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

Jihad Watch

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

Strategies of Denial Revisited (Part II)

Jun 27, 2015 8:53 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

Religious leaders call for the peace in the middle eastOne of the ways, paradoxically, to deny or minimize the threat of Islam is to focus only on the Qur’an, and then on selective quotation from the handful of verses that appear to reassure, not threaten. There is 2.256 (“no compulsion in religion”) and 5.32 (an injunction against murder) without the considerable modifying of that verse by 5.33 (with all its many exceptions to the injunction). And the Qur’an, while dangerous, may not be the most dangerous text in Islam. It is the Sunnah, consisting of both the Hadith and the Sira — the record of what the earliest Muslims did in Araby, with its hero Muhammad, that may be just as dangerous. For it is the Sunnah that creates the figure of Muhammad.

The stories of what Muhammad said and did, as set down in the Hadith (Traditions), and in his biography, the Sira, offer the view of the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), and one that most of us find quite different from that of Jesus or Buddha. In Islam, the true object of worship is Islam itself, and the central figure of Islam is not Allah, but Muhammad. The morality of Islam is the morality of Muhammad. And that is to be found in the Sunnah, which for many Muslims is at least as important, and in some cases appears to be more important for the regulation of daily life, than the Qur’an itself.

When someone like Mustafa Akyol, young Turkish “reformer,”  calls for “sola scriptura,” he means: forget the Sunnah and stick to the Qur’an, just as the Protestants did with the Bible, pruned of all excrescences. Akyol surely has recognized the greater dangers arising from the Sunnah. There are two problems with his prescription: first, it is unlikely that more than a handful of Muslims will agree to ignore the Sunnah; second, the Qur’an itself serves as a manual of war, so ignoring the Sunnah isn’t enough. But still, one Western means of denial is to act as if only the Qur’an exists, and we need not worry about the ways that  devout Muslims attempt to follow the Sunnah, and the Example of Muhammad, to the letter. Yet Islamic websites are full of discussions of fine points of how to conduct the most minute aspects of everyday life, following Muhammad; reading them can give one  a glimpse into the habit of total submission that characterizes Islam as a Total System. Part of the “strategy of denial” by Muslims when confronted with, for example, accusations over the murder of blasphemers, is to refer only to the Qur’an (“that’s not in the Qur’an” is a common defense by Muslims, and not always untrue); what’s in the Sunnah goes unmentioned.

The importance of the Sunnah has been noted, at this website, and in books and articles of all kinds. But that understanding has not reached the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, or the White House, to judge by public statements, where the willful ignorance, or even celebration of Islam continues to subsist, despite all the contrary evidence, sometimes by ignoring the texts, and sometimes by mentioning only the Qur’an, and limiting quotation of that book to the usual  handful of benign-sounding passages: 2.256, 5.32 without 5.33.

When I left off the other day, I had started by noting that Islamic texts were available for Western inspection and study, and not only to scholars, but to anyone who could attain the same intellectual level of of more than a billion believers. Yet that inspection and study of the texts have not taken place as one would have hoped, among the political class in the West, and among journalists, whatever their political orientation. And one wonders why. Is it truly a question of not having the time? Or, possibly, of the busy politician having assigned the task to “find out about Islam” to staff members and aides, who are young, and therefore not used to reading at length, but rather used to composing executive summaries with bullet points? These staffers will find Islamic texts especially forbidding because of both the subject matter and all those strange words (how do you keep straight “isnad chain” and Sahih Bukhari and uswa hasana and fiqh?) that converts find so appealing, but that non-Muslims find merely confusing, like those long names in Russian novels.

There is no excuse, when such works as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and others aimed at a mass audience, that lucidly set out Islamic doctrine in a way that anyone can understand, are readily available. And how hard is it to keep in mind the basic minimum: that the Qur’an is uncreated and immutable, so those who think it can be changed to create a “moderate Islam” are whistling in the dark; and that the Qur’an is full of Jihad verses that inculcate hatred and violence toward non-Muslims? It is fortunate that so many Muslims ignore those verses, but the verses yet remain, active for some, dormant for others, with non-Muslims unable to guess who will take the violence and hatred to heart, and who, for now and in the future, will not. People in power have shown they are not eager to study the texts, prefer to ignore them, and instead to substitute their own experience, of charming Muslims whom they have met, which now include colleagues and neighbors, and of course the Arab diplomats in Washington still offering lavish meals and largesse. This  goes a long way to camouflaging the truth, diverting eyes from the texts.

