Jordan Denari is a “Research Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, where she works for the Bridge Initiative, a research project on Islamophobia.” She works with Nathan Lean, the gutter thug who has repeatedly posted on Twitter what he thinks is my home address and places he thinks I frequent, in a nakedly obvious attempt to intimidate me into silence and/or to alert the jihadis he enables to places where they can find and kill me.
That Jordan Denari would work with such a viciously hateful and morally compromised individual as Lean already makes everything she says suspect, but this article manifests an even greater moral inversion: because of Muhammad cartoons, Islamic jihadists murdered 11 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris in January. Because of Muhammad cartoons, five Islamic jihadists have now plotted to murder Pamela Geller; three were killed in the process, and two others are in jail. Those who have stood up for free speech against violent intimidation in connection with Muhammad cartoons live with the knowledge that they could be murdered by Islamic jihadists at any time.
How many Muslims have been killed because of cartoons of Muhammad, aside from those who were trying to commit jihad mass murder because of them? None. How many Muslims have even been inconvenienced? None. The people who are placed in jeopardy because of Muhammad cartoons are those who are standing for the freedom of speech in the face of threats and murder from Muslims over them. Jordan Denari probably knows this, or should if she doesn’t. Time Magazine should know better than to print this kind of nonsense, but everywhere Islamic supremacists and their Leftist enablers have easy media access.
“Muhammad Cartoons Are Offensive, But Not for the Reason You Think,” by Jordan Denari, Time Magazine, June 19, 2015:
If you find yourself driving through St. Louis or rural Arkansas in the coming weeks, you may come across billboards depicting Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the group led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer that organized last month’s Draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas, is promoting ads featuring the contest’s winning cartoon: an image of an angry, sword-wielding Muhammad lunging forward toward the hands of the artist who drew him.
The news coverage of AFDI’s recent effort—as well as others’ plans to disseminate Muhammad cartoons—has been accompanied by attempts to explain why displaying these violent drawings is problematic or offensive. Journalists and commentators often diagnose the problem this way: Many Muslims disapprove of depictions of their prophet, and thus some may retaliate violently against them. But this characterization ignores the cartoons’ real implications. Actively spreading these cartoons is offensive because it contributes to an existing climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat—a climate that endangers Muslims in the West….
Maybe they wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.
But these threats are only perceptions—misperceptions—grounded not in facts or personal experience but in propagandistic portrayals. AFDI’s Muhammad ads make Muslims, the demonized group, actually look like the demonizer.
Remember as you read that who exactly is doing the killing, and who is under threat of death because of these cartoons.
The group’s latest campaigns contribute to these misperceptions and the more general climate in which Muslims are depicted as an existential threat and therefore treated as such.
During a period when anti-Muslim attacks are already high, these ads make Muslims feel less safe, and they’re right to be upset about the promotion of these cartoons. In fact, we should all take offense to their dissemination. In diverse, pluralistic societies, Muslims and non-Muslims alike should not stand by as an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.
Once again we see the claim that “an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.” Yet our ads to which Denari is objecting just say “Support Free Speech.” How exactly does this demonize all Muslims? She doesn’t say, because it doesn’t. The claim that we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few is a Goebbels-like Big Lie, endlessly repeated, but no more true for all the repetition.
jayell says
“Time Mag: Muhammad cartoons “make Muslims feel less safe”….” Oh dear. That really makes me feel so sad. I really feel sorry for them. And I really mean that most sincerely. I really do. Honestly. Really.
jihad3tracker says
Hello jayell — Please allow me to cut in line, but it is for a good cause : Robert Spencer mentions NATHAN LEAN in the first paragraph of this blog post.
As readers of Jihad Watch for several years know, Nathan Lean is one of the pathetic examples which Islam produces so abundantly.
HE IS READING THESE WORDS & FOLLOWING EVERYTHING ON JIHAD WATCH, Intensely envious of Mr. Spencer’s respect.
For some chuckles, do SEARCH BOX references to him here. If you want proof of his failure, go to his “website” — www (dot) nathanlean (dot) com.
LOOK AT THE LAST 4 ITEM DATES : January 2 2015 / November 10 2014 / July 5 2014 / May 17 2014.
And he only put up those middle two posts after I WROTE HERE ON JIHAD WATCH THAT HE HAD NOTHING NEW ! ! !
******* Hello also to Keith Ellison & Andre Carson ******* My favorite Sharia lizards. Unfortunately, your collective IQs fall short of sufficient to defeat of the Constitution.
Keep trying for supremacist victory — because that is what Islam ultimately intends,. I and my pals will stay in the fight as long as it takes against Muhammad and your pathological “god”.
Cecilia Ellis says
As a relatively new JW reader and having never heard of Nathan Lean prior to Robert’s posting, I accessed Lean’s “website” via the link you provided. What a disgustingly deceptive array of hogwash! I have seen enough.
Also, I noted that Lean was self-promoting his book, “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims,” with a foreword by John L. Esposito. The title itself conjures up images of just how disingenuous the Left can be. Should the title not preclude purchase, the name Esposito will, for his works are replete with apologias for Islam.
So, “jihad3tracker,” thanks for your comment: “Intensely envious of Mr. Spencer’s respect.” One of the differences between Lean and Mr. Spencer is that Lean “thinks” he knows Islam; Mr. Spencer does know Islam.
Hope Lean reads this . . .
jihad3tracker says
By the way, I just checked the Time article’s comment section — and as almost always when the is no filtering — the unfortunate innocent naïve Jordan Denari is being shredded by counter-jihadists. That’s what happens when Nathan Lean coaxes a dhimmi along on the path of embarrassing ignorance.
GO THERE AND HAVE SOME FUN — LEAVING A PARAGRAPH OR TWO YOURSELF ! ! ! You can log in with a Facebook account after typing your remarks.
And look at commenter Dan Baker’s response to “DomAzari” — not too far down in the stack. Mr. Baker gives Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch a prominent mention, as they so truly deserve.
Cecilia Ellis says
Jihad3tracker said: “GO THERE AND HAVE SOME FUN — LEAVING A PARAGRAPH OR TWO YOURSELF ! ! !”
I am disappointed. Four times I have tried to access the Time article to leave a comment. Each time, I have been unable to view nothing but the title and a partial picture of Pamela Geller. I suspect my aged computer/software might be the problem . . . unless it’s the work of the Mossad while on their way back from stealing horse shoes at the Belmont Stakes,
jihad3tracker says
Hello Cecilia — This might be a solution for your access problem :
http://time.com/3924545/muhammad-cartoons/
That is the direct link . . . But an ad will probably appear first.
gravenimage says
I’m having a similar problem to Cecilia’s—if I go to the Time Magazine site, I’m just getting the top of the article, but cannot access a scroll bar on the right, so I can’t read the article or the comments.
This is odd, because I’ve read many Time articles on-line, including some just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps they recently changed their format, and cannot be accessed with my creaky old search engine any longer.
Anyway, Jihad3tracker, glad to hear that many of the comments are Islamo-savvy and are countering this bs.
jihad3tracker says
A response to gravenimage — a few comments down in this sub-thread :
There is something suspicious going on with that post — likely because counter-jihadists have pushed back hugely. Today the comment count has remained at 14 to 15 — highly improbable with such an incendiarily ignorant contribution to the “Religion” slice of Time.
I personally wrote six meticulously cited paragraphs (with URL paths) regarding websites and experts on Islam. My post appeared for one minute or so and then vanished.
Yes, Time editors need to check as to whether nut-jobs are flooding their commentary option with crap . . . but they could have done that verification by now (6 hours later).
For any hope of posting at the Denari comment section, :”get in and out” as fast as possible. . . Skip website references —- just name the treasonous fraternity boys & what they’ve done.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the additional information, Jihad3tracker.
I tried checking out a few other pieces on the Time Magazine site, and I’m having the same problem with all of them.
Cecilia Ellis says
jihad3tracker post at 2:48 p.m. said: “This might be a solution for your access problem :
http://time.com/3924545/muhammad-cartoons/
That is the direct link . . . But an ad will probably appear first.”
– Once again, thanks for the tip. Tried this link to no avail. Like gravenimage, I do not get a scroll bar. All I get is the title of the article, a picture of Pamela Geller, and a white page. Like gravenimage, I am delighted to hear from you that “counter-jihadists have pushed back hugely.”
jihad3tracker says
Hello again — Apology for this tardy reply, but I have to sleep ever now and then (in contrast to Robert and Pam, both of whom seem to get by on 20 minutes doze time per 24 hour cycle.
I am not a propeller-head IT expert, but just in case your computer has accumulated a lot of old stuff that is currently useless, here is a FREE tool which I have used for years : “CCleaner”.
I forgot the website, and am too lazy to back out of this thread to find it, but if you Google that name, the installation path should appear. (The company might be Piriform.)
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS THAT PROGRAM CAN DO . . . including registry cleaning — if my Swiss-cheesy memory is accurate. LOOK ON THE LEFT SIDE of the main page. For non-malicious tools of many kinds, PCMag’s website maintains a reliable stash.
And, since I am bloviating here on helpful assets, if you are not happy with your present anti-virus protection, AVAST has a free, excellent offer. It has kept me completely out of trouble for the 4 or 5 years I have installed it. Avast also offers more comprehensive services on a pay basis.
Mirren10 says
The link works fine for me.
Good to see that out of 17 comments, there was only one dhimmi fool, and he was excoriated.
Yours isn’t there, though, jihadtracker.
TheBuffster says
I see the whole article, but I don’t see a comment section or a link thereto. I want to read those comments!
Mirren10 says
Scroll down to the end, Buffster.
On the right hand side, where the icons are for facebook etc, there’s a tiny little speech bubble with the number 17 beside it.
TheBuffster says
Thanks, Mirren.
For heaven’s sake. How subtle can they be?
TheBuffster says
Okay, I’ve added my three cents to the Time comments:
@BradFoley You have missed the point entirely. The point isn’t that we need to produce offensive speech, just any old offensive speech, to protect ourselves against encroachments on our rights. The point is that the strict and militant practitioners of the ideology of Mohammad want to impose their Sharia laws on everyone. Insulting Mohammad is punishable by death in Islam, as is leaving the religion. When jihadist Muslims murder people who have drawn or criticized Mohammad – a man who fully deserves to be criticized and mocked by any rational, rights-loving person – they are imposing Sharia law. They are carrying out the will of Allah according to Mohammad. Mohammad himself had people murdered for mocking him. It’s all in the sacred texts of Islam – the Koran and the Hadith. (If you haven’t read them, you really should.)
Now, when a group of jihadists are murdering in the name of Allah, imposing Sharia law on us kafirs, and we just submit to that by shutting up, obeying, in order to keep the peace, we show them that we can be had. We are willing dhimmis. It encourages them, and prevents those who know the texts and the aims of Islam from informing the naive about what we’re in for if we’re blind to the nature of Mohammad.
Would you say that the Allies in WWII should not have mocked Adolf Hitler because the Nazis held him as sacred and beyond criticism? Did Stalin deserve to be treated with reverence by those he wanted to exterminate? Mohammad wanted to wipe out all other religions, and told his people to fight until all the world was for Allah. The Muslims who have bothered to read the Koran and the Sunna and who take them as “gospel” aim to obey. The other Muslims – they need to wake up and read their own blasted holy texts for themselves and see whether it’s really a religion that matches their own moral standards. If it’s not, they need to have the moral integrity to leave it and take the side of the Rights of Man.
Mirren10 says
Brilliant comment, Buffster !
TheBuffster says
Thank you, Mirren!
gravenimage says
Yes—fine comment, Buffster.
TheBuffster says
Thanks, Graven!
mgoldberg says
you’d think all those Jihadists slaughtering people, shouting ‘alahu akbar’ would make them feel less safe, less secure, in their beliefs, and especially all those groups like Isis, al queda, hamas, hezbollah, al sha ha and all those other groups sitting peoples to death also screaming allah hu akbar’, I mean, you’s think that that would make ‘muslims’ feel less safe, and less secure….. but no, not according to this writer
for the muslim funded center of critical thinking. No… it’s a couple cartoons, that maybe make someone think, about all that other stuff.
Which the writer never ever ever ever mentions.
TheBuffster says
Maybe the Muslims who feel unsafe because of the cartoons are experiencing fear that their prophet deserves the ridicule, and the jihadis are going to act out Allah’s commands against the daring kafirs, and then the whole conflict is eventually going to force the more decent Muslims to either submit to their own religion or go through the pain of rejecting it.
That *is* a most painful and scary position to be in. If the cartoons can help motivate some Muslims to read the Koran and hadith to find out what’s really in them, to try to prove that the jihadis and the cartoonists are wrong, then they will have done their part to whittle down the enemy’s numbers.
And that is to everybody’s good, except for the jihadists’.
jihad3tracker says
This clueless young person’s “research” seems to be exploding in her face, and her Twitter account is completely flooded by Muslims putting up the usual bunch of taqiyya. So, try this — probably the most reliable contact path : http://jordandenari.com/contact/
It would be a good idea to MAKE THE SUBJECT LINE COMPLETELY ABSENT OF DERISION. Otherwise, she will almost certainly delete it; you could even be a deceptively complimentary in the subject line — patriotic “taqiyya” in other words.
Make I suggest that you direct her to Jihad Watch here — and to ALL the comments, particularly those who point out that she is wrecking her academic and professional future by writing such blatant lies, shoveled out with the usual abundance by Nathan Lean.
Theodoric says
Recently reported theolinguistic evidence indicates that the so-called “Prophet” Muhammad was actually a dinosaur. Doesn’t it seem quite likely that there will be a massive exodus of Muhammadans from Islam when this rather unpleasant fact becomes common knowledge?
Muhammasaurus Rasulex:
* Last of the Prophets among the Dinosaurs
* Last of the Dinosaurs among the Prophets
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/scholars-are-asking-was-the-prophet-muhammad-actually-a-dinosaur/
Wellington says
The ultimate problem, which dhimmi apologists like Jordan Denari will not knowledgeably and honestly address, is that Islam is the problem. Instead, people like Denari paint a sympathetic picture of Muslims, most of whom indeed will not personally engage in the violence against the unbeliever and the not-Muslim-enough Muslim that Islam demands they do.
So, once again can be seen that so-called moderate Muslims give great cover to the heinousness that can be found all over the place in Islamic doctrine. But one could make the same stupid argument about Nazis and Marxists, most of whom did not personally participate in holocausts or gulags. Herein lies the greatest counter to the Denaris out there, to wit, that a belief system should never be judged by its mildest members but rather by what the belief system itself says.
Cecilia Ellis says
“… a belief system should never be judged by its mildest members but rather by what the belief system itself says.”
Astute and precise. I will keep this and use it, with your permission . . .
Wellington says
Full permission granted, Cecilia. Hope you and yours are doing well.
jihad3tracker says
Hello Wellington & Cecilia — I have made the following recommendation before, but this is a relevant time to again do so, in light of your brief dialogue.
The brilliant David Wood (at www dot answeringmuslims dot com) put up one of his superb videos a couple of months back: “The jihad triangle”. It is brief — around 5 to 6 minutes — and answers the question we hear so often: “Well, if Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?”
And, as always, David sprinkles in enough puckish humor to make the pathology he analyses less likely to send viewers to a vomitorium. Also — to Cecilia — if you are somewhat new to the wonderful world of Truth about Islam, I highly recommend another courageous, funny, unfatiguable counter-jihadist . . . Pat Condell.
Do a Youtube search for his remarkable series of videos . . . A real treasure in our arsenal against the plague of Allah.
Wellington says
In full agreement with you, jihad3tracker, about Wood and Condell. Both are knowledgeable. Both are brilliant. Both are completely on point about Islam. Cecilia would do well to familiarize herself with what these two men have had to say about Islam. Besides, they’re damn funny often times.
Cecilia Ellis says
Greetings to both Wellington and jihad3tracker.
Wellington, thanks much. When I use your quote, I will acknowledge that you are the author (Wellington, a JW commenter).
Let there be no doubt: I will use it.
jihad3tracker, thank you for you assistance in my trying to access the Time article. I actually am very familiar with both David Wood and Pat Condell and agree with both you and Wellington on your descriptions of their work. When I have a bad day and need something refreshing to restore sanity, I watch the youtube video, “George Washington and Robert Spencer Slam Huffington Post’s Muhammad Comparison.” Works every time.
voegelinian says
“people like Denari paint a sympathetic picture of Muslims, most of whom indeed will not personally engage in the violence against the unbeliever and the not-Muslim-enough Muslim that Islam demands they do. ”
That’s a crucially misleading fact in a larger context of mountains of other data and oceans of dots we should intelligently connect, leading us to the realization that all Muslims are doing their diverse, multifarious part.in enabling the jihad of which the overt violence (in all its myriad forms) is but the spearhead — a realization which Wellington’s phrase tends to obscure by tending to reinforce the prevailing meme that accepts as a fait accompli that we have to “get along” with innumerable Muslims expanding and aggrandizing their demographic presence throughout the West and the Rest of the free world.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Wellington’s phrase tends to obscure by tending to reinforce the prevailing meme that accepts as a fait accompli that we have to “get along” with innumerable Muslims”
Nope. Wellington didn’t say that. Try again, and this time stick only to what Wellington actually said.
voegelinian says
I didn’t say Wellington said that. I said his phrase tends to … etc. The purport of his rhetoric is what is misleading (which is not necessarily what he intends to say).
