalitarian. Fine. But where in “moderate” Islam does the totalitarianism begin, or cease? At what point? There’s no fine line between them, just as there was no fine line distinction to be made between “moderate” Nazism or Communism and “extremist” Nazism or Communism. The fundamental tenets of “moderate” and “extremist” Islam are precisely the same. And how many “moderate” Muslims have turned “extremist” and either committed crimes here or signed up with ISIS?
Red Bee says
Mr. Pipes says nothing about the truthfulness of the main claim of the ad: “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran.”. He also says nothing about the validity of the Muslim leaders’ assertion: “for anyone to say that we hate Jews or anyone else of faith, doesn’t know what they are talking about.”
The ad’s statement is true. The Muslim leader’s suggestion this is not the case is straight-faced denial. They get away with that because few non-Muslims read the Koran. You can take a closer look at the Koran on my website “Is Islam a threat?” and since I already paved the way for you it will take you only about 10 minutes. I designed the site to enable you to draw your own conclusions. (Click my name for the link).
Darrius says
Once I would have been proud to call him a college. Now the only word that comes to mind is traitor.
RonaldB says
“Now the only word that comes to mind is traitor.”
May I suggest a rethinking on that type of terminology. You have every right to use it, but I would suggest reevaluating it in light of good sense. A traitor is one who knowingly takes actions designed to advance the interests of the enemy. One can be horribly, disastrously wrong, without being a traitor. The only way to resolve differences, or approach truth is to consider all points of view in open debate. Pipes has not acted according to a hidden agenda or consciously ignored the interests of the country. He has a point of view, and is certainly informed. Spencer brought up rational arguments why Pipe’s point of view was not correct. I don’t see a problem with debating different, even incorrect, views.
Keep in mind the biggest weapon of the Islamists and the leftists is to suppress all debate. They don’t want the topic of Islamic danger discussed at all. In my opinion, the best strategy is to counter all incorrect criticism, as Spencer has done, but avoid using personal labels directed at debaters. At all costs, you want the debate, all debate, to continue.
Uncle Vladdi says
Re: “He” (Pipes) “has a point of view, and is certainly informed.”
As he is informed about islam’s main tenet (that “allah” wants his holy mobster “muslims” to murder all the non-muslims in the world for him, but until this is practical grants them – the muslims, not their “infidel enemies” – they mercy of allowing them to extort and enslave the infidels in stead) one might presume that Pipes would draw the logical conclusion that islam is NOT a “religion” (at all, much less one “Of Peace!”) and that “muslims” aren’t a “race” (at all, much less one of poor, oppressed People Of Color”) and realize that islam is nothing more or less than the world’s largest and oldest yet ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and that the only “religious” part in it, is where it’s members claim:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(CAPISCE?)!
Therefore, for him to say, after all these years of ‘informed’ study, that:
“Radical murderous criminals are the problem; moderate murderous criminals are the solution!”
…is beyond merely expressing a diversely equal opposite opinion, but does in fact amount to treason – at least, to rationality and civilization.
Brian says
You know, I am in two minds about Daniel Pipes…Readings some of his articles and watching some of his lectures can make one confused as to his position, but generally I like much of his output.
This is a good talk by him:
voegelinian says
There’s nothing confusing about Pipes’s position: He believes that the vast majority of Muslims are harmless and that our only danger comes from a SMOE (the rebooted version of the TMOE — Tiny Minority of Extremists).
The Counter-Jihad sooner or later has to come to terms with whether they agree with viability of any MOE meme (Minority of Extremists are the only or main problem) — or that all Muslims are Moe (Muhammed).
Or, the Counter-Jihad can continue to prevaricate incoherently on the matter. That’s always an option for passive-aggressives who don’t want to face hard choices….
voegelinian says
“SMOE”, of course, would be “Small Minority of Extremists”.
Erik says
Plans for the physical extermination of the Jews are not in “mein kampf”, there only is the plan to deport the Jews to the British mandate Palestine .
El Husseini is vehemently against this plan, and has genocidal plans of his own, importing Jews in this case is not helpful, and he organized numerous pogroms against the Jews in the years ’20 and ’30.
El Husseini is instrumental in the radicalization process of the German nazis in 1941 as is shown in the Nueremberg process declaration of Dieter Wisliceny.
Islam is the oldest form of nazism with its genocidal Jew hatred, it’s fuehrer prinzip.
munmun says
Impressive reply!
Andrew Bostom says
Pipes has no scholarly understanding of Islamic Jew-hatred, and cravenly refused to debate his uninformed vaporings when graciously offered an opportunity by Rabbi Jon Hausman http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/07/10/educating-daniel-pipes-on-islamic-antisemitism/
Pipes also is devoid of any scholarly understanding of el-Husseini’s canonical Islamic Jew-hatred or Muslim leadership career (i.e., el-Husseini, given his global stature within Islamdom, was touted as the ideal candidate for “Caliph” by the Indo-Pakistani Muslim Caliphate seekers) http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493721925
julietsm says
I used to talk to Pipes on Messenger, and I found him to be very disappointing. Like so many other counter jihadists, He seemed to think the moderate Muslims were going to be our salvation from jihad and atrocities. How naive can you get? So-called moderate Muslims are either Muslims in name only, and really don’t know what Islam teaches – in which case they merely want to be left alone, or they are in complete denial about what Islam really teaches, in which case they still want to be left alone. The other alternative is that they are devout Muslims in which case they are jihadists. In what way are these people going to be of any help at all? The jihadists are running the show right now so most Muslims will not apostosize due to fear. In any event they would always side with the jihadists to save their own skin.
Or they actively support them.
I cannot imagine any scenario where the so-called moderate Muslims will be of any use whatsoever. Clearly there is not going to be any Reformation in Islam.
When I discussed this with Pipes he could never really gave me any concrete reasons why he felt that the moderate Muslims were going to save the day. It was all rather vague and very frustrating. He would even get defensive when I called him on it
…and now I’m hearing that he has no understanding of the Jew hatred that permeates the Qur’an?
How is this man even considered a scholar? Is he in fact, a scholar? Lately, many in the counter jihad movement have been very disappointing. Pipes is certainly no exception.
Jack Diamond says
Succinct and irrefutable from Andrew Bostom. I remember Daniel Pipes introducing Oriana Fallaci for her Annie Taylor Award back in 2005. In her speech Oriana said “I do not believe in the fraudulence of Moderate Islam…Moderate Islam is another invention of ours. Another illusion fabricated by naïveté or Quislingness or misplaced realpolitik. Moderate Islam does not exist. And it does not exist because there is no such thing as Good Islam or Bad Islam. There is Islam and that’s all. And Islam is the Koran. Nothing but the Koran. And the Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion which has always aimed to eliminate the others.”
She also said “I do not see Islamic terrorism as the main weapon of the war that the sons of Allah have declared on us…immigration not terrorism (is) the Trojan Horse which has penetrated the West and transformed Europe into Eurabia.” I recall reading that Pipes walked out afterward muttering “she goes too far!” It is now 2015 and we are still going too far for Daniel Pipes.
Mo says
@ Andrew Bostom
“Pipes has no scholarly understanding of Islamic Jew-hatred, and cravenly refused to debate his uninformed vaporings when graciously offered an opportunity by Rabbi Jon Hausman http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/07/10/educating-daniel-pipes-on-islamic-antisemitism/
Pipes also is devoid of any scholarly understanding of el-Husseini’s canonical Islamic Jew-hatred or Muslim leadership career (i.e., el-Husseini, given his global stature within Islamdom, was touted as the ideal candidate for “Caliph” by the Indo-Pakistani Muslim Caliphate seekers) http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493721925”
This is all very disappointing to learn. I don’t follow Pipes’s work as closely as some others, but I assumed he was knowledgeable, and on our side. What a shame!
Uncle Vladdi says
Thanks for the link; I just ordered a copy.
Pipes seems to be a liberal, reacting from emotion and refusing to do even the most basic research on the topic at hand.
I mean, other books have been written on this topic before yours, and one must presume Pipes at the very least has access to a local public library.
Clearly, since islam’s main tenet (that “allah” wants his holy mobster “muslims” to murder all the non-muslims in the world for him, but until this is practical grants them – the muslims, not their “infidel enemies” – they mercy of allowing them to extort and enslave the infidels in stead) one might presume that Pipes would draw the logical conclusion that islam is NOT a “religion” (at all, much less one “Of Peace!”) and that “muslims” aren’t a “race” (at all, much less one of poor, oppressed People Of Color”) and realize that islam is nothing more or less than the world’s largest and oldest yet ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and that the only “religious” part in it, is where it’s members claim:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(CAPISCE?)!
Therefore, for him to say, after all these years of ‘informed’ study, that:
“Radical murderous criminals are the problem; moderate murderous criminals are the solution!”
…is beyond merely expressing a diversely equal opposite opinion, but does in fact amount to treason – at least, to rationality and civilization.
el-cid says
Robert, there is such a huge distance between popular discourse and the truth that it is very hard to educate people. If the purpose of the ad was to stimulate this kind of debate, the ad is very good. If the purpose were to get sympathy for the Jews, of course it is a failure.
On his last trip, Kerry concluded that all the trouble in the Middle East was due to Israeli intransigence. This is corollary of the old belief– All trouble in the world is due to the Jews. What did the Imam say in his speech? “If a fish attacks another fish in the sea it is because of the Jews.” What is the difference between these views? Nothing.
On a positive note, most surprising is Pipe’s reference to CAIR and INSA–are they perceived in popular imagination as “Islamiscist radicals”? If so, that is some progress! But, is that what the text actually said? Look’s like a typo.
The myth of “moderate” Islam continues. We all know ,moderate people who self-identify as Muslims. On the other hand, I have not heard, seen, or read any religious treatise by a Muslim scholar or Imam that confronts the tyrannical messages in the Koran with intellectual honesty. Any statement that could bring perceived shame on Muslims or on Islam is vigorously attacked.
jewdog says
Pipes makes it sound like Husseini only met once with Hitler and was just a marginal figure. Not true at all: His role on Axis Radio was very large and widely known. I’ve met people who lived in Europe at the time and heard it.
I hope Ali Sina has an analysis, because he is very knowledgeable in logic. My guess is that Pipes is engaging in a fallacy by numbers, where a position is held to be more valid because a large number of people hold it. Pointing to the large numbers of people who object to the ad does not mean that the ad is false. It may be true that the ad infuriated a lot of people, but that’s only because it challenges comforting shibboleths.
And that precisely why it’s not fair to compare it to a Coke ad: It’s aim is primarily educational, not commercial, which can be painful. As Aristotle once said: “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet”. People need to wake up and learn.
oldwhiteguy says
Mr. Pipes, you should know by now that there is no such bird as a moderate muslim. the Koran is their bible and it is one hateful piece of work.
William says
Mr. Pipes says that the ads failed because they provoked hostile responses and rallied its opponents. But is that really a sign of failure? Would you say that what Sophie Magdalena Scholl, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the conspirators who tried to kill Hitler did were failures? After all, their activities also provoked hostile responses and rallied the Nazis. Maybe Miss Scholl and Mr. Bonhoeffer failed in their particular attempts, but would you condemn them or would you praise them? If others were as brave and honorable as they were, Germany would not have had Hitler, nor the disaster he brought on them. Who do we honor today? Those who did nothing or those heroes and heroines – as usual, a tiny minority – who did something to put an end to the Nazis and paid dearly with their lives? No, the real failures were those who sat back and did nothing, just like the many are doing today. Human nature doesn’t change and the roll of history, neither.
vlparker says
The ads are a failure? How does Pipes know? He is judging the efficacy of the ads based on the reaction of leftists leaders. Well, anyone could have predicted in advance how the left would act. Philly, Chicago, San Francisco, New York and all metro areas are all controlled by leftists. These multi-culti fools have a political agenda for the sake of having a political agenda. Their dream of Utopia on earth is what drives them and they never let reality and human nature get in the way of their dream. But how many average Americans were influenced by these ads to take a closer look at what is going on with islam? How many Americans who get their news solely from the MSM saw those ads and were stimulated to give the issue more thought, to look a little more deeply into the subject?
Did Pipes attack the anti-Israel ads when they ran? Or is he reserving his criticism only for those on his own side? I remember watching a youtube video with Caroline Glick and Alan Dershowitz arguing about booing Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister while he was giving a speech. Now I agree with Caroline Glick on almost everything and I agree with Dershowitz very rarely. But in this instance I came down on Dershowitz’s side. I think it is rude to boo a public speaker and if you disagree with him that strongly just get up and leave. However, if I was in the public eye like these people are I would have kept my mouth shut. I wouldn’t have sided with my opponent over an ally in public. Winning the war against islamic supremacism is the goal. Criticizing your own side only helps the cause of the enemy. So Pipes did with his article exactly what he accused Pamela of doing with the ads, he hurt his own cause. That is if his cause is truly to win the war against islamic supremacism. Maybe he has another goal. Maybe he needs to be on camera more often.
In his Pipes dream about moderate islam defeating radical islam, he conveniently forgets that moderate muslims, all 10 of them, don’t have Mohammad on their side. They have nothing to back up their ideas but wishful thinking. So fill that pipe with opium one more time, smoke away, and keep dreaming, Mr. Pipes.
RonaldB says
I agree with you on common courtesy towards speakers with whom one disagrees.
On the question of moderate versus extremist Islam, there is only one variable concerning the danger of Islam: immigration.
It doesn’t matter if we import moderate, peaceful or jihadi Muslims. I mean, it does at the beginning, but what happens is, the moderate Muslims give political support to the Islamic “civil rights” organizations like CAIR and ISNA, which fight any characterization of Islam as violent and which certainly would fight any attempt to limit Muslim immigration.
As the number of Muslims increase, they infiltrate political and civil groups, getting special privileges for Muslims like footbaths in airports. Eventually, they put pressure on basic US rights like the freedom of expression. And always, the Muslims press for more Muslim immigration.
And, the “moderate” Muslims are not going to fight the “fanatic” Muslims. In Egypt, El-Sisi carried out an army coup against the Islamist Morsi government. Egypt has a long history of jailing Muslim Brotherhood operatives. And yes, being a prisoner in Egypt involves torture. An effective “moderate” Muslim to be effective is not going to be a nice guy.
And, increased Muslim immigration is going to radically decrease the freedom to speak out. It’s not only laws, but the very high proportion of Muslims who think it a duty to personally murder anyone who insults Islam. The police can give protection to Geert Wilders, and even to Pamela Geller, but what about the Tea Party member who speaks on the dangers of Muslim infiltration on school boards?
So, it’s easy to see if we’re winning or losing. If more Muslims are entering the US, we’re losing.
Public opinion can go this way or that way, but if we don’t have the political force to stop Muslim immigration, we lose. The Muslims are not going to change. The scholarship on the built-in antisemitism of canonical Islam and the long history of oppression of Jews associated with Islam which Andrew Bostom has given us shows that oppression is not a modification of Islam…it’s a bedrock of Islam.
Edward Cline says
I have been unsatisfied and disappointed with Pipes’ positions on Islamic matters for years. His attack on Geller decided me to unsubscribe to his blog.
Semeru says
R Spencer said
The term “leader of the Muslim world” is a perfectly reasonable summation of Husseini’s power and influence. Yes, he was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British.
Well The mufti had absolutely no influence over the Moroccan and Algerian moslems who sided with the French
Also he had no influence on the Indian Muslim League.
Winston Churchill
In a letter addressed to US President Franklin Roosevelt, dated 4 March 1942, Winston Churchill wrote,‘We must not on any account break with the Moslems, who represent a hundred million people, and the main army elements on which we must rely for the immediate fighting’.
Approximate numbers by ethnicity, 1939 – 1945
Gurkhas: 110,000
Hindus: 900,000
Muslims:700,000+
Sikhs: 150,000
Also the mufti did not influence the few moslems that opted to join the Palestine Regiment along with the Jews
William says
What is the point you are making by saying that Churchill did not want to exclude Muslim soldiers from the ranks? How does that relate to leader of Muslims?
Angemon says
What rubbish, semeru. Nothing you said counters any of the arguments Mr. Spencer made. Do you consider Obama not to be the President of the United States because a certain number of Americans disagree with his policies and are actively trying to fight them? Do you consider Cameron not to be the Prime-Minister of the United Kingdom because some British citizens disagree with his policies and are actively trying to fight them?
Like I said, rubbish.
Semeru says
Well if the mufti had so much power and influence as Spencer claims, then can you explain why so many moslems from north Africa to India fought against the nazis, even after the mufti on November 25, 1941, had formally declared jihad against the Allied Powers.
The truth is he had no power or influence on the moslems outside of the Palestinian mandate, even the Arab Legion took part in the British war effort against pro-Axis forces in the Mediterranean and Middle East.
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“Well if the mufti had so much power and influence as Spencer claims”
Did you even read what Robert wrote?
“then can you explain why so many moslems from north Africa to India fought against the nazis, even after the mufti on November 25, 1941, had formally declared jihad against the Allied Powers.”
Exactly how many is “so many”?
“The truth is he had no power or influence on the moslems outside of the Palestinian mandate”
More evidence that you didn’t read what Robert wrote:
“What’s more, the British appointment is not remotely the whole story of the Mufti’s influence. While he lived in Berlin from 1941 to 1945, he made broadcasts from Berlin in Arabic, appealing to the entire Arabic-speaking world to support the Nazis, and raised up a Muslim SS division in Bosnia, where no one seems to have rejected his authority on the basis that he was a British appointment for Jerusalem only.“
Semeru says
Before I go further let me point out that Spencer is lacking in historical facts
He writes incidentally, Pipes’ reference to Husseini as a “Palestinian,” however, is anachronistic, as the Muslim Arabs of Palestine were not referred to as “Palestinians” until the Soviets and Arafat invented the “Palestinian” nationality
This is false, before the creation of Israel both moslems and jews where referred to being Palestinian
Agrononse said Exactly how many is “so many”?
Well here we go
As is stated repeatedly in this forum, the Arabs, and the Muslims during WW II where
on the side of Germany,
On the German side:
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS “Handschar”(25,000)
Turkestan Battalion,
Ostmuselmanische SS Regiment,
Caucasian Waffen Verband der SS
Turkestan Legion
Geannt Idel-Ural Legion, also Volga Tatar Legion
On the Armed Forces side
Indian Legion (about two-thirds Muslims 700,000+)
Free Arabian Legion (1600)
The Red Army (3,000,000)
Not forgetting the 25,000 moslems that joined the Yugoslav Partisans,
Then there was Army of Africa (France) comprised of Tirailleurs, Spahis, Goumiers and Meharistes (150,000+)
So the German side had about 100.000 moslems compared to about 4,000,000 on the allies side
There were just as many Croat moslems joining the Yugoslav Partisans as there were joining the nazis, yep so much for the mufti,s influense,
It should be noted that
On the last day under British command, on the outskirts of the II. World War the Arab Legion units were responsible for the massacre of Gush Etzion,
That the Goumiers masscre and mass rape after the battle of Monte Carlo
Conclusion:
The bulk of the Muslims in the armies of WW II where in the armies of the allies, so the claim that the Muslims in WW II were on influenced by The Mufti is false.