When we learn, for example, that Muslims are taught to regard Muhammad as the Perfect Man, shouldn’t we want to find out what he did,  or had done, to such of his critics as Ka’b bin Ashraf or Asma bint Marwan? What makes him perfect in Muslim eyes? Then we realize that he is simply a priori perfect, and everything he does constitutes Muslim morality, to be emulated, without any independent consideration of its morality outside of Islam, which is a closed system.

When others in the anti-Islamic brigade straightforwardly quote from the Hadiths to explain current examples of Muslim punishment (and not only by the Islamic State) of blasphemy, why are they ignored, or belittled, when it is they who have the texts on their side? The morality of Islam is the moral code of Muhammad, as revealed mainly in the Hadith. So one strategy of denial by Muslims is to keep referring to the Qur’an alone, when talking to non-Muslims. Non-Muslim unwillingness to consider in detail the contents of the Hadith may be a sign of simple over-business, or of a fear of what they, the non-Muslims, will discover and be forced to recognize. Is there no time for Obama or Kerry or  Senators to familiarize themselves with these texts through such cogent presentations as those by Spencer, and not just in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)? It’s remarkable how many people still refuse to read about Islam. The testimonies of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq are never bestsellers; only the first has become widely known. The formidable academic studies by Bat Ye’or sell in the thousands, and for a time have been out of print; they do not appear on college syllabi. The public has spoken: it does not want to learn too much about Islam, the major geopolitical subject of the age. This reinforces the denial offered by Muslims. How many of us can stand to hear the full bleak truth about anything? Many are happy to stop up their ears.

But could this determined ignorance, this eagerness not to find out, reflect something else as well? To return to  those young Congressional staff members, could it be that with their bullet points and executive summaries to prepare, they just don’t want to rock any boats, don’t want to alarm others in the office or, even worse, offend the boss by making him aware of troubling information, or possibly even embarrassing him with evidence of his own past ignorance? Imagine a Representative who for years now has been making statements about the wonderful Muslim addition to our national fabric. A Senator Leahy type. He might have made those remarks offhandedly, without knowing much, not really caring. But now what happens when a young person on his staff studies up, and finds out how wrong his boss has been? Would he dare to tell him that the textual evidence shows he’s been wrong all along? There are certainly Senators and Congressmen willing to admit error, but I haven’t seen a large-scale shift, publicly expressed, by those who, late in the day, may just now be willing to speak truthfully about Islam. And would you risk his ire if you are “anti-Islam” too early? Look at the American Conservative Union, or the Democratic Party. How many candidates have refused to say anything negative about Islam for so long? That’s changing, of course, in the Republican party primary, as the evidence mounts. Cruz and Jindal are truth-tellers. But how damnable that it has taken so long.

And here is another thought. What if, in that Congressional office, there were a handful of Muslims. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the presence of even one Muslim can inhibit the discussion at the meeting of a history faculty, or of Congressional staff members, or even among the members of a law firm. Imagine, for example, that you work for a Congressman who, possibly because of the district he represents, now employs some Muslims in his office. They are personable. You  are human, you don’t want word to get out that you are that nasty exception who thinks that “there is a problem with Islam,” which means you are willing to offend Muslims. That may spur retaliation or bad feeling. So your voice, like the voices of others,  is muted, for people don’t want to talk or say something that could possibly be misinterpreted as endorsing a “hater” such as Spencer, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-American who, like so many apostates from Islam, can be dismissed as someone who is “just like an ex-Catholic, so bitter” — a ridiculous description, but one that some will find plausible, as if all apostates were equally resentful. As if Hirsi Ali were some East African version of Madelyn Murray O’Hair.

Not everyone works in an office or in a firm or in a faculty department with Muslims, and many are able to speak their mind. But good manners prevail; fear of being misinterpreted — the word “racist” is so often flung about — keeps in place the non-Muslim denial of reality. I would have thought everyone in America would be studying Islam by now. It turns out very few are; this site is not representative, but remains one of the outposts. How many at home engage in this study? Not even one out of 380 million. Those who are eager to research the latest toaster, computer program, Smartphone, will not visit sites about Islam. They just want to keep denying, to themselves, what is staring them in the face. The analyses offered by scholars, especially those writing before 1970, or reports by travellers to Muslim lands, or by the statesmen (Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams) who interested themselves in the question of Islam, the testimony by ex-Muslims — it’s all at exceptional sites such as this, and those who visit it may not realize how many others spend their time finding reasons not to believe in the malevolence and threat of Islam. This didn’t happen with Communism; it’s the idea of Islam as a “faith” that constitutes Islam’s first line of defense — see Bishop McManus, so solicitous of maintaining good relations with Muslim neighbors — and if Islam can be attacked, won’t other faiths suffer as well? That’s why the Interfaith Healing Racket goes on; the defenders of Islam are ludicrous but undiminished. Many ministers and priests and rabbis think they have a stake in defending Islam.