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“I didn’t say Wellington said that. I said his phrase tends to … etc. The purport of his rhetoric is what is misleading (which is not necessarily what he intends to say).”
No, it isn’t. Wellington was quite clear: “Islam is the problem (…) so-called moderate Muslims give great cover to the heinousness that can be found all over the place in Islamic doctrine (…) a belief system should never be judged by its mildest members but rather by what the belief system itself says“. There’s nothing in there that could reasonably be interpreted as “we need to get along with ever-increasing muslims” – it takes someone with a history of trying to prop himself by distorting and misrepresenting others (including, but not limited to, the author of this blog) to arrive at that absurd conclusion.
Wellington says
Thank you, Angemon, for making clear to voegelinian what I thought I had already made clear. Appreciated.
No Fear says
So….a kafir draws cartoons of the Islam prophet, some muslims then attempt to kill the kafir and somehow muslims feel threatened by all this?
That’s a joke , right?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi No Fear,
No, it isn’t a joke, it is a shallow analysis of demographic groups, or segments of society.
There isn’t any “Muslims” as a monolith.
Here it is in a nutshell
1. Fundamentalist Muslims wage Jihad and kill critics.
2. Other critics stand up for their rights and criticize even more publicly
3. Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not deeply textual and haven’t the slightest inclination to harm anybody.
4. A few ignorant bigots attack individual Muslims that have no direct ties to any illegal or terrorist activities.
5. Those attacks make the average Muslim feel unsafe.
6. Escalating violence by fundamentalist Muslims leads to escalating criticism of Islam which makes the average Muslim worry about being attacked by one of the few ignorant bigots lashing out at whoever their pea brains considers a good target.
The core problem is the diabolical, violent, fascistic, and extremely dangerous content of the Islamic texts.
Jordan Denari– “Actively spreading these cartoons is offensive because it contributes to an existing climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat—a climate that endangers Muslims in the West….”
Robert Spencer– “Maybe they wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.”
Here Robert Spencer conflates the ordinary every day people Muslims who feel threatened by potential acts from a few ignorant bigots, with the Muslims who are carrying out the violent fundamentals of Islam.
Robert Spencer is lumping all Muslims into one big “they” an obvious error in any reasonable analysis. In his defense he is living under a very real death threat from fundamentalist Muslims and I cannot honestly say I would be able to maintain my perspective under those circumstances.
What we never hear from the likes of Jordan Denari is an acknowledgement of how deeply rooted the violence of fundamentalism is to the texts of Islam. And lacking that acknowledgement, we are not likely to hear from her or her brothers and sisters what they plan to do to transform Islam into a true religion of peace, as opposed to the diabolical nightmare that is presently threatening us all.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Here Robert Spencer conflates the ordinary every day people Muslims who feel threatened by potential acts from a few ignorant bigots, with the Muslims who are carrying out the violent fundamentals of Islam.
Robert Spencer is lumping all Muslims into one big “they” an obvious error in any reasonable analysis.”
If you were half as smart as you make yourself to be, you’d see the flaw in your “logic”.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
I am waiting with bated breath for you or anyone else to point out this alleged flaw!
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“I am waiting with bated breath for you or anyone else to point out this alleged flaw!”
So you acknowledge you’re not as half as smart as you make yourself to be.
Wellington says
Agreed, Angemon, though guaranteed StarBoy won’t get it. Among the things he won’t get is that the Christian theological blueprint is not inimical to freedom while the Islamic theological blueprint most definitely is.
Among other guarantees with StarBoy is that he is regularly prepared to engage in moral equivalency thinking, one of many errors he persists in. I say again that his main purpose here at JW is to pull it down.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Wellington,
Sure, I mean, just make things up out of thin air when you have nothing of substance…
How did I fail to recognize a “Christian theological blueprint” as compared to an “Islamic theological blueprint” in my response to No Fear? Pure Woo Woo…
And how does my response to No Fear show “moral equivalency thinking”?
Utter drivel from Wellington in support of the vacuous reply by Angemon…
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Sure, I mean, just make things up out of thin air when you have nothing of substance…”
Yeah, you’ve done that several times. And when you got called out you slithered away.
“tter drivel from Wellington in support of the vacuous reply by Angemon…”
Ah, our “intellectual superior” at his finest! Bravo! Bravo! Encore! ENCORE!!!
So SP, have you put your thinking cap on? Have you figured the flaw I mentioned or do I have to spell it out for you?
Wellington says
One of the many flaws, Angemon, in StarBoy’s logic is illustrated by his point 3 in his response to No Fear’s 6:32 P.M. comment, to wit,, “Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not deeply textual and haven’t the slightest inclination to harm anybody.”
Here in microcosm can be seen the deceit, moral equivalency thinking and foolishness of StarBoy since the texts of Christianity, regardless of how well studied or known they are by many individual Christians, are NEVER a recipe for the use of violence in this world to spread or enhance the Christian faith. By contrast, the Islamic texts regularly instruct its followers to use fear and violence to spread Islam in this world, examples being Sura 8:39, 8:60, 9:5 and 47:4. Just because many Muslims are not ready to enforce these heinous Koranic dictates does not mitigate the HUGE difference that exists between what Muslims are instructed to do as compared to what Christians are instructed to do.
StarBoy either doesn’t know this, in which case he is an ignoramus, or he does know this, in which case he is a deceiver. No third alternative exists.
Angemon says
Wellington posted:
“Just because many Muslims are not ready to enforce these heinous Koranic dictates does not mitigate the HUGE difference that exists between what Muslims are instructed to do as compared to what Christians are instructed to do.”
Indeed. And, at face value, is a completely asinine statement to make, considering its implications – muslims aren’t acting violently because they’re ignorant of their texts, so should we leave them to their ignorance and hope, in this day and age where information is literally at finger reach, that they remain ignorant?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Wellington,
The texts are not equivalent.
The lack of depth of devotion to the texts is equivalent.
Most people just don’t practice all that devoutly. Hence the lack of Christian morality among self identifying Christians and the lack of violence among self identifying Muslims.
Do try to pay closer attention to words, ok?
Wellington says
Sorry, Angemon, to respond to you again, but I simply can’t bring myself to respond directly to StarBoy. He is truly deceitful and stupid because a lack of morality by certain Christians is a negative for society while a lack of violence “among self identifying Muslims” is actually a positive for society, thus revealing the gigantic difference between these two faiths, which is one of the reasons why Jihad Watch exists. Oh my God, how effing stupid can you get? Seems StarBoy is exploring new ground here.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi ghost of Wellington who can only stand to speak to me through and intermediary…
Yes, the closer one gets to Jesus the more peaceful one is.
The closer one gets to Muhammad the more violent one is.
Again, the texts are not equivalent.
The human nature of Christians to not follow the texts is equivalent to the human nature of Muslims to not follow the texts.
Indeed, not following the texts of Jesus is in many ways detrimental to society. Not following the texts of Muhammad is a great blessing to society.
The point is that people typically do not follow the texts to varying degrees, but very generally to a high degree in both Christianity and Islam.
That is why we should not lump all Muslims together or assume Muslims generally follow the violent texts of Islam…most Muslims do not follow the violent texts of Islam just like most Christians do not follow the moralistic texts of Jesus.
You guys are manifestly dense.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Hi ghost of Wellington who can only stand to speak to me through and intermediary…
“An”. And I advice you to look up what intermediary means – there is no one here relaying your and Wellington’s messages back and forth between you.
“Again, the texts are not equivalent.”
You’re the one trying to make equivalences, not Wellington.
“The human nature of Christians to not follow the texts is equivalent to the human nature of Muslims to not follow the texts.”
That’s odd – last time I checked polls of muslim-majority countries, the majority of the population seemed to be in favor of sharia-based punishments.
“Indeed, not following the texts of Jesus is in many ways detrimental to society.”
Says the self-proclaimed atheist who seems to enjoy bashing Christianity.
“The point is that people typically do not follow the texts to varying degrees, but very generally to a high degree in both Christianity and Islam. ”
Ah, more weasel words and weird, contradictory, equivalences based on thin air.
“That is why we should not lump all Muslims together or assume Muslims generally follow the violent texts of Islam…”
Wrong again, SP – the wisest attitude is to assume they do, especially when there are independent reports confirming that around 80% of mosques in the US preach “radical” islam and hatred of non-muslims. And, of course, you’re repeating the flaw I called you out on earlier.
“most Muslims do not follow the violent texts of Islam just like most Christians do not follow the moralistic texts of Jesus.”
Again with the islamic-apologist equivalences. A simple look through polls of muslim-majority countries says you’re wrong.
“You guys are manifestly dense.”
Ah, our “intellectual superior” at his finest – insulting others because they don’t buy into his malformed logic and manifestly wrong information.
somehistory says
Angemon,
For some *reason* the guy calling himself *Stardusty*…(whatever that is supposed to mean), seems to think, and incorrectly so, that he knows more about what constitutes being a Christian and what makes a muslim, muslim.
He quotes, somewhat, verses about ‘turning the other cheek’ and saying Christians don’t do that, and ‘loving enemies’ and that *most* Christians don’t do that. He is setting himself up as judge and jury…a commandment he should learn.
It isn’t possible for someone to *know* what these mean unless one studies them…whether or not they are interested in following the commands…to understand the mindset of the people Jesus spoke to, and to learn what He himself did to show that He “loved” His enemies, and “turned” His cheek.
And then the supposed *star* wants us all to believe he knows a plain, non-violent muslim from one who is violent….before ever either take up a weapon of violence.
He must think he is a reader of minds….and hearts…and that we should all bow to his superior intellect. By *superior*….I mean in the same sense that muslims…violent and non-yet-violent…believe in their superiority. I think he is muslim, not atheist, as he claims.
Angemon says
somehistory posted:
“For some *reason* the guy calling himself *Stardusty*…(whatever that is supposed to mean), seems to think, and incorrectly so, that he knows more about what constitutes being a Christian and what makes a muslim, muslim.”
That seems top be the case, yes. And what’s odd is that his “knowledge” of Christianity seems to overlap with what muslims claim Christianity teaches. Which is something out of place in a self-proclaimed atheist.
somehistory says
Angemon,
Sorry….the commandment is about *not* judging others. That is what he should learn. I was distracted for some moments and thought I had completed the sentence correctly.
Don McKellar says
“There isn’t any “Muslims” as a monolith.”
Correct. And incorrect.
There is only Islam. And it is a monolith with texts which cannot be altered or questioned. And the only interpretation which wins in the end is the most literal and devout one. Because of this, it is not entirely wrong to refer to moslems as a monolith. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist moslem. There are only moslems on a scale of devotion to their religion. Islam is, by its very nature, fundamentalist. Because Islam itself is inflexible.
“Robert Spencer– “Maybe they wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.”
Here Robert Spencer conflates the ordinary every day people Muslims who feel threatened by potential acts from a few ignorant bigots, with the Muslims who are carrying out the violent fundamentals of Islam.”
Incorrect. They are moslems who are murdering people, so he refers to them as moslems. If other moslems are scared because of the cartoons, it is not the cartoons causing it — it is their fellow moslems who are more devout than they are. And by extension, it is their own religion which is creating fear for them. And they are afraid of them because it forces them to face uncomfortable truths about themselves and their death cult. ANd exposes it to the outside world. There are virtually zero such cases of bigots attacking moslems. However, as more and more moslems murder innocents and try and force sharia law on people, such attacks may start to materialize as a matter of course.
So, you’re down on your scoring here on Jihad Watch. Previously a 4.5 / 5 when last rated. Now a .5 / 2 You to step up your game, Stardusty Psyche, and get back up to the standards you set for yourself.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Don McKellar,
That’s very kind of you to be keeping score and all!
But, I am sorry to say, the scorekeeper is biased toward the home team 🙂
“If other moslems are scared because of the cartoons, it is not the cartoons causing it ”
Yes it is the cartoons as one in a series of causes. You may refer to violence by other Muslims as a root cause, and they will refer to excuses for that violence as a root cause, and on and on and on with arguments for root causes,…
,,although I agree that the ultimate root cause is the texts of Islam, still the posting of the billboards in mid-America is a proximal cause for apprehension among American Muslims.
BTW, while recognizing the genuine concerns of my fellow Americans who self identify as Muslims, I thoroughly support the ad campaign and applaud those who are funding and putting their lives on the line for it.
“Maybe they (the Muslims Jordan Denari is referring to) wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they (violent fundamentalist Muslims) didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.”
Hence, the conflation by Robert Spencer of the Muslims Jordan Denari is referring to as compared to violent fundamentalist Muslims.
“it is their own religion which is creating fear for them.”
No. I am an atheist, but my first position is to take a person at their word for the faith they say they have. “Their religion” is the religion they actually practice. The religion most American Muslims practice is centered on devotion to god, with a strong family/love/practical life formula in hopes of a good life here on Earth and salvation in h the afterlife.
You and I know very well that the texts of Islam are fascistic and violent, but that is not “their religion” because that is not the religion they actually practice.
Sorry Don, but now you are lumping together and conflating right along with Robert Spencer and most of the folks here at JW.
“their death cult”
It isn’t “their” cult if they have a personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.
“There are virtually zero such cases of bigots attacking moslems.” Statistically, I agree, it is mostly an imagined threat.
“So, you’re down on your scoring here on Jihad Watch.”
Ok, but again, I assert home team bias…on my score card I show 100% in this round and 98% overall in my favor!
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“It isn’t “their” cult if they have a personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.”
Now let’s compare that with what you posted earlier:
“Many Muslims are illiterate. Most have never read the Qur’an, and if they did it was with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts.”
So which way is it? Are “many muslims” illiterate and unaware of what the quran says or “most muslims” have an alleged “personal process of abrogation” and simply ignore most of the texts they, according to you, never read?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“So which way is it?
All of the above and many more.
Do try to get out of your little monolithic mindset, OK?
“personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.”
is equivalent to
“read the Qur’an, .. with rose colored glasses ”
I know you are not much for depth of meaning in applied idioms but, please do work on it, will you?
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“All of the above and many more.”
I don’t doubt that – you seem like the kind of pathological liar who will say anything to make his current point regardless of whether or not it contradicts what you’ve said in the past. But let’s focus on what you said; you relied on weasel words and apparent mind-reading to make your points.
Are “many muslims” illiterate and unaware of what the quran says or “most muslims” have an alleged “personal process of abrogation” and simply ignore most of the texts they, according to you, never read?
““personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.”
is equivalent to
“read the Qur’an, .. with rose colored glasses “”
Except that what you said was “with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts”
More weasel words and the statement that muslims “likely” can’t identify what the violent parts, which is asinine (although not off-character for you).
“I know you are not much for depth of meaning in applied idioms but, please do work on it, will you?”
I told you before, SP, petty attempts at snark aren’t a substitute for rational-based discussion. But that’s all you have. How sad…
So, are “many muslims” illiterate and unaware of what the quran says or “most muslims” have an alleged “personal process of abrogation” and simply ignore most of the texts they, according to you, never read?
Stardusty Psyche says
Angemon, master of the distinction without a difference…
They can’t identify the violent parts because they read with rose colored glasses which means they ignored those parts…
One does not remember and cannot identify the parts one glosses over
Are you really this dense or is this some kind of “see how stupid Angemon can sound” game you like to play?
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Angemon, master of the distinction without a difference”
Oh, you mean the distinctions you made, based on anecdotal “evidence”, weasel words and sweeping generalizations?
“They can’t identify the violent parts”
Once again, that’s a very asinine thing to say – but not out of character in you.
“because they read with rose colored glasses which means they ignored those parts”
And yet, that alleged “rose colored glasses” view of yours where muslims allegedly “ignored” the parts they allegedly didn’t read doesn’t show up on polls taken in muslim-majority countries.
Once again, SP, here’s what you said:
“Many Muslims are illiterate. Most have never read the Qur’an, and if they did it was with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts”
“a personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.”
So, are “many” muslims illiterate and never read the quran, did they, despite being illiterate, read it with “rose colored glasses” who allegedly made them unable to identify the violent parts (even though opinion polls in muslim majority countries say otherwise), or do “most” muslims ignore the worst of the texts which, going by your previous statement, they never read or identified?
You can’t have your cake and eat it.
voegelinian says
The problem with nutshells…
Stardusty Psyche (SP) makes a few sweeping claims for which not only does he fail to provide evidence, they seem impossible to verify.
“Here it is in a nutshell
…
3. Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not deeply textual and haven’t the slightest inclination to harm anybody.”