So the above figures show that the mufti did not have so much power and influence as Spencer claims.
Spencer also claims and raised up a Muslim SS division in Bosnia
Spencer is wrong on two counts. First the is 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) was formed in the Independent State of Croatia, a fascist puppet state of Nazi Germany that encompassed almost all of modern-day Croatia, all of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as parts of Serbia.
Secondly The mufti did not raise the Muslim SS division. In mid-February 1943 and Himmler put Artur Phleps, commander of the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, in charge of raising the first SS division to be recruited from a non-Germanic people.
In April te mufti was invited to assist
Here is more to show that the Muffti was not so influential as Spencer claims
Despite the support of al-Husayni, recruitment of Muslims for the division fell well short of the numbers needed. Himmler then allowed a 10 percent Christian component, but the recruitment of sufficient Muslims continued to prove difficult, resulting in the induction of 2,800 Catholic Croats into the division. To Himmler’s dismay, this was greater than the ratio of Catholics to Muslims that he had wanted.
What is ironical is the mufti and and the palistinians where losers, they sided with Hitler, and they still have not achieved their goal of a separate state of Palisine, where As Jinnah and the Indian moslems sided with Churchill, now have their state of Pakistan
Elliot says
Amongst the Islamist apologist Semeru said is “What is ironical is the mufti and and the palistinians where losers, they sided with Hitler, and they still have not achieved their goal of a separate state of Palisin”( sic)
Pally there is NOTHING IRONIC about it – these baby killer genocidal racist fascists Jew hating and Christian hating jihadists terrorists have been offered a separate state since the Peel Commission of 1937 -theyve REJECTED IT EVERYTIME- whys that then?
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“Before I go further let me point out that Spencer is lacking in historical facts”
Before I go further, let me point out that semeru, the dunce, has given 0 sources for his claims. Zero. Not a single on. That’s strike one, and it would be enough to knock him off the park, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and work from there.
Did you understand those words, dunce? You gave no sources for your numbers, but I’ll take your numbers and work with them. I need to stress that out because I’ve dealt with you before and I know which way the hamster wheel in your head spins – undoubtedly you would conveniently ignore what I just wrote and proceed to say something like “well well no sources? munch on this”, and link to Wikipedia or some biased pro-islamic site.
Once again: you gave no source for your numbers but I’ll take them at face value.
“As is stated repeatedly in this forum”
Where? And notice the fallacy: apparently, whatever he claims must be true because he has allegedly “stated it repeatedly”.
“On the German side:
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS “Handschar”(25,000)
Turkestan Battalion,
Ostmuselmanische SS Regiment,
Caucasian Waffen Verband der SS
Turkestan Legion
Geannt Idel-Ural Legion, also Volga Tatar Legion
On the Armed Forces side
Indian Legion (about two-thirds Muslims 700,000+)
Free Arabian Legion (1600)
The Red Army (3,000,000)
Not forgetting the 25,000 moslems that joined the Yugoslav Partisans,
Then there was Army of Africa (France) comprised of Tirailleurs, Spahis, Goumiers and Meharistes (150,000+)
So the German side had about 100.000 moslems compared to about 4,000,000 on the allies side
(…)
The bulk of the Muslims in the armies of WW II where in the armies of the allies, so the claim that the Muslims in WW II were on influenced by The Mufti is false.”
This is strike two. It’s essentially a logical fallacy known as “appeal to numbers”. Most, if not all, muslims who allegedly fought on the side of the Allies came from countries attacked by the Axis powers and from European colonies, so, as citizens, they were drafted into their armies. The muslims who fought on the German side were mostly volunteers. So the correlation you’re trying to make falls flat on its face – the muslims who fought for the Allies were forced to fight, the muslims who fought for the Axis did so out of their own free will. They heard the mufti say that Nazis and muslims had a lot in common, like hatred of Jews, and Jew hatred, and a common hatred for Jews, and they decided to join the Axis side. WOuld they have done so if they thought that the mufti was no one of importance? Of course not.
And, of course, strike three: it was a world war in 1941. World war. 1941 – muslims at the time couldn’t simply go on youtube to hear the mufti speak and decide on which side to fight. The Allied powers wouldn’t allow for nazi propaganda in their territories, whether it was islam or something else. There were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
Semeru says
Ho Ho agrononse you are a total fool
You take my figures at face value because you cannot refute them
Now Agrononse Writes<i.This is strike two. It’s essentially a logical fallacy known as “appeal to numbers”. Most, if not all, muslims who allegedly fought on the side of the Allies came from countries attacked by the Axis powers and from European colonies, so, as citizens, they were drafted into their armies
How stupid can you get.
Yes India was part of the British commonwealth but. In 1939 the Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men. of which about 1/3 being moslems, 700,000+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II#British_Indian_Army
The Army of Africa included indigenous Arab or Berber volunteers, spahis, Goumiers and tirailleurs; regiments largely made up of French settlers doing their military service (Zouaves and Chasseurs d’Afrique); and non-French volunteers (French Foreign Legion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Africa_%28France%29
So the influential mufti could get 25,000 moslem to volunteer to join the nazi
The British managed to recruit 700,000+ moslem volunteers in India, and the French recruited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Africa_%28France%29
Agrononse moans that I did not give source yet we get the from him <iThere were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
What no source;;
Well If members did leave the red army to fight for the germans,I have no clue.
But
On 17 August 1944, Tito offered a general amnesty and many in the division took advantage of this opportunity. During the first three weeks of September, while hard fighting continued, over 2,000 Bosnians deserted, many taking their weapons with them. They went home, joined the “Zeleni kadar” militia or went over to the Ustaše. Many defected to the Partisans, with over 700 having joined the Partisan 3rd Corps by early October.[103]
Due to high rates of desertion from 13th SS Division, Sauberzweig proposed to disarm the Bosnians in both 13th SS Division and 23rd SS Division, but Himmler instead opted to transport the 2,000 Bosnians of 23rd SS Division from Hungary to Bosnia and re-organise the remaining troops of both divisions there, with key support units from 13th SS Division centralised under IX SS Mountain Corps, which would also move to Bosnia from Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)#August_1944_.E2.80.93_May_1945
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“You take my figures at face value because you cannot refute them”
Are you incapable of reading, processing and comprehending information? I don’t need to “refute them” because, even if you had given a valid source (which you didn’t) I ended up proving why those numbers can’t be used to prove what you claim they meant. It’s just that simple, dunce.
“How stupid can you get.”
Not bearly as much as you have, repeatedly and willingly.
“So the influential mufti could get 25,000 moslem to volunteer to join the nazi”
So you went from “So the German side had about 100.000 moslems” to 25,000? Good grief. Do you think anyone reading this exchange forgot the number you said before? How stupid can you get, indeed.
“Agrononse moans that I did not give source yet we get the from him”
Stop lying, dunce. I did not gave the source for your claim. I pointed out you did not gave any source and proceeded to dismantle your claim regardless.
“What no source;”
Look it up, dunce – I’m sure you’ll find an wikipedia article on it. But since you’re not refuting what I said, I’ll ask you again: how many of the deserters were muslims?
“Well If members did leave the red army to fight for the germans,I have no clue.”
Of course you don’t. Your knowledge of history is limited to whatever you can find in a wikipedia search, and you only search wikipedia for two reasons: making muslims look good and making non-muslims look bad. Being an asian muslim you have no clue about what happened in Europe during WWII, nor what books to consult on the subject – it’s always wikipedia with you. That tells us everything we need to know about your education level.
So, dunce? Why did muslims desert from the Red Army to the German side? Why did Chechen sided with the Germans against the Soviets?
And I see you don’t refute any of my other points. You claim that because more muslims fought on the Allied side the mufti had no power or influence. But here’s the thing: muslims fighting for the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS were individual volunteers.
Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances. For muslims in India it was a matter of opposing hindus fighting for the Axis powers. For the Malaysians, it was a way to fight the Japanese invasion. Any way you look at it, the muslims who fought for the German side did so voluntarily (including the desertors from the Red army, which you conveniently left out) while muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.
Your claim linking the number of muslims on the Allied side with the lack of standing of the mufti is among the stupidest thing you posted on this site. And you have posted many stupid things on this site.
Semeru says
I seem to have problem posting this comment so I have split into two parts
So Spencer is giving to much credit to the former mufti of Jerusalem,
A much better discription of him can bee found at the Holocaust Encyclopedia website.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007665
Muhammad Amin al-Husayni (189?-1974) was the Mufti (chief Muslim Islamic legal religious authority) of Jerusalem under the political authority of the British Mandate in Palestine from 1921 to 1937. His primary political causes were: 1) establishment of a pan-Arab federation or state; 2) opposition to further immigration of Jews to Palestine and Jewish national aspirations in Palestine; 3) promotion of himself as a pan-Arab and Muslim religious leader.
In exile between 1937 and 1945, al-Husayni, claiming to speak for the Arab nation and the Muslim world, sought an alliance with the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) based on their publicly recognizing 1) the independence of the Arab states; 2) the right of those states to form a union reflecting a dominant Muslim and specifically Arab culture; 3) the right of those states to reverse steps taken towards the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and 4) al-Husayni himself as the spiritual and political representative of this pan-Arab, Muslim entity.
Spencer and many in the CJM are giving Husayni far to much credit, in an attempt to portray all moslems as nazi collaborators during WW2., and over look that just as many Moslems, maybe even more fought for the allies.
This in turn subtracts from the creditability of the CJM. But you being as thick as two planks fail to see this
It is apparent that it is you that is “butthurt” when confronted with the evidence that not all moslems sided with the nazis.
I am not going to continue this debate because you are not a person, but my conclusion is that no matter what side the moslems fought on, it was not for good of the nations they fought for.
The Indians moslems volunteered to fight against the nazi.s, not because the hindus where siding with the nazis as you claimed, but because of the promise of there own state, Pakistan.
Incidentally, moslems helped Chandra Bose who revamped the pro nazi Indian National Army
Like wise the central asian moslems fought on then nazi side, hoping that they get an independant state.
One more fact you over look Moslems are not allowed to join kafir armies unlss it may be advantageous such as as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit to the umma, it may be permissible,
Now about who is lying
May 28, 2015 at 10:32 am agrononse wrote There were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244328
My response pointing out that Agrononse did not give any source to his claim was posted
May 28, 2015 at 2:10 pm
I wrote Agrononse moans that I did not give source yet we get the from him <iThere were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
What no source;
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244398
Then again at May 28, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Agrononse writes So, dunce? Why did muslims desert from the Red Army to the German side? Why did Chechen sided with the Germans against the Soviets?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244458
Angemon says
the dunce posted:
“So Spencer is giving to much credit to the former mufti of Jerusalem,
A much better discription of him can bee found at the Holocaust Encyclopedia website.”
And nothing in there proves Mr. Spencer wrong. Once again, here’s what he wrote:
More from the dunce:
“Spencer and many in the CJM are giving Husayni far to much credit”
Nope. Spencer makes his case for giving the mufti the title of “leader of the islamic world”, and he makes it solid.
“in an attempt to portray all moslems as nazi collaborators during WW2.”
Nope. No one made that claim here.
“This in turn subtracts from the creditability of the CJM.”
What, that thing that only happened in your head?
“But you being as thick as two planks fail to see this”
Ah, more insults from the muslim complaining about ad hominems. Quite the little hypocrite, aren’t you?
“It is apparent that it is you that is “butthurt” when confronted with the evidence that not all moslems sided with the nazis.”
Nope. I addressed those and explained why they don’t mean what you claim they did. You claimed that the mufti had no power or influence because muslims fought alongside the Allied side. I pointed out that muslims who fought for the Allied side did so because it was in their best interests. And you agreed with me on that.
“I am not going to continue this debate because you are not a person”
Huh, what? I’m not a person? What am I them? A complex AI program running on a supercomputer somewhere? Call it as it is: you’ve argued yourself in between a rock and a hard place and now you’re turning tail and fleeing. Claiming I’m not a person simply won’t cut it.
“but my conclusion is that no matter what side the moslems fought on, it was not for good of the nations they fought for.”
So the muslims who fought on the Allied side did so because that just happened to suit their interests. Just like I said.
“The Indians moslems volunteered to fight against the nazi.s, not because the hindus where siding with the nazis as you claimed”
Have you looked into what I told you? The Indian legion, Infantry regiment 950, etc? I bet you did. I bet you now know that some Hindus sided with the Nazis. And you’re too proud to admit you’re wrong.
“but because of the promise of there own state, Pakistan.”
So because it suited their best interests then, like I said.
You know, for someone who said he wasn’t going to continue this debate you sure seem keen into, you know, continuing this debate.
“One more fact you over look Moslems are not allowed to join kafir armies unlss it may be advantageous such as as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit to the umma, it may be permissible,”
So? That goes for both the Allies and the Axis. Except that the Axis ha the leader of the muslim world on their side saying it was permissible to fight alongside the Nazis. Hence the volunteers.
“Now about who is lying”
You. On several occasions.
Semeru says
Agrononse shows his lack of Knowledge of history
Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances.
First we start with the French North African especially the Goumiers from Morocco.
Tunis
The word originated in the Maghrebi Arabic word Koum (قوم), which means “people”. The non-specific designation “Goumi” (French version “Goumier”) was used to circumvent tribal distinctions and enable volunteers from different regions to serve together in mixed units for a “common” cause.
For Info about the Goumiers,, Sophia Loren Starred in the film Two Women, which had a scene depicting the Goumiers and Marocchinate,
Marocchinate Italian for “those given the Moroccan treatment” is a term applied to women who were victims of the mass rape and killings committed during World War II after the Battle of Monte Cassino in Italy. These were committed mainly by the Moroccan Goumiers, colonial troops of the French Expeditionary Corps
And the reasons you give as to why the Indians moslems where involved is atter Rubbish and just proves you have little knowledge of islam.
Here is what you wrote
Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances. For muslims in India it was a matter of opposing hindus fighting for the Axis powers.
What a load of cobblers,
Firstly the moslems did not join the fight because of any loyalty for the British. Islam, officially and theologically at least, is against all patriotism and nationalism. Muslims, after all, ‘should fight for the Ummah; not for the nation state’
A vast majority of moslems in the British Indian Army fought for the British specifically and exclusively because the British Government had promised them a ‘Muslim state’; which was to be separated from India at some point after the war (after 1945).
The first manoeuvre was to get the British to accept the existence and legitimacy of the Muslim League as being the sole representative of India’s moslems
As early as February 1940 (that is just one year into World War Two; but calls for a ‘Muslim state’ go back before that), Jinnah and the Muslim League were agitating for a Muslim state.
On 6 February, 1940, Jinnah informed the Viceroy that the Muslim League would be demanding partition instead of the federation contemplated in an earlier Act (1935). In fact the Lahore Resolution, for Muslim separation, was passed in Lahore on 23 March 1940.
When Winston Churchill became the British prime minister, in 1940, Britain again listened to the Muslim League’s demands. Specifically, Stafford Cripps gave some Indian provinces a ‘local option’ to remain outside of an Indian central government either for a period of time or permanently. India’s Congress rejected this. Nonetheless, Jinnah and the Muslim League saw the Cripps’ proposal as recognising a Muslim state.
Later, in 1944 (a year before the end of the war), Jinnah warned against the threat of Hindu domination and maintained his demand for a Muslim state. In September of that year, Jinnah insisted on Pakistan being conceded prior to the British departure, and that it should come into being immediately on their departure.
Agrononse again shows his ignorance and arroganceSo, dunce? Why did muslims desert from the Red Army to the German side? Why did Chechen sided with the Germans against the Soviets
One reason could date back as far as the 1784, Sheikh Mansur uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Mansur
Another reason why the moslems deserted the red army could have deserted the red army was because of the 1940–44 Muslim insurgency in Chechnya and the 1944 wholesale concentration and deportation of the Vainakh peoples (Chechens and Ingushes) from their native lands as well as from the locations across the USSR, resulting in the death of at least 144,000 civilians.
That the Chechens actually were allied to the Germans is highly questionable and usually dismissed as false.They did have contact with the Germans. However, there were profound ideological differences between the Chechens and the Nazis (self-determination versus imperialism), neither trusted the other, and the German courting of the Cossacks angered the Chechens (their traditional enemies with which they still had numerous land disputes and other conflicts).
Mairbek Sheripov reportedly gave the Ostministerium a sharp warning that “if the liberation of the Caucasus meant only the exchange of one colonizer for another, the Caucasians would consider this [a theoretical fight pitting Chechens and other Caucasians against Germans] only a new stage in the national liberation war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940–44_insurgency_in_Chechnya
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“Agrononse shows his lack of Knowledge of history”
Awwww, look! The muslim is butthurt because I pointed out his knowledge of history is limited to whatever he manages to look in Wikipedia. And what does he do next? Well, he quotes from wikipedia, thus proving he’s still worthy of the title “wikipedia expert”.
“First we start with the French North African especially the Goumiers from Morocco.
Tunis
The word originated in the Maghrebi Arabic word Koum (قوم), which means “people”. The non-specific designation “Goumi” (French version “Goumier”) was used to circumvent tribal distinctions and enable volunteers from different regions to serve together in mixed units for a “common” cause.”
No source, but I’m going to guess that’s copy/pasted from wikipedia. Nothing to do with the matter at hand though.
“For Info about the Goumiers,, Sophia Loren Starred in the film Two Women, which had a scene depicting the Goumiers and Marocchinate,
Marocchinate Italian for “those given the Moroccan treatment” is a term applied to women who were victims of the mass rape and killings committed during World War II after the Battle of Monte Cassino in Italy. These were committed mainly by the Moroccan Goumiers, colonial troops of the French Expeditionary Corps”
Once again, no source so I’m going to guess it’s copy/pasted from Wikipedia. Also, nothing to do with the matter at hand.
“And the reasons you give as to why the Indians moslems where involved is atter Rubbish”
Nope. They’re true.
“and just proves you have little knowledge of islam.”
Nope. I know plenty about islam. And you go to “prove” that I “have little knowledge of islam” by… never bringing that up again and failing to counter the points I make. Huh. One would think you’re just flapping around and trying to draw discussion away from the matter at hand.
“Firstly the moslems did not join the fight because of any loyalty for the British.”
See? You clearly have an issue with reading, comprehending and acquiring information. Here’s what I said above:
“Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances. For muslims in India it was a matter of opposing hindus fighting for the Axis powers.”
and
“muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.”
And then the dunce posts this (copy/pasted from Wikipedia, I’d wager):
“Later, in 1944 (a year before the end of the war), Jinnah warned against the threat of Hindu domination and maintained his demand for a Muslim state”
Of course, this plays right into what I said above about muslims in India opposing Hindus, who had sided with the Axis powers.