That so many have allowed themselves to be so willfully incurious, so reluctant to find out about what Islam inculcates, and about the attitudes and behavior that Muslims exhibit that are not the result of “extremism” – a word never defined – but rather of orthodox, mainstream teachings of Islam based on texts that anyone can read, is humanly understandable. The Muslim migrants who have been allowed to settle deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, now living in Infidel lands, surrounded by Infidels, are unafraid to keep making — more in Europe than in the U.S. — aggressive demands for changes in the social arrangements and understandings, and in the legal and political institutions, of the Infidel nation-states in which they live, the very nation-states that have so innocently welcomed them and lavished upon them every benefit that generous welfare states (those benefits paid for, almost entirely, by non-Muslim taxpayers) provide. Think just of France, and the demand that the laic state permit hijabs and halal food in schools, make Islam a required subject in the curriculum, and eliminate other subjects such as medieval Christianity  (this is the recent proposal of Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, causing howls of rage). All of this suggests a desire not to integrate, but to transform and dominate the host society. Yet the non-Muslim denialists (e.g., French Socialist Manuel Valls), for their own sanity, still maintain that unemployment and poverty, not the aggressive ideology of Islam, are the “root causes” of Muslim misbehavior.

Because each Muslim demand can be made to appear reasonable by itself, it is their totality that has to be examined. Are the Chinese and Hindus and Vietnamese and Andean Indians making demands as to what should be taught, or not taught, in schools, infringing on the laic state through public flaunting of the law, demanding special treatment of all kinds? Only one group in France, or in Europe, does this: Muslims. But even if the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, and the National Front in France, now openly discuss the Islamic threat, there are still in the main parties (such as Sarkozy’s “Republicains”) many who are unwilling to see what is in front of them, and employ their own mental strategies of denial — based on a desire to remain ignorant, out of the constant fear of what happens if non-Muslims recognize the truth. They are frozen in fear. There are so many Muslims in their midst: what can they do, if they recognize what the ideology of Islam really is? “Frozen in fear” describes so much of the non-Muslim scene.

Despite the battering rams of the few intrepid blogs, the gates of resistance to recognizing the nature of Islam remain. That is, denial is possible as long as the texts of Islam remain largely unexamined, so try not to learn, make sure you don’t find out. If you do, you might go mad. Thus do non-Muslims themselves end up denying what Islam inculcates. It’s the most extraordinary spectacle, seen high and low.

In the United States, the New York Times coverage  of Muslim atrocities seldom links the act — look at the reports on  Nidal Hasan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — to the texts used to justify them. At this site, one can say: this act was perfectly Islamic, and that one too, but not in the wider world of mass journalism. And yet many are now coming to that same understanding, and the Republican primary includes a half-dozen now perfectly ready to speak the truth about Islam.

As a recent example of the denial practiced by so many, see the recent New Yorker report on the Chapel Hill murders, billed as “The Anatomy of a Hate Crime.” It’s CAIR publicity in a major magazine. The author reports on, but minimizes, the history of the Chapel Hill killer’s many instances of parking-spot rage, directed equally at non-Muslims, too. Most of the piece is about the wonderfulness of the Muslim victims, and the fact that Hicks, the killer, surely was inflamed by the site of hijabs (asserted without the slightest evidence). And then the author goes on to describe how splendidly the murders were exploited, in a nice way, by Muslims, who then engaged in showy good works, proving apparently that they are good neighbors and good Americans, and all in all, it was a wonderful occasion, the author says unsardonically, usefully exploited by Muslims in America. The piece’s title contains the words “Hate Crime.” But there was no hate crime; no one except Muslims thinks that. Nonetheless, this is how the New Yorker tries to force the rest of us to think of it. It’s a small but most depressing example of the denial of another kind of reality — not about Muslim doctrine, but about non-Muslim behavior — in order to make us see Muslims as victims.

Isn’t all this feelgood fluffery simply another way to convince audiences that there is nothing fundamentally different about Islam; it will become, or is already, a welcome new addition to the American scene, and you don’t have to know more than the Islam of the apologists, such as that best-selling Karen Armstrong, whose Islam is still, maddeningly, a favorite of book clubs. The Muslims have their own explaining-away methods — Taqiyya and Tu Quoque — by way of answering critics, but at this point, they have no need. Non-Muslims are doing all the work for them. Until now, Islam has successfully defended itself in the war over its image within the West, and very dark days are ahead. Demography is destiny; Islam’s adherents are all over the place, having been let in because no one thought they should or could be stopped. Laziness, wanting to be liked or not disliked, fear of finding out, all had prevented the study of Islam. Now we, in America and Europe, are living with the results.

