These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West — although those two groups would couch their refraining from doing anything to insult Muhammad as “respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation.” They are sowing a future of slavery and oppression for their children and their children’s children.
“Islamic Clerics Fight to Keep Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws That Persecute Christians: ‘Those Who Insult Muhammad Deserve to Be Killed,'” by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, June 17, 2015:
As Pakistani lawmakers consider legislation to reform the nation’s corrupt blasphemy laws, Islamic clerics are bashing the government for even considering such an option, and are calling for the release of the murderer of the Punjab governor who advocated for blasphemy reform in 2011.
Asia News reports that 10 Muslim scholars and a former Pakistani judge gathered recently at a “seminar for protection of the prophet’s dignity” and expressed their concern over the proposed legislation that is attempting to add the word “intention” to the nation’s blasphemy law.
Speaking at the seminar was former Pakistani justice Mian Nazir Akhtar, who represents Mumtaz Qadri, the bodyguard who killed Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for referring to Pakistan’s blasphemy law as a “black law.” Akhtar bashed the proposed legislation and asserted that those who insult the Muslim prophet Muhammad deserve to be killed and “sent to hell.”
“The new bill rejects all sayings by the ‘holy prophet,'” Akhtar stated. “When it comes to the sanctity of the prophet, the implementation of all man-made laws become different. Those who insult him have no rights, including no right to live. There is no need for trial or hearings.”…
Michael Copeland says
“There is no need for trial or hearings”, says the retired judge.
You see, Sharia is simple, inexpensive and easy to administer.
bernie says
Mike: exactly. Additionally, these clerics believe that a Muslim’s word automatically trumps that of any non-Muslim’s, so there is never any reason to suspect that blasphemy accusations may often be false and spitefully made.
Peggy says
And nobody has to waste time proving it either.
It’s the same as Salem witch trials. Just point and finger and yell blasphemy. Great way to get rid of the people you don’t like.
KrazyKafir says
Those who revere a, psychotic, warmongering, child molester, have no right to live.
mortimer says
Yes, you are Krazy.
Muslims need to be deprogrammed and become tolerant humanists.
Islam is obscurantism.
voegelinian says
“Muslims need to be deprogrammed and become tolerant humanists.”
There’s the insanity of the asymptotic mind at work. And he calls the other guy “Krazy”. Wow.
Remember, this is mortimer who previously has written:
mortimer says
September 18, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Nonsense. Most Muslims are much nicer and more moral than Mohammed. They believe theoretically, but most do not practice all the things required by Islam. Perhaps 85% of Muslims are non-practicing ‘hypocrites’. Only 15% are observant.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, we have beaten back Islam before—as well as Fascism and other existential threats.
We’ve never done it by “deprogramming” those threatening us, though.
If living in civilized societies is not enough to deprogram most Muslims—and clearly, it is not, given the huge number of Mohammedans in the West intent on imposing Islam on us—then clearly this is not going to work.
Emili says
Mohammed after Lucifer is the greatest evil to befall mankind!
Robert Crawford says
Distinction without difference.
qedlin says
Yo, Big Mo is Lucifer’s tool.
Jerry says
You make a mistake:
There is a Mohammadan “Holy Trinity”
which comprises “Allah” the “God of Death” and human sacrifices
Mohammad the genocidal fake “Prophet”
and “Shaitan” – the Satan who unites them in evil.
mortimer says
Former Pakistani justice Mian Nazir Akhtar said, “There is no need for trial or hearings.”…
So a pious Muslim judge says vigilantes may murder someone without trial!
Normative Islamic vigilantism and terrorism, rather than an aberration.
Islam is mob rule.
Erl says
Those who insult the artistic endeavors of people who would like to draw or paint a picture of a man named Muhammad should bow down and have their backside booted or maybe …… wait for have their heads gently removed in tack to their low life bodies and sent back to Iran that is if they are of the Sunni group and the Shi-ite off to Saudi Arabia
Angemon says
And how does one “insult” someone who died almost 1400 years ago, assuming he even existed? Surprisingly, it’s a very easy thing to do. You don’t believe muhammed existed? You’re insulting him. You don’t believe he was a prophet? You’re insulting him
You say things about him in a disapproving way, like, for example, his marriage with a six-year-old-girl? You’re insulting him.
Anything other than full submission to him is an insult. Islam means submission and it means it.
Theodoric says
Nobody’s “Prophet” has a right NOT TO BE MOCKED
Even HUMAN “Prophets” have NO right NOT TO BE MOCKED – and the same thing goes for Islam’s Muhammasaurus Rasulex.
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/no-prophet-has-a-right-not-to-be-mocked/
Gary says
….If we can even call Mohammad a “Prophet”
What prophocies did he ever fulfill?
What prophecy did he proclaim, that has come to pass? Other than fulfilling this one….
“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
Joseph says
Gee… when they put it that way it kind of frightens me to say anything bad about Mohammed(MHCBPOHG may hot coals be poured on his groin)
Sorry bad habit….I won’t say another bad thing about Mohammed(MHTBCU may his testicles be crushed underfoot)
MY BAD.
mortimer says
Mohammed’s mythology was invented by the caliphs following Abd al Malik.
Mohammed is as real as King Arthur, Robin Hood and Santa Claus and Mohammed is somewhat a combination of all three.
Western Canadian says
While there is scant evidence to establish the reality of King Arthur or Robin Hood, to suggest in any way that these two mythic heros were in ANY bloody way whatsoever similar to islams (RTC) vile and filthy non-prophet, is beyond ignorant or stupid.
Richie says
and yet those who have a problem with this are the ones called hateful
duh_swami says
One Imam says this… ‘Those Who Insult Muhammad Deserve to Be Killed,’
Another Imam said this…’The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Of Islam’…
Looks like complete agreement of Imams…
Richie says
Would CAIR condemn these Muslims calling for mass decapitation, or would they attack those who don’t want to be decapitated?
Scott says
I think it is funny how a “false god” like Mohammed needs mortal men to fight and kill for his honor, but the “True God” does not need our help. He is fully capable of defending himself and doesn’t need any body’s help. Ironic how a false god is brought into the light!!!
voytech says
F_ _k meo! Come at me bro
No Fear says
How dare these 7th century savages think that they can behead someone who disagrees with them.
A pox on their heads!
May they be banished to the pit of eternal stench!
I fart at their prophet, who looks like a dogs underparts !
Shmooviyet says
@No Fear: I misread that as a ‘dog’s underpants’. Still an lol.
Joseph says
So did I and the worst part is I read Shmooviyet’s post first.
Western Canadian says
Actually, I think we all got that one the same way…..
No Fear says
Fooey ! Mohammed was a stinking pig !
He has the countenance of a cantaloupe.
Pox on his Allah and pox on his followers.
Phtewey !
David says
Right on, brother!
Shmooviyet says
“…a seminar for the protection of the prophet’s dignity…”
Seems he’s slowly losing any vestige of phony dignity that might still be imagined of him, since JW and others worldwide have been waking people to the truth about the Mighty Mo. No matter how many ‘enormous numbers’ are thrown about. 1.7 billion here, 1.8 billion there…
Oh, and his more bloodthirsty followers aren’t doing much for his image, either.