This claim seems to be more of an axiom based on emotional conviction parroting a broad PC MC consensus (dimly related, no doubt, to an amorphous smattering of data the writer has picked up over the years) than the fact the writer assumes it to be. Actually, it’s four claims for the price of one:
1. “Most Muslims are not deeply textual”
2. “Most Christians are not deeply textual”
3. “Therefore [from 1 and 2?], most Muslims haven’t the slightest inclination to harm anybody.”
4. “Therefore [from 1 and 2?], most Christians haven’t the slightest inclination to harm anybody.”
Let’s take the first one. SP would have to define “deeply textual”. Is he setting the bar high, and assuming that to pass muster, the Muslim would have to be a scholar of the Koran and Hadith? Or is he relaxing the bar one notch, and transferring our Western pattern whereby only a small minority of Christians are “Fundie” fanatics who take their Bible literally onto the Muslim world and glibly assuming the same must pertain there – since, as we all know, the white West is the model of all other people on Earth (there’s the Leftist presumption amusingly and ironically echoing the Colonialist condescension & paternalism) and everyone else must be just like us, right?
The second problem with SP’s #1 (and by extension #3) is that it assumes that if a Muslim is not “deeply textual” then he won’t absorb, imbibe, digest, and parrot & regurgitate through words and deeds the dangerously pernicious, seditious, supremacist, violently hateful and/or cleverly mendacious purport of Islamic texts (Koran & Sunna). This implies a strangely simplistic view of culture and sociology and the role of religion and ideology in it; as though people of a worldview have to sit down and read “texts” in order to adopt that worldview – as though there is not operative an amorphous “cultural atmospherics”. There is a mountain of data indicating the Islamic culture does not proceed exactly like modern Western culture in terms of pedagogy and the formation of worldview, and that the inculcation of Muslim mores and desiderata is more of a serpentine jungle of criss-crossing networks than it is overtly direct Communication via Ordinary Media Reception by the Percipient.
SP is also assuming that there isn’t more ordinary pedagogy in Muslim culture. He makes assumptions that imply that most Muslims are hapless innocent gazelles on the savannah, and that a Tiny Minority of Extremist clerics are “feeding them” propaganda which they – the hapless Muslim People — don’t believe, but apparently still go along with reluctantly. How does SP know all this? He doesn’t. He assumes it as the most reasonable assumption, because he recoils from the alternative which reason would infer from the mountain – nay, the raging volcano – of data we have from the Muslim world (that world Over There, as well as the Muslim who have penetrated through their Hijra Jihad of the Feet into our world). The reasonable inference from which SP recoils is that the problem of dangerous & mendacious fanaticism is systemic and metastasizing — the former meaning that it is much broader and deeper throughout Muslim societies than a neat & tidy TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists) would anxiously try to fit into its neat and tidy box. The latter meaning that it is getting horribly worse, it is spiraling out of control, in a protracted global train wreck, as Muslims are undergoing the global revival they have been praying for, for decades (if not the last couple of centuries).
Finally (for now), SP’s claims suffer from faulty equivalence and Ego Quoque fallacy: There is no comparable mountain of data from the Christian world (in all its diversity, including its remarkable ability to have evolved into modern secularism – for secularists like SP didn’t drop down from Neptune, they reflect a sociocultural process whereby Christendom has evolved in modern times) indicating that we should reasonably infer the kinds of systemic and metastasizing problems we are justified in noting pullulating out of the Muslim world.
Stardusty Psyche says
The problem with nutshells…
…is that some people read a lot more into them than is actually there.
Forest for the trees much?
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“The problem with nutshells…
…is that some people read a lot more into them than is actually there.”
Like, for example, making up “personal processes of abrogation”.
voegelinian says
The more one reads Stardusty Psyche (SP), the more one sees familiar PC MC shibboleths, axioms, givens, bromides, burps, tics, spasms, and reflexes lurking between the lines (and occasionally popping into full view).
SP quotes Robert Spencer– “Maybe they wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.”
And reasonably concludes that:
Here Robert Spencer conflates the ordinary every day people Muslims who feel threatened by potential acts from a few ignorant bigots, with the Muslims who are carrying out the violent fundamentals of Islam.
To which the less asymptotic in the Counter-Jihad would respond: Well, DUH. And the point is…? As I argued above, SP apparently is operating (or laboring) under a paradigm that insists on erecting an artificial barrier between the Tiny Minority of Extremists and that Vast Majority of Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich (that immortal, and immortally asinine phrase, courtesy of Prof. Ben Affleck, who in a recent round-table session with Bill Maher and Sam Harris emotionally from what he felt they were implying — exactly the crime which so worries SP, of “conflating” those two aforementioned, imaginary demographics of the Muslim world. SP, I’m coming to notice, has been trying to position himself somewhere between Affleck and Messrs. Harris & Maher — perhaps because SP thinks from that vantage point he can better reach the Cake he is trying to both Have and Eat.
P.S.: By the way, some readers are familiar with my term “asymptotic”. SP is not asymptotic — he’s evidently a full-blown PC MC (if not a more robustly caffeinated Leftist).
voegelinian says
Correction (damn this comments system that prevents us from editing our comments):
The missing word I insert in CAPS:
“Ben Affleck, who in a recent round-table session with Bill Maher and Sam Harris emotionally RECOILED from what he felt they were implying “
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
” making up “personal processes of abrogation”.”
Thank you for crediting me with coining a new term!
How many Muslims have you actually engaged with personally? I have found, as a sweeping generalization, Muslims tend to be very thin skinned and often have a low capacity for engaging in constructive discussions, but I do try nevertheless.
Time after time I have found that each individual Muslim has a personal internal process for using the Meccan texts to take precedence over the Medinan texts.
Of course, we all know that the principle of chronological abrogation yields just the opposite, because the Medinan texts were recited later.
But then, the Qur’an is generally in reverse chronological order, because the longer chapters are printed first, but as time went on Muhammad tended to recite longer and longer chapters.
So, the Qur’an lends itself to this personal process of abrogating the Medinan texts with the Meccan texts.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“I have found, as a sweeping generalization, Muslims tend to be very thin skinned and often have a low capacity for engaging in constructive discussions, but I do try nevertheless.
Time after time I have found that each individual Muslim has a personal internal process for using the Meccan texts to take precedence over the Medinan texts.”
Let’s see: you had a few alleged “discussions” with some muslims, took their words at face value and, presto!, you’re automatically qualified to generalize about how “many” muslims understand their religion, even though a cursory look at Pew data shows you’re wrong.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Vog,
“The more one reads Stardusty Psyche (SP), the more one sees familiar PC MC shibboleths, axioms, givens, bromides, burps, tics, spasms, and reflexes lurking between the lines (and occasionally popping into full view).”
Sorry Vogei, I would respond substantively, but I don’t speak gibberish.
voegelinian says
Stardusty Psyche (SP) says:
Time after time I have found that each individual Muslim has a personal internal process for using the Meccan texts to take precedence over the Medinan texts.
PC seems to take the Muslim’s “peraonal internal process” at face value as obviously automatically sincere. Of course, SP has either never heard of the various styles of Islamic deception, or he conveniently sets it aside as having little relevance to this problem. I don’t doubt that Muslims have an “peraonal internal process” for responding to questions from a Kafir with an ostensible preference for the Meccan verses. That “peraonal internal process” is the calculation that, in a circumstance of Islamic weakness, the Muslim must try to deceive the Kafir into thinking like the proverbial Fly (“the spider said to the fly”) or like Little Red Riding Hood when the wolf came before her dressed up as the kindly grandmother.
Islamic taqiyya has many flavors (all flavors are non-alcoholic, but all have the venomous worm in the bottle…), including
Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
Kitman: deceit by omission.
Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “Haram” or forbidden).
And my favorite:
Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.”
All these flavors intermingle and interlock.
As Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack explain in an article on muruna
…in order for muruna to explain away certain Sharia prohibitions, it needed to bring authority from the Qur’an itself. For that, Qaradawi provides the issue of “al-Nasekh wal-Mansookh,” or “abrogation” in Islam. The doctrine takes an approach different from what has been understood:
[They quote Qaradawi:]
“There are no abrogated verses or verses that abrogate other verses, but to each verse is a condition and a time to use it … one is used in a time of weakness and the other in time of strength, so on and so forth.”
In short, anything goes as long as you can justify a higher calling:
[They quote Qaradawi again:]
“Verses that call for peace, forgiveness, sparing the unbelievers and things that the interpreters say were abrogated by the Verse of the Sword. But the truth I say is that such verses have their time and place; the Verse of the Sword has its time and its place.”
http://pjmedia.com/blog/muruna-violating-sharia-to-fool-the-west/?singlepage=true
And if SP tries, through his Leftist version of taqiyya, to dismiss or minimize Qaradawi as reflecting only the TMOE (Tiny Minority of Extremists), he’d do well to read carefully my blog essay (and more importantly the links therein) to see how wildly popular among Muslims Qaradawi is.
The Billy Graham of Islam
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-billy-graham-of-islam.html
voegelinian says
Stardusty Psyche (SP) wrote in response to my detailed argument:
“Sorry Vogei, I would respond substantively, but I don’t speak gibberish.”
SP would have to demonstrate that what I wrote was “gibberish”. The words of my argument make perfect elementary sense; so it’s likely that he’s lying about perceiving it as “gibberish”.
More importantly, SP seems to be laboring under the delusion that I was addressing him as though he were a rational interlocutor (where “rational” has its source in a sound mind-&-heart). That would be as foolhardy as addressing a malfunctioning robot. I was merely analyzing the deficient rhetoric with which that robot, so to epeak, has been programmed.
Wellington says
It’s instructive, even refreshing and inspiring, to see voegelinian and Angemon on basically the same page with one another. The deceitful, sophistic, and ever petty StarBoy has managed to “achieve” this. No mean feat I would maintain.
For the record, StarBoy has several times reminded me of the scene from that great film, All About Eve, where Marilyn Monroe wants another drink at Bette Davis’s birthday party. Marilyn calls out to the hired help for this drink, addressing him as “waiter.” Whereupon, George Sanders (playing a theatre critic for which he won the Academy award for Best Supporting Actor) says to Marilyn, “He’s not a waiter, dear, he’s a butler.” To which, Marilyn says, “Well, I can’t very well call him “butler” because someone’s name might be “Butler.” To which reply George Sanders says, “You have a point. It’s an idiotic one. But you have a point.”
Game. Set. Match.
Angemon says
Ssshhh, don’t jinx it like I did, Wellington 🙂
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/northern-ireland-pastor-who-said-islam-is-satanic-faces-six-months-in-jail/comment-page-2#comment-1255433
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/northern-ireland-pastor-who-said-islam-is-satanic-faces-six-months-in-jail/comment-page-2#comment-1255933
Know Thy Enemy says
Stardusty, even David Cameron understands the “ordinary everyday Muslims” better than you do! Here is what he said-
And he is correct!
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/uks-cameron-muslims-must-stop-quietly-condoning-the-islamic-state
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Know Thy Enemy
“David Cameron understands the “ordinary everyday Muslims” better than you do!”
That would not surprise me, he is the prime minister of the UK, I would hope that he is better informed in general on many subjects.
Yes, David Cameron has made a number of statements recently that show a willingness to analyze in detail and speak honestly and frankly about the views, motivations, and actions of various segments of society. He is not simply lumping all Muslims together, as so many of the folks here at JW do.
Good for David Cameron.
gravenimage says
“Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
Robert Spencer– “Maybe they wouldn’t be seen as a threat because of the cartoons if they didn’t keep trying to murder people because of them.”
Here Robert Spencer conflates the ordinary every day people Muslims who feel threatened by potential acts from a few ignorant bigots, with the Muslims who are carrying out the violent fundamentals of Islam.
………………………………….
More of the “tiny minority of extremists” rot. The fact is that over 80% of Muslims in the United States agree that Muslim-majority countries should be ruled by brutal Shari’ah law, which means prosecution or death for anyone—like these cartoonists—who dares to criticize Islam or the “Prophet”.
*This* is why “moderate” Muslims do not often say a word against their more avid coreligonists, such as the Muslims who have plotted to murder cartoonists—because few of them fundamentally disagree with them.
And who are these “ignorant bigots” whom “ordinary everyday people Muslims” are supposedly living in fear of?
As noted, Infidels have *far* more reason to fear Muslims than Muslims do Kuffar, and this has historically been the case with violent Islam.
More:
Robert Spencer is lumping all Muslims into one big “they” an obvious error in any reasonable analysis. In his defense he is living under a very real death threat from fundamentalist Muslims and I cannot honestly say I would be able to maintain my perspective under those circumstances.
………………………………….
The idea that the entirely rational Robert Spencer has somehow lost perspective here is utter rot. He is saying that “moderate” Muslims, if truly moderate, should confront the violence of their more orthodox fellow Muslims, but they will not do this.
More:
What we never hear from the likes of Jordan Denari is an acknowledgement of how deeply rooted the violence of fundamentalism is to the texts of Islam. And lacking that acknowledgement, we are not likely to hear from her or her brothers and sisters what they plan to do to transform Islam into a true religion of peace, as opposed to the diabolical nightmare that is presently threatening us all.
………………………………….
Well, this is leapfrogging. “Stardusty Psyche” goes from the entirely reasonable positing of Islam as a violent creed to a bizarre demand that Infidel journalists not just acknowledge that Islam is fundamentally violent, but that they need develop a plan for reforming Islam.
Since this likely cannot be done, and *certainly* not by a “filthy Infidel”, then it paradoxically lets pundits like Jordan Denari off the hook from doing anything at all.
More, in reply to Don McKellar:
But, I am sorry to say, the scorekeeper is biased toward the home team
………………………………
That “Stardusty Psyche” is sneeringly referring to the “home team”—which overall advocates for the defense of freedom of speech in the face of threats and murderous violence from Muslims—one wonders at his implied defense of the ‘away team’, which wants to see us dead for such defense.
More:
“If other moslems are scared because of the cartoons, it is not the cartoons causing it ”
Yes it is the cartoons as one in a series of causes…
You may refer to violence by other Muslims as a root cause, and they will refer to excuses for that violence as a root cause, and on and on and on with arguments for root causes,…
,,although I agree that the ultimate root cause is the texts of Islam, still the posting of the billboards in mid-America is a proximal cause for apprehension among American Muslims.
………………………………
Well, this is just incoherent. What do Muslims have to fear from the posting of such billboards, which do nothing but indicate a defense of freedom of speech in the face of Shari’ah concepts of “blasphemy”? And note that most Muslims complaining of such “blasphemy” are not citing supposed threats, but instead of Infidels daring to depict the “Prophet” at all—in other words, the same complaints held by the Jihad plotters who have tried to kill the cartoonists.
More:
BTW, while recognizing the genuine concerns of my fellow Americans who self identify as Muslims, I thoroughly support the ad campaign and applaud those who are funding and putting their lives on the line for it.
………………………………
If your “fellow Americans who self identify as Muslims”—what a convoluted description—have genuine concerns about violence, then why would you praise the Infidels who are (supposedly) putting them in danger? And why, since you actually acknowledge that it is the good folks at AFDI who are putting their lives on the line here, do you pretend that Muslims are supposed to be in danger from these non-violent messages?
More:
“it is their own religion which is creating fear for them.”
No. I am an atheist, but my first position is to take a person at their word for the faith they say they have. “Their religion” is the religion they actually practice. The religion most American Muslims practice is centered on devotion to god, with a strong family/love/practical life formula in hopes of a good life here on Earth and salvation in h the afterlife.
You and I know very well that the texts of Islam are fascistic and violent, but that is not “their religion” because that is not the religion they actually practice.
………………………………
Good grief. Muslims in America practice Islam, and pretending that they are not actually practicing it is bizarre. We consistently see that the larger the population of Muslims in any given region, the more supremacist and violent they become. The idea that Muslims in the US are somehow practicing a different, more “moderate” faith is utter hogwash.
As Voegelinian notes, he either understands nothing about Taqiyya and Maruna and other modes of Islamic deceit, or else he hopes that we ourselves are ignorant.
And as Angemon notes, the idea that Muslims are both ignorant of the viciousness of their creed and at the same time have a system of “personal abrogation” which acknowledges the ugly passages but chooses to ignore them is quite contradictory.
Also, notice “Stardusty Psyche’s” lauding of the Muslim view of the “strong family”, which includes pedophilia, forced marriage, wife beating, polygamy, and “Honor Killing”.
The waging of violent Jihad is not the only appalling aspect of Islam.
More:
“their death cult”
It isn’t “their” cult if they have a personal process of abrogation, which most Muslims do, largely by simply ignoring the worst of the texts.
………………………………
“Stardusty Psyche” would have us believe that most Muslims don’t actually practice Islam at all, and thus have no moral duty to address Muslim savagery at all. How convenient…
More:
“There are virtually zero such cases of bigots attacking moslems.” Statistically, I agree, it is mostly an imagined threat.