Share this:

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

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: dialogue, Featured, Useful idiots, War is deceit, willful ignorance Tagged With: American Conservative Union, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Democratic Party, muhammad, Mustafa Akyol


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Buraq says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 9:10 am

    This from the Editorial today in “The Independent” following bloody Friday: ‘Another fallacy that we should avoid making is to conflate these appalling acts of terrorism with Islam, one of the great religions of the world.’

    These clowns spout this nonsense on a daily basis. One wonders what level of jihad will have to be reached to wake these clowns from their slumbers.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Jun 27, 2015 at 10:55 am

      One wonders what level of jihad will have to be reached to wake these clowns from their slumbers.

      They will never wake up so. When Sharia law arrives in their country, they will rationalize the new order and lay blame on conservatives for having made it inevitable. This of course will be nonsense, because the conservatives are every bit as dhimmified and Islamophilic as the socialists, but somebody will have to take the fall for a disaster nobody will admit has happened.

      Remember, global warming — now rebranded as climate change — is a bigger threat than Moslems.

      Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton both said to never waste a good crisis. Don’t confuse good with real. The fake AGW crisis is good because nobody can prove a negative, and the prospect of global central government promises limitless power and riches. The Moslem crisis is not good because it is offensive to even recognize it as real, and there is no promise of power and money in it… except to the Moslems.

    • Shane says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 10:16 am

      Yes, but these same left wing stooges believe that all White people should be held responsible for Dylan Roof’s massacre at Charleston, SC and all Christians are to blame for a few who attacked abortion providers. To simplify things, the left hates Christianity and ignores the awful truth’s about Islam, jihad, and Muhammad.

    • Jack Gordon says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Perhaps someone should invite the boys who recently visited Charlie Hebdo to the editorial offices of The Independent, you know, to talk over interesting aspects of their great religion.

  2. Michael Copeland says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Excellent piece, so true. Thank you. To those factors can be added the very successful propaganda (or “narrative”) campaign waged by CAIR and the like to blacken any critic as a “hate-monger”. The simple modern generation with their bullet points are not sufficiently critical: they have accepted this dishonesty by osmosis. Of course, it is also projection. The “excellent pattern” praised in Koran 60:4 is “between us and you animosity and hatred forever…”.

    For beginners here is Islam in five lines:

    Allah is the ENEMY of the unbelievers. 2:98
    Unbelievers are ENEMIES of Allah… 41:14
    Allah does NOT LOVE the unbelievers. 30:45
    KILL the unbelievers wherever you find them. 9:5
    Between us and you animosity and hatred forever 60:4

    Here is the “context” in four lines:

    The Koran is part of Islamic law.
    Its teachings are “universal and trans-time”.
    One who denies any verse has to be killed.
    The killing can be done penalty-free by anyone.

    • cs says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 4:39 am

      Thanks, great concision, respect.

    • Uncle Vladdi says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 8:44 pm

      Nicely said! And here’s the proof of it:

      ISLAM IS THE ONE AND ONLY CRIMINAL CREED IN THE WORLD WHICH OFFICIALLY STATES THAT ITS MEMBERS MUST MURDER ALL THE NON-MEMBERS OF THEIR GANG, SIMPLY FOR NOT BELIEVING THE SAME WAY THEY DO, AND FOR THE “CRIME” OF NOT BEING MUSLIMS.

      No holy mobster “muslim” has to become “radicalized” in order to turn to violence against any random non-muslim.

      The existence of islam itself incites muslims to violence.

      WHAT “PROVOKES” MUSLIMS, IS SIMPLY DISBELIEF IN ISLAM!

      That’s the Qur’an’s whole basis:

      “Those Who Do Not Believe Must Be Murdered For Their Disbelief.”

      “Slandering” Muhammad is, to them, simple disbelief in islam, because the disbelievers (“infidels”) thereby imply they DO believe Moe to have been mistaken, insane, an evil liar, or all of the above! So all non-muslims in the world have been sentenced to “Death By Muslim” for their “crime” of not being muslims them selves!

      “If you don’t think and act the same as us, we will murder you!”

      THAT ALONE IS THE MESSAGE OF ISLAM.

      And it implicitly shows what “thinking and acting the same as us” is, to all muslims:

      “to be a criminal who pretends he has the holy right to murder other people for not being murderous criminals like us!”

      You all simply follow Muhammad’s “Perfect Example.”