More from the dunce:
“Agrononse again shows his ignorance and arrogance”
The arrogant, ignorant here is you, dunce. This is what you said before:
“What no source;;”
Meaning you disputed my claim that muslims deserted from the Red Army to fight for the Germans.
and
“Well If members did leave the red army to fight for the germans,I have no clue.”
And now you’re here, trying to scrounge up excuses for muslim deserters from the Red Army. You’re the ignorant one who just had a lesson in humility.
My bottom point is: don’t question my knowledge of history if all you have is Wikipedia, dunce.
Also, when are you going to revise the numbers of muslims fighting in the Red Army? Are you going to insist that the final number is 3,000,000 even though you now acknowledge muslims deserted to the German side?
Angemon says
Time to get this conversation back on topic, dunce, since you’re clearly in “oppose whatever Angemon says” mode. You seem to have forgotten what you set yourself up to do. You came here and tried to argue that Mr. Spencer was wrong regarding the influence of the mufti because more muslims fought on the Allied side than on the Axis’.
There’s only one way for you to prove that. You need to prove that the muslims on the Allied side fought on the Allied side heard the message of the mufti and disregarded it out of religious disagreement.
Now, when you go and say something like “A vast majority of moslems in the British Indian Army fought for the British specifically and exclusively because the British Government had promised them a ‘Muslim state’” (which, BTW is plagiarized from a website, much like most, if not all, part aof your posts which aren’t a typo-filled, garbled mess), you’re arguing for what I said: that muslims who fought on the Allied side did so because of personal interests. Compare that with the muslims who voluntarily fought on the Axis side. Personal interests. Voluntarily. See the difference, dunce?
As for my “lack of Knowledge of history”, you’re the one who had no idea that muslims deserted from the Red Army to the German side, or that the Chechen muslims were in league with the Nazis. No, you stated that, then you went to do, what else, search Wikipedia, and decided I was the one who lacked knowledge of history.
Finally, regarding my alleged “little knowledge of islam”. Pick a topic and I’ll gladly wipe the floor with you. Here are some suggestions: women’s rights in islam, rights of non-muslims in islam and human rights and islam. I picked those because they will be, by their very nature, short-lived discussions, and you won’t need to do a lot of googling – Google can’t find what doesn’t exist.
Your turn, dunce. Prove what you said about Mr. Spencer being wrong, then pick a topic on islam and grab your ankles.
Semeru says
Awwww, look! The muslim is butthurt because I pointed out his knowledge of history is limited to whatever he manages to look in Wikipedia. And what does he do next? Well, he quotes from wikipedia, thus proving he’s still worthy of the title “wikipedia expert”.
Moslim NO
Butthurt, far from It>
And what is wrong with Wiki, most of what you find the is sourced.
Your problem is you are not that informed about islam to debunk wiki, therefore your ad hominem attacks at me, if your knowledge was so great, them you would not have to resort to the tactics of a myopic fool.
I brought up the subject of the Indian and North Africans moslems fighting against the nazi. You claimed that they where not volunteers, yet you have not given any source to support your claim.
Yes I did fall back on wiki, which in turn sources back to a more reliable source.
I included information about the Goumiers and Marocchinate, as an example to show no matter what side the fought on, they still behaved according to islamic scriptures, what with the mass rapes after Monte Cassino, and later in the war, these same troops raped around 500 women in the Black Forrest town of Freudenstadt, on April 17, 1945, after its capture. In Stuttgart, colonial French troops, mostly African, but under the command of General Eisenhower, rounded up around 2,000 women and herded them into the underground subways to be raped. In one week more women were raped in Stuttgart than in the whole of France during the four year German occupation.
I also included the Information about the Goumiers just to show that I am not trying to white wash islam.
Agrononse gives unsupported claims. He also writes “Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances. For muslims in India it was a matter of opposing hindus fighting for the Axis powers.”
What a load of cobblers, most hindus refused to fight, thats why Churchill bunged Ghandi and more than 60.000 hindus into jail, and backed Mohammed Jinnah (so much for Churchills anti moslem rant)
Agrononse does not give any source to his statement, all he writes
Nope. They’re true.
Just to prove Agrononse wrong, google ” Indian Army had become the largest volunteer orce in history”
So where is the source to support your false claim that muslims where drafted
The agrononce writes “muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.’
Now you are talking a load of shit
Where is your source to prove they where forced to fight for the allied side, or did what was best in their own interest
So why did the Bosnian moslem fight for the germans.
Was it love for Germany, No
Was it for for love of the ex mufti of Jerusalem (he was removed from all in 1937).
No agronense, the Bosnian moslems where motivated, just like the Indian moslems, where the indian where fighting to eventual gain their own state (Pakistan) The Bosnian Muslim leaders wanted Adolf Hitler to create a Bosnian Muslim state, (Zupa Bosna).
Bosnian Muslim leaders declared: “Bosniak-Muslims are a part of the 300-million Islamic nation from the East, which can achieve its liberation only in the struggle against English imperialism, world Jewry, Free Masons and Bolshevism, led by the German people under the leadership of its Fuehrer.” The Bosnian Muslim leaders emphasized that they were part of the larger Muslim world, or Muslim Caliphate. They perceived themselves as being part of this larger Muslim global bloc. They identified with a Muslim Caliphate, a global Muslim community, rather than with Europe or with Slavs. Their identification was based on a religious basis, Islam. They rejected their common ethnic identification with Serbs and Croats as Slavs and saw their identity in religious terms, as Muslims.
So the Bosnian moslem where fighting for the same as the Indian moslems, though they where on different sides
Then your unsourced claim that the muslims deserted from the Red Army to the German side.
Where is the source. you did not give a source because you most probaly copy and pasted from The Muslim Issue, where the link is dead
A source from wiki is better than no source
Then once again you show your lack of knowledge of history with your claim or that the Chechen muslims were in league with the Nazis The Checkens where not in league with the Germans, it was the Germans who where assisting the Checkens in their struggle against the Russians which dates back at least a 100 years before WW2.
If you are so informed about islamic history, you should have known the Checkens where fighting the Russian a long time before and after WW2
I claim that the former mufti was not so influential you answer
There’s only one way for you to prove that. You need to prove that the muslims on the Allied side fought on the Allied side heard the message of the mufti and disregarded it out of religious disagreement.
My answer to that is rather simple
The Former Mufti,s broadcasting propaganda targeting Arab public opinion, so how in the heck could the Bosnians or the indians even understand what he was saying. Also When he visited Croatia he had to have a turkic translator.
Two more important factors
#1 Hafiz Mohammed Pandza, the Reis-el-ulema, the leader of the Muslim community in Bosnia, was a prime advocate and recruiter for the Nazi SS Division. The Grand Mufti did not need to convince him or any of the other Bosnian Muslim religious or political
leaders to join the Nazi cause and war effort. It was, ironically, the Croatian Ustasha regime that opposed the creation of a Muslim Nazi SS Division, not the Bosnian Muslim leaders themselves. Indeed, the Bosnian Muslim leaders had requested and demanded that they be made part of Nazi military forces
#2 I will question as to how voluntary its was for the Bosniam moslems, considering the peer pressure from the moslem community and the mosques. What about the Bosnian moslem muftis and imams, such as Mustafa and Halim Malkoc, harangued moslems in front of mosques to volunteer to join the proposed Muslim Waffen SS Division.
You ask me to prove that Spencer is wrong
Simple
At the time that the former mufti met Hitler, he was not a leader of the moslem world, in fact he was not even at the time the Mufti of Jerusalem except in name only, because he was stripped administrative roles by the British government in 1937 .
It is also questionable if he was the real Mufti, as he was appointed by British High Commissioner, regardless that the Hussam al-Din Jarallah, had support of the ulema in Jerusalem also he won won the most number of votes in the election for the post.
Also Neither you or Spence can name any organization he was leader of, except the for the Higher National Committee was the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine. It was established on 25 April 1936, on the initiative of Haj Amin al-Husayni
That does not make him a leader of the moslem world. He was a fugitive
Your turn, dunce. Prove what you said about Mr. Spencer being wrong.
No it is for Spencer and Geller and you to prove he was a leader of the muslim world, you are giving the jew-hating toad to much credit
Your excess use of ad hominem only exposes you ignorance and arrogance
One more Point. You moan that I resort to Wiki, what about Spencer, who mostly get all his article from the MSM. and all he does is stick a few quoranic quote to them. regardless if the are relevant or not.
Angemon says
This is a big one so it’s going to go into 2 posts:
post 1
The dunce posted:
“Moslim NO”
Yes, muslim. What you do here is defend islam and muslims while attacking members of the counter-jihad movement. You even tried to defend drinking camel urine, muslim.
“Butthurt, far from It”
LOL!!! You’re so butthurt I suspect you’re sitting on a donut pillow. Hence why you’re saying the opposite of whatever it is I say, even though that means backing my case.
“And what is wrong with Wiki, most of what you find the is sourced.”
Have you checked the sources by yourself? Are you sure that the info there isn’t bogus with false or erroneous sources? I shouldn’t have to spend time explaining something so blatantly obvious, and yet, here we are. That’s the level of discourse you bring to the table – quote wikipedia without bothering to comprehend what it says and hope the sources check out.
“Your problem is you are not that informed about islam to debunk wiki”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I have plenty of posts on this website alone where I counter muslim trolls and I post islamic sources to back what I say. I’ll leave the judgment on whether I know about islam or not to my peers, to CJ, JW regulars. In any case, you were not here to discuss my knowledge of islam, you were here because you claimed mr. Spencer was wrong. You failed at both accounts.
“if your knowledge was so great, them you would not have to resort to the tactics of a myopic fool.”
I challenged you to a discussion of islam. I even gave you some topics. You didn’t answer, therefore I can only suspect you’re scared.
“I brought up the subject of the Indian and North Africans moslems fighting against the nazi. You claimed that they where not volunteers, yet you have not given any source to support your claim.”
This is the level of discourse you’re bringing to the table. Anyone can see what you posted and what I posted. In fact, not your whole initial argument is flawed – you claim that Mr. Spencer is wrong because not all muslims fought on the Axis side – but you also go to work against it and in my favour. Remember when I said that muslims fighting on the Allied side did so because they had personal interests? Remember when you said that muslims fought for the British army because they were promised a muslim state? That’s you, making my case for me while thinking you’re opposing me. The term “dunce” is well applied on you, dunce.
“Yes I did fall back on wiki, which in turn sources back to a more reliable source.”
Did you check the source? And don’t be a liar. Some of the things you posted were not copy/pasted from wikipedia, but you left the site you copied them from out. Why did you do that?
“I included information about the Goumiers and Marocchinate, as an example to show no matter what side the fought on, they still behaved according to islamic scriptures”
Nope. That’s the first time you bring this up. But that’s irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Spencer is right when he says that the mufti was the leader of the islamic world.
“ what with the mass rapes after Monte Cassino, and later in the war, these same troops raped around 500 women in the Black Forrest town of Freudenstadt, on April 17, 1945, after its capture. In Stuttgart, colonial French troops, mostly African, but under the command of General Eisenhower, rounded up around 2,000 women and herded them into the underground subways to be raped. In one week more women were raped in Stuttgart than in the whole of France during the four year German occupation.”
Once again, irrelevant to whether or not the mufti was the leader of the islamic world.
“I also included the Information about the Goumiers just to show that I am not trying to white wash islam.”
After I pointed out you’re a muslim trying to defend islam.
“Agrononse gives unsupported claims. He also writes “Muslims fighting for the British and French Armies were either drafted (meaning they had no choice) or joined because of tribal/clan alliances. For muslims in India it was a matter of opposing hindus fighting for the Axis powers.””
The thing is, I’ve got a good track record and I know my history. You had no clue that muslims in the Red Army deserted to the German side. Now, I may not remember exactly in which book/documentary I’ve acquired every bit of info I have, but you’re the one with a history of lying, not me. I’ve *earned* the benefit of the doubt. If not for no other reason, because I don’t have to rely on Wikipedia.
“What a load of cobblers, most hindus refused to fight”
And boom goes the dynamite. Look up the Himmler-Hindu connection, the Indian Legion and Infantry Regiment 950. Then, and only than, you can apologize and retract your words.
“The agrononce writes “muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.’
Now you are talking a load of shit
Where is your source to prove they where forced to fight for the allied side, or did what was best in their own interest”
And once again you, being a dunce and butthurt, try to question whatever I say out of spite that you forget what you wrote. Myopic fool indeed. I’ll let you do the math, dunce. You said that muslims fought for the british because they were promised a muslim state. You’re here asking for a source that muslims did what was in their best interest. Well, my source is… YOU. You supported my claim.
“So why did the Bosnian moslem fight for the germans.
Was it love for Germany, No
Was it for for love of the ex mufti of Jerusalem (he was removed from all in 1937).
No”
And where’s your evidence for that? Oh, wait, it doesn’t exist.
“Then your unsourced claim that the muslims deserted from the Red Army to the German side.
Where is the source. you did not give a source because you most probaly copy and pasted from The Muslim Issue, where the link is dead”
To start, I have no idea what The Muslim Issue says on the subject. That’s not my source. Unlike you, I get most of my info from real-life sources, not google and wikipedia. The problem with that is that I can’t always pinpoint what I know to a specific book or documentary. But let’s face it, if your argument is based on “oh yeah? you don’t gave a source, therefore you’re wrong” rather than providing an alternative, then you don’t have much to stand on.
Remember, dunce: you had no idea that members of the Red Army deserted to the German side until I mentioned it. Then you looked it up and you couldn’t deny I was right. But you’re straying from your MO here: why aren’t you quoting from wikipedia to prove me wrong? Oh, yeah, because you can’t. You google the issue and you concluded I was right. So the only thing you can do is claim that I don’t give a source (even though you don’t give sources to plenty of things you post) and hope no one believes me.
And you know what? I was hoping you did that, dunce. See, I happen to ahve this book in my library called “Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. It tells how Nazi propaganda got tens of thousands of muslims to defect from the Red Arny to the German side.
So dunce, you owe me an apology and you need to retract what you said. But your sad post doesn’t end there:
Angemon says
post 2:
“Then once again you show your lack of knowledge of history with your claim or that the Chechen muslims were in league with the Nazis The Checkens where not in league with the Germans, it was the Germans who where assisting the Checkens in their struggle against the Russians which dates back at least a 100 years before WW2.”
Right, the Chenchen were not in league with the Germans, it was the Germans who were in league with the Chechen. Tomayto, tomahto – a distinction without a difference.
“If you are so informed about islamic history, you should have known the Checkens where fighting the Russian a long time before and after WW2”
And how is that supposed to prove that the Chechen were not in league with the Germans? If anything, it shows they had a reason to side with the Germans, you dunce.
“I claim that the former mufti was not so influential you answer
There’s only one way for you to prove that. You need to prove that the muslims on the Allied side fought on the Allied side heard the message of the mufti and disregarded it out of religious disagreement.”
And it’s a perfectly valid answer. If you want to prove that the mufti had no influence outside Jerusalem (even though muslims in the Balkans seem to think otherwise) then you need to prove that muslims outside Jerusalem heard his emssage and ignored it.
“My answer to that is rather simple
The Former Mufti,s broadcasting propaganda targeting Arab public opinion, so how in the heck could the Bosnians or the indians even understand what he was saying. Also When he visited Croatia he had to have a turkic translator.”
So your “proof” that the mufti had no influence was that he needed a translator? Really? That’s it? God, that’s brain-meltingly stupid, even for you. Going by you, *ahem*, “logic” (and I’m using that word in a very, very, very loose way here) then no muslim leader in any given period of history could be recognized as a leader of the muslim world simply because they don’t speak all the languages muslims speak worldwide. And yet, that never stopped the muslim world from having a caliph.
Unfortunately, that’s not the last of your asinine post.
“You ask me to prove that Spencer is wrong
Simple
At the time that the former mufti met Hitler, he was not a leader of the moslem world, in fact he was not even at the time the Mufti of Jerusalem except in name only, because he was stripped administrative roles by the British government in 1937”
If you bothered to read what Mr. Spencer wrote then you’d know he refutes what you claim. Go read the article again.
“Also Neither you or Spence can name any organization he was leader of, except the for the Higher National Committee was the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine.”
So there was no organization he was leader of except for the organization he was leader of? Is that what you’re saying?
“That does not make him a leader of the moslem world. He was a fugitive”
So what did he do after WWII?
“No it is for Spencer and Geller and you to prove he was a leader of the muslim world”
Once again, you’re showing you haven’t read Mr. Spencer’s article.
“Your excess use of ad hominem only exposes you ignorance and arrogance”
Pffft. I called you dunce a few times because your logic, arguments and “evidence” are those of a dunce. You engaged in more ad-hominem against me, you admitted you had no knowledge on some historical events until I brought them up, you’re adamant in quoting from wikipedia to back your claims and you’re unable to see that you’ve actually argued in my favour. If anyone deserves to be called ignorant and arrogant here it’s you, dunce.
“One more Point. You moan that I resort to Wiki”
Nope. I don’t moan. I rightfully pointed out that you’re an ignoramus whose knowledge of the matter at hand derives of whatever you can scrounge up in Wikipedia.
“what about Spencer, who mostly get all his article from the MSM.”
He comments on articles from the MSM. So what?
“and all he does is stick a few quoranic quote to them.”
Nope. He points out how muslims act based on islamic imperatives. That you try to pass it merely as “sticking some quranic quotes” is revealing of what you hope to achieve here – you’re trying to sling mud at anyone exposing islam for what it is. Because you’re a muslim.
“regardless if the are relevant or not.”
And yet, you’re unable to find even one article where the islamic sources Mr. Spencer quotes are not relevant… Like I said, you’re a muslim and you’re trying to sling mud into whoever exposes islam for what it is. Now go hump a goat, or a camel, or whatever it is you goat or camel humpers hump. Better yet, go join the islamic state. I bet you wouldn’t last long, dunce.
Semeru says
Agononse said As for my “lack of Knowledge of history”, you’re the one who had no idea that muslims deserted from the Red Army to the German side, or that the Chechen muslims were in league with the Nazis.
Quite frankly your knowledge of islamic history sux
You make a wild claim that Muslims desert the red army to fight for the Germansm but agrononse did not give any source
Well in reality, moslems did leave the Red army to join the nazi, but one needs to understand why.
So here is what wiki has to say
The sweeping initial victories of Operation Barbarossa produced hundreds of thousands of non-Russian soldier prisoners in the POW cages of the German Army. All of them were hungry, many were starving. In a mere eight months of 1941-42, the invading German armies killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs through starvation, exposure, and summary execution. Conditions in the prison camps were atrocious. “There were no barracks or permanent housing. The camps were simply open areas fenced off with barbed wire. The prisoners had to lie in the sun, then in mud, and in the fall—with temperatures as low as minus 30 degrees Celsius—faced the possibility of freezing to death.”