Heh.
Gary says
Oh Muslim PUNK:
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Raizen says
“Insult Mohammad”, eh? Have these guys read what his biographies say about him? It’s hard to say something negative about him that isn’t true.
Normally, when someone is called a child molester, it’s considered the worst thing about that person. But if a person hears that Mohammad was a murderer, liar, rapist, oath-breaker, thief, and supremacist, by the time that they hear that he was also a child molester, they’d probably say, “Oh, so he was a child molester. If that’s all he was, he wouldn’t be so bad.” Who we are talking about is one of the worst people to have ever lived.
And these clerics, who follow this guy, think that they have a right to pass judgment on the rest of us?
No Fear says
Yes, Mohammed’s life details from his biographies and the Hadith are revolting.
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live”.
So, what else is new – The “Infidels” already know that, as it IS the Ideology of Islam, and it’s 7th Century Mentality Muslim “Retards”, PROVING over and over again, through Islam’s well Documented Bloody, Butchery.
ISLAM – PROVING with every Act, Deed, and Word, that Islam IS NOT a “Religion”, much less Islam’s “Religion of Peace”, as in Islam’s Taqiyya and Kitman Lying “Grand Deception”, but Islam IS Truly a Sick “Cult Ideology” of HATE, the Qur’an IS Islam’s Sick “Holy Book” of HATE, Mohammed IS Islam’s Sick Minded “Prophet” of HATE, and Allah IS Islam’s Sick “God” of HATE.
John Scott says
I think that people around the world need to actually read the Quran and the Hadith more.
Educate themselves, and others, about the true nature of Islam, and make up their minds.
It is commonly said that Muhammad was a mass murderer and a pedophile. Islamic scripture seems to confirm this.
And, yet, about 2 billion people follow Muhammad.
I think a lot of the world is still living in the Dark Ages. And that includes many in the West, including our elected politicians.
I say, do not live in ignorance. Read it, know it. And then, make your own moral judgment.
A 6 year old wife and 100s of beheaded corpses.
I will call it out… to my heart, this is evil.
Guys & Gals, when my time comes, and they put a bullet through my head for “insulting the Prophet.”…
Do me a favor:
Bury me somewhere in Canada, with 1 beer and 1 piece of bacon.
From Canada,
John Anthony Duarte Scott
Stardusty Psyche says
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live
These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West ”
What an utterly ridiculous opening…
“The vast majority of international opinion today says those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
“Most of the mainstream media agrees that those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
“Most of the Christian clerics in the West agree that those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
What utter drivel. Yet, the average poster (sycophant) here at JW laps it up and parrots it back.
Champ says
Aw, the inerrant word of ‘sparky poo’, who JUST so happens to be in the minority …comedy gold!
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
argumentum ad populum much?
Champ says
Got troll much? ..Mr Unpopular! LOL!
Champ says
Tick, Tock!!!
Peggy says
I see you can’t handle the truth.
duh_swami says
Star waste…Get lost you insulting cretin…
Mirren10 says
‘stardusty psyche’ yet again demonstrates his inability to comprehend what has been written. Quite amusing, really, since he puffs himself up as a cut above the rest of us, in terms of intelligence.
He quotes selectively from Mr Spencer’s article;
“The vast majority of international opinion today says those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
“Most of the mainstream media agrees that those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
“Most of the Christian clerics in the West agree that those who insult Muhammad have no right to live”
What Mr Spencer actually *said*, was;
Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West — **although those two groups would couch their refraining from doing anything to insult Muhammad as “respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation**.” (my emphasis: Mirren)
This fool will not engage with the point Mr Spencer made; that both the msm, and Christian clerics, have, by **implication**, endorsed the idea that mohammed is sacrosanct, by refusing to condemn wholeheartedly those who murder, and attempt to murder, in the name of ‘defending’ mohammed.
Thus we have Bishops like MacManus, who refuse to condemn mohammedan atrocities, because that would ‘injure the dialogue’, Rowan Williams blathering about how some form of sharia law will ‘inevitably’ come to the UK, and many other examples of Christian clerics weaselling their way towards an implicit acceptance of the sharia blasphemy law.
‘stardusty psyche’ could quite easily google this for himself, but can’t be bothered; it is far easier to deride and denigrate Mr Spencer, and the posters here, because that doesn’t require any effort, and strokes his own ego.
Equally, we have the msm, in the wake of the attempted murder of Mr Spencer, and Ms Geller, plus all the people who attended the draw mohammed contest in Garland, blatantly stating that Robert and Pamela brought it on themselves, for ‘provoking’ muslims by ‘blaspheming’ mohammed.
Further, we have ‘stardusty psyche’s’ pusillanimous ‘hero’, obama, stating at the UN; ”the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam’. This fool has still not acknowledged that slander in islam, merely means saying something not liked about a person (in this case, mohammed). The truth or otherwise of what has been said matters not one jot; if it is offensive, it is therefore slander.
Further still, we have hilary clinton tacitly endorsing sharia blasphemy law by 1) attempting to blame the Benghazi attack and murders of Ambassador Stevens, and three others, on the film ”Innocence of muslims”, which as we know, was a blatant lie; 2) scapegoating the maker of the film by having him arrested for ‘parole violation’, thus making him a **political prisoner** and 3) signing on to the OIC attempts to have criticism and mockery of mohammed criminalised, **internationally**.
As I said in another post, about people like ‘stardusty psyche’; no amount of facts or evidence will persuade them they are wrong, or mistaken, because they are mentally lazy, and prefer their prejudices and stupidities, in the face of all evidence – it’s a leftist/mohammedan disease, this inability to think, or process facts. mohammedans because of their religion, which discourages any thinking at all, and leftists because a) they have never actually been taught how to think critically, and b) misrepresenting what has been said, along with facts and evidence, is, to them, a ‘debating’ technique.
The truth is not in them. Never has been, and probably never will be.
Champ says
Great analysis, Mirren10!! ..as always!
And nearly every comment he makes is **dripping** with SARCASM, so I’ve correctly named him, “Sarcastic Pest”, since he is an annoying pest. Someone *this* sarcastic and insincere clearly has ulterior motives and an ax to grind …he’s only here to discredit Robert Spencer and bring down Jihad Watch.
I mean people who are here for honest debate do NOT resort to so much ..sarcasm, and his comments are replete with sarcasm — every last one of them! He is so transparent that it’s sickening …
Angemon says
Champ posted:
“I mean people who are here for honest debate do NOT resort to so much ..sarcasm, and his comments are replete with sarcasm”
And don’t forget outright lies – whatever he feels like will strengthen whatever point he’s trying to make, he’ll say it, truth be damned. As for the double standards and contradictions, that’s a matter for another time…
Champ says
Yes — there’s his lies, too! Good catch, Angemon!
Mirren10 says
Thanks, Champ.