      “The apostle [Muhammad] said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa bin Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed [the Jewish merchant], Huwayyisa began to beat [his brother Muhayyisa], saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’…[Huwayyisa] replied, ‘By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?’

      Muhayyisa said, ‘Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.’ [Huwayyisa] exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!’ and [Huwayyisa] became a Muslim.”

      Yes, he attacked a Jew who had done them no wrong, and had in fact only helped them by putting food on their table, for being a Jew. Why is being born a Jew worthy of being murdered for it?

      Simply because Jews aren’t muslims.

      Allah’s law:

      9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

      The practical application of Allah’s law: [Reliance Of The Traveller]

      O9.R The caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: O1 L4) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself – while remaining in their ancestral religions)

      (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29).

      To learn the reality of Jizya, turn to Hedaya, volume 2, Book 9, pages 212-218. You can see the most important parts in this pdf file, with links to source:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/213423566/Hedaya-2-141-Annotated

      Jizya is a payment “in lieu of destruciton”, and “a species of punishment for infidelity”.

      That is the law of the Hanafi school of law which ran in India and formed the basis of the Ottoman Empire’s Legal Code.

      The infamous fatwa of Imam Al-Shafi’i is not clearly stated in Reliance O9.1.

      Find it in “The Book Of Jihad” pg. 18 and get a clue:

      “The minimum participation in Jihad is once a year, and more is always better. It is not allowed to have a year pass you by without any fighting except out of necessity like the weakness of Muslims and the great numbers of the enemy, or fear of extermination if you attack them first, or lack of provisions, or similar excuses. Otherwise, if there is no necessity it is not allowed to delay attacking the non-believers for more than a year.”

      Imam Shafi’i states that. It is perfectly halal sunnah sharia.

      …

      What passages of the Qur’an sanctify offensive warfare against infidels?

      2:216. Jihad holy fighting in Allah’s cause is ordained for you Muslims Although you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you.

      Allah knows but you do not know.

      9:5. Then when the Sacred months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2/105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Al-Salat /Iqamat Al-salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

      8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism) i.e. worshipping others besides Allah and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides) Allah, then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

      9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission.

      9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqun (the pious) see V.2:2.

      This is all confirmed in the hadiths:

      From here:

      http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/001.008.387.html

      Bukhari Book 1 Volume 8 Hadith 387

      Narrated Anas bin Malik:

      Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.”

      Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,

      “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

      IN OTHER WORDS, THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF ALL NON-MUSLIMS ARE NOT SACRED TO MUSLIMS, UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY BECOME MUSLIMS, TOO. BECAUSE THESE PASSAGES SAY “UNTIL,” THEY ARE OPEN-ENDED AND REMAIN VALID FOR ALL TIME.

      …

      Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

      “I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”

      – Muhammad –

      Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

      So, islam is not a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) nor is it a “race” (at all, much less one of “Poor, Oppressed, People Of Colour”)!

      Obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

      “God told us to commit these crimes!”

      (Capisce?)!

      😉

      The Qur’an clearly and specifically tells muslims the Bible is wrong and also that all Christians and Jews are infidel criminals who worship a false god, and who must therefore be extorted, enslaved, and murdered for their “crime” of not being muslims:

      Sura (Chapter) 47:1-4 of the Qur’an:

      1: non-muslims are bad, because they insult allah by dividing his nature;
      2: muslims are good, because to them allah is the cause of everything;
      3: Allah made them both like that;
      4: So muslims should chop off the non-muslims’ heads.
      (Allah could have done it himself, but he wants you muslims to do it for him).”

      …

      It’s all right there, in context: islamic violence is entirely general doctrine-driven, and not at all specific grievance-driven.

      (And chapter 47 isn’t by any stretch even remotely the worst, most violent chapter; that honor goes to either chapter 8 or 9).

      …

      So, if and when you consider islam to be a religion, you must agree with it’s main tenet: that God is a violent murderer who wants his muslim tribe to violently conquer the world by extorting, enslaving, and murdering all the non-muslim humans, right?

      At WORST, all REAL religions only say:

      “Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”

      …but ONLY islam says:

      “Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”

      A forced ‘Faith!’ ISN’T a “Faith!” at all – it’s only extortion, and extortion is always a CRIME.

      Bottom line: If you decide to believe in “allah,” you have declared yourself a criminal, and so must be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. Your confession of “faith” in your crime-god will help us to do so.

  3. Westman says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 10:06 am

    “Alas, poor Freedom, I knew him” will not be uttered in my hamlet.

    As I though about my deceased Uncles this morning, and their great service in WWII, I wondered aloud what they would think of the lazy, hedonistic, people who have sought office to serve their country and now lay dissipated in their beds thinking that things would be even better if they didn’t have to answer to citizens and had a larger staff.