The foreign Waffen beginnings were shrouded in great secrecy, for fear of Hitler who was categorically opposed to any form of participation of Soviet citizens in the war against Russia. But the needs of the army on the Eastern Front induced German commanders to accept the services of volunteers to fight the Soviet regime even against the clear orders of the Supreme Command.
Tens of thousands of them were Muslims, where the majority of them came from the Soviet Union. In December 1941 a top secret memorandum ordered that the OKW was to create two Muslim units: the Turkestanische Legion, consisting of Muslim volunteers from Central Asia; such as Turkomans, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, Karakalpaks, and Tajiks, and the Kaukasisch-Mohammedanische Legion from Caucasian Muslims volunteers; such as Azeris, Dagestanis, Chechens, Ingushes, and Lezgins
The wiki articl give three souces
#1 The German Army and Genocide, by Hamburg Institute for Social Research p. 142”
#2 Russian Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in World War II by Lt. Gen Wladyslaw Anders and Antonio Munoz”
#3 The Soviet war against ‘Fifth Columnists’ Jeffrey Burds Vol 42(2), 267–314. ISSN 0022–0094.
So Agrononse debunk that
Should one read further we will find that Many of the volunteers deserted at this time, and the 818th defected to Polish and Ukrainian resistance movements in 1943
Also it is worth noting that On July 1944, the unit transferred back to Poland. When the SS tried to quell the Warsaw Uprising, the unit was attached to the notoriously SS Dirlewanger Brigade, where they were participated in brutal actions that killed 200,000 Polish civilians.
I would like to finish with
The misfortune for the anti-Soviet Muslim soldiers did not end with the war. Hitler killed himself in his Berlin Bunker (April 30, 1945).
The final NAZI surrender occurred a few day later (May 8). The anti-Soviet Russians and Muslims attempted to surrender to to the Western Allies.
The Western Allies at the time, however, were attempting to get along with Stalin. Thus the Allies turned over these people, some times with their damilies, to the Soviets.
There they were either executed or condemned to the Gulag.
See no ad hominems just plain facts
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“Quite frankly your knowledge of islamic history sux”
And yet, not only I brought up topics you were ignorant about, you also go and say I’m right about them. No, my knowledge of history and islam is fine. The same can’t be said about you. And it’s funny how you keep referring to “islamic history” rather than simply “history”. It’s exactly the kind of thing I expect from a muslim.
More from the dunce:
“You make a wild claim that Muslims desert the red army to fight for the Germansm but agrononse did not give any source”
See? This is a blatant lie. On my previous post I directed you to a book, “Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. It tells how Nazi propaganda got tens of thousands of muslims to defect from the Red Arny to the German side. Of course, you don’t actually say that I’m wrong because, well, you can’t. I’m right and you go to say it just next:
“Well in reality, moslems did leave the Red army to join the nazi”
See? This is not the first time you try to question what I said only to end up admitting I was right. So you claim I don’t give a source and then you say that what I wrote was right? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB.
“So here is what wiki has to say”
And once again, you go to prove that your knowledge of history relies on wikipedia. Not mine, yours.
“The sweeping initial victories of Operation Barbarossa produced hundreds of thousands of non-Russian soldier prisoners in the POW cages of the German Army.”
We’re talking about deserters, not POWs. Huge logical failure on your part, as usual.
“So Agrononse debunk that
Should one read further”
Which you won’t.
“we will find that Many of the volunteers deserted at this time, and the 818th defected to Polish and Ukrainian resistance movements in 1943”
From the book I mentioned on my previous post – you know, the source I allegedly never gave for the thing that never happened even though you admit it did:
“With the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Nazi propaganda called Soviet Muslims to desert the Red Army and join special units of Wehrmacht. Indeed, tens of thousands of Central Asians defected from the Soviet army to the German side”.
Notice what it says: the German propaganda singled out muslims, and they deserted by the tens of thousands. Not POWs, active members of the Red Army.
“See no ad hominems”
And you say that with a straight face, after you called me “Agononse” and claimed that my knowledge of history “sux”. And that was only on that post – if one were to look at the other garbage you wrote one would find more insults directed at me or my knowledge of history.
“ just plain facts”
Facts that bear no significance to the matter at hand, as I prove above.
So, dunce, disprove what’s written in Karagiannis’s “Political Islam in Central Asia”. He claims that German propaganda was directed at muslims and drove tens of thousand from the Red Army to the German side. Then apologize for questioning me and my sources (especially because you end up acknowledging I’m right), retract what you said about it and accept my challenge to a debate on islam.
Semeru says
I do not you you an apology; because you resource (“Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. was posted at 8;56, exactly 40 minutes after i pointed out that you did not give any sources to you claim that muslim deserted the red army.
Check the time stamps, and it is easy to see who is lying
My post was post is 8:16 and yours is 8;56, so the time stamps indicate you are the liar.
Anyways there is no way you can prove you do have the book.
Also a simple google search one can find a very scant reference by Karagiannis,
With the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in |94|.
Nazi propaganda called Soviet Muslims to desert the Red Army and join
special units of Wehrmacht. Indeed. tens of thousands of Central Asians
defected from the Soviet army to the German side. preferring to fight against
the atheist communists. while tempted by hopes of independence if Gennany
won the war.
Now if you have the book and check on page 11 to see if the above is correct
I did not know that moslem deflected, But I did know about the POW,s joining the nazi,s rather than starving or freezing to death
Any way you posted the source after me pointing out that you did not give a source.
Here is the link
https://goo.gl/IA7H7U
If what Karagiannis is correct,then the former mufti had nothing to do with influencing the moslems, because the toad was in Iraq for the better part of 1941, and did not arrive in Germany until mid november.
The Mufti was not a world leader of of moslem, he was the leader of a Palistinian organization, Arab Higher Committee which he created. Also he was prsident of the The All-Palestine Government. and as Daniel Pipes point out, the palistinians only represent 1% of the moslem world.
Any,way before you accuse me of lying, check the time stamps.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“I do not you you an apology; because you resource (“Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. was posted at 8;56, exactly 40 minutes after i pointed out that you did not give any sources to you claim that muslim deserted the red army.”
Actually, you do. You accused me of not giving a source without waiting for me to reply to the first accusation. In fact, in your second post, you say I’m right and therefore the matter of my sources is moot, since you acknowledge I’m right.
“ Check the time stamps, and it is easy to see who is lying
My post was post is 8:16 and yours is 8;56, so the time stamps indicate you are the liar.”
Nah, you’re the one trying to pass a lie here. Even before I gave you one source, you acknowledged I was speaking the truth. That should render the discussion moot. But not to your dunce brain. No, in there you think you can undermine the veracity of what I wrote while acknowledging I was right all along. That’s the level of cognitive dissonance I expect from the mind of a muslim. And, like I said, my previous post had the source for my statement. Anyone can see the post where I said that and the post before that.
“Anyways there is no way you can prove you do have the book. ”
Really? Is that really where you want to go? Not whether or not my source is reliable but whether or not I can prove I own the book?
All your petty diatribe proves is that you’re light-years away from rational discussion and merely interested in opposing any and everything I say. LikeI said before, you’re in “oppose whatever it is Angemon says” mode. I say that muslims deserted from the Red Army to join the Germans, you cast suspicion on that only to admit I was right. I say I have a book, you need to say I can not prove I have the book. I could take a photo of the book and a strip of paper with “From Angemon to the dunce semeru”, and upload it to any image-sharing website it but and you’d insist there was no way to prove I had taken the photo. And that’s why you’re a dunce – you refuse to acknowledge what should be obvious to anyone.
More from the dunce:
“Also a simple google search one can find a very scant reference by Karagiannis,
With the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in |94|.
Nazi propaganda called Soviet Muslims to desert the Red Army and join
special units of Wehrmacht. Indeed. tens of thousands of Central Asians
defected from the Soviet army to the German side. preferring to fight against
the atheist communists. while tempted by hopes of independence if Gennany
won the war.
Now if you have the book and check on page 11 to see if the above is correct”
Oh, you’re a big, fat, bearded, muslim liar. Do you really expect me to fall for your blatant falsehood? What I wrote above is a direct transcription of what’s in the book. The invasion took place is 1941, not in |94|. And there’s no such thing as “Gennany” either. The book also makes correct usage of capitalization and punctuation. What you’re doing here is blatantly obvious: you posted a warped, erroneous “copy” of what’s in the book and you’re saying “well, you can’t prove you have the book, but if you do then here’s what is says”. I can’t prove I have the book, eh, dumbass? How else would I know what’s in it? How else would I know you tried to claim an invasion taking place in ’41 took place in ’94?
And it’s funny how you, who had no idea that book existed before I brought it up, are trying to act like you know all there is about it by saying “oh, it’s on page 11”, even though you admitted you had to google it. Here’s the thing, dunce: books with more than one edition sometimes get different numeration. What’s on page 11 on one edition can be on page 10, or 12, in another.
So no, dunce. My book doesn’t say, whether in page 11 or somewhere else, that “Gennany” invaded the Soviet Union in “94”.
“I did not know that moslem deflected”
But that didn’t stopped you from doubting me instead of trying to educate yourself on the subject.
“But I did know about the POW,s joining the nazi,s rather than starving or freezing to death”
Which is irrelevant for what I said about Nazi propaganda and desertions.
“Any way you posted the source after me pointing out that you did not give a source.”
And after you admitted I was right and that muslims defected from the Red Army to the Germans. So if I don’t give a source but you agree with what I said, what need is there for a source, dumbass?
“If what Karagiannis is correct,then the former mufti had nothing to do with influencing the moslems, because the toad was in Iraq for the better part of 1941, and did not arrive in Germany until mid november.”
What, he couldn’t prepare propaganda if he was not in Berlin? Pfffft. You’re not even trying anymore, are you?
“The Mufti was not a world leader of of moslem, he was the leader of a Palistinian organization, Arab Higher Committee which he created. Also he was prsident of the The All-Palestine Government. and as Daniel Pipes point out, the palistinians only represent 1% of the moslem world.”
Once again, read Mr. Spencer’s article:
Semeru says
More to reinforce that Spencer claim that the mufti was a world leader is wrong
Firstly
British authorities accused Husseni of inciting Arab riots against attacking Jews crowds in Jerusalem (April 4, 1920). He was tried by a military court with incitement to violence. He subsequently absconded from his bail and was tried in absentia and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Secondly
The first British High Commissioner for Palestine was Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew. Sammuel assumed control (July 1,1920). Samuel sought to build a positive relationship with the Palestinian Arabs and one of the steps he took was pardoning Husseini. Sir Robert Storrs, governor of Jerusalem took the further step of appointing Husseni to the post of Grand Mufti. This was theoretically an elected post, but Sir Richard essentially rigged the election. He thought that given the importance of the Husseni family that it would helpful to British interests to reign in Husseni’s radicalism. He sought to do this by bringing him into the system with the important post. Husseni was not, however, brought into the system. The British thus made an advocate of violence into the principal religious and political spkesmen for the Palestinian Arabs. The post of Grand Mufti was actually invented by the British. The Mufti while disdaining the British, used that title and several others, includung “eminence.” The Islamic scholar, sheikh-and president of his former university, Al-Azbar in Cairo, writes, “In Islam, there are no “eminencies” and no “grand” muftis. Before Allah all men are equal, and it ill behooves a religious teacher to assume such redundant titles… A mufti is a teacher in Islam. And even to that title Hajj Amin should have no claim, for he has not finished a single course of studies here at the University. He owes his appointment to political influence and family connections. He is a politician.” As Grand Muffti he had both influence and access to funds. One estimate is 200,000 pounds annually. He used these funds to work against the British. He both financed terror attacks and worked establisjing his personal authority in Palestine. The British also appointed Husseni president of the Supreme Muslim Council, and, later, the Arab Higher Committee. This gave him access to even more resource. The head of the Council, until Husseni obtained the post, was elected every 5 years. Husseni essentially seized control. He used threats to bring others under control. This gave him access to the Council allowance from the British Mandate government. He also gained control over Muslim charitable donatiins as well as donations from abroad. He used these resources to purchase patronage and influence in Palestine.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“More to reinforce that Spencer claim that the mufti was a world leader is wrong
Firstly
British authorities accused Husseni of inciting Arab riots against attacking Jews crowds in Jerusalem (April 4, 1920). He was tried by a military court with incitement to violence. He subsequently absconded from his bail and was tried in absentia and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Secondly
The first British High Commissioner for Palestine was Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew. Sammuel assumed control (July 1,1920). Samuel sought to build a positive relationship with the Palestinian Arabs and one of the steps he took was pardoning Husseini.”
Huh, what? Are you that daft? Oh, wait, of course you are. By your logic the mufti was of so little standing that he could incite muslims to riot? He was of so little standing that the British saw fit to pardon him to get in the “palestinians” good graces.
You truly deserve the nickname of “dunce”, dunce. The thing is, if the mufti was some sort of two-bit crook, muslims wouldn’t heed his calls for riots against Jews. If he was a two-bit crook then the British wouldn’t pardon him. It should be obvious that if he could incite riots and if he was considered important enough to pardon, then he clearly was someone of standing. And, of course, you clearly haven’t read the article:
You, being a dunce, are limited to copy/pasting from some undisclosed source and braying that what you copy/pasted “proves” Spencer wrong, even though the so-called “proof” you copy/pasted was addressed by Spencer on the article.
Dunce. Dunce. Dunce. Dunce. DUNCE. All you managed to prove is that you’re light-years away from rational discourse.
Semeru says
AND HERE IS THE SECOND Part
Then again Agrononse in his post at May 29, 2015 at 4:59 am where he wrote And now you’re here, trying to scrounge up excuses for muslim deserters from the Red Army. You’re the ignorant one who just had a lesson in humility.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244647.
What a fool you are, how could I be humlliated, you after four posts had still not give nany source concerning concerning moslems deflecting to the nazi,s.
It is more than likely you where the one humiliated when confronted with the fact that moslems POWs chose to join the nazi,s rather than face death in the POW camps
Then finally at May 30, 2015 at 8:56 am agrononse gives a his source, that is afer four posts with out a source, two days after he first mentioned moslems deflecting to the nazi,s
Agrononse writes And you know what? I was hoping you did that, dunce. See, I happen to ahve this book in my library called “Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. It tells how Nazi propaganda got tens of thousands of muslims to defect from the Red Arny to the German side.
Granted You give a source, but you offer no link. If it took me 10 minutes to find what you quote, and was able to link to it the I am sure two days is ample time for you to find some thing to fit your claim
Through out this thread I have posted an awful lot about moslems during WW2, both pro and anti nazi, some I have linked. What I have attempted to do is to give a clearer picture of the role moslems played during the war. all you have contributed is a very scant passage from a book he claims to have in his possession.
You have not been able to dispute anything I have posted, all I get for you is a load of ad hominems
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“What a fool you are, how could I be humlliated, you after four posts had still not give nany source concerning concerning moslems deflecting to the nazi,s.”
And yet, you agreed with me on that. I stand by my words. You doubted what I said. You tried to cast suspicion on what I said. You agreed to what I said. And you tried to come up with excuses like POWs when that was not what I said.
Like I said, you’re the ignorant one who just had a lesson in humility.
“It is more than likely you where the one humiliated when confronted with the fact that moslems POWs chose to join the nazi,s rather than face death in the POW camps”
Likelihood of that: 0. I’ve proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Red Army members, nor POWs, deserted due to Nazi propaganda to join the German side. The POW thing is another, unrelated topic that you brought up to try to obfuscate what I said.
“Granted You give a source, but you offer no link.”
And? You’re the wiki expert, not me. I have the book. I consulted it. I gave info according what was there. Not all books have digital versions available for consult. especially specialized books like that. Look for it in Amazon and see for how much it sells.
“ If it took me 10 minutes to find what you quote, and was able to link to it the I am sure two days is ample time for you to find some thing to fit your claim”
“Find something to fit my claim”? Like, I don’t know, the book I told you to look on? You seem to forget I was the one who mentioned that book and that you only looked for it afterwards. Now, the issue here is not whether or not it took me two days, the issue here is whether or not I am right. Since I am right, what I said above stands: you’re the ignorant one who just had a lesson in humility.
“Through out this thread I have posted an awful lot about moslems during WW2, both pro and anti nazi, some I have linked.”
By which you mean you copy/pasted from wikipedia and other undisclosed sources and tried to claim they meant something else without any regard for what was written there.
“What I have attempted to do is to give a clearer picture of the role moslems played during the war.”
No, your original goal was to claim that Mr. Spencer was wrong when he said that the mufti was the leader of the islamic world. You have yet to make a case for that.
“all you have contributed is a very scant passage from a book he claims to have in his possession.”
Actually, no. I pointed out several interesting info on why muslims fought on the Allied side. The so-called “scanty passage” proves that muslims deserted from the Red Army to the German side, which is something you were ignorant about until I brought it up, and which was something you ended up admitting it happened. Also, you allegedly found that passage online and attested to its veracity. Also, what’s with the change from 1st to 3rd person in the middle of the sentence?
“You have not been able to dispute anything I have posted”
Actually, I have. I have used logical reasoning to prove why you’re wrong. You can pretend I didn’t, but that won’t change a thing – you filed what you set up to do, you clearly started posting the opposite of what I posted out of personal spite, and you had to agree with what I posted on several occasions.
“all I get for you is a load of ad hominems”
So I guess you didn’t got the *ahem*, “scanty passage in a book” from me, right? What about the info that German propaganda targeted muslims and as a result tens of thousands deserted the Soviet army? Did you get that from where? As for the “load of ad hominems”, I know you think you’re sounding smart but you’re looking like a fool. I called you dunce several times. Do you want me to go through your posts and point out all the bitter invectives you directed at me? Do you want to tally up numbers and see who directed more unique ad hominens? Well, I guess that’s the only scenario where you can claim victory: you threw more different insults at me than I did at you. Congratulations, dunce!
rabrooks says
If the ad was so ineffective, why did he spend so much time analyzing it? It got your attention even though you have some background in the subject matter.
The “grand mufti” as hussseini was know , was charged by hitle to establish several mudslime ss divisions.. That was then, but to start with in the here and now, hitler’s “mine kampf”, justhappens to be the #2 most translated book in the sandbox. It is only surpassed by the koran. Evil is evil regardless of it’s cover..
Semeru says
Another myth that reflects poorly on the intelligence of the anti jihad movement.
There have been not more than two translations
translatoins of Mein Kamph into arabic, the first by Ahmad Mahmud al-Sadati, a Muslim and the publisher of one of the first Arabic books on National Socialism. Al-Sadati published his translation of Mein Kampf in Cairo in 1937 without German approval.
According to Yekutiel Gershoni and James Jankowski, the Sadati translation did not receive wide circulation. However, local Arab weekly Rose al-Yūsuf published Hitler’s quote from the book on Egyptians, that they are a “decadent people composed of cripples.”[The quote raised angry responses.