Mind you, I sometimes think engaging with trolls like ‘stardusty’ may be a bit unsporting, like shooting fish in a barrel. 🙂
Nah, he deserves it .
Champ says
“…like shooting fish in a barrel.”
bwaahaaahhaaaa!!!!!!
You’re smart and funny, too!!! 😀
Stardusty Psyche says
Mirren10,
“… ‘stardusty psyche’s’…”the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam’. This fool has still not acknowledged that slander in islam, merely means…”
Irrelevant, Obama did not state that he was speaking from an Islamic legal perspective.
Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law review, Law Professor, US Senator, and noncombatant POTUS..
Quite obviously, such a man speaks from the perspective of US law and American traditions of the English language.
Slander is an untruth. I agree with that statement made by Obama and apparently so does Robert Spencer because I have never heard Robert Spencer say an untrue thing about Muhammad.
gravenimage says
More crap from “Stardusty Psyche”:
Mirren10,
“… ‘stardusty psyche’s’…”the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam’. This fool has still not acknowledged that slander in islam, merely means…”
Irrelevant, Obama did not state that he was speaking from an Islamic legal perspective.
Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law review, Law Professor, US Senator, and noncombatant POTUS..
Quite obviously, such a man speaks from the perspective of US law and American traditions of the English language.
………………………………….
The idea that American law prevents any negative statement about a person who is deceased or imaginary—it has to be one or the other in the case of the “Prophet” Muhammed—is *utterly false*. Moreover, this is the case whether the statement is factual or not.
People have written pieces critical of Santa Clause; they have written novels where Thomas More, say, or one of the Founding Fathers is the villain.
None of these people have been sued for libel.
There is, in fact, nothing like this in American law.
But there is in Islam, with its draconian ‘Blasphemy” laws.
More:
Slander is an untruth. I agree with that statement made by Obama and apparently so does Robert Spencer because I have never heard Robert Spencer say an untrue thing about Muhammad.
………………………………….
Robert Spencer has always told the truth about the foul “Prophet” because he is a careful scholar, *not* because he believes that any statement made re Muhammed is “libel” under American law.
He has, in fact, made this specific point here more than once.
Stardusty Psyche says
“Robert Spencer has always told the truth about the foul “Prophet” because he is a careful scholar,”
Exactly,yes, now you are finally getting it!!!
Robert Spencer is against untruth WRT Muhammad, thus he does not slander Islam
Robert Spencer: “What I say about Islam is neither hatred nor slander; it is true.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/1018323/islam-jihad-and-democracy-the-inquisitr-interviews-robert-spencer/
We should all aspire to the careful scholarship of Robert Spencer and never slander Islam, or by association, its prophet.
Oh, little graven, I knew my faith in you to be able to eventually understand…well, not misplaced…heartening indeed!
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“We should all aspire to the careful scholarship of Robert Spencer and never slander Islam, or by association, its prophet.”
Careful scholarship never prevented anyone from being accused of slandering islam. Not only in islamic law slander includes saying something one would like to keep secret, but also in the West muslims and islamic apologists often bring forth that accusation regardless of what’s being told about islam or muhammad.
Of course, if one wants to dissuade others from “slandering” islam, one would say “don’t slander islam” and shoehorn some half-assed explanation as to seem less conspicuous. How many times did SP told us not to slander islam by now?
gravenimage says
The repellant “Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
We should all aspire to the careful scholarship of Robert Spencer and never slander Islam, or by association, its prophet.
…………………………….
What absolute crap. The idea that Spencer is careful in his scholarship because he believes that Islam and its foul “Prophet” should never be slandered is *utterly false*.
It is only Islam and those bowing to its tenets that demand that Islam and its founder be accorded such “respect”. Spencer has *never* called for this; he has, in fact, bravely and consistently upheld our right to freedom of speech in the face of such demands.
And as Angemon points out, such careful scholarship on his part has *hardly* saved him from the wrath of violently censorious Muslims, who consider *any* criticism or even questioning of Islam or Muhammed to be “slander”.
The constant stream of death threats and plots against his life—the most recent at the Muhammad Cartoon Art show in Garland, Texas—prove this.
Stardusyt Psyche says
Hi Graven,
Is there a germane point in you little rant someplace?
“What absolute crap. The idea that Spencer is careful in his scholarship because he believes that Islam and its foul “Prophet” should never be slandered is *utterly false*.”
After which you just blather some red herrings…so what?
Spencer states that his statements about Islam are not slander, rather, by contrast they are true.
Spencer takes great effort to always speak the truth about Islam and by association Muhammad.
We should indeed all aspire to that level of honesty, and, as Spencer does, scrupulously avo8id slander of Islam.
You demonstrate a lamentable incapacity for logical reasoning in utterly failing to support your charge of “utterly false”.
Champ says
“Stupid PeaBrain” wrote:
Robert Spencer is against untruth WRT Muhammad, thus he does not slander Islam
Robert Spencer: “What I say about Islam is neither hatred nor slander; it is true.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/1018323/islam-jihad-and-democracy-the-inquisitr-interviews-robert-spencer/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ridiculous that “PeaBrain” provides a secondhand news source, “Inquisitr”, which is complete hearsay; and it only demonstrates just how *lousy* SP is at fact-finding. And yes, that’s a nice way of calling him a bald-faced LIAR and moron, lol!
And lets suppose that Robert DID state this, the emphasis of this statement is on the fact that Robert focuses on the TRUTH about muhammad and islam. And more importantly, notice that Robert is first addressing the allegations against him: hatred and slander. And of course there are Robert’s books and **Jihad Watch** to back up what I’m pointing out here — I mean hello!!
Soooo focus “PeaBrain”, focus!!!!
But ole “PeaBrain” is using some strange pretzel-logic to twist what Robert allegedly stated, and his *logic* is stupid and boring — just like SP.
What else y’got “PeaBrain”, because that one was too easy to shoot down. Wow that was like taking candy from a baby. Yeah, your *contributions* are a yawn fest. 😐
You’re puttin’ us to sleep here …zzzzzzzzz
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
It was an interview. Are you suggesting the interview is a fabrication?
Robert Spencer: “What I say about Islam is neither hatred nor slander; it is true.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/1018323/islam-jihad-and-democracy-the-inquisitr-interviews-robert-spencer/
gravenimage says
“Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
Is there a germane point in you little rant someplace?
……………………
Of course there was, and I was quite clear about it.
Robert Spencer has never called for anyone to censor themselves out of demands that Islam must be respected. He has, instead, consistently and repeatedly rejected such demands.
“Obama vs. free speech: ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam’”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/obama-vs-free-speech-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam
“MSNBC: We have to respect Islam”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/msnbc-we-have-to-respect-islam
“Mosque that wanted ban on criticism of Islam holds funeral for Texas cartoon jihadist”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/mosque-that-wanted-ban-on-criticism-of-islam-holds-funeral-for-texas-cartoon-jihadist
“Robert Spencer: Why Can’t Non-Muslims Criticize Islam?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/robert-spencer-why-cant-non-muslims-criticize-islam
I could, of course, cite scores more articles.