    No politician wants the party to end as we have observed all over the world. Too many must be removed by force because they serve themselves. Fortunately we have elections but still our highest offices have inadequate restrictions on term limits that leads to permanent self promotion, corruption, intellectual laziness, and inattendance to the responsibilities of office.

    If my Uncles were running government there would be no fiddling while the fuel is being placed by enemies to burn our Rome.

    The free world is terribly lacking in leadership as a volitile mist of death silently spreads like a heavy poison vapor, awaiting ignition.

    • citycat says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 12:45 am

      Indeed

  4. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 10:07 am

    … Islamic texts were available for Western inspection and study, and not only to scholars, but to anyone who could attain the same intellectual level of of more than a billion believers.

    The argument is that most of the billion are “cultural Moslems” who by birth and upbringing are motivated only by the morals of Islam, which are good and fine, and not by its commands. This argument silently implies then that Moslems have little or no intellectual capacity. That’s not a criticism of them; after forty years of the NEA and AFT there is little intellectual capacity among us, and what we have remaining is dwindling fast. Also, as you know our predilection is not to offend and even not to recognize things that could lead to making negative judgement about others, which itself would be an offense.

    So, even in the very unlikely event the masses read and understood the Holy Ko-Ran and the Hah-Deaths, they would put a happy face on it. So here we are, as you note, stuck with ruling elites and apologists using selective citations to deny obvious reality.

    Bradbury had it wrong in Fahrenheit 451: it’s unnecessary to burn books, people can be trained to ignore them.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jun 28, 2015 at 8:42 am

      So?

      All I *ever* seem to hear from you is utter despair and defeatism and not *one* word, ever, about *anything*, even the smallest thing, that *anybody* here, anywhere, might even attempt to do by way of undoing the damage or standing up against the jihad.

      Defeatism and despair.

      despair and defeatism.

      Hammering home the same message over and over: it’s over. Over, Over.

      We’re all dead.

      All going down into the Void, forever.

      Nothing to be done.

      What good does *that* do….beyond, just possibly, *freezing the will* and destroying the will to resist of any person who lobs in here, having figured Islam out, and is wondering what to do next. Which means there is a whole lot more chance of your prophecies of doom coming true…because that one person, or ten, or twenty, or two thousand, or more, might be the one person (or ten, or twenty, or a thousand) who would have made a difference in *our* favour…except that *you* by *your* relentless pessimism hammered flat their will to resist.

      What *you’re* implicitly telling every new person who lobs in here is that they are wasting their time even *thinking* of looking for a resistance to join.

      Don’t even bother.
      It’s all over.
      The Muslims are winning/ have won.
      all is lost.

      That’s the message that I’m hearing from you, day in and day out.

      Nothing constructive. Not. one. word. ever.

      I’d rather visit Citizen Warrior and learn how to undo the programming. I’d rather tell people to join ACT for America – chapter by chapter by chapter all over the country – and start *doing* something about putting the pollies’ feet to the fire.

      • Jack Gordon says

        Jun 28, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        Yes, we can all see the great progress made so far by the constructive forces you mention. We all admire how they have stopped the stealth Mohammedan in the White House from wrecking North Africa and from continuing W Bush’s insane policies in the Middle East. And who can forget how they have turned around our foreign policy establishment and made it act responsibly vis-a-vis Israel? Yeah.

        Listen, my friend, Robert Spencer is one of the few people in this country with the courage to recount daily the progress of Mohammed’s evil pseudo-religion, to try to awaken his fellow citizens from their lethargy before it is too late. He is doing work as valuable as that of all your “positive forces” combined.

  5. KrazyKafir says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 10:56 am

    How can these morons focus on the peaceful verses in the Qur’an, and at the same time, willfully ignore what an evil monster Muhammad was, his own un-whitewashed biography proving he was a,cruel, violent, warmongering, child molester. Muhammad’s own life proves all the violent verses in the Qur’an are the dominant verses.

    • VRWC member77 says

      Jun 27, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      “How can these morons focus on the peaceful verses in the Qur’an, and at the same time, willfully ignore what an evil monster Muhammad was…”

      I’ll answer with: How can a lying, massively corrupt and for all intensive purposes, CRIMINAL like hillary clinton continue be a viable candidate for the U.S. presidency? Why?…..because people don’t want to believe or face painful realities. The lazy thought process of denial is much easier to deal with than admitting ignorance for the vast majority of people.