………………………………
And yet, he believes that Muslims are justified in pretending that they real threat is that of ‘Islamophobes’, and not murderous Muslims. Very odd…or, it would be, if “Stardusty Psyche” were a rational actor here…
More:
“So, you’re down on your scoring here on Jihad Watch.”
Ok, but again, I assert home team bias…on my score card I show 100% in this round and 98% overall in my favor!
………………………………
What does this mean? That he has somehow “won” against people asserting freedom of speech and that Islam is a threat? How has he made such a point, and even more to the point, why would he wish to do so?
Yet more, in reply to Angemon:
” making up “personal processes of abrogation”.”
Thank you for crediting me with coining a new term!
How many Muslims have you actually engaged with personally? I have found, as a sweeping generalization, Muslims tend to be very thin skinned and often have a low capacity for engaging in constructive discussions, but I do try nevertheless.
………………………………
As Voegelinian notes, “Stardusty Psyche” either understands nothing about Taqiyya and Maruna and other modes of Islamic deceit, or else he hopes that we ourselves are ignorant.
More:
Time after time I have found that each individual Muslim has a personal internal process for using the Meccan texts to take precedence over the Medinan texts.
………………………………
The idea that these Muslims use some sort of “reverse abrogation” has no basis in fact. Muslims wishing to appear “moderate” simply use some of the abrogated verses when dealing with hopeful and clueless Infidels, such as citing Qur’an 5:32, while carefully omitting any reference to the vicious following Ayat.
Ever since he began posting here, “Stardusty Psyche” has made it a habit to undercut the fight against Jihad and Shari’ah, and he has not changed his tune in this latest series of posts.
Angemon says
You’re on fire today, GI 😉
Wellington says
First-rate demolition of StarBoy’s “thinking,” gravenimage
Champ says
Brava, Graven!!! Wow you’ve covered every base leaving “Stupid Punk” SPEECHLESS! …yeah hes certainly met his match with you.
No Fear says
I invite all muslims to leave Islam. Islam is a choice.
t. says
You’re right, No Fear! Meanwhile, to make a change in anyone’s own life or help others to change, one must know the importance of the pain-and-pleasure principle and how to use it to precipitate that change. Having done that, one can then apply leverage which will ultimately lead to the desired change.
Unfortunately, instead of doing their best to use the previously mentioned principles, to directly contain and push back against Islam’s ideology and belief system, western governments, media, academia and even many churches are actively and enthusiastically helping Islam to complete its conquest of the world and sealing a bleak future for their children and grand children.
What’s worse and scary is that, at least most of them believe that they’re doing the right thing!!
Neil Jennison says
Well bugger me sideways with a barge pole!!!!!
Muslims feel “less safe” because people draw cartoons of Mohammed the violent git?
Not half as unsafe as we infidels feel when we see Muslim suicide bombers blasting people to fuck and back!
Renee says
I feel unsafe when I do not know who or what is under a burka
Richie says
Am I living in Bizzarro world? Muslims threaten to kill people over cartoons of their false prophet- yet Muslims come out as the victims? How??
As for victims, hope about the Coptic Christians that the Muslims are meurdring into extinction?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Richie,
“Muslims threaten to kill people over cartoons of their false prophet- yet Muslims come out as the victims? How??”
Because there isn’t any “Muslims” as a monolith. One group of Muslims is doing the attacking and a different group of Muslims is worried about being attacked by people who lump all Muslims together…like you for example.
See response to No Fear post above for details…
Westman says
I’ll go halfway with you on this, Stardusty.
Let’s assume the majority of muslims are slackers who don’t attend the Mosque nor read the doctrine and are terrified that their more jihadist bretheren are causing general hostility toward them.
Is this true in Egypt, SA, UAE, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, etc. Or does this only apply to the West?
Do the scholars at Al-Ahzar have any credibility in the West and with what group?
What is the solution for the slackers to be seen as not supporting aggressive Da’wa and Jihad?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Westman,
I think I can summarize your very valid questions
“How can we fix Islam?”
Boy, if I had that answer I could make a few million selling books about it!
“Egypt, SA, UAE, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, etc. Or does this only apply to the West?”
Much more so in the West, and especially here in the states. Maybe we should consider not knocking off any more dictators for awhile. It seems every time we do the resulting chaos leads to another IS foothold. Kinda makes me wistful for the good old days of Saddam and Qaddafi. Al-Sisi is at least arresting and executing MB.
“Do the scholars at Al-Ahzar have any credibility in the West and with what group?”
Sorry, not and expert on that one, but again with Al-Sisi, the way he lectured the imams there at least sounded great, we’ll see if it turns into anything helpful long term.
“What is the solution for the slackers to be seen as not supporting aggressive Da’wa and Jihad?”
Nobody has a solution within Islam because the closer you get to the texts the more like IS you get. Some people find their way out to Christianity or Atheism. Others just drift off and don’t practice much. My wife has a Muslim friend who only puts on the headscarf occasionally for show, and does whatever she feels like the rest of the time. Needless to say she does not live under Sharia.
So thanks for coming half way at least. I don’t pretend to know how to fix Islam. I do know that showing some compassion and love for individual Muslims who really do not want to hurt anybody is a good first step.
voegelinian says
Stardusty says
“Maybe we should consider not knocking off any more dictators for awhile. It seems every time we do the resulting chaos leads to another IS foothold”
I guess he never heard about the Arab Spring, where multitudes of Mohammedans joyfully knocked off their dictators, paving the way for more of their baseline Islamic fanaticism on which said dictators were (imperfectly) keeping a lid (or stopper, Genie-in-a-Bottle-wise).
Richie says
Stardusty, a shame the ‘other half’ of Muslims do not condemn the Muslims current engaging in genocide and engaging in a slave trade.
Islam is a death cult- there may be individual people who are Muslim who are good, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the cult of Islam is a death cult, all about murder and oppression
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Richie,
I agree totally with you. Even though most individual Muslims are not violent getting them to take a stand against the other fraction is typically like talking to a brick wall.
Westman says
Thanks for the reply Stardusty,
I accidently reversed two letters, Ahzar should be Azhar. Al-Azhar is a University in Egypt that is considered to be the foremost authority on Islamic interpretation and law. This sounds like some kind of cynical construct since Islam has no means of authority succession.
It seems every time CAIR or another apologist makes some statement about a violent group’s actions having nothing to do with Islam, one only need go to Al-Azhar scholars who say it it does and is based on Islamic doctrine.
Islam is a doctrinal mess with little(think Imams) and large(SA) fiefdoms having their respective areas of influence; all of which inject themselves too far into the personal lives of Muslims.
Islam is not only an Ideology, it is also big business for the keepers and instructors of the mental slaves. The war in Syria is more about whose brand of Islam will fleece the flock than about whose ideology is Allah’s.
If one removes the oil-rich countries from the list of majority-Muslim countries, it appears that most of the populations have exceeded the supporting capability of their land and generally have poor productivity. In this context ISIS appears to be simply a maurading band of takers who will ultimately run out of spoils to use unless it continues to rob.
I feel sorry for any truly peaceful Muslims who cannot escape criticism because the doctrine of their religion permits the atrocities carried out by jihadists. Changing the doctrine is impossible without central authority. They only have four solutions, fight militant Islam, ignore it, lie about it and say it’s not Islamic, or quietly leave Islam.
Lying about the existence of militant Islamic doctrine is failing in the West at an accelerating rate as people become more informed. Not a good time to be a Muslim.
Angemon says
I’m not sure of Miss Denari has actually stepped out of her fantasy land. In the real world, people don’t go around attacking anyone perceived as being dangerous. Quite the contrary – they go out of their way to avoid crossing them (in any sense of the word).
Richie says
“Actively spreading these cartoons is offensive because it contributes to an existing climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat—a climate that endangers Muslims in the West…”
I think the author clings to the delusional narrative that Muslims are always the victim- even when they commit genocide against Coptic Christians, the Christians are somehow to blame. This is what happens when leftists are allowed to control the narrative; they lie and pass off propaganda as truth
nacazo says
Jordan said:
“During a period when anti-Muslim attacks are already high, ”
Says, who???? The statics from the FBI refute this argument. The most attacked religious group in America are Jews, according to FBI statistics.
nacazo says
Jordan says:
“displaying these violent drawings”
Wow! drawings that can commit violence??? They may portray a violent turbanned man but does that make a drawing violent? Will the turbanned man jump out of the picture and attack a muslim????
How are these drawings “violent”?????
duh_swami says
Never, ever show a Mahoundian, a Mahound cartoon after midnight or during Ramadan…if you insist on doing that prepare yourself…Full body armor, a leather whip, a can of spray pig juice…There is nothing quite like a Mahoundian in cartoon heat…
If you see one of those…leave the area immediately, take cover and stay there till you hear the all clear siren…
Red Bee says
Too bad Time Magazine does not allow comments on this article. They do write though: “TIME Ideas hosts the world’s leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.”
I will remember that. Click my name for my website
clap says
The cartoons must remind them of how scary it is to be a muslim.
Mirren10 says
This dozy leftard brainless bint also thinks American unis should have the ‘adhan’ screeching out across campuses five times a day. Like obama, she thinks it’s beautiful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-denari/why-we-need-the-islamic-c_b_6532046.html
Angemon says
With Catholics like those, who needs muslims?
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Mirren.
Here’s more from this idiot, nattering on about how kind Muslims are to Christians in the Middle East:
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/01/06/how-one-christian-discovered-an-islam-of-peace/30235
And this is not an old article—it is from just a year ago.
By the way, she specifically slams Robert Spencer for daring to characterize Islam as a “religion of the sword”.
She cites Qur’an verses 49:13, 5:48, and 2:256 as showing Muslims’ “belief that religious diversity is a blessing to be preserved”. Never mind that Qur’an 49:13 says nothing about religion at all; that while Qur’an 5:48 might sound plausible in this regard that the following Ayat 5:49 condemns Infidels as “defiantly disobedient”; and 2:256 is the “no compulsion in religion” Sura, which nonetheless excoriates non-Muslims as guilty of “Taghut”, or “rebellion”, and the following Suras show Allah as misguiding Infidels so that they can be cast into the fires of hell.
Does any of this sound like the celebration of “religious diversity” that Jordan Denari believes it to be (or wants us to believe it to be?).
She also describes the horrors of dhimmitude as entailing “religious autonomy and freedom”.
She describes Spencer’s daring to point out the violence of Islam as working to “subvert the strong trend of mercy and hospitality that is threaded throughout the Qur’an, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islamic history”.
But apparently Muslims using Christians and other Infidels as sex slaves and engaging in genocide is not a problem…
Then—grotesquely—she brings up the “covenant of protection” extended by the “Prophet” against his murderous followers. The only problem is that this is a well-known historical fraud perpetrated by the fearful monks of Egypt’s St. Catherine’s monastery, desperately hoping to deflect the savagery of the “Prophet’s” own followers.
She also falsely claims that Muslim hostility towards Christians is new—whereas oppression and grotesque violence has been the norm from the earliest days of Islam—one need only study history to know that this is so.
She also—grotesquely—posits 9/11 as not a Muslim atrocity, but as an occasion of “demonizing” Muslims. And she is grateful for the “wings of mercy”—i.e., that Muslims have not enslaved or murdered her yet.
And here’s a gem from this twit’s Twitter feed:
“I’m not Muslim, but I know Islam means kindness & compassion, not terrorism.
#PHxMosque
#notmyamerica”
https://twitter.com/jdenari/status/604355496821149697
Good thing she “knows that”—now if only she could convince pious Muslims of this…
Jaladhi says
What BS!! Muslims are the ones who are killing non-Muslims and a simple drawing of Mo/allah makes them feel unsafe!! Who is going to believe it?? Who has seen mO that a drawing of really resembles him? If one draws a few lines and calls it a face of Mo, Muslims will be foaming mad and will be ready to kill because a drawing made them feel unsafe!! Wow, do they ever think? LOL…
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Jaladhi,
Yes, the Muslims who haven’t the slightest inclination to hurt anybody feel unsafe because people like you and most of the folks posting here at JW lump them in with the Muslims who are carrying out the violence of the Islamic texts, and the Muslims who haven’t the slightest inclination to hurt anybody are worried that one of these lunkheads who can’t seem to make obvious distinctions will also commit a violent act against them for no good reason.
Johnd says
I see what you are trying to say but still think it Islam apologism. Muslims just love to cry victim is all. It is an approved form of mainstream jihad. I agree that the Islamic texts are the main culprit. So moderate muslim slackers are really ‘hypocrites’ acc to Islam. Isn,t it true they have more to fear, and to be victimised, by the more devout muslim?
Champ says
“StarDhimmi” deserves a dangerous Dhimmi Award …
gravenimage says
“Stardusty Psyche’s” implication that the entirely peaceful Jaladhi presents a danger to Muslims is utter crap—and base calumny.
And his description of t’s comments as “profanity” is simply absurd—there is no profanity in his words at all.
And Muslims have described the following comments by a Houston-area schoolteacher as a “hate crime”:
“I am so sick of the bacon-haters coming here and demanding that we bend to their culture — no,” Angela Box said.
Are we seeing a pattern here? Peaceful comments by Infidels characterized as “profanity” and “hate”, while actual acts of bloody murder by Muslims are excused and minimized. *Sickening*.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Graven,
Ease up there big guy…I didn’t say “your” in response to t.
I said “the”
Hi t,
“I think that Stardusty Psyche is a Muslim who is using a soft, deceitful and indirect approach,”
Would you prefer that I respond to the adolescent profanity in kind? Sorry, I’m just not feelin that.
It’s people like JP and some others I was referring to…
I mean, if folks want to use a lot of silly insults and colorful language, whatever, but it ain’t me.
And what do you know about my dietary preference?-)
gravenimage says
More tedious dissembling from “Stardusty Psyche”:
Hi Graven,
Ease up there big guy…I didn’t say “your” in response to t.
I said “the”
Hi t,
“I think that Stardusty Psyche is a Muslim who is using a soft, deceitful and indirect approach,”
Would you prefer that I respond to the adolescent profanity in kind? Sorry, I’m just not feelin that.
……………………………….
So he did. But the idea that one’s only possible options for expressing oneself is either profanity or obfuscation is ridiculous.
More:
And what do you know about my dietary preference?-)
……………………………….
“Stardusty Psyche” may take this for wit, but my point—obviously—in citing Angela Box’s words was not to imply that he was a “bacon hater”, Muslim or otherwise, but that his absurd claim that Muslims are at risk from “hate crimes” because of the publication of peaceful cartoons is further undercut by claims that a non-violent quote from a schoolteacher decrying Muslim supremacy itself constitutes a “hate crime”.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Hahahahahahaha! ‘Muhammad cartoons “make muslims feel less safe’? DUH!!!!!!!!
Well, of course they feel that way. Liars always fee ‘less safe’ as their lies are exploded. So do criminals, when savvy cops confront them with evidence of their crimes.
Perfectly natural. Perfectly.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Esquire,
“Liars always fee ‘less safe”
So, “Muslims” are all one monolith then?
Did it ever occur to you that most Muslims have no inclination to hurt anybody but they are worried about attacks by people like you who lump all Muslims together with those who are carrying out the violence of the Islamic texts?
Try reading what the folks who tally the bodies say. At least they have maintained their humanitarian perspective through all the violence that is fundamentalist Islam.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/statement-on-muslims.htm
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Star: May I refer you to Mortimer’s post-directly under your post to me?
Oh-and unlike the gibbering idiots on the Left, I feel no obligation whatever to endlessly recite the leitmotiv, ‘of-course-I-mean-the-violent-muslims-of-whom-there-are-so-few-not-the-wonderful-peaceful-muslims-of-whom-there-are-so-many’.
Puhleeze.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Kathy,
Ok, so you don’t make distinctions, yes, I can see that your thinking is quite monolithic.
gravenimage says
Now “Stardusty Psyche” is claiming that Muslims in America are living in fear of lawyers attacking them in the streets. This just keeps getting more ludicrous all the time…
voegelinian says
“Did it ever occur to you that most Muslims have no inclination to hurt anybody but they are worried about attacks by people like you”
Stardusty is now basing his argumentation on the amazing ability to mind-read millions of Muslims (whom in other nearby contexts he hastens to point out are “not a monolith”). He should change his name to “The Amazing Kreskin”.
mortimer says
KB wrote: “Muhammad cartoons “make muslims feel less safe’
This is psychological projection!
Muslims attribute their own vengefulness to ‘others’, whereas most Westerners feel no animus whatever towards Muslims.
Muslims are filled with a tribal sense of hatred for ‘others’ lacking in the melting pot of the West.
This is overwhelming evidence that Muslims are psychologically unprepared to be partners in the Western world. They see themselves as opponents to it.
mortimer says
“Bridge Initiative” ??? What bridge??? Islam’s one-way bridge?