I won’t deign to address “Stardusty Psyche’s false characterization of my very measured response as a “rant”.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Graven,
Thanks for the links.
Just about a month ago I saw Evan Kohlmann on MSNBC and he actually said “nothing to do with Islam”, and for some reason he did not respond when I yelled “dumb ass” at him.
For some reason the one about the UN quote had no words by Spencer
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/obama-vs-free-speech-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam
So, it really says nothing on Robert Spencer’s views on “slander” or any untruth.
The other links are about criticism, which Robert Spencer correctly insists is our right, and which he always does truthfully, and therefore absent “slander” in its common American English meaning.
I think you have a point about my use of the word “rant”, since you just said “What absolute crap” which by JW standards is really not so bad, so please allow me to modify my characterization to “irrelevancies”
Now, maybe you have some other point, and that is fine, but the primary assertion here seems to be that when Obama said “slander” that was somehow islamocode and indicates that he is a stealth jihadi, or he is against all criticism of Islam even if it is true criticism, or that he was speaking in Islamic law terms because he is…whatever he is supposed to be, I mean take your pick of Muslim/birther/jihadi “theories”..
I hope I am not putting words in your mouth here, but this whole “slander” issue has been represented along those lines here at JW many times.
My point has been consistently that “slander” in ordinary American English is an untruth.
Obama was therefore making a statement against untruth.
I agree with not speaking falsely about Islam or Muhammad, it is counterproductive, unnecessary, and dishonest.
Robert Spencer agrees, quite manifestly, that criticism of Muhammad and Islam should be limited to truthful criticisms. All his work confirms this. He has explicitly denied slander of Islam insisting in so many words it is not slander because it is truth.
So, the connection is pretty airtight, Robert Spencer is against slander of Islam or Muhammad in the common American English meaning of the word “slander”
The rest of your points are accurate answers and interesting information on other subjects but are irrelevant to the issue of “slander” in this context.
gravenimage says
More mendacious claptrap from “Stardusty Psyche”:
Just about a month ago I saw Evan Kohlmann on MSNBC and he actually said “nothing to do with Islam”, and for some reason he did not respond when I yelled “dumb ass” at him.
………………………………………
What is the point of this? I am not, of course, directing my words to the meretricious “Stardusty Psyche” at all, it that is what he is implying, but rather to other readers here at Jihad Watch.
More:
For some reason the one about the UN quote had no words by Spencer
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/obama-vs-free-speech-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam
So, it really says nothing on Robert Spencer’s views on “slander” or any untruth.
………………………………………
The claim that this article contains no words by Robert Spencer is a blatant falsehood. Spencer prefaces the quote from Obama with this: “Obama vs. free speech:”.
So the implication that Spencer may well be praising Obama’s calls for censorship could not be more misleading.
More:
The other links are about criticism, which Robert Spencer correctly insists is our right, and which he always does truthfully, and therefore absent “slander” in its common American English meaning.
………………………………………
It is, as I have pointed out, not possible to slander an individual who is deceased or imaginary, nor is it possible to slander an idea, as is Islam.
More:
I think you have a point about my use of the word “rant”, since you just said “What absolute crap” which by JW standards is really not so bad, so please allow me to modify my characterization to “irrelevancies”
………………………………………
It is scarcely surprising that the appalling “Stardusty Psyche” would consider the defense of freedom of speech to be ‘irrelevant’.
More:
Now, maybe you have some other point, and that is fine, but the primary assertion here seems to be that when Obama said “slander” that was somehow islamocode and indicates that he is a stealth jihadi, or he is against all criticism of Islam even if it is true criticism, or that he was speaking in Islamic law terms because he is…whatever he is supposed to be, I mean take your pick of Muslim/birther/jihadi “theories”..
I hope I am not putting words in your mouth here…
………………………………………
*Of course* “Stardusty Psyche” is putting words in my mouth, in an effort to smear the defense of freedom of speech by falsely characterizing it as of concern only to conspiracy theorists.
But President Obama’s words should be of concern to anyone who cherishes the First Amendment, whatever his intent may have been.
More:
Robert Spencer agrees, quite manifestly, that criticism of Muhammad and Islam should be limited to truthful criticisms. All his work confirms this…
So, the connection is pretty airtight, Robert Spencer is against slander of Islam or Muhammad in the common American English meaning of the word “slander”
………………………………………
“Stardusty Psyche” continues to hammer the idea that it is possible to slander Islam or Muhammed under Western law—it is not.
Moreover, the idea that Robert Spencer—of all people!—agrees with strictures against the “slander” of Islam or the “Prophet” is quite false, and goes against everything he stands for.
But being critical of Islam, the “Prophet”, or, indeed, of any Muslims *is* considered “slander” under Shari’ah:
“Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, r2.2) Note that it doesn’t say anything about these “disliked” statements having to be false. (RS)
More:
The rest of your points are accurate answers and interesting information on other subjects but are irrelevant to the issue of “slander” in this context.
………………………………………
Not at all. “Stardusty Psyche” may wish to restrict the conversation, but the fact is that we stand against those who, like the vicious Muslim cleric above, want to see persecution or death for anyone who dares to “slander” Muhammed.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi gravenimage
For a person who invests so much time in finely parsing text you are surprisingly bad at doing so.
“It is, as I have pointed out, not possible to slander an individual who is deceased or imaginary, nor is it possible to slander an idea, as is Islam.”
““Stardusty Psyche” continues to hammer the idea that it is possible to slander Islam or Muhammed under Western law—it is not.”
Robert Spencer: What I say about Islam is neither hatred nor slander; it is true.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1018323/islam-jihad-and-democracy-the-inquisitr-interviews-robert-spencer/
Note: Spencer does not argue that slander about Islam is not possible, rather, Spencer argues that the truth of his statements is what contrasts them with slander.
Need I add, Q.E.D.?.
“But being critical of Islam, the “Prophet”, or, indeed, of any Muslims *is* considered “slander” under Shari’ah:”
So what?
The rest of you post is similarly idiotic drivel and really not worth pointing out as such line by line.
voegelinian says
Yes, Robert Spencer had a lapsus calami and forgot to massage his hyperbole with a little nuance. What his somewhat awkward hyperbole intends to communicate, we must reasonably conjecture, is that those various influential non-Muslim Western voices do, by their anxiously PC MC pusillanimity, unintentionally (but no less unconscionably) countenance — and thereby enable — the murderous blasphemy laws which Muslims hold so dear.
About the toadyism rife amongst the Jihad Watch regulars, however, “Stardusty Psyche” is, alas, correct.
Champ says
Of course ‘voeg’ would think that he’s “correct” since it’s quite obvious that ‘voeg’ hates Robert Spencer, too; and he has a major chip on his shoulder due to being banned from Jihad Watch at least 5, or 6 times.
Yeah ‘voeg’ and ‘sarcastic pest’ are like 2-peas-in-a-pod, who have nothing better to do than engage in friendly-fire; which is not at all constructive, but very counterproductive. Always has been, always will be …
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“About the toadyism rife amongst the Jihad Watch regulars, however, “Stardusty Psyche” is, alas, correct.”