A new translation was published in 1963, translated by Luis al-Haj, a Nazi war criminal originally named Luis Heiden who fled to Egypt after World War II. The book was republished in 1995 by Bisan Publishers in Beirut.
According to a September 8, 1999, Agence France Presse report, Mein Kampf ranked sixth on the bestseller list compiled by Dar el-Shuruq bookshop in Ramallah, with sales of less than 10 copies a week.
The bookshop owner attributed its popularity to its having been unavailable in the Palestinian territories due to an Israeli ban, and the Palestinian National Authority recently allowing it to be sold.
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“According to a September 8, 1999, Agence France Presse report, Mein Kampf ranked sixth on the bestseller list compiled by Dar el-Shuruq bookshop in Ramallah, with sales of less than 10 copies a week.”
And, like the wikipedia article you copied that info from, tells us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf_in_the_Arabic_language
“In 2007 an Agence France-Presse reporter interviewed a bookseller at the Cairo International Book Fair who stated he had sold many copies of Mein Kampf”
Of course, nothing you wrote refutes anything rabrooks posted – once again, you’ve proven your MO consists in searching posts for keywords and copy/paste anything minimally related, regardless of the actual relevance to the conversation.
Here’s actual info about how popular Mein Kampf is in the muslim world:
Mein Kampf a hit on Dhaka streets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8382132.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Arabic.html
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Art/2005/Mar-18/95308-hitlers-mein-kampf-sells-50000-copies-in-turkey-in-three-months.ashx#axzz1mYj9kPvg&date=2012-02-16
Anything that’s anti-Jewish will sell like hotcakes in any muslim land.
Semeru says
Agrononse wrote,
Of course, nothing you wrote refutes anything rabrooks posted
Firstly rabrooks claimed That was then, but to start with in the here and now, hitler’s “mine kampf”, justhappens to be the #2 most translated book in the sandbox. It is only surpassed by the koran
So where is the proof that it is the #2 most translated book. I see Agrononse cannot refute that it has only been translated twice, instead he tries to overwhelm the fact by giving links to how popular it is in non arabic speaking countries such as Bangladesh and Turkey.
In Bangladesh it sold by street vendors and it is not the arabic translation but Engiish, and in Turkey has been translated to Turkish and is titled kavgam
Then he gives another link to it being sold in London. He does not inform us that the book being sold in London is the Luis al-Haj 1963 translation.
Nether Rabrooks or Agrononse give any proof that there are more than two Arabic Translations.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“I see Agrononse cannot refute that it has only been translated twice”
Don’t go there, dunce. Mein Kampf has been translated into many languages. Are you really going to try to make the case that is was only translated twice?
“Nether Rabrooks or Agrononse give any proof that there are more than two Arabic Translations.”
You nave gave any proof that there are only two translations to arabic, did you? You made a statement without any sort of evidence to back it of, and now you’re whining because we allegedly did the same.
Start by proving your case before trying to disprove anyone else’s, dunce. But keep this in mind: the “number of arabic translations” is a moot point, a red herring – Rabrook said “hitler’s “mine kampf”, justhappens to be the #2 most translated book in the sandbox“. If by “sandbox” rabrook meant “islamic world” then you need to come to terms with the fact that the islamic world is mostly non-arabic and therefore the links I gave are completely on topic while your statement isn’t. Most of muslims worldwide don’t speak arabic and therefore the number of arabic translations is irrelevant.
Now go ahead, ignore what I just wrote and focus on repeating that I’m not giving any evidence to more than two arabic translations and therefore I’m wrong, like if you’re a one-person propaganda machine. Newcomers to the site could use a look into the logical capabilities of the average mohammedan.
Semeru says
I QUOTE
“I see Agrononse cannot refute that it has only been translated twice”
By this I meant it has only been translated twice into arabic
Agrononce Don’t go there, dunce. Mein Kampf has been translated into many languages. Are you really going to try to make the case that is was only translated twice?
I am not disputing the fact it has been translated into many languages, I am disputing that it has not been translated many times in the sand box.
Agrononce Start by proving your case before trying to disprove anyone else’s, dunce. But keep this in mind: the “number of arabic translations” is a moot point, a red herring – Rabrook said “hitler’s “mine kampf”, just happens to be the #2 most translated book in the sandbox“. If by “sandbox” rabrook meant “islamic world” then you need to come to terms with the fact that the islamic world is mostly non-arabic and therefore the links I gave are completely on topic while your statement isn’t. Most of muslims worldwide don’t speak arabic and therefore the number of arabic translations is irrelevant.
The term “sandbox can hardly refer to the islamic world in general, Turkey Afghanistan and Pakistan can hardly be described as sandboxs, Nor can the tropical regions of Malaysia, Borneo and Indonesia.
Sandbox clearly refers to the arabic speaking world which is mostly desert (sand)
Yes Mien Kampf has been translated into Turkish and Urdu, but to describe Pakistan and Turkey as sand boxes is ridiculous.
Angemon says
Semeru posted:
“By this I meant it has only been translated twice into arabic”
And since no one made any claim regarding the number of translations into arabic, whatever you meant is moot, null and void.
“I am not disputing the fact it has been translated into many languages, I am disputing that it has not been translated many times in the sand box.”
Define what the sandbox is.
“The term “sandbox can hardly refer to the islamic world in general, Turkey Afghanistan and Pakistan can hardly be described as sandboxs, Nor can the tropical regions of Malaysia, Borneo and Indonesia.
Sandbox clearly refers to the arabic speaking world which is mostly desert (sand)”
I suppose you know better than rabrooks what he meant by “sandbox”… As fas as I’m concerned, by “sandbox” he meant the muslim world, which includes, but it’s not limited to, the middle east and Africa.
“Yes Mien Kampf has been translated into Turkish and Urdu, but to describe Pakistan and Turkey as sand boxes is ridiculous.”
Right, they’re covered in lush, tropical rain forests one one end and glaciers on the other.You’re trying to shift discussion away from the popularity of mein kampf (meaning, “my jihad”) in the islamic world and into a discussion of topography. Not going to work, dunce. If you have a problem with the term “sandbox” then ask rabrooks to explain what he meant by that instead of trying to derive some sort of “logic” based on whatever it is you decided it means.
Jack Diamond says
It sure has been a bestseller among Muslims in Turkey.
an example from 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361733.stm
note the bookseller saying the book has always been “a sleeper, a secret bestseller.”
But it’s nothing compared to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I’ve seen
with my own eyes “Palestinian” Arabs with this in their home. Egyptians even made
a television series from it. What could be more Jew hating than the forgery that helped
inspire the Holocaust? But if you want to know how Muslims view Jews just watch the
bile vomited from the mouths of their best and most bearded imams and mullahs and political authorities as they broadcast to their own, on their own media, preserved for us by the good folks at MEMRI.
Denis MacEoin says
I’m afraid Daniel’s criticisms of the ad were correct and balanced. We cannot pursue our opposition to Islamic extremism using counter-factual or prejudiced material. It is courageous to put ads on buses, and I don’t disagree in principle with doing so. But if our ads come close to being hate speech, we will only win sympathy for Muslims. It frightens me that so many here, despite knowing that Pipes is on the front line when it comes to countering Islamic propaganda, terrorism, and fundamentalism, are willing to turn on him so viciously for stepping out of line with their own prejudices. His Middle Forum and its offshoots have presented a solid, fact-based, and unhysterical view of the Middle East and Islam, and I believe they have done more good than the often unbalanced material and language that appears on Jihad Watch and Geller’s Atlas Shrugs. I use both of those for what is often good information, but I often find a lack of reason in their comments in articles and the comment pages. I have had my differences with Daniel, but we both share an Islamic/Middle East Studies background, and I wiull defend him against these knee-jerk criticisms. Being strident does harm to our cause, and if we can’t see the sense in that, we will fail miserably. I support Spencer’s and Geller’s right to mount a Muhammad cartoon exhinbition on free speech grounds and as a tribute to those who died at Charlie Hebdo. But it did seem deliberately provocative in the way it was mounted. There are better ways of asserting our rights, and sometimes we seem to invite accusations of prejudice and bigotry. It’s time to step back, to work together, and to avoiud Islamophobia rather than engaging in serious and balanced criticism.
Champ says
“…and I believe they have done more good than the often unbalanced material and language that appears on Jihad Watch and Geller’s Atlas Shrugs.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s clear that Denis has a bias and he’s only here to get-in a few licks of his own; and I think that Denis has a chip on his shoulder and he’d side with anyone presenting friendly-fire against Pamela.
Seems the unvarnished Truth about islam & company — presented by Robert and Pamela, is too hot for poor Denis to handle. Apparently he prefers lies & 1/2 truths, hmm …
Mo says
@ Denis MacEoin
“We cannot pursue our opposition to Islamic extremism using counter-factual or prejudiced material.”
What counter factual or prejudiced material was on this ad?
“But if our ads come close to being hate speech, we will only win sympathy for Muslims.”
What close to hate speech statements were on this ad? And upon what basis do you call it hate speech?
” It frightens me that so many here, despite knowing that Pipes is on the front line when it comes to countering Islamic propaganda, terrorism, and fundamentalism, are willing to turn on him so viciously for stepping out of line with their own prejudices.”
What prejudices are those? Name them. And then give the evidence for them.
“and I believe they have done more good than the often unbalanced material and language that appears on Jihad Watch and Geller’s Atlas Shrugs.”
What “often unbalanced material and language” are you talking about? Provide your evidence, from each site.
” I use both of those for what is often good information, but I often find a lack of reason in their comments in articles and the comment pages.”
What “lack of reason” in the articles is that?
As to comment pages, can either Robert or Pamela be held responsible for every comment posted? (And that’s assuming your “lack of reason there as well, since you provided no evidence.”
That’s as far as I read. You made a list of claims and accusations here. Now, back them up with your evidence.
RonaldB says
[Referring to Daniel Pipes] “His Middle Forum and its offshoots have presented a solid, fact-based, and unhysterical view of the Middle East and Islam..’
You know, I would have thought so myself before reading Andrew Bostom’s detailed and well-referenced article on intrinsic, canonical, historic, and extensive Islamic hatred and persecution of Jews:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/07/10/educating-daniel-pipes-on-islamic-antisemitism/
Furthermore, Andrew Bostom agreed to debate Daniel Pipes on the issue in a neutral forum, and Pipes refused:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/05/20/i-have-agreed-to-debate-daniel-pipes-on-his-conception-of-islamic-antisemitism/
“I support Spencer’s and Geller’s right to mount a Muhammad cartoon exhinbition on free speech grounds and as a tribute to those who died at Charlie Hebdo. But it did seem deliberately provocative in the way it was mounted. There are better ways of asserting our rights, and sometimes we seem to invite accusations of prejudice and bigotry.”
There are two definitions of exercise.
1) Exercise means to act, as in “exercise the freedom of speech”.
2) Exercise means to practice with the objective of improving or getting better, as “The Chopin etudes are not only great music, but vital for any pianist to improve his technique” or “The Muhammad cartoon exhibition was a superb exercise of free speech.” In this definition, to exercise free speech is to extend and strengthen it…which is precisely the point of the exhibition.
“Prejudice and bigotry”….I guess I’m a transplanted Chicagoan in Texas, which made me pick up the culture. But, Americans are not, or should not be, so fragile as to shiver at the thought of being thought of as “prejudiced”. Using the term shuts off discussion and intellectual exploration. It’s like the Pogo cartoon: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” By censoring ourselves over fears that someone else can label us….is surrendering before a fight.
” sometimes we seem to invite accusations of prejudice and bigotry” Come on, Denis. If you think the exhibition is prejudiced and bigoted, come out and say it like a man. Don’t weasel around with “some people might think us bigoted.” Don’t you have the courage of your own convictions? Just say it and take the criticism you’ll get. So what? Are you afraid of being criticized by a bunch of anonymous posters?
We need to come out with honesty and integrity, and let people make up their own minds. Not every piece of information is a public relations piece. Some information is just that: information. The framers of the Constitution said the Republic need an informed electorate…and indeed, we do.
Elliot says
Sorry Daniel. You and I agree in most things but not today. WE DO NOT WASH OUR DIRTY LINEN IN PUBLIC. END OF!
The Jew haters bash us and you everyday. For goodness sake dont give them even more ammo
If Daniel disagrees then he talks to Pam and Robert. Not spout his claptrap in full view
Sure truth and facts are very important but what we are dealing with here is knowing that the jewhaters viciously attack our side EVERY GODDAM DAY
So if we get anything wrong we correct it THEY NEVER DO
Apartheid shite racist shite genocide shite illegal occupation shite blockade shite right of return shite -you know the canards better than ANYONE
Denis on this occasion . Respectfully, Wise up!
vlparker says
“Sorry Daniel. You and I agree in most things but not today. WE DO NOT
WASH OUR DIRTY LINEN IN PUBLIC. END OF!
If Daniel disagrees then he talks to Pam and Robert. Not spout his claptrap in full view.”
Exactly. By doing this he is aiding and abetting the jihadists. There is no excuse for it.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
`Normally I’d say that any debate is inherently good, but the continued practice of Infidel apologetics on behalf of Islam is dangerous. The Holy Ko-Ran is clear on its hatred of the Jews, so here we have an “expert” like Pipes ignoring the obvious truth. The academy is in a tail spin these days, too much hair splitting and not enough intellectual courage. Trouble is, what Pipes is doing will never be outed before the public.
To me, antisemitism has its roots in jealousy. As Israel goes, so goes freedom in this world Everybody would like for the Jews to take the fall, but that will probe to be an historic disaster. Mohammed accepted help from the Jews of Yathrib, and then promptly turned on them in a vicious way. That’s all you need to know about Islam.
Uncle Vladdi says
Try this, Pipes:
“RADICAL FASCISM IS THE PROBLEM, MODERATE FASCISM IS THE SOLUTION!”
Moron.
xxxChurch100 says
This ad was only a failure in one aspect , that it gained comment from Dr Daniel Pipes .. who in my opinion is unworthy and totally ill informed to make any public opinion on anything !!!!
Bearing that in mind Ms Geller and Mr Spencer keep doing in fact if possible increase your efforts , BRAVO !!!!
Kepha says
Pipes: Score one when he said that Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an opportunist trying to get what he could out of Hitler.
Score one for Geller and Co.: Islamic hatred of Jews, Christians, and anyone else outside the pale does go back to the Qur’an itself. Further, the Qur’an has no admonitions to love one’s enemies, pray for those who despitefully use use believers, pray for the peace o the city of captivity, or seek peace with all as much as it is up to us (for the benefit of the moral equivalence lurkers).
Score another for Geller and Co.: Western self-censorship about Islam is appalling, and free speech is under fire from an unholy alliance of Islam and the immoderate Left. We need our own free speech movement to remind the liberals and radicals that silencing someone doesn’t equal converting him (and such silencing can produce a very deep and embittered waiting for vengeance on the part of those so treated).
While I generally respect Dr. Pipes (I sometimes post comments on his blog), on balance I’m for Pam’s ad–although I’d consider a few changes for the sake of historical accuracy along the lines of Pipes’ criticism. I could care less about what interfaith coalitions and “Reform rabbis” of the female persuasion think (or, perhaps more accurately, feel–besser a bort ohn a rav vi a rav ohn a bort, as they used to say). As for the liberal Christian thinkers, they are giving away the store, rolling over and playing dead whenever their worst enemies tell them to (and I don’t think they’re exactly obeying Christ’s admonition to go the extra mile; rather I see them as bowing to the Ba’alim and Ashtoroth of our present age), and doing all the running they can to remain a respectful five paces behind their cultured despisers.
Perhaps the liberal reader of the ad will lack either the theological, historical, or anthropological sense to appreciate the dangers to ALL civilization inherent in Islamic theology (pointing these out has always been perhaps the greatest service Robert has performed over the years). However, a critic of Pipes’ caliber does possess the linguistic, historical, and ethnological sensitivity’s to offer at least some criticisms that could be taken to heart.
RonaldB says
Hi Kepha,
I always enjoy your posts, as you bring intelligence, knowledge, logic and experience to any issue. I also deeply disagree with demonizing the personality of a poster, as opposed to criticizing his views and information.
So, I disagree with charges of “traitor” hurled at Pipes, and encourage all debate. However, it seems to me he has a pretty flimsy case. You mention “a critic of Pipes’ caliber does possess the linguistic, historical, and ethnological sensitivity’s to offer at least some criticisms that could be taken to heart.”
But, here is Pipes suggestion:
“How might have the ad been more effectively composed? Simple: by distinguishing between the religion of Islam and the totalitarian ideology of Islamism, as in, “Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution. Non-Muslims and patriotic Muslims must band together to fight ISIS, Boku [sic] Haram, CAIR, and ISNA. Islamist-Watch.org.” The picture might have featured novelist Salman Rushdie talking to television host Bill Maher, a liberal who criticizes radical Islam.”
The search for moderate Muslims is never-ending. Do you know the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, in his search for moderate Muslims, gave a speech in front of the ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) convention in 2007?
http://urj.org/about/union/leadership/yoffie/isna/
What is a moderate Muslim? A Muslim who doesn’t blow up infidels? A Muslim who opposes the teaching of Islam in public schools (find one for me)? A Muslim who supports the state constitutional provisions mandating that no legal precedent or construct other than US legislation and common law will be used in court decisions (find one for me)? A Muslim who supports the exclusion of Muslims from further immigration (find one for me)?
I think we’re losing the war. I think the Obama administration is covertly trying to stuff the country with Muslim immigrants and other immigrants. And the importation of non-Muslim immigrants, who are certain to integrate minimally into US society, and certain to stress welfare, education, and police work, is part of dissolving the strength of US culture. Part of the doctrine of Muslim warfare, as elucidated by S Malik in “The Quranic Concept of War” is to use “Dawa” or pre-violent strategy, to dissolve the will and the ability of a society to resist Muslim violence.
In light of this, is the question of whether so-called “moderate Muslims” will actually be of any benefit at all. We have a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, which has proven beneficial at times. The Saudis actually went to great lengths to warn us of a terrorist plot in 2010
http://www.jpost.com/International/Report-Saudis-warned-3-weeks-before-Yemeni-terror-plot.
This was not a result of the “moderation” of the Saudis, but it served their strategic advantage to not allow al Qada to operate freely…as al-Qada had as an objective the overthrow of he Saudi royal family.
I think we ought to form strategic alliances with Muslims all the time…not because they’re moderate, but because their interests sometimes correspond with ours. But, we don’t have to seduce them…just pay them, if you know what I mean…and recognize as soon as our interests no longer converge, they’ll be on their way.
If we delude ourselves into thinking “moderate” Muslims can be handled and are not an existential threat to the US if admitted into our borders…we’ve lost the war.
keith says
… a Muslim SS division..??!! Lol… Probably organized to fight unarmed women & children..!!
stferdinandiii says
Pipes is just another illiterate academic. Bury him with the other idiots.