Islam does not dialogue because it has nothing to learn. Islam is the teacher. The dirty kafirs are the pupils.
The purpose of the ‘Bridge Initiative’ is to silence criticism of jihad and stop anyone from getting answers to tough questions.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi mortimer
Thanks for pointing out this organization, I never heard of it.
You said:
“The purpose of the ‘Bridge Initiative’ is to silence criticism of jihad and stop anyone from getting answers to tough questions.”
They say:
“Rational criticism of Islam or Muslims based on factual evidence, is not intrinsically Islamophobia, just as criticism of the tenets or followers of other religions or ethnic groups does not necessarily indicate bigotry or prejudice.”
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/what-is-islamophobia/
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, which seems to contradict theirs?
gravenimage says
Good grief. Here’s more on this meretricious program of Taqiyya:
“Deborah Weiss exposes Georgetown’s Orwellian ‘Bridges Initiative'”
http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/05/20/deborah-weiss-exposes-georgetowns-orwellian-bridges-initiative/
pdxnag says
But, people who follow the teachings of Islam are a threat, evidenced by a mountains of skulls. Muslim supremacists insist on exclusive authority to rule everywhere on everything, not as victim but as the archetypal tyrant envisioned by the US First Amendment.
mortimer says
Spencer wrote: “That Jordan Denari would work with such a viciously hateful and morally compromised individual as Lean already makes everything she says suspect”
One has to question the integrity of someone who would defend theocratic fascism.
Jordan Denari is able to ignore the daily arrests of jihadists across America and Europe and the daily massacres committed by their fellow jihadists in every country where there are Muslims.
Jordan Denari is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that jihad is the main problem with Islam. She is living in a separate reality.
Jack Diamond says
You’ve shown your bona fides on Islam in the past here and they are lacking. I will tell you what Islam teaches and what is the unanimous consensus of the ulema about this matter. Then, you find me the Muslims who don’t associate themselves with this teaching (regardless if they act upon it or not, it is a question of sympathies) and who refuse to be “lumped” with those who do. Find me a good true Muslim who will explicitly deny and denounce this teaching.
The short hand version: “Ali related the Messenger of Allah said “Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.”…. “On the authority of Hassan ibn Ali (ra) The Prophet of Malhama (Slaughter), The Prophet of Maahi (Destruction) said Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.” [Recorded in Al-Haakim in his Al-Mustadrak] Abu Dawood 4362 narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she dies and the Prophet ruled no blood money was due in this case. ”Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the next and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” Qur’an 33:57. Ishaq 550 “among those who Muhammad ordered killed was Abdullah bin Khatal. The Messenger ordered him to be slain..his girls used to sing a satire about Muhammad so the Prophet ordered they should be killed along with Abdullah.”
“Insulting the Prophet is one of the worst of forbidden actions and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim OR A KAAFIR.” (al-saarim al-Maslool quoted at Islam Q&A)
“The Judgment of the Shari’a (Ruling on one who insults the Prophet) Ibn al-Qasim “Anyone who curses him (Muhammad) reviles him, finds fault with him, or disparages him is killed. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him…. ”The Qur’an says that Allah سبحانه و تعالى curses the one who harms the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.” http://www.muftisays.com/blog/…
Now, those Muslims who haven’t the slightest inclination to hurt anyone, are they against someone who insults Muhammad from being harmed by another someone who is inclined to hurt them? On what basis in Islam would they oppose such a thing? Other than arguing that they (most or a great many Muslims) are non-Muslim Muslims and that most Muslims either don’t know the teachings of Islam or reject them or just want to ignore Islam altogether, and on what do you base that conclusion about most Muslims, other than your own naïveté?
Those Muslims walking around afraid of hate crimes being committed against them, what statistic backs up that paranoia? Who are the leading victims of hate crimes and who is committing the majority of them (religiously motivated hate crimes)?
Jack Diamond says
a reply to a Stardusty post above that didn’t post under it.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Jack Diamond,
Yes, I am aware of the Hadith you cite, very true.
You do ask a fair question that does in fact critically relate to my point
“non-Muslim Muslims and that most Muslims either don’t know the teachings of Islam or reject them or just want to ignore Islam altogether, and on what do you base that conclusion about most Muslims, other than your own naïveté? ”
Answer: partly statistical, partly anecdotal, partly negative evidence, and you might fairly accuse me of some degree of naivete, I really don’t hate much of anybody anymore and do indeed tend to see the good in people until demonstrated otherwise.
Many Muslims are illiterate. Most have never read the Qur’an, and if they did it was with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts. I do my best to communicate on line with Muslims and there are a lot of them who are really working hard at their denials and keep coming back again and again to the Meccan texts of peace and love.
Most people just want to live their lives with their families and enjoy peace and love and prosperity. Not many people really want to go out to kill and be killed, so people find many ways to go into denial.
One big indicator is the lack of violence. I mean, if every Muslim in this world knew the texts and actively followed them with the fervor of an IS fundamentalist our planet would be in a state of violent chaos right now. Just imagine if all Muslims really started attacking the rest of us in homicidal suicidal jihad…our whole planet would be a killing zone, but it isn’t, because thankfully, most Muslims just are not all that devout.
“Those Muslims walking around afraid of hate crimes being committed against them, what statistic backs up that paranoia? ”
Well that is the thing about paranoia, it doesn’t always make logical statistical sense!
I have a lot of compassion for people. You want to call that naivete? Ok, I’ll take a part of that. I really am very rational and not so naive but yes, I do love Muslims as individual human beings, right along with just about everybody else. So sue me.
Jack Diamond says
Violent chaos is already going on all over this planet and it is entirely due to Islam. You are right, most people don’t want to kill which is why Allah told them in 2:216 “fighting Is prescribed upon you [the] fighting while it (is) hateful to you. But perhaps [that] you dislike a thing and it (is) good for you; and perhaps [that] you love a thing and it (is) bad for you. ” But jihad takes many forms including jihad of the tongue and finance and migration, it is all da’wa, and you are wrong to focus so much just on the sword as if that is the only thing, or even the primary thing, to be fearing.
The non-Muslim or kaffir Muslims you are counting on do not matter, they do not have influence in the Ummah nor do they try to, nor can you count on the kaffir Muslim today not becoming a devout and proper Muslim tomorrow, nor can you count on that you are being told the truth in your conversations if you understand that Islam both excuses and obliges deceit with Infidels to protect Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, you will not find a Muslim of any stripe siding with a kaffir (like you) against another Muslim, even that dreaded jihadist who you will find, if you press hard enough, they will ultimately excuse and justify since they, if pressed, will tell you: their cause is legitimate (even if they “deplore” the tactics). They will not side with you against fellow Muslims when push comes to shove. I don’t care how much you love them, they are not permitted to love you.
Yes, it’s true in the now distant past many (non-Arab) Muslims were ignorant in various degrees of the real Quran and ahadith, the “nice” syncretic Islam Salman Rushdie remembered in old Kashmir etc. All of that is as gone as the old Kashmir. Muslims have the same access you do to the real Islam nowadays. You should also be reminded that Muslims behave differently, since the time of Muhammad, when they are weak and outnumbered then when they become strong and dominant. Those statistics about how Muslims behave as their proportion of the population grows is based on observable behavior over many centuries. How are Muslims acting in Europe today as opposed to America? It is a matter of numbers not that Islam is different here than there. When Muslims have “the upper hand” the nice behavior, the lack of violence you observe as the norm, will vanish. That is not based on a “hateful” assessment. It is empirical. History should be a cautionary tale to someone who calls himself rational.
Sir Edwin Pears “Turkey and Its People” 1911, p.39: “then one night my husband came home and told me that the padisha had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village and that we would have to kill our neighbors. I was very angry and told him that I did not care who gave such orders, they were wrong. These neighbors had always been kind to us…I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them killed them with his own hand.” (You see? jihad was declared and the “good” Muslim did not matter. No doubt the Christian neighbors had similar warm feelings that you have toward their Muslim neighbors and could not imagine them acting the way they did.)
“Yazidis fleeing a jihadist onslaught in northern Iraq say neighbors took up arms alongside their attackers, informing on members of the religious minority and helping the militants take over ‘the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbors.’
Sabah Hajji Hassan, a 68 year old Yazidi who managed to flee.”
You will hear similar stories from Lebanon.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Jack.
Mirren10 says
Agreed, graven.
Jack Diamond says
Thank you Graven, and thank you for all you do here.
voegelinian says
“Many Muslims are illiterate. Most have never read the Qur’an, and if they did it was with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts.”
Make sweeping assumptions much?
Jack Diamond says
After telling us he (Utter Drivel) was all about rationality and reason, his evidence is his “feelings” (Mr. I love everybody) and he knows some Muslims and can anecdotally discern they are not only honest with him but represent the vast majority of Muslims, non-Muslim Muslims, who would recoil like an innocent schoolgirl from the real Islam which some how never got taught them at home or mosque. He (Utter Drivel) is their protector and this is his form of Chivalry. Of course, his compassion is entirely selective and based upon what serves his ideological purposes which is why his heart is not bleeding for the real victims here, the victims of Muslim (doctrinal) hate and enmity.
Somehow, I’ve yet to meet an illiterate Muslim. Maybe I run in elite circles.
somehistory says
When police discover that they have a serial rapist or killer in a particular city, or smaller neighborhood, and publish a *sketch* of the perp, the people living in the areas affected, close the curtains, lock all windows and doors and remain vigilant. They are alert and afraid. They don’t go out looking for the bad guy in order to do harm. They wait for the authorities to catch him.
If the serial rapists or killers become *afraid*…it’s because they don’t won’t to get caught. But, they don’t usually stop their illegal and horrendous activities until the police catch them.
Why should any *innocent* muslims feel *threatened* by someone drawing a *sketch* of someone who is not them? If a muslim is the muslim in the sketch…then don’t carry a knife and threaten and no one will *draw* you.
It is all so ridiculous. If not for the fact that muslims are killing in terror attacks…up over 30%…and. murders…up over 80%…we could all just ignore people like this.
Reading…”a research project on Islamophobia.”…a made-up word, for the purpose of making non muslims afraid to speak the truth about islam…I couldn’t help but think of “One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater”…
Was there ever a *bridge* project that *researched* that creature? Was there such a creature? As much so as there is a *threat* to muslims from the drawing of a cartoon, yes, there is such a creature.
If people are not attacking muslims over the beheadings, over the mass rapes, the burnings of people alive, the dismembering, the hate speech every week from every barracks….then there is no real reason for the muslims to feel threatened by a cartoon of a monster none of them have ever seen before or even heard speak.
This is all just a part of the ploy to make people stop telling the truth. The more they try to stop people who are telling the truth, the more those people should speak. The louder they should speak.
islam is a beast from satan.
profitsbeard says
*~@}:~{>
Boo!
Cecilia Ellis says
LOL! PWT (Provoking While Typing) . . .
Lord Paper Clip says
Associating public discussion with offense, incitement, and safety risk avoids productive debate by changing the subject. Worst than that, those that use this ploy hope, I believe, to frame the discussion in terms that have legal significance in the hope of exposing such expressions to potential judication. Long term goal: control information sources and exclude competing sources.
Annak says
Oh no, Muslims feel unsafe ! Quick ! call the lutherans and leftists. They know how to coddle them and reassure them !p we will never ever orint any depiction of the ” perfect” man again.
Or to really make them feel really really safe, we should all convert to islam en masse and accept Shariah. Would that help ? Aah look how cute, they are smiling and all happy again. Now that will make the Lutherans and leftists happy too !
Struth., give me strength
Johnd says
What sort of spurious research allows Jordan Denari to come up with: ‘In the last 5 years only 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe have been religiously motivated’? Has she neglected to mention over 95% caused by muslims? . Or is taqiyya now a journalistic device? Any answers? Obviously she cites no proof for her disingenuous claims.
Matthieu Baudin says
Muslims living in developed non-Muslim countries are considerable safer than those residing in Muslim majority nations. For the most part, under-developed non-Muslim countries also provide greater personal security to Muslims than Muslim States. Muslims can claim victim-hood, if it’s acknowledged that it’s a form of persecution that derives from Islamic societal dysfunction which has foundations in entrenched intolerance, conflict and deficient levels of honesty and trust.
Davegreybeard says
Excellent response, Jack Diamond, to the foolishness that Stardusty Psyche is posting.
In particular, the point you make about the change in behavior of Muslims “when they have the upper hand.” As you note, this behavior change is predictable and has happened countless times over the centuries. That peaceful Muslim family next door or the “friendly” Muslim coworker can suddenly become a murderous enemy, when the time is right.
Bottom line, all Muslims are suspect, all the time. Doesn’t mean go out and attack them, just means “keep a weather eye about.”
Ren says
Jordan Denari : “…an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.”
It is not an entire religious group, but the religion itself. Islam is the cause of all the fuss, not muslims.
TheBuffster says
Yes, it’s the religion, and those members of the religion who take their alleged prophet and his example seriously.
If the attacks by jihadists all over the world don’t make people demonize all Muslims, then the cartoons aren’t going to do it. It’s the freakin’ actual murderous behavior that makes people afraid of the jihadists and suspicious of Muslims in general, because you can’t tell who the dangerous Muslims are going to be. Anyone who’s paying attention knows by now that some of these jihadists seem to be perfectly normal, but later on get sucked into full Mohammad mode.
We don’t need a cartoon to make us worry. Reality is doing that job just fine.
oldwhiteguy says
muslims are the followers of islam and therefore are the enemy of free people everywhere. muslims in any environment make me feel less safe.
eib says
Islam is not defined by Muslims, but by the texts. Their god is a false god, their prophet a false prophet. These words attack no human being. I can honestly say that their feelings are irrelevant. Even if they killed me & every other westerner, their religion would still be profane and evil. Power confers no good.
Dave J says
A cartoon is drawn and published.
Muslims claim offense and kill the cartoonist.
Then they claim that THEY feel unsafe.
WTF? These people live in a bizarre parallel universe where its “opposites day” every day.
Islam is a dangerous narcissistic mental illness.
bobm says
more than bizarre Dave ; it is a covering for darkness.. a “curved sword”.. a disease which is like a snare or a hobble to the masses.. it is a tool of the devourer.. a murderous lying slavers cudgel.
IQ al Rassooli says
Dave YOU got it all WRONG!
Muslims are NOT claiming victim hood in this article
It is the DESPICABLE J Denari who is doing these FALSE claims on their behalf
I shall NOT stop pointing out that a WORSE enemy to the West than Islam & Muslims are the ‘liberal leftists’ among MOST of our leaders in politics, academia, media & clergy
THEY are the number one TRAITORS who should be shunned and vilified by every decent American
Our worst enemies are WITHIN!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
oldwhiteguy says
muslims aided and abetted by socialist democrats. what a heck of a combination. the democrats are cowards but are more than happy to let muslims kill at will.
t. says
“the ‘liberal leftists’ among MOST of our leaders in politics, academia, media & clergy
THEY are the number one TRAITORS who should be shunned and vilified by every decent American
Our worst enemies are WITHIN!”
I 100% agree with you!
Derby says
Is it they are all very bloody ASHAMED OF WHAT THIS PEDOPHILE murdering Barstead did ? For it can only be embarrassment for she…
Roy Mears says
Well from where I am sitting they should feel less safe. By the way I hope they feel so unsafe they pack up and move the Muslim country of their choice. I will wager they don’t feel nearly as unsafe as Christians, Gays and Atheists feel in Muslim countries. I get so tired of Muslims playing the victim card, I suggest leave and make us all happy.
Mike says
I am willing to accept there are some decent law abiding Muslims out there. But exactly how do you differentiate between one who is law abiding and peaceable and one who is jihad sympathetic and will willingly attack / kill/ support those who do? I certainly don’t know.
I would be far more impressed by Muslims who were less outraged by a cartoon and more outraged by mass murder in the name of Islam
jihad3tracker says
Yes Mike — You nailed it :
” . . . more outraged by mass murder in the name of Islam”. I recommend these two websites often, but here we go again for new readers of Jihad Watch who want 100% FACTUAL info, not fantasy like “They really are not intending to subjugate or kill every non-Muslim, right?”:
www(dot)inquiryintoislam(dot)com +++ www(dot)citizenwarrior(dot)com. Visit those resources when you have some undistracted time. Look for this post especially: THE TERRIFYING BRILLIANCE OF ISLAM.
Also, PLEASE visit the blog of another courageous counter-jihad Christian expert on Islam (David Wood) : www(dot)answeringmuslims(dot)com. AS PAM GELLER KNOWS, ISIS IS HERE / NOW / WEEKLY.