Translations:
“I’m angry at everyone here who doesn’t blindly agree with what I say and doesn’t acts like my own army of brownshirts.“
Mirren10 says
voegelinian says;
”What his somewhat awkward hyperbole intends to communicate, we must reasonably conjecture, is that those various influential non-Muslim Western voices do, by their anxiously PC MC pusillanimity, unintentionally (but no less unconscionably) countenance — and thereby enable — the murderous blasphemy laws which Muslims hold so dear.”
There was no hyperbole; Robert said, ”Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West — **although those two groups would couch their refraining from doing anything to insult Muhammad as “respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation**.” (my emphasis: Mirren)
You seem to have the same problem as ‘stardusty psyche’ .
”What his somewhat awkward hyperbole intends to communicate, we must reasonably conjecture, is that those various influential non-Muslim Western voices do, by their anxiously PC MC pusillanimity, unintentionally (but no less unconscionably) countenance — and thereby enable — the murderous blasphemy laws which Muslims hold so dear.”
Good Lord, do you ever actually read what you write ? Robert Spencer’s prose is clear and to the point. He has no need to produce tortuously convoluted sentences, in order to appear intellectual.
You should take a leaf from his book.
”About the toadyism rife amongst the Jihad Watch regulars, however, “Stardusty Psyche” is, alas, correct.”
Uh-huh. Wasn’t it you, just the other day, bitching at Quotha Raven, for daring to be friendly towards PJ, instead of getting herself involved in your ridiculous nonsense ? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Angemon’s translation of your crap is spot on.
Champ says
Brava, Mirren10!!!! ..and you are “spot on”, too! Wow what an impressive response to ‘voeg’s’ egregious NONSENSE!
Champ says
Once ‘voeg’ fought against mohammedan trolls, and now he’s joining forces with them …
Now that is one *SAD* and disgusting resume!
voegelinian says
Hey “Godless”, have you fallen asleep or something?
duh_swami says
You must take ‘mean’ pills’, you shore is mean…
Champ says
I repeat …
Once ‘voeg’ fought against mohammedan trolls, and now he’s joining forces with them …
Now that is one *SAD* and disgusting resume!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope, I’m wide awake …
And I’m certainly not “Godless”. Why, because I state the truth about your antics towards Robert Spencer, and I’m no longer your chief supporter? …so that makes me “Godless”. LOL, only in your twisted lil’ mind!
And you sound more and more like ‘rezali mehil’ with each passing day. Hey you could team-up with that troll and you can both call me “Godless” …you know, now that you’ve sided with mohammedans.
Yep, sad and disgusting …
And you’re a louse, too.
Angemon says
Champ posted:
“And I’m certainly not “Godless”. Why, because I state the truth about your antics towards Robert Spencer, and I’m no longer your chief supporter? …so that makes me “Godless”. LOL, only in your twisted lil’ mind!”
I think voeg was actually requesting input from a user going by the name “Godless”, hence the quotation marks and capital G:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/raymond-ibrahim-islams-baby-jihad#comment-1254040
Although I wouldn’t put it past him to try “insulting” you by calling you godless.
Angemon says
Champ, upon further examination, I believe my initial assessment was correct: voeg wasn’t calling you “Godless”, he was calling for another user:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/talkin-bout-my-sharia-generation/comment-page-1#comment-1254807
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/french-intel-report-says-1730-potential-jihadis-ready-to-strike-in-france/comment-page-1#comment-1254806
Champ says
You must take ‘mean’ pills’, you shore is mean…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep — you said it, Duh_Swami!
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
About the toadyism rife amongst the Jihad Watch regulars, however, “Stardusty Psyche” is, alas, correct.
…………………………..
Good grief—and I just defended Voegelinian, above. Which I stand by, incidentally, as I *don’t* believe that Voeg would ever post as a Muslim apologist.
That being said, the idea that having a healthy respect for the brave and stalwart Mr. Spencer can be characterized as “toadying” is disgusting, I have, in fact, differed with Robert Spencer’s point of view from time to time, and on those occasions have said so. So have Mirren and other posters here.
None of that has taken away from my great respect for the man. And why should it? Only Voegelinian appears to believe that one need agree with him on every particular, or else it amounts to some sort of personal betrayal.
But this nastiness does not surprise. Voegelinian has spent *far* more time here sneeringly criticizing his fellow Anti-Jihadists—Robert Spencer, other contributors, and myriad posters, including myself—than he has ever spent actually dealing with the horror of Islam itself.
For years he ran the petty “Jihad Watch Watch”, where he excoriated Robert Spencer’s every (supposed) misstep:
http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/
By his own reckoning, he published around 130 essays dedicated not to opposing Jihad, but to poking holes in the stance of Jihad Watch, often over quite picayune matters.
None of this is much to his credit. As I have noted, he is capable of penetrating analysis on occasion, but so often whatever he might contribute here is undercut by his rudeness and personal running spats. At this point, this situation is just sad.
gravenimage says
The increasingly appalling “Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live
These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West ”
What an utterly ridiculous opening…
……………………………………..
Robert Spencer’s point here is quite clear: that many journalists, pundits, and Christian clerics have suggested that critics of Islam censor themselves out of “respect” for that violent creed, and usually fail to offer a word of criticism for Muslim savages who call for the murder of anyone who dare’s point out Islam’s violence.
Speaking of which, notice that “Stardusty Psyche” does not express any problems with such calls for murder, either.
Given his posting history here, that should not surprise.
Stardusty Psyche says
`Oh tut tut graven, there you go again running your mouth before engaging your brain.,..
I really do wish I have more hours to teach you, but with so many bloggers continually making so many fundamental reading errors I, lamentably, simply don’t have that much time to devote to my altruistic efforts.
But,
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live
These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Lie.
There is no evidence that vast majority of international opinion think or say Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live”
Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, Lie
There is no evidence that Most of the mainstream media agrees Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live”
as do most Christian clerics in the West ” Lie
There is no evidence that most Christian clerics in the West agree Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live”
Do pay more attention, graven, someday you will be on your own and you really need to learn how to read if you are going to make it “out there”
gravenimage says
Note that “Stardusty Psyche” *still* has no word of criticism for this pious thug calling for murder over blasphemy. Does this surprise?
Phil says
A former Pakistani “Justice Minister” publicly states that those who insult his dead prophet are entitled to neither trial nor life? So any Muslim product of multigenerational incestuous couplings with less education than a seventh-grader need merely accuse a non-believer of insulting a 7th century sub-literate Arabian warlord with a predilection for rape, pillage, slaughter and the occasional paedophilic marriage – and thereby ensure the (usually horrific) death of the infidel?…… And the soi-disant leftist academia condemns Israel as unjust!!!!!???
Let me make a suggestion….let’s set up a BDS movement with teeth. Aimed at Pakistan. Let’s see how the filthy zamindari- stratokleptocrats handle being the focus of real sanctions.