Semeru says
So Spencer is giving to much credit to the former mufti of Jerusalem,
A much better discription of him can bee found at the Holocaust Encyclopedia website.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007665
Muhammad Amin al-Husayni (189?-1974) was the Mufti (chief Muslim Islamic legal religious authority) of Jerusalem under the political authority of the British Mandate in Palestine from 1921 to 1937. His primary political causes were: 1) establishment of a pan-Arab federation or state; 2) opposition to further immigration of Jews to Palestine and Jewish national aspirations in Palestine; 3) promotion of himself as a pan-Arab and Muslim religious leader.
In exile between 1937 and 1945, al-Husayni, claiming to speak for the Arab nation and the Muslim world, sought an alliance with the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) based on their publicly recognizing 1) the independence of the Arab states; 2) the right of those states to form a union reflecting a dominant Muslim and specifically Arab culture; 3) the right of those states to reverse steps taken towards the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and 4) al-Husayni himself as the spiritual and political representative of this pan-Arab, Muslim entity.
Spencer and many in the CJM are giving Husayni far to much credit, in an attempt to portray all moslems as nazi collaborators during WW2., and over look that just as many Moslems, maybe even more fought for the allies.
This in turn subtracts from the creditability of the CJM. But you being as thick as two planks fail to see this
It is apparent that it is you that is “butthurt” when confronted with the evidence that not all moslems sided with the nazis.
I am not going to continue this debate because you are not a person, but my conclusion is that no matter what side the moslems fought on, it was not for good of the nations they fought for.
The Indians moslems volunteered to fight against the nazi.s, not because the hindus where siding with the nazis as you claimed, but because of the promise of there own state, Pakistan.
Incidentally, moslems helped Chandra Bose who revamped the pro nazi Indian National Army
Like wise the central asian moslems fought on then nazi side, hoping that they get an independant state.
One more fact you over look Moslems are not allowed to join kafir armies unlss it may be advantageous such as as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit to the umma, it may be permissible,
Now about who is lying
May 28, 2015 at 10:32 am agrononse wrote There were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244328
My response pointing out that Agrononse did not give any source to his claim was posted
May 28, 2015 at 2:10 pm
I wrote Agrononse moans that I did not give source yet we get the from him <iThere were reports of members of the Red Army deserting to fight for Germany, which is something you conveniently left out – exactly how many of those were muslims, dunce?
What no source;
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244398
Then again at May 28, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Agrononse writes So, dunce? Why did muslims desert from the Red Army to the German side? Why did Chechen sided with the Germans against the Soviets?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244458
Then again Agrononse in his post at May 29, 2015 at 4:59 am where he wrote And now you’re here, trying to scrounge up excuses for muslim deserters from the Red Army. You’re the ignorant one who just had a lesson in humility.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1244647.
What a fool you are, how could I be humlliated, you after four posts had still not give nany source concerning concerning moslems deflecting to the nazi,s.
It is more than likely you where the one humiliated when confronted with the fact that moslems POWs chose to join the nazi,s rather than face death in the POW camps
Then finally at May 30, 2015 at 8:56 am agrononse gives a his source, that is afer four posts with out a source, two days after he first mentioned moslems deflecting to the nazi,s
Agrononse writes And you know what? I was hoping you did that, dunce. See, I happen to ahve this book in my library called “Political Islam in Central Asia” by Emmanuel Karagiannis. It tells how Nazi propaganda got tens of thousands of muslims to defect from the Red Arny to the German side.
Granted You give a source, but you offer no link. If it took me 10 minutes to find what you quote, and was able to link to it the I am sure two days is ample time for you to find some thing to fit your claim
Through out this thread I have posted an awful lot about moslems during WW2, both pro and anti nazi, some I have linked. What I have attempted to do is to give a clearer picture of the role moslems played during the war. all you have contributed is a very scant passage from a book he claims to have in his possession.
You have not been able to dispute anything I have posted, all I get from you is a load of ad hominems
Angemon says
The dunce is just trying to get the last word in. He already posted this somewhere else, split in two parts, and I have addressed them:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1245596
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/failed-analysis-offered-as-remedy-to-failed-ad/comment-page-2#comment-1245599
Semeru says
Agrononse The dunce is just trying to get the last word in. He already posted this somewhere else, split in two parts, and I have addressed them:
You reading skills are just as bad as mine, maybe even worse,
I am not trying to get the last word in, If you just look at the time stamp to the above post, you will see it was posted at 4:52 am and it is the full post. when I first posted my comment it did not appear, so I split it because some sites do not publish comments if the contain too many links,
One of the posts further up is part two was posted at 5:26 am
Part one failed to post
The other post further up is a completely separate post was posted at 5:03 am
So the time stamps prove without a doubt that the comment posted at 4:52 was not as you say, an attempt to get the last word
But it does not matter It took you five comments before, before you finally gave referrence, but you failed miserably because you could not give a link, which I did, so if you are so respect on the forum, don’t you owe it to them to give links to your references, and not leave it to me
Another point I have put up a lot of data on this thread concerning moslems in general during WW2, quite of lot of that data is informative, now is it not one of the stated purpose of this site, Most threads are not much more than echo chambers.
You may not think so but every I pasted here is relevant, as it dealt with deals with moslems during WW2, I am sure that any reading this thread will learn some, especially about the Goumiers after the battle of Monte Cassino,
This incident is not widely known, The West was to busy demonizing the russians for the mass rapes in Berlin, that they overlook the moslem allies doing the same thing.
I admit my writing skills are terrible, that is why I resort to cut and paste,
My writing skills are bad because when I was a kid I hardly ever went to school, it was moer fun to hang out at Heathrow, hitch hiking or biking to airfield around southern England plane spotting, and if I was not doing that I was swimming in the Thames at Runnymede.
You can mock me for my bad skills at writing, but you can not mock me for my knowledge of islam, because without that knowledge i would not be able to track down the info which I post.
Anyways I know you will be loath to admit it but I am sure you have learnt something new on this thread.
I will admit the deflection of moslems in Central Asia was new to me
I am sure you did not know before that moslems assisted Chandra Bose to escape from the british, if you would have known,i do not think you would have written such a stupid statement as the Moslems fought for the British because the hindus where fighting for the nazi,s.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“But it does not matter It took you five comments before, before you finally gave referrence, but you failed miserably because you could not give a link, which I did”
So let’s see how your logic works:
1 – I say that muslims deserted from the Red Army to join the Germans. You ask for source.
2 – I reiterate that muslims deserted from the Red Army to join the Germans. You ask for source and right after that you agree that was a thing that happened.
3 – I go look in my library, reiterate that muslims defected from the Red Army to the German side, and give you the title of a book where it says that, the name of the author and a quotation from the book.
4 – You admit I was right, you google it, you give a link, claim I can’t prove I own the book and bring up with some unrelated story about POWs.
5 – I point out that the POWs had nothing to do with what I said and what was in the book. You say you’re going to stop the debate because I’m not a person.
6 – You claim I failed miserably because I could not give a link, even though you agreed with what I said, allegedly found the passage I quoted online (my book doesn’t mention “Gennany” or “94”) and never doubted its accuracy.
See? No wonder you’re regarded as a joke, dunce. I gave you a quotation from a book because, unlike you, I acquire my info from several sources while you stick to what you can find in Wikipedia or a quick google search to pretend to be an expert. It’s not my responsibility to make sure the book can be found online or not. You’re clearly grasping at straws, desperate to claim some sort of “victory” over me without realizing how pathetically desperate you sound.
“so if you are so respect on the forum”
I’m not here to be “respect”. I’m here because I’m a part of the CJ movement. Whatever respect I have from any user on this site is the byproduct of my posts, not their goal, and I consider a bonus. It is honest respect, dug out of these hills informed post by informed post, pun by pun, smart ass comment by smart ass comment. I have toiled under the watchful eyes of JW and CJ regulars, the oppressive gaze of islamic apologists and trolls, and I make my posts based on info I know, not on whatever can be copy/pasted from wikipedia or the first page of the results of a google search.
“don’t you owe it to them to give links to your references”
I gave the title and the author of the book I quoted from. That’s the kind of reference you’ll find on books when their author quotes from other books (try reading one and you’ll see): the title and the author.
If you’re not happy with the sort of references that would hold under editorial standards, though titties. Set up your own publishing company and tell your authors everything they write has to come from online sources, and see how peer review treats you. The quote I gave is correct, and it came from the source I named. Either you dispute that or you don’t. And since you don’t…
“You may not think so but every I pasted here is relevant, as it dealt with deals with moslems during WW2, I am sure that any reading this thread will learn some, especially about the Goumiers after the battle of Monte Cassino”
Nope. You can find references to that on JW dating back years ago. Maybe you should have used google before saying something so asinine.
“This incident is not widely known, The West was to busy demonizing the russians for the mass rapes in Berlin, that they overlook the moslem allies doing the same thing.”
Nope.
“I admit my writing skills are terrible, that is why I resort to cut and paste”
No, you copy and paste because your knowledge comes from whatever you can find on wikipedia and google. And if not for my insistence you wouldn’t even admit to that. You’re a fraud, plain and simple. You know nothing on the subjects you try to discuss but that doesn’t stop you because , hey, google makes you an instant expert, right?
“You can mock me for my bad skills at writing, but you can not mock me for my knowledge of islam, because without that knowledge i would not be able to track down the info which I post”
No knowledge of islam is required to use google. No knowledge of islam is required to use wikipedia.
“I will admit the deflection of moslems in Central Asia was new to me”
“deflection”
*facepalm*
“I am sure you did not know before that moslems assisted Chandra Bose to escape from the british, if you would have known,i do not think you would have written such a stupid statement as the Moslems fought for the British because the hindus where fighting for the nazi,s.”
What does one thing have to do with another? Some hindus fought for the Nazis. Muslims fought alongside the British to fight the Hindus fighting for the Nazis.
Not a difficult concept, dunce.
Semeru says
“deflection”
*facepalm*
Let me remind you that it was your quote from that mentioned deflection.
Nonse writes Some hindus fought for the Nazis. Muslims fought alongside the British to fight the Hindus fighting for the Nazis.
So I take this you mean the Hindus who Joined the Indian National Army, but before we go any further, this Army was not exclusively hindu,
See here
Major-General Mohammad Zaman Kiani was an officer of the British Indian Army who joined the Indian National Army and went on to be appointed its Chief of General Staff.
Raja Habib ur Rahman Khan Rahman was an officer in the Indian National Army, During the Jammu & Kashmir agitation for freedom, he trained many people of the area as Mujahids to fight against the Dogra army for freedom
Shah Nawaz Khan was an Indian politician who served as an officer in the Indian National Army during World War II.
Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmed
Karim Ghani was a politician in South-East Asia of Indian origin. During World War II, Ghani came to be the Minister FOR STATE IN Subhas Bose’s Azad Hind government and was in Malaya. After the end of World War II, Ghani was involved in South-East Asian Muslim politics, most notably being involved in the Maria Hertogh riots in Singapore in 1950.
Further up in this thread, I write
“What a load of cobblers, most hindus refused to fight”
To which Nonse responds And boom goes the dynamite. Look up the Himmler-Hindu connection, the Indian Legion and Infantry Regiment 950. Then, and only than, you can apologize and retract your words.
Guess nonse has not heard about Quit India
“The Nonse wrote “muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.
Then he writes Look up the Himmler-Hindu connection, the Indian Legion and Infantry Regiment 950. Then, and only than, you can apologize and retract your words.
So I looked up The Indian Legion (German: Indische Legion), the first thing that stands out is “it was made up of Indian prisoners of war and expatriates in Europe.”, similar to the Indian POW,s in Asia who where given the chose by the Japanese of joining the The National Indian Army or be Shot.
Nonse has maintained that muslim fighting for the Allies were forced, but he does not give any reference
So the Nonse wants me to retract and apologize, for what!
So The “boom goes the dynamite is no more than a wet fart”
The British Indian Army organized regiments and units on the basis of religion and regional or caste identity. Bose sought to end this practice and build up one unified Indian identity among the men who would fight for independence. Consequently, the Indian Legion was organized as mixed units so that Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs all served side-by-side. Around the time of its formation in late 1942, 59% of the legion’s men were Hindus, 25% were Muslims, 14% were Sikhs and 2% other religions. Relative to the British Indian Army, there were more Hindus and Sikhs, and fewer Muslims.[19]
The success of Bose’s idea of developing a unified national identity was evident when Heinrich Himmler proposed in late 1943 (after Bose’s departure) that the Muslim soldiers of the I.R. 950 be recruited into the new Handschar Division. The commander of the SS Head Office, Gottlob Berger, was obliged to point out that while the Bosnians of the “Handschar” perceived themselves as people of a European identity, Indian Muslims perceived themselves as Indians.
Hitler, however, showed little enthusiasm for the I.R. 950, at one stage insisting that their weapons be handed over to the newly created 18th SS Horst Wessel Division, exclaiming that “…the Indian Legion is a joke
Angemon says
The dunce posted, after saying two or three posts ago he was going to stop debating because I was not a person::
“Let me remind you that it was your quote from that mentioned deflection.”
No, you ignorant dumbass. Desertion. Defection. DEFECTION. DEFECTION.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defection
conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine) : desertion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deflection
1: a turning aside or off course : deviation
2: the departure of an indicator or pointer from the zero reading on the scale of an instrument
If you can’t properly read and comprehend words whose meanings you’re ignorant about then simply don’t post.
“So I take this you mean”
And this is the tip-off that it’s not what I meant but a strawman.
“See here”
Where? Where’s the source?
“Further up in this thread, I write
“What a load of cobblers, most hindus refused to fight”
To which Nonse responds And boom goes the dynamite. Look up the Himmler-Hindu connection, the Indian Legion and Infantry Regiment 950. Then, and only than, you can apologize and retract your words.
Guess nonse has not heard about Quit India”
Quit India is unrelated to the Hindus who fought on the Axis side, no matter how much you don’t want that to be true. Hindus fought on the Axis side.
““The Nonse wrote “muslims fighting for the Allied side were either forced or just did what was in their best interest.
Then he writes Look up the Himmler-Hindu connection, the Indian Legion and Infantry Regiment 950. Then, and only than, you can apologize and retract your words.”
Isn’t that what you said I wrote above? Didn’t you address that above? It’s like you don’t even keep track of what you write.
“So I looked up The Indian Legion (German: Indische Legion), the first thing that stands out is “it was made up of Indian prisoners of war and expatriates in Europe.””
So? Hindus fought on the Axis side. You’re acknowledging it. Retract your words and apologize.
“So the Nonse wants me to retract and apologize, for what!”
If you forgot go re-read what you wrote, since you quoted that part twice. Hindus fought on the Axis side. You’ve acknowledged it. Retract your words and apologize.
“So The “boom goes the dynamite is no more than a wet fart””
Nope. You admitted that Hindus fought on the Axis side. The only wet fart around here comes from when you pull “logic” and “info” out of your gapping ass.
“Hitler, however, showed little enthusiasm for the I.R. 950, at one stage insisting that their weapons be handed over to the newly created 18th SS Horst Wessel Division, exclaiming that “…the Indian Legion is a joke”
Whatever Hitler found of the Indian Legion bears no relevance to what I said – Hindus fought on the side of the Axis powers.
Apologize and retract your words for doubting that, dunce. Then stick to what you said and stop posting.
Semeru says
To finish with, where I live, there are no well stocked library or super doopa book stores, Also I do not have the resourses to by every book available concerning islam, and I am not going to buy a book just so as to be able to quote one paragraph.
I use whatever tools that are available, like most people, and that is google and wiki. There is enough date in wiki that enables me to whip your scrawny butt, just compare how much Data I am able to glean from wiki to you and your library,
All you have contributed to this thread is one paragraph from your library, PATHETIC and a mass of ad-homiums
If your knowledge was so great and your resources so superior, then you would not need to resort to ad-homiums
You are very critical of wiki, but you have not been able to refute one single thing i have ripped from there.
Yes Wiki is the best tool available to me.
Angemon says
The duce, who said a few posts ago he was going to stop debating because I wasn’t a person, posted:
“To finish with, where I live, there are no well stocked library or super doopa book stores”
That’s no an excuse to not know the difference between, for example, were and where, or defection and deflection.
“Also I do not have the resourses to by every book available concerning islam, and I am not going to buy a book just so as to be able to quote one paragraph.”
So? It’s not my responsibility to make sure any book I happen to quote from can be found online. And let’s face it, if you have to resort to saying that I can’t prove I own the book in question, then not being able to afford a book is the least of your problems.
“I use whatever tools that are available”
Except a dictionary. Which can be found online.
“like most people, and that is google and wiki”
Most people don’t argue issues they know little or nothing about based on whatever they can scrounge using Google and Wikipedia. You do.
“There is enough date”
What?
“in wiki that enables me to whip your scrawny butt”
Oh, that’s why you’re the one who said that I was right when I spoke, for example, about the desertions from muslims in the Red Army to the German side and that some Hindus fought for the Axis side. That’s why you have to challenge a quote from a book by saying I couldn’t prove that I owned said book. That why you’ve admitted I schooled you on the subject – because you’re “whipping my scrawny butt”, right? I think you should change your username to “Semeru Bob” or Semeru Ali”, as an homage to “Baghdad Bob”, a.k.a. “Comical Ali” – if you don’t know who I’m talking about google it 😉
“just compare how much Data I am able to glean from wiki to you and your library”
And yet, according to you, it seems Wikipedia has no mention of Nazi propaganda making tens of thousands of muslims desert the Red Army to the German side… One book in my extensive library said so. Wikipedia versus my library. Someone had to give – and it was you.
“All you have contributed to this thread is one paragraph from your library, PATHETIC”
Actually, I gave several bits of info you admitted you knew nothing about.
“and a mass of ad-homiums”
Ad-what now? Lol. Anyway, like I said, do you want to compare who called more, different names to who? That’s the only scenario where you can claim to have outdone me.
“If your knowledge was so great and your resources so superior, then you would not need to resort to ad-homiums”
Ad-what now? Lol. Anyway, like I said, do you want to compare who called more, different names to who? That’s the only scenario where you can claim to have outdone me. So by your own logic, you are proving that your knowledge and resources are inferior to mine.
“You are very critical of wiki, but you have not been able to refute one single thing i have ripped from there.”
And yet, I’ve been able to counter your faulty logic and assertions. See, some of us don’t need to poison the well to make their points – remember when your best comeback was to claim I couldn’t prove I owned the book? And remember the large parts of your posts who were clearly not written by you but for which you don’t give any source?
“Yes Wiki is the best tool available to me.”
A drunken monkey with Internet access is just a drunken monkey with Internet access, no matter how much he wishes to look like an University professor. If you have no knowledge of the subject you’re trying to argue then copy/pasting from wikipedia will not avail you. It will only make you seem like a drunken monkey hoping to drown discussion under a tsunami of unrelated text plagiarized from somewhere.