FatherJon says
All these complaints from the Muslims, attempting to shut us all up, are designed to capture the sympathies and support of the gullible, leftist-oriented middle classes. They are what Lenin called ‘useful idiots’, possibly well-meaning but highly susceptible to the whines of outrage from people who see a goal in shutting down all criticism of their ruthless religio-political ideology. Heaven forbid that it ever comes to pass because the ‘useful idiots’ would find their heads on spikes like the rest of us.
cranky.white.woman says
I believe they would find their heads detached from their torsos before the rest of us. They’re just too thick to realize it.
duh_swami says
Starchild said earlier…’Many Muslims are illiterate. Most have never read the Qur’an, and if they did it was with rose colored glasses and likely cannot identify the violent parts’.
They can’t understand plain talk from Allah?…Interesting, you must think them stupid…For the illiterate, there is the mosque and the Imam. How else would an illiterate Mahoundian living in deep jungle know he was a Mahoundian, if not for a local Imam who is literate? All Mahoundians are ‘obligated’ to jihad as a ‘duty’ to Allah, it is not an elective, and ignorance of the law is no excuse to Allah. But, not everyone is a natural born killer, so there are non violent ways for them to wage jihad.
One big problem is ‘profiling’, there is no reliable way to tell a non violent jihadist from a violent jihadist until they do something violent. In every war there are combat soldiers, and supply people who don’t actually fight, and civilians who support the war effort. It is no different with Islam at war.
.
ninetyninepct says
“It is no different with Islam at war.” You state Islam is at war. War with whom and why? You want to kill everyone because we don’t think like you want us to think? War involves two sides to a conflict. Since Islam is attacking everyone else, it is very very close to the time where everyone else starts to fight back. You want war, you will get it, and you won’t like it.
“One big problem is ‘profiling’, there is no reliable way to tell a non violent jihadist from a violent jihadist until they do something violent.”
We can start by doing what we need to do and let Allah sort them out.
The vilest of creatures says
Anybody have a home address for this Nathan Lean? What goes around comes around.
ninetyninepct says
Good idea. Any coach will tell you that the best defense against an attack is a good offense. Anybody find this guy’s address, phone number or e-mail, please post so we can ALL express our opinion of this pig’s butt.
Same with this Jordan Denari chicky. What a waste of good educational tax money.
jihad3tracker says
Hello ninetyninepct —
Let me suggest that we take it easy on Jordan Denari. She is young, white, clueless, naïve, and certainly wants to do the noble deed of squashing “Islamophobia”.
We also do NOT know what the backstory is on how she got that “research” job at Georgetown’s traitors’ clubhouse — the Prince Alwaleed Center for Christian and Islamic Studies. To get an idea of the relentless taqiyya John Esposito (at Georgetown) strives to establish, use the JW search box here on the blog.
However, if you or other commenters here DO WANT TO GIVE MS. DENARI a helpful dose of smart advice, contact her — not at any Georgetown email address, because those remarks would be intercepted.
POLITELY GENTLY observe that she is wrecking her credentials as a scholar by listening to the diarrhea coming from Nathan Lean’s mouth, and even more gravely, demolishing chances of university appointments or tenure eventually.
The simplest way to accomplish such a message regarding her self-destruction in Academia is to comment on the Time webpage mentioned in Mr. Spencer’s post above. She is almost certainly reading reaction to that joke gone tragically wrong — perhaps even sitting in catatonic silence, as her frolic in a cool pool.
How very sad ! ! !
.
Stardusty Psyche says
That’s what they are doing to Robert Spencer.
You guys have sunk to their level.
She is an academic using words. She does not deserve to be personally targeted.
You guys should take a refresher course in the First Amendment.
pennant8 says
Vilest of creatures: I like your screen name. Koran 98:6 is my favorite verse. I have often wondered what would happen to me if walked around carrying a sign that read “Muslims are the most vile of created beings.” No doubt I would be charged with a hate crime, and me pointing out that my sign was a parody of an actual Koran verse would not make any difference.
zaba says
It is not an entire religious group, but the religion itself.
Let’s be clear that islam is an ideology like, but far worse than, nazism and communism.
What religion kills you for leaving?
Think mafia
Angemon says
zaba posted:
“What religion kills you for leaving?
Think mafia”
Funny you mention mafia. It originated in Sicily, who at a time was under muslim arab control, and while the origin of the word “mafia” is unknown, there are several possible arabic words from which it might have derived from.
bobm says
but of course …mais oui.. you take away ze brush covering ze snake…. and ze serpant she feels very nervous … oui?
ninetyninepct says
“During a period when anti-Muslim attacks are already high,”
WHAT??? When has there been an “attack” on any Muslims here in North America? I could be wrong, but I don’t know of any. There are and have been a lot by Islamist terrorists and self proclaimed “defenders” of Islam against those of us who don’t think like they want us to think, but nobody tries or has tried to attack and kill Muslims that I know of.
Some readers would describe Jordan Denari as a blatant and outright lier but I suspect she just might be wrong in her interpretations. For one thing, how does she know that the drawing is Mohamed?? Just because someone say it is? How can someone so simple minded be employed, never mind at a university? She needs help and counseling and possibly a lot of assistance reading and watching the news. She could start by following Jihad Watch and watching the news.
Western Canadian says
How can such simple minded people even exist?? Easy, they are being created in massive numbers by criminally dumbed down ‘educational’ systems, corrupt and mindless mockery of a news media…. How can she be employed, never mind at a university?? Easy…. She hasn’t got the intelligence or integrity to question, seek truth, or think for herself. Now a prerequisite at universities everywhere.
EYESOPEN says
Excellent explanation Western Canadian! You summed it up nicely.
El Diablo Azur says
Well, the only one I can think of offhand is the recent triple murder in the People’s Republic of Chapel Hill, but the evidence I’ve see thus far suggests that the victims’ religion was irrelevant, that the guy was just a nutcase with a short fuse.
Linda Rivera says
Non-threatening cartoons make no one feel less safe.
It is the bloodthirsty, satanic commands in the book of hate and eternal war against infidels, the Quran, that make infidels feel, and KNOW that they are in great danger from Muslims.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
The anti-God, terrifying commands in the Quran against infidel innocents make it a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY to import Muslims.
Hundreds of millions of non-Muslim innocents have been barbarically put to death by Muslims carrying out Quran commands.
Bible, Genesis And God said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.”
Millions more of non-Muslims were, and continue to be, captured for slaves and sex slaves.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Linde,
“Non-threatening cartoons make no one feel less safe.”
I happen to know you are a very thoughtful person. Please consider this…
You are a kid of a minority ethnicity, and there are billboards going up all over the place depicting your ethnicity as a dangerous killer. Do you think you, as a kid, might worry about that?
How about the Muslim women? Don’t you see that is going to be a worrisome experience?
Yes, it does make Muslims in middle America feel vilified, targeted, and less safe.
Nevertheless, I totally support the ads. We cannot allow our freedom of speech to be abridged with creeping acquiescence to threats of violent censorship.
The billboards will cause some anxiety for some innocent people but that is not sufficient reason to knuckle under to violent censorship.
gravenimage says
The meretricious “Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
Hi Linde,
“Non-threatening cartoons make no one feel less safe.”
I happen to know you are a very thoughtful person. Please consider this…
You are a kid of a minority ethnicity, and there are billboards going up all over the place depicting your ethnicity as a dangerous killer. Do you think you, as a kid, might worry about that?
………………………………..
Characterizing Islam as an “ethnicity” is utterly false. Ethnicity—race—is intrinsic, and says *nothing* about one’s beliefs.
Islam is a creed, and belief in that creed is not intrinsic to any one race—nor to any one individual. Were this the case, in fact, that both converts to Islam and apostates from Islam would not be possible.
Note further what “Stardusty Psyche” is saying—he is saying that no child brought up in a Nazi household should ever get the idea that anyone might consider Fascism and the Holocaust problematic, and hence that the child never have a chance to take a new look at the beliefs he was brought up with, and to judge whether they are morally justifiable.
In the same way, no Muslim child should ever learn that Infidels perhaps consider it unjust that they should be enslaved and murdered by supremacist Muslims.
More:
How about the Muslim women? Don’t you see that is going to be a worrisome experience?
Yes, it does make Muslims in middle America feel vilified, targeted, and less safe.
……………………………….
This is even more disgusting—he is now positing that even *adult* Muslims should be shielded from any suggestion that they are part of a violent creed that victimizes others.
More:
Nevertheless, I totally support the ads. We cannot allow our freedom of speech to be abridged with creeping acquiescence to threats of violent censorship.
……………………………….
“Stardusty Psyche” allows the mask to slip here, and acknowledges that the real danger is those who dare name Islam as violent, *not* to Muslims themselves.
More:
The billboards will cause some anxiety for some innocent people but that is not sufficient reason to knuckle under to violent censorship.
……………………………….
Why aren’t any of these innocent people concerned that their own coreligionists are violently threatening and targeting those who dare oppose the violence of Islam? For some reason, he does not believe that this should concern them at all.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Gravenimage,
“Characterizing Islam as an “ethnicity” is utterly false”
Straw man, I posited a hypothetical about an ethnicity, yet did not identify “Islam” as an ethnicity.
Muslims do, however often share some correlation to an ethnicity, even though Islam is not itself an ethnicity. When I see Jews walking to synagogue on Saturday I can fairly accurately recognize them because they generally “look Jewish”, even though the doctrine of Judaism is not itself an ethnicity. Similarly, Muslims do often make their faith apparent by their chosen manner of public appearance.
Do try to improve your ability to make distinctions and avoid logical fallacies, OK graven?
“he is saying that no child brought up in a Nazi household should ever get the idea that anyone might consider Fascism and the Holocaust problematic,”
Straw man, blatantly false. I never said any such thing. Pure sophistry.
“In the same way, no Muslim child should ever learn that Infidels perhaps consider it unjust that they should be enslaved and murdered by supremacist Muslims.”
Straw man…I mean, graven can’t find anything real to criticize so he just keeps inventing things I never said.
A Muslim child will very likely feel a number of things viewing the posters, I never said the child should be shielded from those feelings by removing the posters, I only pointed out that the experience of those feelings is very real.
You do see the distinction, don’t you? Or are you really just not that bright?
“This is even more disgusting—he is now positing that even *adult* Muslims should be shielded from any suggestion that they are part of a violent creed that victimizes others.”
Yet another straw man…I mean, with the number of them you are putting out here one could reasonably consider you to be a liar, or extremely dim, or both.
The feelings are real, but I never said that is sufficient reason to “shield” Muslims from them.
““Stardusty Psyche” allows the mask to slip here, and acknowledges that the real danger is those who dare name Islam as violent, *not* to Muslims themselves.”
Incoherent. I mean, that isn’t even a fallacy, it is just word salad utterly detached from anything I actually said.
“Why aren’t any of these innocent people concerned that their own coreligionists are violently threatening and targeting those who dare oppose the violence of Islam?”
False premise, some are.
Not enough, I agree, but your statement was an expression of zero by the use of the words “aren’t any”, which is a demonstrably false statement.
Raise the level of debate at JW?
With posters like gravenimage on the bottom of the barrel almost any move would be up.
gravenimage says
Yet more from “Stardusty Psyche”, who is just spamming at this point:
Hi Gravenimage,
“Characterizing Islam as an “ethnicity” is utterly false”
Straw man, I posited a hypothetical about an ethnicity, yet did not identify “Islam” as an ethnicity.
…………………………………
I pointed out that ethnicity is intrinsic, and hence has no parallel in choosing to embrace a creed. So, the two are not analogous at all.
More:
Muslims do, however often share some correlation to an ethnicity, even though Islam is not itself an ethnicity…Muslims do often make their faith apparent by their chosen manner of public appearance.
…………………………………
Wearing a Burqa is in no way analogous to ethnicity. It is either chosen or imposed—again, it is in no way inborn.
More:
Do try to improve your ability to make distinctions and avoid logical fallacies, OK graven?
…………………………………
The distinctions, as I noted, are quite clear.
More:
“he is saying that no child brought up in a Nazi household should ever get the idea that anyone might consider Fascism and the Holocaust problematic,”
Straw man, blatantly false. I never said any such thing. Pure sophistry.
“In the same way, no Muslim child should ever learn that Infidels perhaps consider it unjust that they should be enslaved and murdered by supremacist Muslims.”
Straw man…I mean, graven can’t find anything real to criticize so he just keeps inventing things I never said.
…………………………………
Not at all—this is the upshot of the argument that it would hurt a child’s feelings to be exposed to the fact that the creed he is being raised in is violent.
More:
A Muslim child will very likely feel a number of things viewing the posters, I never said the child should be shielded from those feelings by removing the posters, I only pointed out that the experience of those feelings is very real.
You do see the distinction, don’t you? Or are you really just not that bright?
…………………………………
Yes, those feelings are very real—but the implication that we should take into account Muslim feelings when we dare identify Islam as violent is perverse.
Yes—a Muslim, child or adult, is likely to experience rage, a desire for revenge, and a sense of his own superiority over Infidels being thwarted—I don’t believe we need pander to such unhealthy feelings in the first place.
More:
“This is even more disgusting—he is now positing that even *adult* Muslims should be shielded from any suggestion that they are part of a violent creed that victimizes others.”
Yet another straw man…I mean, with the number of them you are putting out here one could reasonably consider you to be a liar, or extremely dim, or both.
The feelings are real, but I never said that is sufficient reason to “shield” Muslims from them.
…………………………………
And yet, you feel the need to bring them up over and over again—clearly you consider such feelings of paramount importance.
More:
““Stardusty Psyche” allows the mask to slip here, and acknowledges that the real danger is those who dare name Islam as violent, *not* to Muslims themselves.”
Incoherent. I mean, that isn’t even a fallacy, it is just word salad utterly detached from anything I actually said.
…………………………………
Not in the least. You posit the idea that Muslims might somehow feel threatened by exposing Muslim violence, yet you acknowledge that the *actual* threat comes from violent Muslims.
This is borne out in real life: There have now been at least three plots by Muslims to murder Ms. Geller—the first by tow gunmen who also intended to gun down the attendees at the Muhammad Cartoon Show and another to behead her—whereas there have been *no* threats by cartoonists against Muslims.
More:
“Why aren’t any of these innocent people concerned that their own coreligionists are violently threatening and targeting those who dare oppose the violence of Islam?”
False premise, some are.
Not enough, I agree, but your statement was an expression of zero by the use of the words “aren’t any”, which is a demonstrably false statement.
…………………………………
Not in any substantive manner. Moreover, “Stardusty Psyche” *himself* defends this by positing the idea that ‘moderate’ Muslims are somehow not practicing the same faith as are orthodox Muslims, and so need not speak out against its violence.
“Sixty Percent of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression”
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/31/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression/
More:
Raise the level of debate at JW?
With posters like gravenimage on the bottom of the barrel almost any move would be up.
…………………………………
The level of debate at Jihad Watch is generally quite high—the idea that the level of this debate is elevated by the presence of Muslim apologists who suggest that we should take the feelings of Muslims into account on their being exposed to the truth about their vicious creed is simply grotesque.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi gravenimage,
“Not at all—this is the upshot of the argument that it would hurt a child’s feelings to be exposed to the fact that the creed he is being raised in is violent.”
First, it does or it could hurt a child’s feelings to be exposed to the fact the creed he is being raised in is violent.
Yes, it can be a painful realization to find our your own culture is fascistic and violent.
For the upteenth time, the feelings are real, the truth sometimes hurts, that is not a sufficient reason to deny truth.
And from there you play the Nazi card..idiotic…
…as are the rest of your asinine “arguments”
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“And from there you play the Nazi card..idiotic…”
What’s this “Nazi card” you speak of? Do you have any objections against any sort of comparisons between islam and Nazism? GI’s comparison is well-thought and spot on.
“as are the rest of your asinine “arguments””
Well, not everyone can come and say that ahamadis are “moderates”, can they?
gravenimage says
“Play the Nazi card”? What is “idiotic” about pointing out the parallels between Fascism and Islam? Both are tyrannical, totalitarian creeds enjoining horrifying violence against those who disagree with them.
Hitler, notably, admired Islam, and openly based the techniques of the Holocaust on the Armenian Genocide.
And while Muslims as a rule disdain “filthy Infidels” they make a frequent exception for the Führer himself. Mein Kampf is a bestseller in much of Dar-al-Islam, and bellicose Muslims enjoy taunting Jews with threatening to “finish the Holocaust”. Images of Hitler are big favorites in the Muslim world, including banners recently at a fashionable shopping center outside Istanbul:
“Hitler honored in upscale mall in modern, moderate Turkey”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/hitler-honored-in-upscale-mall-in-modern-moderate-turkey
THFreedomjihad says
You can make a crime gang feel uncomfortable, inhuman, and fearful, by going after them, with the purpose of bringing them down. Such was the case with the mafia, the nazis, thuggees, etc., in their times, and by the proper and good opponent victims of their heinous behaviors. If a group has an oral or written ideology that condemns the group’s or gang’s outsiders or non-participants, or former participants of a changed mind (who don’t practice of believe in their gang ways) to death by all imaginable means, approves of such criminal acts, commits banditry, and all criminal acts imaginable, no matter it claims such any and all acts are blessed by any so called deity.