      What you and I can do is inform people with whom we interact on a day to day basis in a tactful way. This is a skill that like anything else, needs to be practiced. When I first started learning about Islamic teachings, I was very aggressive in trying to get the message across to people. It took me a while to learn how to show people in a tactful way. I’m not saying you should be subtle all the time. There are definitely occasions when you want to drive points hard and aggressive. That takes practice. The important thing is to take advantage of every opportunity……and fight the good fight.

  6. kinley says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Dear Mr Fitzgerald
    Thank you for an excellent, informative and well written article. Your writing style and analysis methods remind me of the interactions I had decades ago at scientific conferences with the OLD SCHOOL types from Oxford and Cambridge, i.e., those trained pre-WWII. To an American, the ways those guys did things were very interesting and different: they were only interested in the truth, and would not brook any BS or weak arguments. Again, thank you for your OLD SCHOOL article.

  7. William says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Mr. Fitzgerald notes that the Mohammedans believe a priori that everything Mohammed did is morally right. It brings back to me a passage from Plato’s dialog, The Euthyphro, in which Socrates interrogates Euthyphro, who claims to be a very pious man, probably the most pious person in all of Athens, about what exactly is piety. Euthyphro responds that whatever the gods love is pious, and whatever they hate is impious. Socrates counters by asking him whether or not the truth of that statement should be examined, and Euthyphro responds that he believes it to be true. Then in order to get to the crux of the matter, Socrates asks him if something is pious because it is loved by the gods, or is that thing loved by the gods because it is pious. That question sent poor Euthyphro into a tail spin out of which he never recovered his bearing.

  8. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    That’s changing, of course, in the Republican party primary, as the evidence mounts. Cruz and Jindal are truth-tellers. But how damnable that it has taken so long.

    Both Cruz and Jindal hang their hats on the nonsense of “radical Islam.” So it’s damnable that it has taken so long to even address the burgeoning Moslem problem with a fantasy. Radical how? Radical from what? If the terrorist are radicals who’ve been radicalized, whether on the Internet or in a tax exempt mosque, where is the moderate base from which they sprang? It’s damnable that we’ve gone from Prez Dubya to saying Islam is a religion of peace to Prez Barack Hussein denying a connection between Moslem mass murdering and Islam, and now we’re thankful that at least two politicians are willing to divulge that they think radical Islamists actually exist. We’ve got a long way to go.

    There are no radical Islamists because there are no Moderate Moslems. How can you be moderate when you observe a belief system that calls for world takeover by violence and by default sentences any critics of it to death? I guess that makes us Judeo-Christianists, and those reading this in India Hinduists, and those reading this in southeast Asia Budhistists. Convoluted word games with no hope of symmetry.

    It’s all so silly: there are Islamic activists and there are Moslems who tacitly support them, Islamic inactivists who believe in the 9th chapter just as much as their activist brethren but would rather that tje gory part come later and not with the Unicorns personally involved in the mess.

    Until we get over the terminology hump, no rational acknowledgement of the reality of Moslems is possible, which explains why no politician has reached a rational conclusion on Moslems or proposed a rational policy towards them, even in this emergency.

    Words matter, the biggest reason for this being that words set boundaries around the concepts they contain.

    Moslem activists, there we go. Acting on what? On the Holy Ko-Ran, the Hah-Deaths and the sacralized biographies. And the Sharia. That’s plenty of script for the acting. Plenty of material for a major new movie from Hollywood, a movie that never will be made.

    • William says

      Jun 27, 2015 at 8:14 pm

      I agree that Cruz only repeats the nonsense about radical Islam. There is no politician to declare that Islam has a problem. It is always with some qualifier. None of them has the guts to say the truth. Absolutely none. When I look at politicians, I see cowards. There is none other, that I can think of, than Gert Wilders.

    • sinantara says

      Jun 27, 2015 at 11:51 pm

      i just want to tell that it can be damn difficult to be a moderate moslem in moslem land, they need support, and you an’t just say about 200 million people they’re cowards or don’t care. many who i know are in despair because since a PKS (Indonesian version of the MB party) made minister of education, state schools started to feed poisonous garbage to their children. or having children who start dragooning their parents for unislamic behavior. the process started in the 80ties sometimes called the re islamization of indonesia. and most are afraid to raise their voices and are confused, and like the humans we are, in a state of denial. but there are small pockets of resistance including ulama who try counter strategies and we have the late Gud Dur as a model, the controversial ulama who made president for a while–but being from the traditional islam he was ousted by the forces of reformist islam. however, their leader couldn’t eat his cake too, too many people found what he did foul. and, only in indonesia a catholic etnic chinese could make governor of the capital, jakara, albeit brought in on jokowis coat tails. but he was installed over the vehement protests of the FPI and other organizations. so here a cultural war in islam is going on, and crystalizing is, the wahabis and salafis are ‘arab’ who don’t know better than indonesians, and they say, indonesian islam should replace arab islam. islam was brought to java mostly by gujarati and chinese (admiral zheng he was muslim), so the early missionaries used the medium of javanese culture. when under amangkurat 1 of mataram islam became to demanding, the royal troops just slaughtered them, and declared himself panatagama, something king henry (which) when he made himself head of the church of engeland (not just over anna bolyn but spanish influence?). he was our el sisi. now arab islam is advancing and traditional islam is trying to formalize a defense. be critical and in a war zone things are black and white. but speaking about a billion people, it is not realistic to be too black and white. many muslims feel as trapped in the system as former soviet citizens, although of course nothing compares to be trapped in an isis or taliban zone and can’t complain because the christians are worse off. many muslims are islamophobes as well. so fitzgeralds message may help moslems as well, i will see what i can do.