Semeru says
It will only make you seem like a drunken monkey hoping to drown discussion under a tsunami of unrelated text plagiarized from somewhere.
Talk about plagiarizing, I remember in another thread you quoted from a book a about the siege of Malta, and bullets where smeared with fat, you did not give a source.
Same as in this thread you take a paragraph, from your “extensive” library, and it took you four comments to reveal the source.
Pot Kettle Black
How is this all this text unrelated, Geller and Spencer claim that the Former Mufti was a world leader. By portraying the mufti as a world leader. leads many people to assume that all the moslems sided with the nazi,s, and the mufti had world wide influence.
The truth is his sphere of influence before, during and after the war did not extend muc further thatPalistine Stria and Crotia.
He had no influence over the Red Army muslim POW,s or the Indians POW,s in Germany and S E Asia, Ironically, Indian moslems POW,where influenced to join the Axis, by a Hindu, Chandra Bose
You have several time claimed that the moslems where forced to join the allies. You still have not given any source to this claim, is your extensive library so extensive you cannot find the source.
So instead of name calling why don’t you back up your claim, or is it because you cannot back up your claims you resort to name calling.
It really must pain you that there where just as many moslem fight for the allies as therewhereagainst
Your butt must be really sore, that you cannot prove that moslems where forced fight for the allies,but where part of the worlds largest volunteer army.
Once again, Nonse It will only make you seem like a drunken monkey hoping to drown discussion under a tsunami of unrelated text
Everything is related, as it concerns moslems world wide, and it shows that the mufti did not influence moslems on a world wide scale.
Also, if you care to read about the mufti after WW2 you will find out he was pushed aside and he was even blamed for the Nakba.
In the lead-up to the 1948 Palestine war, Husseini opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah’s designs to annex the Arab part of British Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, and, failing to gain command of the ‘Arab rescue army’ (jaysh al-inqadh al-‘arabi) formed under the aegis of the Arab League, formed his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas. In September 1948, he participated in establishment of All-Palestine Government. Seated in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, this government won a limited recognition of Arab states, but was eventually dissolved by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1959. After the war and subsequent Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership, wholly discredited, left him eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization, and he lost most of his residual political influence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Hussein
Spencer and Geller erroneously claim the mufti as a world leader in an attempt to tar all moslems during the war as pro nazi
Now lets get back to what Spencer wrote shall we
The term “leader of the Muslim world” is a perfectly reasonable summation of Husseini’s power and influence. Yes, he was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the caliphate, by virtue of his position alone as Mufti of the third holiest city in the Muslim world, Husseini had as good a claim as anyone to being the foremost authority in the Muslim world as anyone.
Now this is very misleading, because Spencer fails to mention the self promoting former mufti played in Jerusalem becoming islams third holiest site
The 13th Century Arab biographer Yakut noted: “Mecca is holy to Muslims; Jerusalem is holy to the Jews.”
Now as a dedicated CJM you should know that what Spencer wrote is a load of cobblers
Why don’t you google for old images of the Temple Mount, you will soon notice that Jerusalem was a back water
Jerusalem’s role as “The Third Holiest Site in Islam” in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al HusseinMost of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute. One is the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the nascent Palestine. The other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.
The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew holy works is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.
Many if not most opinions that counter Islam’s claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam’s third holy site.
Jerusalem’s role as “The Third Holiest Site in Islam” in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s.
It was created by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini. The Mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees. He therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict. He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war. His battle cry was simple and comprehensive: “Down with the Infidels!” From the time Herbert Samuel appointed him to the position of Mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem’s status as an Islamic holy center. He renovated the mosques on the Temple Mount, while conducting an unceasing campaign regarding the imminent Jewish “threat” to Moslem holy sites.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/templemount.html
More
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini#Haram_ash-Sharif_and_the_Western_Wall
You should as dedicated CJM,er should have known the above fact, shame on you, that I according to you a,moslem should point out the above facts..
You are very good at mocking people to cover the fact your knowledge of islam sux
Now why does Spencer claim the mufti was a world leader, because by virtue that he was mufti of islams holiest site. when it was the mufti who was promoting jerusalem as the third holiest site.
And goons/loons like you take Spencers word as gospel
Angemon says
The dunce posted, several posts after saying he was done debating because I was not a person:
“Talk about plagiarizing, I remember in another thread you quoted from a book a about the siege of Malta, and bullets where smeared with fat, you did not give a source.
Same as in this thread you take a paragraph, from your “extensive” library, and it took you four comments to reveal the source.
Pot Kettle Black”
No, dunce, I did there what I did here: I said info I knew. When I quote from someplace I include the source. When I say something I know then the source is my head and I shouldn’t have to add “I read this somewhere or saw it in some documentary”, should I?
And IIRC, you never asked me for the source of the fat smeared bullets info, so same standard applies – if you don’t disagree or you don’t ask for a source, then I’m not obliged to look online to see if a book I own has a digital version available.
Also, didn’t you post a link to a .pdf version of the book? That’s a copyright violation, you bootlegger.
“How is this all this text unrelated, Geller and Spencer claim that the Former Mufti was a world leader. By portraying the mufti as a world leader. leads many people to assume that all the moslems sided with the nazi,s, and the mufti had world wide influence.”
Nope. Like Robert noted above, the mufti can rightfully be called the leader of the muslim world of the time. So the question is, why are so you afraid people might think this or that about muslims?
Quack-quack, duckie.
“The truth is his sphere of influence before, during and after the war did not extend muc further thatPalistine Stria and Crotia.”
So, according to you, he was not the leader of the muslim world, he was just the leader of “Palistine Stria and Crotia”, and wherever muslims fought for the Axis. You really don’t understand what’s wrong with that logic? And you don’t realize how you’re going against what you said before?
God, you’re dumb. That above is the most diabolically stupid comment I have ever seen in my entire life. I’m tempted to physically create a scale of stupid comments called the “Semeru Scale” in which this comment is 100 and the most intelligent comment ever made is 0. Your comment? It would still manage to reach 101 on this scale.
“You have several time claimed that the moslems where forced to join the allies. You still have not given any source to this claim, is your extensive library so extensive you cannot find the source.”
Re-read what I posted and point out exactly where I said that.
“So instead of name calling why don’t you back up your claim, or is it because you cannot back up your claims you resort to name calling.”
What claim would that be? One I made or the myriad of strawmen you’re attributing to me?
“It really must pain you that there where just as many moslem fight for the allies as therewhereagainst”
*yawn* Drop the second-grade psychology act. If anyone is in pain here is you.You’re the one flapping back and forth, going against your own arguments for the sake of posting the opposite of whatever it is I post.
“Your butt must be really sore, that you cannot prove that moslems where forced fight for the allies,but where part of the worlds largest volunteer army.”
The only one with the sore butt here is you, dunce. You go back and forth, posting whatever is the opposite of what I say, without realizing you’re undermining and destroying your own arguments. And, of course, you can’t tell the difference between “defection” and “deflection” – that’s got to sting. You want to argue but you can’t understand words and their meaning. How can you even function in real life?
“Once again, Nonse It will only make you seem like a drunken monkey hoping to drown discussion under a tsunami of unrelated text
Everything is related, as it concerns moslems world wide, and it shows that the mufti did not influence moslems on a world wide scale”
Nope. For example, if I point out that muslims defected from the Red Army to the German side then the tsunami of words you saw fit to dedicate to POWs is irrelevant to that. Claiming it is won’t make it any relevant, it will only make you look dumb – even more than when you said I spoke of “deflection”.
“Spencer and Geller erroneously claim the mufti as a world leader”
They don’t.
“in an attempt to tar all moslems during the war as pro nazi”
Liar. They never attempted to do that. Prove what you’re saying or retract your words.
“Now this is very misleading, because Spencer fails to mention the self promoting former mufti played in Jerusalem becoming islams third holiest site
The 13th Century Arab biographer Yakut noted: “Mecca is holy to Muslims; Jerusalem is holy to the Jews.”
Now as a dedicated CJM you should know that what Spencer wrote is a load of cobblers”
And this is a textbook example of tawriya. Yes, Mecca is holy to muslims. Yes, Jerusalem is holy th Jews and Christians. But Jerusalem is also the third holiest place according to islam because of it’s connection to biblical figures of the Judaic-Christian tradition, the Night Journey and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Before muhammad’s falling out with the Jewish tribes, muslims were supposed to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. That Mecca is holy to muslims and Jerusalem is holy to Jews bears no impact in that. A cursory look through your source of “knowledge” (Wikipedia) will surely reveal that. You’re a blatant liar, dunce, and a very bad one. So take back what you said and admit that Robert is right – Jerusalem is the third holiest city in islam. If you keep insisting otherwise then you’re disgracing yourself even further (which, all things considered, it quite the achievement).
“Why don’t you google for old images of the Temple Mount, you will soon notice that Jerusalem was a back water”
So were Mecca and Medina – should we then disregard their importance to islam?
“Jerusalem’s role as “The Third Holiest Site in Islam” in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s.”
quran, 17:1
Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
That verse is interpreted as describing muhammad’s night trip to Jerusalem. Well, part of it. The rest is described in the ahadith. For example, Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 226:
“Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
That he heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “When the people of Quraish did not believe me (i.e. the story of my Night Journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Jerusalem in front of me, and I began describing it to them while I was looking at it.” ”
Are you saying that the quran, Bukhari’s collection of ahadith, and the works of countless commentators dating back several centuries were all tampered with by the mufti in 1930 to include Jerusalem, and that his changes magically propagated to ALL the copies of the qurans, collections of ahadith and commentaries that existed elsewhere in the world?
“You should as dedicated CJM,er should have known the above fact, shame on you, that I according to you a,moslem should point out the above facts.”
Nope. The fact is that Jerusalem is the third holiest place in islam. You’re trying to argue otherwise, therefore you’re not pointing out facts. And as such I easily dismantled your “argument” (which, BTW, would reach 105 in the Semeru Scale).
“You are very good at mocking people to cover the fact your knowledge of islam sux”
No, my knowledge of islam is fine, hence why I easily and effortlessly dismantled your claims. Also, I challenged you to a discussion about islam, didn’t I? You still haven’t answered my challenge. I’ve never heard a duck cluck like a chicken before.
“Now why does Spencer claim the mufti was a world leader, because by virtue that he was mufti of islams holiest site.”
Nope. You do realize we can go back and read Robert’s article, right? We’re not forced to take your oversimplified strawman version of it.
“when it was the mufti who was promoting jerusalem as the third holiest site”
Once again, dunce, did the mufti tamper with the quran, ahadith and commentaries, and edited all existing copies worldwide?
“And goons/loons like you take Spencers word as gospel”
Robert has an impeccable track record and scholarly record, including over 10 books published, several of them NYT best-sellers. He was also a trainer for several law-enforcement organizations like the CIA and the FBI. You, not so much. For example, just now you tried to claim that Jerusalem was not the third holiest city in islam because… Jerusalem is holy in Judaism and Mecca in islam.
Go on, dunce. Go read the wikipedia entry on Jerusalem and islam, then get back here and tell us what is says. I bet it says that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in islam. Do you want me to do it? Do you want me to quote from your unimpeachable source, wikipedia, and rub it in your face, like if you’re a puppy who peed on the floor?
Angemon says
I believe I did not give this nugget the attention it deserved.
The dunce, despite stating several posts ago he was going to stop debating because I was not a person, posted:
“Spencer and Geller erroneously claim the mufti as a world leader in an attempt to tar all moslems during the war as pro nazi”
The dunce must have graduated from the Voegelinian School of Mind-Reading, since he acts like he can read what’s on Robert and Pamela’s minds. All false, of course. This is the kind of falsehoods propagated by muslims and islamic apologists to smear people like Robert and Pamela. They’ve stated on numerous occasions that they believe there are plenty of law-abiding, peaceful muslims out there. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxbdOt–w2w
Not even one minute in. But that fact doesn’t stop the dunce semeru from throwing his crap around, like a monkey with its feces. That’s the kind of cognitive dissonance and detachment from reality that could only come from a muslim.
Semeru says
You keep harping on about The dunce, despite stating several posts ago he was going to stop debating because I was not a person,
Actually it was a typo, I meant to write because you are not a honest person.
Now I see you are getting desparate, waving hadithes I see, a hadithe written about 200 years after mohammed died.
That he heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “When the people of Quraish did not believe me (i.e. the story of my Night Journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Jerusalem in front of me, and I began describing it to them while I was looking at it.”
Like the hadithe states the Quraissh was not going to be taken in mohammed bullshit, so allah displayed Jerusalem in front of him and he began to describe it to them. WOW, if mohammed had been to Jerusalem then he would be able to describe without allah displaying it.
The hadithe only confirms that mohammed was bullshitting about his night journey.
There could be political motives as why Bukhari should mention Jerusalem, 200 years after the alleged journey. Remember that it is sunni islams holy site
The hadithe does not mention anything about Jerusalem being a holy site, and actually it is
No-where during the history of Jerusalem is it recorded that it was a holy site, until the mufti showed his ugly head.
Or to put it another way The al-Aksa mosque by Caliph Abd al-Wahd (705-715 CE). Wahd actually completed construction and named it al-Aksa so that it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.
The site fell into disrepair and, up until this century, no Islamic monarch deemed the Dome or the mosque important enough to visit. Until Haj Amin used municipal funds to gold-plate the massive dome and declared it to be Islam’s third holiest site.
So Can you or Spencer give any reference to Jerusalem being Islams holiest site prior to 1938..
I do not care that Spencer has written god knows how many books, Just besuase he has had that many published doesn’t mean that every he says is accurate.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“You keep harping on about The dunce, despite stating several posts ago he was going to stop debating because I was not a person,
Actually it was a typo, I meant to write because you are not a honest person.”
And yet, not only you failed to prove I’m in any way or fashion dishonest, you also keep posting. Ergo, I’m a honest person.
“Now I see you are getting desparate, waving hadithes I see, a hadithe written about 200 years after mohammed died.”
Nope. I quoted the quran, commentaries on the quran and a hadith from the Sahih Bukhari collection, which are certified by islamic clerics as being the most reliable collections. If you’re going to question Sahih Bukhari then you’re the one who’s desperate, not me.
“Like the hadithe states the Quraissh was not going to be taken in mohammed bullshit, so allah displayed Jerusalem in front of him and he began to describe it to them. WOW, if mohammed had been to Jerusalem then he would be able to describe without allah displaying it.
The hadithe only confirms that mohammed was bullshitting about his night journey. ”
That is probably the most mind-numbingly stupid, headache inducing, IQ dropping thing you’ve said so far. But do bring forth your credentials as an islamic cleric. Then I might consider your absolute rejection of islamic orthodoxy as being reliable. As is stands so far, the islamic claim to Jerusalem can be traced back, by your own words, at least 200 years after the death of muhammad. Which is over 1000 years before what you previously claimed. So which way is it, dunce?
“There could be political motives as why Bukhari should mention Jerusalem, 200 years after the alleged journey. Remember that it is sunni islams holy site”
Oh, dunce, now you’ve done it. Now you’ve screwed the pooch. You’ve took your big, stinky foot and inserted it into your gaping mouth. First you claim that the islamic claim to Jerusalem started with the mufti in 1930 and now you’re saying that it was the sunni muslims holy site going as far back as 200 years after the death of muhammad? Good going, dunce. Good going. You’re so full of crap and so desperate to oppose whatever it is I say that you’ve lost all sense of reason and of what you’re saying. The sunnis are around 85-90% of the muslims worldwide, so they’re as mainstream as they can get, and the dunce just told us, after trying to claim that the mufti started the idea that Jerusalem was holy in 1930, that Jerusalem was the sunni’s holy site dating back to 200 years after the death of muhammad.
So, dunce, did the muslim claim to Jerusalem started with the mufti in 1930 or can it be traced back as a sunni islam holy site as far as 200 years after the death of muhammad? Well, even before that – I quoted the quran but you conveniently decided to ignore that.
“No-where during the history of Jerusalem is it recorded that it was a holy site, until the mufti showed his ugly head.”
Like I said, dunce, you’re not even keeping track of what you’re saying. Here’s what you wrote a couple of paragraphs ago:
“There could be political motives as why Bukhari should mention Jerusalem, 200 years after the alleged journey. Remember that it is sunni islams holy site”
Once again, dunce: did the muslim claim to Jerusalem started with the mufti in 1930 or can it be traced back as a sunni islam holy site as far as 200 years after the death of muhammad? Well, even before that – I quoted the quran but you conveniently decided to ignore that.
More from the dunce:
“So Can you or Spencer give any reference to Jerusalem being Islams holiest site prior to 1938.”
God, this is too funny. First of all, it’s a trick question. Islamic orthodoxy considers Jerusalem as the third holiest site of islam, not the first. Second, neither me nor Robert said it was the holiest site of islam. Third, you go and say that 200 years after the death of muhammad Jerusalem was a holy site of sunni islam, and now you’re daring me to prove it was islam’s holiest site before 1938?
You’re too stupid to function. I already gave you evidence from islamic sources and you acknowledged that Jerusalem was a sunni holy site going back at least 200 yeats after the death of muhammad. He died in 632, so early 7th century. Now, I’d say that early 9th century is prior to 1938.
What say you, dunce?
“I do not care that Spencer has written god knows how many books, Just besuase he has had that many published doesn’t mean that every he says is accurate.”
Whatever he writes is fact-checked before being published. And heavily scrutinized by muslims afterwards. So he’s a reliable source.
So, dunce, how’s it going to be? Was Jerusalem a sunni islam holy site 200 years after the death of muhammad or did the islamic claim to jerusalem started in 1938?
Also, I recall asking you what your unimpeachable source, Wikipedia, said on the subject. Is Jerusalem the third holiest site in islam or not? You did not answer that, so I’m guessing it says that. So either answer me or I’ll look it up for you and rub it in your face, as if you’re a puppy who just peed on the carpet. Also, several posts ago I’ve challenged you to a debate regarding islam. Still waiting for a reply on that. But if your knowledge of Jerusalem’s standing in islamic orthodoxy is of any indication, then I can understand why you’re too scared to take on my chalenge.
Your move, dunce. Woof, woof, puppy. *rolls up newspaper*
apatheidthynameispalestine says
to Semeru
Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Jewish Bible -how many times is that, vitally important to Muslims, city mentioned in the Muslim Koran Pally?
why has it NEVER been a Muslim capital EVER in history???????not even when Saladin, the Ottomans the Jordanians- all Muslims- ruled it for hundreds of years????
Angemon says
semeru is a long time islamic apologist. As you can see from the quality of his posts, he’s not very good at it. What he says about the islamic claim to Jerusalem having started in 1938 would ensure him a trip to the local prison in Saudi Arabia. And, of course, he’s spouting that nonsense just to tar me and Robert as bigoted islamophobes who are lying about orthodox islam just to get everyone to believe that all muslims are nazis.