Not one good act to those outside the organization is commanded, let alone all the pure bad acts that are commanded by the fake “religion”. If a group is pure evil in commands and practices, and justifies these acts of thievery and butchery, and degeneracy, by a so called god, it is still a gang, and should be prosecuted as such, period. The so called god is a degenerate, and should be recognized as a fake construct, and people should start waking up to the cognitive dissonance that is soaring in the world.
Wanting to go along to get along and believe in a fake “religion” of peace that shows it is a group of degenerates of ideology, codes, intentions, and practices, is the definition of cognitive dissonance, with the conflicting REALITY in front of the BELIEF, desired by members of the group.
If IRS is so dysfunctional as to commit criminal acts (congressional hearings), and as well authorize a group to be treated as a “religion”, that is and commits criminal acts, it just means that the IRS is dysfunctional, not even that the definition for IRS purpose is valid or honest.
Ultimately, if a group of people, be it the whole world, acts, behaves and demands pure criminal behavior, in writing, and says this or that imaginary beast blesses such criminal behavior and even rewards it with every imagined mortal pleasure, including dozens of sex slaves, and as well holds up the greatest criminal behavior in history by a man called mo, as the ideal man whose example as the ultimate criminal is to be emulated, by all, it is still a mentally sick criminal group of criminals, engaged in criminal acts, period. Isn’t it?
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
I AGREE – “How many Muslims have been killed because of cartoons of Muhammad, aside from those who were trying to commit jihad mass murder because of them? None. How many Muslims have even been inconvenienced? None”.
BUT How many Non-Muslim “Infidels” have been PHYSICALLY killed because of Islam’s 7th Century Barbaric Mentality Intolerance of ANYONE who even “Slanders” Islam with, NOT Physical Violence, as IS the way of Muslims, but with Pictures CARTOONS.
MANY all over the World – not to mention the Pamela Geller Texas Incicent.
http://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24645/ “Report: Muslims slaughter 600 Christians”.
http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/christians-being-slaughtered-by-muslims-in-human-sacrifice-rituals/
gravenimage says
Time Mag: Muhammad cartoons “make Muslims feel less safe”
……………………………………..
Muhammad cartoons make *Muslims* feel less safe? My God, what crap. Besides the cases Robert Spencer cites in the article above, there were also Muslim plots to murder the Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoonists, with a separate plot to murder cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, which ended with an ax-wielding Muslim having broken into his home; an international plot against Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks; another plot against Lars Vilks in which a filmmaker was murdered; the case of American cartoonist Molly Norris, who had to change her identity and go into hiding when the FBI told her it could not protect her; and threats to kill the animators at South Park after their “Muhammed in a Bear Suit” sketch.
Have *any* Muslims been threatened—save for those threatened by their fellow coreligionists—in all of this? No, there have not. No cartoonist has threatened any Muslims, nor have other Infidels threatened any Muslims in the name of cartoons.
It’s the perverse usual—Muslims threaten and murder non-violent Infidels, and Muslim apologists claim that it is Muslims themselves who are threatened.
More:
The news coverage of AFDI’s recent effort—as well as others’ plans to disseminate Muhammad cartoons—has been accompanied by attempts to explain why displaying these violent drawings is problematic or offensive. Journalists and commentators often diagnose the problem this way: Many Muslims disapprove of depictions of their prophet, and thus some may retaliate violently against them. But this characterization ignores the cartoons’ real implications. Actively spreading these cartoons is offensive because it contributes to an existing climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat—a climate that endangers Muslims in the West….
……………………………………..
What kind of bizarre pretzel “logic” is this? The usual—the idea that pointing out the violence of others is itself a form of violence. This makes no rational sense, and has not been borne out in the real world, where increasing numbers of Infidels are victimized by Muslims, but there is no “backlash”.
Please note that almost all of the cartoons, as varied as they might be otherwise, essentially point out that Islam is violent, and is violent on the model of the “Prophet”. This includes Bosch Fawstin’s winning cartoon.
More:
But these threats are only perceptions—misperceptions—grounded not in facts or personal experience but in propagandistic portrayals. AFDI’s Muhammad ads make Muslims, the demonized group, actually look like the demonizer.
……………………………………..
What *utter crap*. That anyone can claim that the idea that Islam is violent is a “misperception” in the wake of over 26,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11, as well as the endless violent plots—including those against cartoonists—is simply grotesque.
More:
During a period when anti-Muslim attacks are already high, these ads make Muslims feel less safe, and they’re right to be upset about the promotion of these cartoons.
……………………………………..
More crap. Most Muslims are “upset” about any depiction of their “Prophet”, especially a critical one—but the false victim-mongers are apt to enthusiastically embrace this load of tripe.
More:
In fact, we should all take offense to their dissemination. In diverse, pluralistic societies, Muslims and non-Muslims alike should not stand by as an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.
……………………………………..
In other words, in order to embrace our diverse and pluralistic society we should be prepared to censor ourselves and others, and not allow any questioning of the very creed which wants to violently crush everything that is diverse and pluralistic about our culture, as well as threatening and murdering cartoonists, journalists, writers, and pundits. Yeah—that’ll work…sarc/off
More:
Once again we see the claim that “an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.” Yet our ads to which Denari is objecting just say “Support Free Speech.” How exactly does this demonize all Muslims? She doesn’t say, because it doesn’t.
……………………………………..
Disturbingly, in fact, this acknowledges that Islam is not compatible with freedom of speech—but in this mad “politically correct” environment, protecting Muslims, not from actual threat but from *being offended*, is supposed to trump freedom of speech and protecting ourselves from Muslim violence.
Jordan Denari and many other Muslim apologists seem just fine with that.
Angemon says
Great post, GI 🙂
gravenimage says
Thank you, Angemon.
somehistory says
Yes, they claim they want *diversity*…but they want non-diversity…as they want it all to be islam, all of the time, in all of the places. Dress according to islam, eat according to islam, speak according to islam.
No art, no music, no fun of any kind. No bacon, no ham, no pork chops….don’t even speak of such things.
Walk on the beach…women dressed as bags of garbage.
Go shopping….women dressed as bags of garbage.
Five times a day, stop everything for the irritating *call* to assemble to hear how much we are all hated. To hear how we are to be slaughtered if we don’t pay their demands for extortion. To hear how they are superior to us in every way.
No glass of wine after dinner, no glass of beer after work, no laughing.
Girls and guys can’t choose whom to date, whom to marry.
All other *cultures* must bend to the *culture* of the beast of islam.
There is no diversity in islam….it’s all mindless, dictated control from followers of evil.
This woman, who takes the tone of wanting all non muslims to toe the line…for the sake of the feelings of muslims, is asking for everyone to bow to the beast.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Another thing so deeply distasteful about this whole ‘muslims feel unsafe’ garbage: Do we all notice that we are DROWNING in ‘feelings’?
A few years ago I was at a college prosecuting a Free Speech case. And witness after witness I called cited ‘feelings’ as the basis for suppressing the 1st Amendment rights of their students! Now these were heads of departments-PhD’s, you name it. And not ONE had any evidence to support their ridiculous claims of needing ‘Safe Space’ for homosexuals, illegals, womyn-the list went on and on. And yet this was their defense.
They even attempted to justify the outrageous layout of tons of taxpayer $ for courses on ‘LGBT’, ‘Pro-Islamic’, ‘anti-Military’ issues-because of ‘feelings’ that these areas needed to be ‘examined’.
They lost, we won, but what I’ve just cited is ubiquitous. ‘Feelings’ are evidence of absolutely nothing. But they’re enshrined as if they are.
Stardusty Psyche says
HI Kathy,
Absolutely, we should eliminate from law enforcement and our judicial system all references to feelings of fear, threat, and intimidation.
Also from our general public discourse…I’m sick and tired of worrying about other people’s feelings.
From here on out, it’s no holds barred and I don’t give a damn how you feel about that.
Are you feelin me?
gravenimage says
Very true, Somehistory.
And Kathy, Muslims have of course only glommed onto the “politically correct” trope about feelings in the West because it is apt to sway useful idiots—in Islam itself, there is absolutely no concern for the feelings of the victims of Islam: not kidnapped Infidel girls taken as sex slaves, not journalists and aid workers facing beheading, not third graders “married” off to old men, and not rape victims being stoned to death.
As for “Stardusty Psyche’s” sneering—the idea that we must countenance all of this sanguinary horror *in silence*, or else it is we who are callous and care nothing for the feelings of vulnerable people, nothing could be more perverse. *Ugh*.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Gravenimage,
“Muhammad cartoons make *Muslims* feel less safe? My God, what crap.”
By their god,not crap.
Who has the right god and how do you know?
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Star: The issue is not, ‘who has the right god’. If you’re an American, you know that.
The issue is muslims’ manipulation of the ‘dialogue’. Invoke ‘feeling unsafe’ and supposedly, presto-change-o, whoever’s the invokee wins first prize!
Now this applies across the board to all the Leftist ‘victims’ but when the muslims do it, it’s spectacularly vile. Muslims are overwhelmingly the bad actors in our world today: From actual warfare to lawfare (think: CAIR), muslims constantly pretend that the facts of islamic terror don’t exist. They then propound that the citation of the facts makes them ‘feel unsafe’.
Nice work if you can get it. And given our dhimmi drive-by media, they can. And they do.
Jack Diamond says
Old Arab saying: “Darabni wa-baka, sabaqni wa-ishtaka” or “He hit me and quickly cried: ‘He attacked me,’ he lied.”
aka “He hit me and then HE cried, and then HE ran first to the police”….in other words it’s
an old old game.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
It is Jack! But the muslims have honed it to a fine edge.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Kathy,
Since the thought of feelin me makes you so squeamish….:-)
Maybe Robert Spencer can provide you with a little Muslim sensitivity training:
Robert Spencer—Dr. Jasser says Muslim parents don’t want their parents to become Imams and there’s a reason for that because Islam does teach a violence and a radicalism at the core, that is embedded in the Qur’an, embedded in the teachings of Muhammad that…
… many Muslims obviously don’t want to partake of in their lives because human nature being everywhere the same,…
… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcttDHIH7A
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Lord have mercy Star! Muslim ‘sensitivity training’? Are you entirely lacking any perspective at all? Do you even read your own screeds before posting them?
So the vast majority of muslims have to ignore their own ‘religion’, in order to STAY, muslim? And you posit this as a defense of them? I’ve head Dr. Jasser state this and, while I respect the good doctor, I thought then and think now, that this is most damning indictment of islam-and muslims-that ever could be!
Righteous human outrage, and empathy, are at the core of what it means to be human. We are not human-made in the image and likeness of God-if we deliberately turn our backs on that. Why, this world would be more of an abattoir than it already is, did everyone follow that prescription!
Case in point: What if Catholics-once made aware of the homosexual/pedophile abuses in the Church-just…did nothing in response? But Catholics didn’t do that Star. They (we) went berserk. Some left the Church; those who stayed protested wildly, demanded accountability. Same with other horrors: Discovery of the Concentration camps electrified the world, and the State of Israel was the result.
And this is the reason, Star, that I-and the vast majority of Americans/Westerners- reject completely the oft-stated inanity, ‘Most muslims are lovely people! Hardly ANY of them practice jihad, honor killing, FGM, the execution of homosexuals, the stoning of women!’, and on and on and on (ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad tedium).
No: Muslims are not ‘nice people’, living their lives while turning a blind eye to the horrors perpetrated in the name of their ‘religion’. Instead it is their duty to expose it, and fight it, and stop it from happening. Anything less makes them co-conspirators with ISIS or accessories after the fact.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Dr. Jasser says”
I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up Zuhdi Jasser ever since you claimed the ahamadia to be moderate islam. The SPCL doesn’t have a kind view of Dr. Jasser, and neither do Congressman Keith Ellison or CAIR. In fact, according to islamophobia.org. Zuhdi Jasser is a certified islamophobe.
Regardless how good Dr. Jasser’s intentions may be and what his view of islam is, he has very little to no following among muslims and doesn’t represent any Islamic tradition, no matter how much you might wish to pretend otherwise.
voegelinian says
Re: Stardusty quoting Spencer’s softness on Muslims
Yes, unfortunately Spencer is on record articulating basically the same incoherent mush about Muslims as spouted by Ben Affleck (and George Bush) — which then can be adduced by people like Stardusty to show a logical legitimacy to their PC MC view. It’s a clever move by Stardusty — for the Jihad Watchers are in a dilemma of either defending Spencer’s defense of Muslims in those articulations, or of standing for something substantively more robust and less forgiving (and therefore more vulnerable to “bigotry”). It’s no credit to civilization (you know, the one we’re suppsoed to be fighting for) when Jihad Watchers take the low road and pretend to ignore the dilemma altogether or resort to insubstantial and obfuscating mudslinging of Stardusty on this point.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Alas Star! I fear you are acting in bad faith. There is no point in communicating with you.
Voeg: You nailed it.
There is no solution to the islamic problem which casts the ‘mainstream-muslim’ as a moral human being. None. Of course this is why one gets the rationally-challenged (!?) pronouncements of both Spencer and Jasser…
The violent muslims are commissively evil; the ‘nice muslims’, ommissively so. In a court of law, both groups would be exactly as guilty of murder.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Kathy,
“Lord have mercy Star! Muslim ‘sensitivity training’? Are you entirely lacking any perspective at all?”
Actually, that’s what I wanted to ask about you!
I can see where you would call upon your Lord to have mercy, you seem to have lost all yours.
“Righteous human outrage, and empathy, are at the core of what it means to be human.”
You obviously have the outrage part in spades…the empathy part? Not so much…
“No: Muslims are not ‘nice people’”
Bigoted much?
“they” define “their ‘religion’.”, not you. Go back and re-read the Amendments to our Constitution, its the first one so it will be easy to find.
“it is their duty”
Who appointed you chief in charge of assigning duties to your fellow American citizens? How incredibly pompous of you.
voegelinian says
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
“The violent muslims are commissively evil; the ‘nice muslims’, ommissively so…”
I used to agree with that (along with the similar “some Muslims are jihadist, the rest are ‘dormant’) but I think this presumes too much redeeming un-Islamic behavior & intent on the part of all those Mohammedan minion who currently aren’t stabbing, shooting, or exploding. I have come to connect more of the dots to realize that the Muslims who seem “dormant” or “inert” or “omissive” are doing their part in the overall war for Islam — merely living in the West, planting roots down, being a presence, assimilating (read: infiltrating) plays many useful roles for the jihad. At the very least and broadest level, it reinforces, by a slow and relentless sociological stillicide, the meme of “We’re Here, Get Used To It — and We’re Growing Amongst You”. In many other ways too such an ongoing growing presence can serve to enable the more intrusive jihads which are seamlessly part of the violent jihad at the spearhead of the entire Hijra into the West. Are there, amongst this vast exodus from the Dar-al-Islam into the Dar-al-Harb, a certain, indeterminable number of Muslims who may well be haplessly caught up between two worlds and be suffering the psychological/cultural shock & transition from the slavery of Islam to the freedom of the West? I think it’s reasonable to suppose such do exist. But of what pragmatic use are they to our #1 priority, the safety of our societies from the murderous supremacist expansionism of innumerable co-religionists in which, on the macro level, they are enmeshed so deeply, it would be next to impossible to winnow them out. And why should it be our job and obligation to even try to go through that elaborate, painstaking process of winnowing the putatively harmless Muslims from their dangerously Mohammedan milieu?
On the macro level as distinguished from the micro level, and their relevance to the war Muslims are waging against us:
Micro/Macro
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/06/micromacro.html
Stardusty Psyche says
Angemon says
June 22, 2015 at 7:39 am
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Dr. Jasser says”
Those are the words of Robert Spencer!!!
I know you are a little slow sometimes, Angemon, but please do try to keep up, OK?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcttDHIH7A
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Those are the words of Robert Spencer!!!”
So? You’re the one bringing up Zuhdi Jasser, aren’t you? What I said still stands: the SPCL doesn’t have a kind view of Dr. Jasser, and neither do Congressman Keith Ellison or CAIR. In fact, according to islamophobia.org. Zuhdi Jasser is a certified islamophobe.
Regardless how good Dr. Jasser’s intentions may be and what his view of islam is, he has very little to no following among muslims and doesn’t represent any Islamic tradition, no matter how much you might wish to pretend otherwise.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Those are the words of Robert Spencer!!!”
So? You’re the one bringing up Zuhdi Jasser, aren’t you?
No, I’m not, Robert Spencer was merely addressing Jasser in that conversation. I only included it for context of Spencer’s words.
Spencer is giving you, Kathy, and all the rest of the JW posters a lessen in sensitivity toward Muslims
Robert Spencer said
“… many Muslims obviously don’t want to partake of in their lives because human nature being everywhere the same,…
… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values”
So if Kathy want to accuse somebody of bad faith and declare “Lord have mercy Star! Muslim ‘sensitivity training’?” she should take it up with the Robert Spencer per his words above.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“No, I’m not”
Yes, you are. You’re the one who brought up Zuhdi Jasser. Regardless of how good Dr. Jasser’s intentions may be and what his view of islam is, he has very little to no following among muslims and doesn’t represent any Islamic tradition.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi “Esq.”