  9. Western Canadian says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    Think the traitors to the human race in this picture will be smiling with quite so much self satisfaction, as their throats are being slit by their muslim buddies???

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Jun 27, 2015 at 5:26 pm

      I went to Alberta twenty years ago and it seemed like the perfect place. Now, I hear it’s all mozzed up. That’s a shame. A damned shame.

  10. Ophicephalus says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    Islamic idealogy is ugly. Countries free from it are often havens of peace though these havens remain rare. Learn from the Japanese and Angolans who surreptitiously brush it aside. Too many human rights and “equality” always comes at the expense of the meek and mild. Islam should be the least of the world’s manifold problems. Little by little, sane people should never give in to this malice that celebrates under age marriage and animal sacrifice. The West is deeply complicit in having made the Wahabi Middle East too rich and having sold them weapons. Yeah, they got rid of Gadaaffi and Sadaam who kept a lid on things. Russia’s threat will be nothing if these Muslims do get their hands on a nuclear trigger and I fear it may be only a matter of time.

  11. gerard says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Kum ba ya m’Lord
    Kum ba ya
    Islam is Peace m’Lord
    Kum ba ya
    Isis bad m’Lord
    Kum ba ya
    Not Islam m’Lord

    O Lord kum ba ya

    That old Mohammad Lord
    Kuma ba ya
    He loved the Jews m’Lord
    Kum ba ya
    Never hurt them Lord
    Kum ba ya

    O Lord Kum ba ya

    Got to go m’Lord
    Kum ba ya
    Makin’ a bomb m’Lord
    Kumba ya
    Kill the Kuffar Lord
    Kum ba ya

    O Lord kum ba ya.

  12. Angemon says

    Jun 27, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    Islam’s adherents are all over the place, having been let in because no one thought they should or could be stopped. Laziness, wanting to be liked or not disliked, fear of finding out, all had prevented the study of Islam. Now we, in America and Europe, are living with the results.

    Indeed.

  13. citycat says

    Jun 28, 2015 at 12:05 am

    Nice piece, but the general attention span, too much TV.
    “No compulsion in religion” but not no compulsion in Islam.
    Anyway.
    The Koran is not exactly an easy read. At first it is so outrageous that one’s reaction is to flick through the pages with unbelief at one has just read until it dawns on one that most of the book is a war manual.
    It may depend on what level of work status one has with muslims whether or not honest talk is possible.
    In the low levels truth is spoken not necessarily from the koran but from their conditioning which confirms quite a lot, but it is not in the pubic eye.
    But it is there, in then, emotionally welded, full of tricks and unmitigateable craziness.

  14. citycat says

    Jun 28, 2015 at 12:31 am

    Muslims are victims of Islam, but getting them to see that, they’ve got it deep since birth.

  15. duh_swami says

    Jun 28, 2015 at 7:09 am

    Thanks Hugh for another article that makes sense…

  16. Truth Seeker says

    Jun 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Quran has 2 Parts. 1. Submissive Part. This when Muslim Strength is very less and not able to Overrun the Kafirs. There they quote words like, No Compulsion in Religion etc.
    2. Subjugative Part. This is when Muslim Strength is high enough to Overrun Kafirs. Then sacrificing the Kafirs will be most prefered Activity. So anywhere and everywhere pieces of human bodies will be seen.

  17. Uncle Vladdi says

    Jun 28, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    It’s simply MASOCHISM – the criminally negligent pretense that one can “control” one’s fears, BY causing those very same worst-case scenario problems which cause the pains one fears the most … so libertine “liberals” embrace islam because, hey:

    “If we don’t rush in first, then some other fools will surely beat us to it! Whee!”

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

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

Please wait...

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

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

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

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

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

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

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

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

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

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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