With that said, you’re correct. Despite that islamic claims to Jerusalem can be traced back to the 7th or 8th century, and that early on his carrer muhammad ordered muslims to pary in the direction of Jerusalem, like the Jews did (because he claimed he was a prophet in the lineage of the Jewish prophets), the fact is that Jerusalem is not directly mentioned in the quran. As far as I can understand it, the muslims want it because it’s important to the Jews. They claim a connection to Jerusalem because of Biblical characters like David and Jesus – muhammad’s night journey feels like it was tacked on at the last moment to hide their anti-semitism under a veil of legitimacy.
apatheidthynameispalestine says
as I recall it was a political thing-two warring Islamist factions ( now where have we heard that before) one had Mecca and the other wanted a rival so they decided on Jerusalem King Davids Holy City- built thousands of years before ANY Mohammedans.
Nuff said
Semeru says
Again you are a fcuking liar, I never said that islams claim to Jerusalem started in 1938, what I said was moslems claim to being islams holiest site started in 1938. Molems have laid claim to Jeruslaem and many other places since islam started to expanded, But it is only recently it has claimed that it being the one of the holiest sites.
So agrononse still has not given any reference that moslems where force to fight for the allies
So agrononse still has not given any reference to Jerusalem being Islam holiest site prior to the former mufti promoted it in the mid thirties.
No agrononse, after a cartload of insults resorts to a koran verse a dodgey translation of a hadithe
I have no reason to respond to the koranic verse, as it has no mention
The the hadithe in question is a follows,
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 226
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
That he heard Allah’s Messenger saying, “When the people of Quraish did not believe me (i.e. the story of my Night Journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Jerusalem in front of me, and I began describing it to them while I was looking at it.
Agrononse doesn’t post the ababic translation so as anyboby can verify if the translalion is correct
دَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، سَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ “ لَمَّا كَذَّبَنِي
قُرَيْشٌ قُمْتُ فِي الْحِجْرِ، فَجَلاَ اللَّهُ لِي بَيْتَ الْمَقْدِسِ، فَطَفِقْتُ أُخْبِرُهُمْ عَنْ آيَاتِهِ وَأَنَا أَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهِ ”.
I have tried several translating tool, but no mention of Jerusalem
So how do we know that the translator did not add Jerusalem into the hadithe so as to reinforce moslems claim to Jerusalem. It is and established that that many translations of islamic text have erroneously translated, especially the koran
Now if agrononse instead of cherry picking and look further he would have found this
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 6.233
Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah
The Prophet said, “When the Quraish disbelieved me (concerning my night journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka’ba) and Allah displayed Bait-ul-Maqdis before me, and I started to inform them (Quraish) about its signs while looking at it.
So there you have it, two hadithes more or less identical hadithes, one say Jerusalem the other says,Bait-ul-Maqdis.
It is possible to find other hadithes
Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 328
Narrated byAbuHurayrah
The Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him) said: I found myself in Hijr and the Quraysh were asking me about my night journey. I was asked about things pertaining to Bayt al-Maqdis, which I could not preserve (in my mind). I was very much vexed, so vexed as I had never been before. Then Allah raised it (Bayt al-Maqdis) before my eyes. I looked towards it, and I gave them the information about whatever they questioned me.
When I mention that mohammed was bullshitting, agrononse retorts with
That is probably the most mind-numbingly stupid, headache inducing, IQ dropping thing you’ve said so far.
So are you now saying that mohammed was not a bullshitting PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
The above hadithes are evidence he was a liar.
How could he have forgotten anything from the most momentous experience of his life, if it really happened and it had transpired only a few hours after the alleged event.
More from bukhari.
Bukhari Hadith 1:345 Gabriel took muhammad by hand to first Heaven Blah Blah Blah …… there is no mentiom of jerusalem
Bukhari Hadith 5:227 & 4:429 Gabriel & Buraq go to first Heaven Blah Blah Blah …… again there is no mentiom of jerusalem
Bukhari Hadith 9:608 Gabriel took muhammad by hand to first HeavenBlah Blah Blah …… there is no mentiom of Jerusalem
Then Hind, Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib has this to say
Ishaq:184 “The Apostle went on no journey except while he was in my house. He slept in my home that night after he prayed the final night prayer. A little before dawn he woke us, saying, ‘Umm, I went to Jerusalem.’ He got up to go out and I grabbed hold of his robe and laid bare his belly. I pleaded, ‘O Muhammad, don’t tell the people about this for they will know you are lying and will mock you.’
apartheudthynameispalestine says
Of all the verbiage this Anti Israel Pally trolls out this bit stood out : “Molems have laid claim to Jeruslaem and many other places since islam started to expanded”
So by what means and right do they ‘lay claim’ is it by subjugation and occupation perhaps? Who were there a THOUSANDS years before them and still are? The TRUE owners perhaps
‘ since Islam started to expand’ by colonial imperialism or ‘benign’ rape, enslavement , Jizya, slaughter? . Lol
Angemon says
Indeed. Notice how he uses the innocuous term “expanded” to avoid using the more accurate terms of “conquering” or “stealing”. The records of early islamic expansion make ISIS look like boy scouts.
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“Again you are a fcuking liar”
Watch your f’ing language, kid. By your own logic you must have no arguments therefore you’re resorting to insults.
“I never said that islams claim to Jerusalem started in 1938, what I said was moslems claim to being islams holiest site started in 1938. ”
I know that sounds contradictory – because it is contradictory – but the best part comes now:
“Molems have laid claim to Jeruslaem and many other places since islam started to expanded, But it is only recently it has claimed that it being the one of the holiest sites”
Here’s what you said before:
“There could be political motives as why Bukhari should mention Jerusalem, 200 years after the alleged journey. Remember that it is sunni islams holy site”
That’s you, linking a hadith written 200 years ago after the alleged “night journey” to Jerusalem being a holy site for sunnis.
So once again, you’re lying. By your own words, Jerusalem was a holy site (at least for sunnis which are, what, 80-90% of the world’s muslims?) going back to the 9th century.
But that’s not where your sliminess ends. You have refused to tell everyone reading this what your #1 source, wikipedia, has to say on the subject. Here it is then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Islam
“Jerusalem in Islam refers to the status of Jerusalem in the Muslim religious tradition. The al-Aqsa masjid in Jerusalem is built on the site of the second temple. Al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Sunni Islam after the mosques of al-Haram in Mecca and al-Nabawi in Medina.”
So your own favorite source tells that Jerusalem is regarded as the 3rd holiest site in islam. No wonder you did not resort to it on this matter. So this is the mess you have gotten yourself into: if wikipedia is as reliable as you make it be (because it has “sources”, right?) then you have to admit you’re wrong. If you say that wikipedia is wrong on this particular subject then you have to admit that what you copy/pasted from wikipedia is also wrong.
Puppy, meet pee.
So which way is it, dunce? Is wikipedia right and Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest site in islam or not?
“So agrononse still has not given any reference to Jerusalem being Islam holiest site prior to the former mufti promoted it in the mid thirties.”
Jerusalem is regarded as the 3rd holiest site of islam for a long time. If you claim otherwise, burden of evidence is upon YOU, dunce. And so far you have gave us no evidence for what you’re claiming. But just to pile up pressure on you, because it’s fun to watch you squirm:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1609/jerusalem-sacred-for-muslims
“So how did Jerusalem become holy in Islam? In the 680s, a civil war erupted among the Muslims. The caliph who ruled from Damascus wanted to put down a revolt by the people who controlled Mecca, the place of pilgrimage. In order to weaken them, he decided to build a counter-pilgrimage site and at the very least siphon off people who during the pilgrimage might have decided to take up the rebel’s cause. He therefore chose to build a dome over the Rock in Jerusalem and to encourage people to make pilgrimages there instead of to Mecca. That is when Jerusalem became holy in Islam. So in essence, Jerusalem’s sanctity to Muslims stems from a local revolt which occurred some 50-plus years after Muhammad’s death.”
Judging by your lack of mastery over the English language, you probably suck at math too: 680-690 is far earlier than 1938.
“No agrononse, after a cartload of insults resorts to a koran verse a dodgey translation of a hadithe”
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I’m quoting from the quran and a reliable, strong hadith.
“I have no reason to respond to the koranic verse, as it has no mention”
Classic quranic commentators stated that the night journey was to Jerusalem. If you can’t counter what they say then you can’t make your case. It’s that simple.
“Agrononse doesn’t post the ababic translation so as anyboby can verify if the translalion is correct”
The what now? The translation is correct, it came straight from a muslim site.
“So how do we know that the translator did not add Jerusalem into the hadithe so as to reinforce moslems claim to Jerusalem.”
Take it up to Bukhari and its comentators then. No, better yet, give us one orthodox school of islam that teaches that Jerusalem is not a holy site in islam. If, like you claim, that claim started in 1938 then no orthodox school should teach it.
“Now if agrononse instead of cherry picking and look further he would have found this
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 6.233
Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah
The Prophet said, “When the Quraish disbelieved me (concerning my night journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka’ba) and Allah displayed Bait-ul-Maqdis before me, and I started to inform them (Quraish) about its signs while looking at it.
So there you have it, two hadithes more or less identical hadithes, one say Jerusalem the other says,Bait-ul-Maqdis.”
Bait-ul-Maqdis being a less commonly used Arabic name for Jerusalem. Either you’re ignorant and stupid – since not only you don’t know that but you also refused to look it up – or you’re trying to obfuscate the issue.
The gig’s up, dunce – according to you one says Jerusalem and the other also says Jerusalem.
More from the dunce:
“When I mention that mohammed was bullshitting, agrononse retorts with
That is probably the most mind-numbingly stupid, headache inducing, IQ dropping thing you’ve said so far.”
And I rightfully did so – what you think of muhammad is irrelevant to what islam teaches. Ergo, I asked you to bring forth your credentials as an islamic cleric. You failed to do so.
“So are you now saying that mohammed was not a bullshitting PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.”
Actually, muhammad didn’t exist, ergo he could not be a pathological liar. In any case, whatever I or you think about muhammad means nothing to islamic orthodoxy. Islamic orthodoxy teaches that muhammad went to Jerusalem in a night journey (whether physically or virtually is up for dispute) and therefore muslims claim Jerusalem as a holy site.
Now that I’ve cleared your obfuscation, burden of evidence is still up on you: bring forth evidence that the claim of Jerusalem being a holy site started in 1938. Name one orthodox islamic sect that teaches that.
“The above hadithes are evidence he was a liar.”
Like I said, what you claim to think of muhammad (and a case can be made that you have him in high regard) is irrelevant to what islamic orthodoxy teaches.
“More from bukhari.
Bukhari Hadith 1:345 Gabriel took muhammad by hand to first Heaven Blah Blah Blah …… there is no mentiom of jerusalem
Bukhari Hadith 5:227 & 4:429 Gabriel & Buraq go to first Heaven Blah Blah Blah …… again there is no mentiom of jerusalem
Bukhari Hadith 9:608 Gabriel took muhammad by hand to first HeavenBlah Blah Blah …… there is no mentiom of Jerusalem”
You can find plenty of ahadith in Bukhari that don’t mention Jerusalem, much like you can find many verses on the Bible that don’t mention Jerusalem. Does that mean that Jews and Christians don’t have any claim to Jerusalem being their holy site? Of course not. Like I said, your MO consists on posting large, unrelated blocks of text to drown out the discussion. But that won’t work on me, dunce. What you’re doing is equivalent to “jihad of the pen”, and I’m a member of the counter-jihad movement.
So, dunce, where’s your evidence that the claim to Jerusalem started with the mufti in 1938? Where’s your evidence that Robert is trying to tar all muslims as being nazis? Why did you drop wikipedia like muhammad wanted to drop Sauda, his old and fat wife?
Angemon says
The dunce posted, several posts and days after saying he was going to stop:
“So agrononse still has not given any reference that moslems where force to fight for the allies”
Oh, for f***’s sake, dunce. Are you still trying to flog that dead horse? Are you so daft that you…
Oh, wait.
You are that daft.
*ahem*
My bad.
Why don’t you take a step back, dunce, and see what you tried to claim in the first place? You tried to dispute what Robert said with a textbook example of the logical fallacy knows as “Appeal to Numbers”. Your goal was to prove Robert wrong by pointing out to the number of muslims who fought on the Allied side. I rightfully pointed out that your logic was flawed, and that the muslims who fought on the Allied side did so not because they rejected the authority of the mufti, which was your claim, but because they were drafted, they had clan/tribal allegiances or had personal stakes in the matter. Since you’ve dropped the matter of allegiances and personal matter, you’re implicitly acknowledging I’m right on that. So that leaves the matter of the draft, and I’ll get to that. For now, I’ll just point out you’re desperately trying to throw anything you can at me to see if something sticks. You already moved on to greener pastures, making the asinine claim that the claim to the sanctity of Jerusalem started in 1938. Your “logic” is this: you say whatever you can pull out of your ass to make Robert, Pamela, me, or anyone else on the CJ movement look bad and it’s up to us to prove you wrong. But is any of us says something then we have to prove it. You get an F- at logic, an F- at consistently applying the same set of standards, and an F- at checking your sources.
Doubt is a good thing, and so is checking to see if the sources are correct, which is something you’ve failed to do – you extensively quoted from wikipedia, except when it didn’t suit you – does wikipedia not say that Jerusalem is regarded as the third holiest site of islam? But I’ve addressed that on my previous post, so moving on. About the draft. You’re asking me to prove something that should be common knowledge to anyone who is not a muslim living in a 3rd world hellhole. I bet you’ll doubt whatever source I throw at you – remember when you had to resort to say I couldn’t prove I owned the book I quoted from? – so here’s what you’re going to do: you’re going to get a list of all the armies on the Allied side for which muslims fought, then you’re going to see if they enforced conscription or not. Then you’ll apologize to me and lay the dead horse to rest.
And if after that you still want to argue that all muslims who fought on the Allied side did so voluntarily, then you have some explaining to do. For example, why did tens of thousands of muslims defected from the Red Army to the Germans if they were, according to you, volunteers?
Your turn, dunce. Woof, woof, puppy.
Angemon says
Finally, theres this little nugget:
“a dodgey translation of a hadithe”
And then the dunce quotes several other ahadith from whatever site he deemed as reliable. What he doesn’t do is say “look, I have this reliable site and the hadith you gave us was wrongly translated”. No, the dunce claims the translation is “dodgey” and doesn’t check with the site he seemingly relies on. I submit you this: the reason why he does not do what one would expect him to do after casting suspicion on the translation I game can be deduced from here:
“So there you have it, two hadithes more or less identical hadithes, one say Jerusalem the other says,Bait-ul-Maqdis.”
If he really suspected the hadith I posted was not about Jerusalem then he should have said “none of those ahadith mentions Jerusalem”. No only that, Bait-ul-Maqdis is an arabic anme given to Jerusalem – it’s like saying “that’s not an European Honey Bee, that’s an Apis Mellifera”, or “that’s not a Grey Wolf, that’s a Canis Lupus”. Calling it by another name doesn’t make it another thing.
And, of course, I don’t believe that muhammad went on a night travel to Jerusalem because I don’t believe muhammad existed. Likewise, I don’t believe in any ahadith. But we’re not discussing what I believe, we’re discussing what islamic orthodoxy accepts as granted. And that is that Jerusalem is the third holiest site of islam.
Your turn, dunce. Woof, woof, puppy.
Semeru says
So Bait-ul-Maqdis was Jerusalem, was it. Or is it moslems claiming it was, so as to give the night journey some creditability, much the same way pali,s are claiming Judea and Samaria to be Palistine.
Now Masjid al-Aqsa also known as Bayt al-Maqdis or Bayt al-Muqaddas. The name ‘Masjid al-Aqsa’ translates as ‘the farthest mosque’and while Bayt al-Maqdis or Bayt al-Muqaddas translates as the “The pure house”
In the hadithes Sahih Al-Bukhari 6.233and Sahih Muslim Hadithe 328
They mention Bayt al-Maqdis,
In my last comment I only gave part of the hadithe, below is the full hadithe
The Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him) said: I found myself in Hijr and the Quraysh were asking me about my night journey. I was asked about things pertaining to Bayt al-Maqdis, which I could not preserve (in my mind). I was very much vexed, so vexed as I had never been before. Then Allah raised it (Bayt al-Maqdis) before my eyes. I looked towards it, and I gave them the information about whatever they questioned me. I also saw myself among the group of apostles. I saw Moses saying a prayer and found him to be a well-built man as if he were a man of the tribe of Shanu’ah. I saw Jesus, son of Mary, (peace be upon him) offering prayer; of all men he had the closet resemblance to Urwah ibn Mas’ud ath-Thaqafi. I saw Ibrahim (peace be upon him) offering prayer; he had the closet resemblance to your companion (the Prophet himself) amongst people. When the time of prayer came I led them. When I completed the prayer, someone said: Here is Malik, the keeper of the Hell; give him salutation. I turned to him, but he preceded me in salutation.
This doesn’t sound like mohammed was in a city, it is more consistant to him being in a mosque
Here is another hadithe
(Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 248).
I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: How many doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them.
Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated:
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought Al-Buraq which is an animal white and long, bigger than a donkey but smaller than a mule who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to Bait Al-Maqdis, then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the thing of natural disposition. Then he took me to heaven.
The hadithes above describe a strucure not a place
Angemon says
The dunce posted:
“So Bait-ul-Maqdis was Jerusalem, was it.”
Yes.
And then the dunce, without ever presenting his credentials as islamic cleric, goes to reanalyze ahadith to defend the IQ-dropping he pulled out o fhis ass to attack Robert’s credibility. Of course, the ahadith he quotes detract nothing from the hadith I presented – if I say it’s 12:30 and someone says “you know, the day has 24 hours and every hour has 60 minutes and there’s, for example, 2:13, and 5:34, and 9:59”, that won’t detract from the time I said. It’s either 12:30 or not, regardless of all other possible combinations of hours and minutes.
Let me repeat that for you, dunce: it doesn’t matter whether or not muhammad existed or if he went on a physical or imaginary night travel. What matters is what islamic orthodoxy teaches about it. Islamic orthodoxy teaches that Jerusalem is the third holiest place in islam after Mecca and Medina. If you want to insist that claim started in 1938 then you need to present evidence for it (which you haven’t so far), and answer a few questions:
– Why was Jerusalem sacred to islam back 680 A.D. if, according to you, it wasn’t considered holy until 1938?
– Why are ahadith deemed reliable dating back to the 8th or 9th century connecting muhammad and Jerusalem?
– Which major schools of islam teach that Jerusalem is not a sacred city?
– If, like you claim, the mufti was the first one to claim Jerusalem was an islamic holy place, why is that claim so widespread in the whole muslim world? You’re the one who said that that the mufti had very little influence outside Jerusalem and that the claim of it being a holy place was his attempt to boost his status, so how did he came to influence all the schools of islam to teach it?
– How do you explain all the evidence that Jerusalem was an islamic holy place dating back more than 1000 years?