Champ says
“Sarcastic Pest” is not interested in honest debate, but he’s only here to demonize Robert Spencer and anyone inclined to agree with him …
He keeps leveling one nasty invective after another, so maybe it’s time to get out the RAID and put this stink bug out of his (and our) misery.
Mirren10 says
”He keeps leveling one nasty invective after another, so maybe it’s time to get out the RAID and put this stink bug out of his (and our) misery.”
Yes, Champ, I agree wholeheartedly. Unpleasant, egocentric fools like ‘stardusty psyche’ are a waste of space and oxygen. Well, what else can one expect from someone who voted for obama, twice, and thinks the sun shines out of his backside ? 🙂
Champ says
Indeed, Mirren10! Wow AND he voted for obama ..TWICE?! Good grief! That ‘splains a lot …
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
I actually have the very greatest respect for Robert Spencer as an Islamic scholar and a brave fighter on the front lines of the public education battle against the threat of fundamentalist Islam.
Unfortunately he is increasingly making some counterproductive and false statements.
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live””
followed by
“These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West”…
…only discredits the author of the second set of claims.
Nobody else here seemed to notice that and somehow I am a “dumbass” “stink bug” for pointing it out.
Unpleasant truth is often unwelcome, I will continue speaking it nevertheless.
Mirren10 says
”These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West”…
Nobody else here seemed to notice that and somehow I am a “dumbass” “stink bug” for pointing it out”
More lies from ‘stardusty psyche’. He obviously thinks everyone here is as unable to comprehend the written word as himself.
What Robert said was this;
Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West — **although those two groups would couch their refraining from doing anything to insult Muhammad as “respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation**.”
Notice how ‘stardusty psyche’ deliberately leaves that part of the sentence out ?
Or maybe it’s just that he really is stupid, and can’t read properly.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
I left it out because it was even more ridiculous then the first set of claims.
In your highlight segment Robert Spencer becomes a mind reader. First he tells us what they really think, then he tells us what they say.
What, did Robert Spencer receive some divine revelation as to what “most Christian clerics” really think?
The fact remains that his first set of claims is preposterous and following it with a claim to mind reading skills is even more absurd.
Mirren10 says
‘stardusty psyche’ says;
”I left it out because it was even more ridiculous then the first set of claims.”
What mendacious claptrap. He left it out because it didn’t fit with his attempt to misrepresent what Robert said. What a liar he is.
”In your highlight segment Robert Spencer becomes a mind reader. First he tells us what they really think, then he tells us what they say.
What, did Robert Spencer receive some divine revelation as to what “most Christian clerics” really think?”
As I noted in my post, all ‘stardusty psyche’ has to do is google, and he will find hundreds of examples of Christian clerics weaselling their way towards an implicit acceptance of sharia blasphemy law.
Notice how he carefully avoids mentioning the implicit acceptance of sharia from clinton and obama. That doesn’t fit his narrative either, so he ignores it, as he ignores what slander means under sharia.
”The fact remains that his first set of claims is preposterous … ”
‘stardusty psyche’ thinks his assertions are facts. A logic fallacy, which the left takes to its collective bosom.
”These clerics represent the vast majority of international opinion today.”
Again, all ‘sp’ (can’t be bothered to write it out in full) has to do, is google for muslim clerics opinions on ‘blaspheming’ mohammed, *and* the OIC, *and* the UN, *and* various Western politicians, *and* the majority of the msm, *and* … well, why go on ? This twat can’t be bothered, he just hopes everyone will take his assertions at face value. No doubt that flies in *his* circle, but it won’t gain any traction here.
” …and following it with a claim to mind reading skills is even more absurd.”
Robert doesn’t claim to have any mind reading skills, and ‘sp’ can’t point to anywhere he does so. Once again, he wants his assertions and misrepresentations, and downright lies, taken as facts, but doesn’t supply any evidence. Typical left tactics.
What a maroon ! 🙂
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi guys
It is an act of mind reading to assert that when a person says
“respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation**.””
they mean
““no right to live””
gravenimage says
More from “Stardusty Psyche”:
It is an act of mind reading to assert that when a person says
“respect” and avoiding “gratuitous provocation**.””
they mean
““no right to live””
…………………………….
“Stardusty Psyche” would have us believe there is no link between these two stances, but this is false.
This is in the context of Muslims armed with automatic weapons planning to gun down an auditorium of non-violent people for failing to “respect” Islam and the “Prophet”, and failing to avoid “gratuitous provocation”.
Many in the media and the “interfaith” community have mot blamed the homicidal “faithful”, but rather those who dare to criticize the violence of Islam.
Moreover, why does “Stardusty Psyche” believes we should “respect” a vicious creed that enjoins its votaries to murder its critics, and all on the basis of the creed’s founder, the “Prophet” Muhammed?
And further, how is it “gratuitous provocation” to note how violent Islam is? This is only considered such under Shari’ah law, where the victims of Islam are not allowed to complain of their victimization, lest they want more of the same.
Joseph says
@ Stardusty dumbass
Unpleasant truth is often unwelcome, I will continue speaking it nevertheless.
________________________________________________________
No your unpleasant BS is unwelcome. “I will continue speaking”-translation- You will continue to use up space and oxygen.
You sound like some college punk who believes everything the “professors” told you. You NEVER questioned that smooth talking bullshit they handed you.
Like I said before, You are a new type of Muslim troll.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Joseph,
“You are a new type”
At least you give me credit for originality!
gravenimage says
Oh, we’ve seen his type of troll here from time to time—those who pose as Anti-Jihadists, while doing everything they can to undercut any actual opposition to Jihad.—most recently with the egregious “Americana”. “Semeru” is not entirely dissimilar, either.
“Stardusty Psyche” is marginally more subtle than the run of the mill troll, but he is not unique.
Champ says
Don’t “Hi” me, you sarcastic and insincere lil’ twit …
You are nothing more than a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to *respect* Robert Spencer, when in fact you’re only here to disrespect and discredit him. I’ve read MANY comments, from you, where you deride him and without just cause. And then you’ll throw in a few *false compliments*, here and there, just to throw everyone off. But your stupid tactic doesn’t fool me — nor does it fool many others here, either!
Undoubtedly you’re just some recycled mohammedan troll using a different moniker now. Get lost. You’re boring.
And this is rich!! …you consider Robert Spencer to be “counterproductive” when YOU fit this description more accurately. More comedy gold from the ‘Sarcastic Pest’. Yeah, you are a “stink bug” because you’re a lying, sarcastic PUNK, and your LIES are stinking up the place — and I’m being kind, here.
Champ says
SP has probably been banned from Jihad Watch before, so now he has an ax to grind …just a wild guess.
Joseph says
@ Champ
I see one of three(maybe two) possibilities about Stardusty dumb-ass.
1) College punk doing a paper, thus the Psyche part of his monicker.
2) Muslim troll- he says he is an atheist but never says a bad word about Mo or Islam
3) He is so far left that San Francisco Ca. people would kick him out.
I vote for Muslim college punk, 1 & 2
He just wants to stir up descent and bickering between JW regulars and write a paper on the so called dysfunctional conservatives.
He also probably has a double major like astronomy and psychology.
Champ says
Funny stuff, Joseph!! 😀
Joseph says
@ Champ
I really wasn’t kidding, I think he is a college Muslim troll doing a paper.
He is on the computer all the time and his posts are meant to get a reaction.
Joseph says
@ Champ
Don’t “Hi” me, you sarcastic and insincere lil’ twit …
____________________________
Now that IS funny. The “twit” part is what makes it funny.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Guys,
Are you guys Christians? I mean, I’m not feelin the love here!!!
Maybe it would help if you stopped to realize Robert Spencer is a human being just like all the rest of us. Most of the time he is doing really great things and I very much enjoy his lectures on Islam for all their scholarly depth, accuracy, and clarity.
But, like all of us, from time he gets carried away in some of his assertions. We all have a bad day from time to time. Even Einstein made some blunders.
His set of claims about “the vast majority of international opinion today. Most of the mainstream media agrees with them, as do most Christian clerics in the West” are simply non-starters in any objective analysis.
You guys are going on like I just insulted your mother or something. Robert Spencer is a big boy, he can handle somebody criticizing the merits of his arguments.
And really, if you claim to be Christians you have strayed far from the core message of love Jesus brought you and we all can benefit from.
Matthew 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Seriously guys, pray on it.
Champ says
You’re gettin’ some *tough love* “Sarcastic Pest” …
YOU pray about it!
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ
I am not a Christian, so praying according to the teachings of Jesus makes no sense for me.
If you are a Buddhist I would say to meditate on it.
My suggestion was to the self identifying Christians here. For a Christian prayer is a core meditative process, a process wherein the individual seeks guidance, offers repentance, and seeks to form a relationship with their perceived god. For a Christian the guidance for the content of prayer is found in the teachings of Christ, first and foremost, as well as other Biblical sources.
Jesus Christ explicitly instructed his faithful to pray for those who persecute you while loving your enemy.
This is a lesson you and some others here clearly have not taken to heart.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“I am not a Christian”
And yet, you seemingly know more about Christianity, and how Christians should act, or not, than Champ, who is a Christian. Oddly enough, your views on what Christians should do, or not, overlap perfectly with what muslims say regarding Christians.
How odd…
“Jesus Christ explicitly instructed his faithful to pray for those who persecute you while loving your enemy.”
He also directly and publicly confronted chief priests, scribes and Pharisees, and he drove the money-changers out of the Temple. Your point being?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“I am not a Christian” And yet, you seemingly know more about Christianity, and how Christians should act, or not, than Champ, who is a Christian. ”
Indeed, the average atheist knows far more about the doctrines of Christianity than the average Christian.
“Oddly enough, your views on what Christians should do, or not, overlap perfectly with what muslims say regarding Christians.”
In some respects, perhaps. Christians often make valid criticisms about Islam, and Muslims often make valid criticisms about Christianity. Atheists make criticisms of both that are in some respects a concatenation of criticisms by theists of each other.
“How odd…”
Only to those who have not thought very deeply on these subjects.
“Jesus Christ explicitly instructed his faithful to pray for those who persecute you while loving your enemy.”
that was an instruction by god to man.
“He also directly and publicly confronted chief priests, scribes and Pharisees, and he drove the money-changers out of the Temple. Your point being?”
That was an action by god against man
Apparently you do not see a distinction between an instruction by god to man and an action of god against man, thus giving further evidence to my assertion that you have not thought very deeply on these subjects.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Indeed, the average atheist knows far more about the doctrines of Christianity than the average Christian.”
If that is indeed the case, then you’re proving to be a below-average atheist. Very below average.
“In some respects, perhaps. Christians often make valid criticisms about Islam, and Muslims often make valid criticisms about Christianity. Atheists make criticisms of both that are in some respects a concatenation of criticisms by theists of each other.”
Here’s the gaping flaw in your “argument”: atheist don’t believe in a higher power. Christian criticism of islam and muslim criticism of Christianity revolve around the nature of God and His message.
Also, implying that atheists can’t think of anything to criticize any religion and have to resort to rehashing material from other religions won’t change the fact that your view of Christianity overlaps with what muslims say regarding how Christians are supposed to act.
As an average atheist, I say that your BS does not represent the views of the average atheist.
“That was an action by god against man
Apparently you do not see a distinction between an instruction by god to man and an action of god against man, thus giving further evidence to my assertion that you have not thought very deeply on these subjects.”
It seems you’re ignorant that Christians are supposed to follow the example of Christ, who, when needed, was confrontational and not afraid to get “in-your-face”. And, of course, according to mainstream Christianity, Christ was God but also man – your “argument” relies on a non-existing distinction.
Like I said, you must be a very below average atheist. Otherwise you wouldn’t think that Christians have to take all kind of abuse meekly and silently, without fighting back, ignoring the example of Christ
Champ says
“Sarcastic Pest” enjoys Bible verses, so here are a few for him to ponder …
1) “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.” — Proverbs 19:9
2) “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” — John 8:44
3) “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” — Exodus 20:16
And you don’t have to be a Christian for these truths to apply to YOU!
Stardusty Psyche says
Champ ” you sarcastic and insincere lil’ twit …”
False witness, sarcasm is sincere because it conveys the true feelings and views of the speaker.
Champ- “You are nothing more than a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to *respect* Robert Spencer,”
False witness, I greatly respect Robert Spencer as a scholar of Islam and front line fighter for the education of the public, he just makes a few over the top claims from time to time, possibly because he has been fighting dogs so long he may have caught a few of their fleas..I consider such shortcommings more like a casualty of war and not a reflection on his fundamental character, which I greatly respect
Champ- “Undoubtedly you’re just some recycled mohammedan ”
False witness, I am an atheist.
Champ is of the devil for the devil is the father of lies, and Champ shall perish (be forever separated from god) sayeth the Lord.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Champ ” you sarcastic and insincere lil’ twit …”
False witness, sarcasm is sincere”
Huh, SP? Champ called you sarcastic and insincere. He did not call sarcasm insincere.
You might want to start reading things twice and slowly…
“Champ- “You are nothing more than a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to *respect* Robert Spencer,”
False witness, I greatly respect Robert Spencer“>
Wouldn’t that be exactly what a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer would say?
Champ says
What I’ve written to “Sarcastic Pest” in NO WAY diminishes my being a Christian, so Angemon is right, and this guy doesn’t understand what being a Christian is. It doesn’t mean remaining quiet in the face of lies, and sometimes love MUST be tough and confronts sin and lies. And SP is a sarcastic, annoying pest, so “Sarcastic Pest” is a perfect fit.
So I stand by everything I’ve written and without apology. And pointing out SP’s LIES is the right thing to do, and if he doesn’t like my delivery — then tough.
And by my observations this clown does NOT respect Robert Spencer. That is just another bald-faced lie.
I repeat …
Get lost. You’re boring. And ALL of the above.
Champ says
Great response to ‘sarcastic pest’, Angemon! …and everything you wrote is spot on!
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon ,
“Christian criticism of islam and muslim criticism of Christianity revolve around the nature of God and His message.”
Hence my qualifier of “in some respects”. For example, Muslims criticize Christianity for the logical absurdities of the Easter story, quite apart from any competing textual basis of criticism. Atheists typically concatenate the logically based criticisms of theists against each other and ignore the competing scripture based arguments.
“It seems you’re ignorant that Christians are supposed to follow the example of Christ, who, when needed, was confrontational and not afraid to get “in-your-face”. ”
Also preached to turn the other cheek and on and on..,Christianity is, among other things, a buffet of convenient contradictions.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Hence my qualifier of “in some respects”. For example, Muslims criticize Christianity for the logical absurdities of the Easter story, quite apart from any competing textual basis of criticism”
Muslims the Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ because, according to the quran, Jesus didn’t die and therefore couldn’t have returned from the dead.
quran 4:157
And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
“Atheists typically concatenate the logically based criticisms of theists against each other and ignore the competing scripture based arguments.”
Once again: Christian criticism of islam and islamic criticism of Christianity revolve around the nature and message of God. Atheists don’t believe deities exist. Your failed sleight-of-hand fails to explain how you seemingly learned what Christianity teaches and how Christians are supposed to act from muslim sources alone.
“Also preached to turn the other cheek and on and on..,Christianity is, among other things, a buffet of convenient contradictions.”
I guess it might appear that way to someone well below average with no idea what he’s talking about.
Angemon says
OK, in all fairness I must say that SP’s mention of “convenient contradictions” in Christianity made me open my eyes to all manner of “convenient contradictions” one can see in everyday life:
– A sign that at times reads “Don’t walk” and at other times reads “Walk”.
– A dog that’s silent and relaxed in the presence of its owner but gets nervous and barks when strangers are around.
– Streetlights that at times are turned off and at other times are turned on.
– Muslims telling Westerners muhammad was a champion of women’s rights while separating men and women in mosques and making their wives wear a burqa.
The list goes on and on,
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Wouldn’t that be exactly what a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer would say?”
You got me on that one, I always lie.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“You got me on that one, I always lie.”
Let’s see. The question was:
“Wouldn’t that be exactly what a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer would say?”
A simple “Yes” or “No” question which you refused to answer.
Wouldn’t a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer say he respects Robert Spencer?
Champ says
“Stupid Pest” wrote:
Also preached to turn the other cheek and on and on..,Christianity is, among other things, a buffet of convenient contradictions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SP has revealed — once again, just how STUPID he is about what it means to “be” a Christian.
Becoming a Christian means that you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ. Period. You cannot WORK your way to heaven. So it does NOT mean following a looong list of do’s & don’ts, as “Stupid Pest” suggests here. What a doofus!
The verses that mention “loving your neighbor” and “turning the other cheek”, etc, etc ..are things that a Christian STRIVES for. But doing said things — or not doing them — is NOT what makes them a Christian. God looks to the heart to see whether or not that person has placed their FAITH in Jesus Christ, not whether or not they’ve done-the-list! Again, only a doofus would suggest this.
That said, “Stupid Pest” is completely ignorant on the subject, so I suppose I should cut him some slack. But now he knows, so no more slack.
Grow a brain “Stupid Pest” and get the facts straight.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Wouldn’t a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer say he respects Robert Spencer?”
You also got me on that one, I do indeed always lie.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“You also got me on that one, I do indeed always lie.”
Let’s see. The question was:
“Wouldn’t a bald-faced liar who’s pretending to respect Robert Spencer say he respects Robert Spencer?”
A simple “Yes” or “No” question which you refused to answer. And I suspect that I’ll get no other answer from you other than the sleight-of-hand you’ve tried to pass twice. Your no-denial is noted.
Stardusty Psyche says
I deny that I am lying.
gravenimage says
Oh, we’ve seen his type of troll here from time to time—those who pose as Anti-Jihadists, while doing everything they can to undercut any actual opposition to Jihad.—most recently with the egregious “Americana”. “Semeru” is not entirely dissimilar, either.
“Stardusty Psyche” is marginally more subtle than the run of the mill troll, but he is not unique.
gravenimage says
Angemon wrote, re “Stardusty Psyche”:
Oddly enough, your views on what Christians should do, or not, overlap perfectly with what muslims say regarding Christians.
………………………..
*Very* true, Angemon. This is very similar to what the appalling Rezali Mehil does, in claiming that Christians like Champ are not “real” Christians unless they are willing to supinely roll over for every Islamic horror. *Ugh*.
jayell says
“Muslim clerics: Those who insult Muhammad have “no right to live”….Sorry, I can’t even begin to get my head round this preposterous arrogance. Who the hell do these jokers think they are?
Baucent says
Time the West put the heat on Pakistan. They are a backward state dependent on foreign aid donors to survive. Tell them, no more aid money until they drop the blasphemy laws and any other institutional persecution of minority religious groups.
Pakistan more often than not is a problem rather than a help in the fight against the Jihadist ideology. They are unreliable as an ally of the West, (harbouring OBL just one example. Their most notable export is Jihadist and hate preachers. Cut off the aid, deny them visas to the West, deport Pakistani Islamists.
Paul says
The reason why we give them money is to have some control over their nuclear arsenal. Its like jizya.for protection.
Paul says
Hmmm A religious war. We are fighting the wrong people. The west should hand out fatwas just like Muslim clerics do. The fatwa should be placed on any cleric who incites violence and cultivates hate toward infidels . Any cleric that doesn’t sing the song that Islam is a religion of piece just like the west does. They should get a piece of metal between his ears and preferably through his mouth. This is a religious war then all imams are targets for the west. When Muslim clerics realize that they are the targets because of the violence and hate they disseminate trust me they will change their song. It is the Islamic clergy that is inciting violence and hate. They feel they can spew any vile nonsense because they are not targeted. Fear does work so give them a taste of their own medicine.
duh_swami says
Anyone who tells me I don’t deserve to live, for any reason at all, should stay out of my sight, because I take these threats seriously and might get proactive.
Joseph says
@ duh_swami
I take these threats seriously and might get proactive.
__________________________________________
Uhh, I don’t think facial cleanser for acne will solve this.
I’m sorry swami, I just could not resist.
I do agree with you however, I also take threats to my family or I VERY seriously.
Joseph says
@ duh_swami
Whoops I sometimes forget that I may be talking to someone on the other side of the world.
Here is what I mean.
http://www.proactiv.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-ProactivPlus-Site/default/Default-Start?uci=US-PA-O-PS-GA-28274&cid=183p615386g-c&GeoRedirect=false&gclid=CNqsha_wmsYCFcdcfgodKZIAbQ
Ethel says
Can anyone please explain to me why these people in 3rd world hell holes who we know do not speak English, always make their protest signs IN ENGLISH???
Joseph says
Because it would not have any effect on the population it is trying to frighten if that population can’t read Arabic.
Heather says
Those who follow Islam are too stupid to live.