“Star: The issue is not, ‘who has the right god’. “If you’re an American, you know that.””
WTF does that even mean? I am an American atheist. The issue of right god has everything to do with it.
If Muslims have the right god then the Qur’an and Mo are the only way to go…’cause god says so and that makes it right.
If Jesus is the guy then Allah is just a bunch of 7th century warlord sickness.
If I and my fellow atheists are right Jesus and Allah are both superstitious nonsense…but not all nonsense is equally dangerous nonsense, Islam being the demonstrably more dangerous nonsense by orders of magnitude.
“If you’re an American, you know that.” is just some more incoherent mumbling from our esteemed “lawyer”
Joseph says
@ Brownstar Poker
Well I can say for a fact that you don’t have the right God.
Do I have to spell it out for you, you Muslim troll?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Joseph,
Surrre, please do, I am a looozzzzyyyy spiller as has been often attested to here!
TheBuffster says
Stardusty said: “Hi Gravenimage, ‘Muhammad cartoons make *Muslims* feel less safe? My God, what crap.’ By their god,not crap. Who has the right god and how do you know?”‘
Buffster: Stardusty, if THE god, as depicted in the Koran, is the “right” god, then the universe is ruled by a vicious, irrational, petty, vain, small, hateful deity who demands of his devotees such a blind and mindless obedience to his unjust and cruel demands – he requires such a ditching of one’s intelligence and reason, such bigotry against and humiliation, enslavement or murder of unbelievers – that if he *is* the “right” god, he is still the wrong god.
I don’t believe in a literal god, but I do believe in the virtue of keeping one’s mind honest, in making a continual effort to grasp reality to the best of one’s ability, in reason, in integrity, in self-responsibility, in dealing with others on a voluntary basis, neither initiating force against them (or their property), nor using fraud against them. I believe in the right of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of his or her values. I believe in living a constructive and benevolent life.
Those are the values that I hold sacred. Those are the values that I worship. No god who embodies their opposites could ever earn my love or adoration. Such a destructive, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-mind, anti-reason god would – even if somehow such a vicious being was responsible for the creation of the universe – would, morally and spiritually, be a devil, a monster.
If a god isn’t made of values that Reason and Benevolence can approve of, then he is the enemy of Mankind and the virtuous human being would have to choose between obeying that god and being true to the objective moral standards required to create a happy life among human beings. Virtuous human beings would have to defy that god and courageously risk his wrath and everlasting damnation in order to earn true self respect and objective goodness. If such a god as Allah *was* for real and *was* god, then it would be the highest mark of objective virtue to be tortured in his hell forever, and the mark of lowest vice to wind up in his Paradise.
So there.
Stardusty Psyche says
So there sez you!!!
“Buffster: Stardusty, if THE god, as depicted in the Koran, is the “right” god, then the universe is ruled by a vicious, irrational, petty, vain, small, hateful deity”
Nooo, yer talkin Yahweh for sure now dude 🙂
gravenimage says
Yet more rot from Stardusty Psyche:
Hi Gravenimage,
“Muhammad cartoons make *Muslims* feel less safe? My God, what crap.”
By their god,not crap.
Who has the right god and how do you know?
………………………………………
Where to start? The term “My God” is used for passionate emphasis by Christians *and* agnostics and atheists.
Is “Stardusty Psyche” implying that it is used in a way similar to that of “Allah Akbar”—that is, as a an expression of the superiority of one’s one conception of God? If so, this is quite false—”My God” is not used in this manner at all.
And his saying “by their god, not crap” is he implying that we should take the view of the appalling “god’ of Islam? If so, then we should do nothing to resist Muslims enslaving and murdering us at all—after all, that would not be sensitive to their view of god.
And his positing that this is about “who has the right god”, this is quite false as well. In the free West—especially in America—no group is allowed to forcibly censor others, nor to threaten or murder them if they do not comply.
Does “Stardusty Psyche” really fail to understand this, or is this merely a rhetorical pose?
More, to Kathy Brown, Esq:
Hi Kathy,
Since the thought of feelin me makes you so squeamish….:-)
Maybe Robert Spencer can provide you with a little Muslim sensitivity training:
Robert Spencer—Dr. Jasser says Muslim parents don’t want their parents to become Imams and there’s a reason for that because Islam does teach a violence and a radicalism at the core, that is embedded in the Qur’an, embedded in the teachings of Muhammad that…
………………………………………
I’m not even sure what he means here—that Muslims develop an antipathy to their parents becoming Imams, but only when they themselves have children? in any case, a Muslim’s *parents* cannot become Imams—only their fathers can. There are no female Imams in Islam.
Besides, this is not borne out—most Muslims respect Imams and other Muslim clerics—the idea that all Muslim parents become critical of Islam could not be more inaccurate. Many pious Muslim parents, in fact, teach their children orthodox Islam (including violent Jihad) from their mother’s knees, including sending them to Madrasses.
The fact is that Zuhdi Jasser is so widely reviled by orthodox Muslims for his rejection of violent Jihad that his Mosque kicked him out, and he has not been able to find *any* Mosque that will let him attend (note: not one that shares all of his views, but just one that will allow him to pray there).
So to present Mr. Jasser as someone who has his finger on the pulse of Muslim views is questionable at best.
More:
… many Muslims obviously don’t want to partake of in their lives because human nature being everywhere the same,…
… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
………………………………………
Human nature may be everywhere the same in the olympian sense, but the idea that the prevailing creed of a society makes no difference in the ideals and actions of the majority of its members could not, of course, be more false.
The idea that the average person living in Nazi Germany or the Islamic State would have goals and morals no different from that of a citizen of a peaceful democracy is simply ludicrous, and easily disproven with the simplest glance at history.
Would he really have us believe that pious Muslims heading off to let their children play with severed heads in Daesh are no different from your decent Infidel neighbors?
More:
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcttDHIH7A
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
………………………………………
The idea that most Muslims embrace Western values is also quite false. I have cited the poll where 80% of Muslims in the United States agree that brutal Shari’ah should be the law of the land in Muslim-majority countries, and a shockingly high percentage of Muslims in the West condone the waging of violent Jihad. Even more agree with death for apostates and the sort of “blasphemers” who would dare produce a cartoon critical of the violence of the “Prophet”.
And finally, the idea that Robert Spencer is in favor of “Muslim sensitivity training” is simply laughable. His main purpose, in fact, is to educate Infidels about the threat of Islam, not prevent them from learning about it in the name of “sensitivity”.
More:
Hi Kathy,
“Lord have mercy Star! Muslim ‘sensitivity training’? Are you entirely lacking any perspective at all?”
Actually, that’s what I wanted to ask about you!
I can see where you would call upon your Lord to have mercy, you seem to have lost all yours.
………………………………………
Grotesque projection. The idea that the very civilized Kathy Brown is ‘merciless’ because she dares to point out Islamic violence is sickening calumny.
More:
“Righteous human outrage, and empathy, are at the core of what it means to be human.”
You obviously have the outrage part in spades…the empathy part? Not so much…
“No: Muslims are not ‘nice people’”
Bigoted much?
“they” define “their ‘religion’.”, not you. Go back and re-read the Amendments to our Constitution, its the first one so it will be easy to find.
………………………………………
True—it is Muslims who define their own religion—and we can see the grim fruits of it in almost daily news of sanguinary Muslim violence.
And there is nothing “bigoted” in noticing this.
And what could be more perverse than implying that a staunch defender of the Constitution—and American lawyer—like Kathy Brown needs to learn about the First Amendment?
More:
“it is their duty”
Who appointed you chief in charge of assigning duties to your fellow American citizens? How incredibly pompous of you.
………………………………………
What utter rot—it is not Kathy Brown who decided that it is considered Muslim duty to act violently in the name of their faith. The fact is that this is covered by Islamic doctrine—the only difference of opinion is whether it is “Fard Kalifa”—that is, covered as long as some members of the Ummah are waging violent Jihad; or “Fard Ayn”—that is, incumbent on every able-bodied Muslim.
The latter holds in times when Muslims are either held to be threatened, or, conversely, when they are poised to make serious conquests. Many Muslims believe that they latter state holds now; some do not. But no pious Muslim rejects this tenet.
And I didn’t invent this tenet—nor more than Kathy Brown did.
What, ultimately, is “Stardusty Psyche’s” purpose here? Just to “throw sand”, as poster Dumbledore’s Army so memorably puts it—in other words, to take any tack possible to try to throw doubt upon or discredit Anti-Jihadists, or to simply distract them from noticing the bloody threat of Islam.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Gravenimage,
“And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
………………………………………
The idea that most Muslims embrace Western values is also quite false”
Tell it to Robert Spencer, those are his words…learn how to read, would you?
I gave you the quote, I gave you the link, I gave you the title, what more do you need?
You seem to think Robert Spencer is a wrong as I am…go figure out what you are even talking about before you open up with your half baked drivel.
Robert Spencer is the one giving you the sensitivity training in his words…wise words, obviously lost on you.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“You seem to think Robert Spencer is a wrong as I am…go figure out what you are even talking about before you open up with your half baked drivel.”
Nah, GI is 100% correct – the idea that most muslims embrace Western values is quite false. Of course, you need to take Robert’s quote out of context to misrepresent it. Also, you tried to accuse Robert of lumping all muslims together but on this particularly case it doesn’t seem to bother you – after all, it’s not making musims look bad (I mean, other than making the point that the only good muslim is a bad muslim).
gravenimage says
You’re quite right, Angemon—”Stardusty Psyche” wants to have it both ways.
And his further assertions that Robert Spencer is flogging “Muslim sensitivity training” is grimly ludicrous.
Notice, also, that he has become steadily ruder and more dismissive, yet still pushes the idea that he is elevating the level of debate here.
And—classic sand throwing—he is doing all he can to deflect from the point of this article, which is false Muslim victim mongering in the face of Muslim threats to Infidels.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Graven: Thank you for your kind words.
Your post is riveting. You seal off all exits, as it were, in exposing the utter infamia which is islam. And you knocked it out of the park when you nailed the motivation behind the obfuscators. Absent any factual/rational basis for their support of islam they do the only thing they can: Distract.
I know for a fact that many, many ‘wavering’ muslims read Pam’s blogs. Thus via your post you go a long way towards freeing the many prisoners of the Religion of Peace.
gravenimage says
Thank you Kathy. Your words mean a great deal to me, especially from someone who knows how to rationally argue a case in a court of law.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“Of course, you need to take Robert’s quote out of context ”
That’s hilarious…spoken like a true Muslim apologist.
Out of context…uh huh, except tore the lead in, the link, and the title as source material and context…
Listen to the video and transcribe then, if you like, I did.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“That’s hilarious…spoken like a true Muslim apologist.”
Your non-denial is noted.
voegelinian says
Red herring season much?
Wellington says
Echoing Angemon, great post (as usual), gravenimage.
Note as well the moral equivalent “thinker,” in his 8:22 P.M. post, is at it again, this time by asking the moronic rhetorical question about the “right god, blah, blah, blah.” Such high (and irrelevant) theory aside, Muslims worldwide, as I know you know, have committed over 26,000 documented terrorist attacks in the name or their religion just since 9/11 while Christians have committed virtually zero terrorist attacks in the name of their religion since 9/11 (or long, long before this). Ditto for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al.
At first I thought StarBoy was just another stupid leftist. While I admit he COULD be this, I have become more inclined to think of him, as PJ and others have asserted, a Muslim apologist. Either way, his posting here is designed to pull down JW. About this I have no doubt at all, even though he has protested to the contrary, actually mendaciously maintaining that he wants to elevate things here at JW, but, of course, I would adamantly maintain that he protests way too much in this regard.
Hope you are doing well, gravenimage. As I mentioned once before, you are the “great dissector.” No one can tear down a bogus argument better than you can. A few as well, but no one better. Stay well, my friend.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Hahahahahahaha! ‘Elevate things’, eh?
Excuse me but I find the postings on the SIOA sites already quite ‘elevated’. I mean, it’s a great relief from the certifiables on the leftist sites where they run on about how wonderful islam REALLY is, which you [filthy kuffirs] would realize if you’d just read the Koran in the original Arabic 50 times, then go to Al Azha University for, oh, about 5 years or so…(!?)
gravenimage says
Thank you for your kind words, Wellington—they mean a great deal to me, coming from you.
And I do agree that “Stardusty Psyche” is quite a bit darker than the average Leftist Muslim apologist, and *much* darker than the well-meaning but clueless purveyor of the hopeful “Islam is a religion of peace” trope.
And I agree with you and Kathy—the idea that his sly attempts to undercut our defending against Muslim savagery are “elevating the conversation” could scarcely be more perverse.
Hope you both are well.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Star: God forbid I should ever ‘feel [you]’. Eeuuyyeww.
RalphB says
Closing line:
“The claim that we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few is a Goebbels-like Big Lie, endlessly repeated, but no less true for all the repetition.”
That would be “no more true” (or “no less false”) — in fact the obsessive repetition is by itself a reliable signal that the even the liar is trying to make himself believe the unbelievable.
Davegreybeard says
But it isn’t really a lie.
You see, all Muslims ARE to blame, aren’t they?
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Yes: You’ve got it!
Davegreybeard says
Excellent analysis and commentary, graven, Wellington, Kathy, Angemon – it’s why I come here, I do appreciate your time and effort. And graven, I second Wellington’s praise of your ability to dissect and make sense of a convoluted taqiyya diatribe – as exemplified by the crap that starboy puts out..
Regarding the innocence of “moderate” Muslims, it has been a slow journey for some of us to reach the conclusion that ALL Muslims are in some way culpable for the increasing atrocities of the few. I find that considering the thing from different angles can sometimes spark a flash of insight.
Such was the case with Kathy’s comparison of the reaction of Catholics to the Church sex scandal vs. Muslim’s virtual silence while atrocities are being committed daily in the name of Islam.
And swami’s comment:
“…In every war there are combat soldiers, and supply people who don’t actually fight, and civilians who support the war effort. It is no different with Islam at war.”
That’s EXACTLY what’s going on! I plan to use that analogy in future conversations with my less informed fellow Infidels.
Steven Coughlin in his book “Catastrophic Failure – Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” puts it another way, he manages to illustrate it very simply in the form of two graphs:
Graph One is a large circle (Islam) with a smaller circle (Extremists) slightly overlapping it. This represents our leader’s current assessment of the enemy. According to current strategy, Extremists might slightly overlap Islam, but they have nothing to do with the “real” Islam. So we should try and “split off” the Extremists from the main body.
Graph Two is a smaller circle (Extremists) in the middle of a larger circle (Islam.) This is the way it really is, with greater Islam creating, incubating and protecting Extremists until they are ready to spring forth in Jihad.
These two graphs really put in clear, stark perspective exactly how doomed to failure our current strategy is.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
David: I too am here because of the fine minds present, of which your comment is evidence:
‘It has been a long journey…to reach the conclusion that all Muslims are in some way culpable’. This is an extraordinarily important truth in re: The muslim issue. I believe that this is evidence of the inherent goodness of the American world view.
See: I see that as an enormous compliment to us, we-the-people. Because it doesn’t mean we’re ‘slow learners’ or stupid. No: Instead it illustrates the great respect we have for the individual’s religious freedom; indeed for the individual, period.
We in the West, prior to 9/11, simply could not conceive of evil so pervasive that it was/is the cornerstone of entire societies. Thus it did indeed take ‘a long journey’ to ‘get’ the islamic world. For some that journey took a REALLY long time: https://youtu.be/7a3QJiP_0Mg
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi “esquire”
“all Muslims are in some way culpable”
What an amazing display of brazen bigotry.
Robert Spencer can set you straight:
“… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcttDHIH7A
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
If you are what you claim to be I would not be surprised to find you soon convicted of prosecutorial misconduct in cases involving American citizens who practice their First Amendment rights as self identifying Muslims.
I would also not be surprised to find that you are nothing more than a fat little troll boy in a basement wishing he was a smart girl so he could finally get laid for the first time in his pathetic life so he made up some fake identity as a female liar and posted it on JW…I’m just sayin’,..I would not be surprised…
Davegreybeard says
I would also not be surprised to find that you are nothing more than a fat little troll boy in a basement wishing he was a smart girl so he could finally get laid for the first time in his pathetic life so he made up some fake identity as a female liar and posted it on JW…I’m just sayin’,..I would not be surprised…
Mirren10 says
The mask is slipping off the face of ‘sp’; he is revealing his true agenda more and more clearly.
Hi “esquire”
“all Muslims are in some way culpable”
What an amazing display of brazen bigotry.
There is no ‘brazen bigotry’ involved, just simple common sense.
Robert Spencer can set you straight”:
“… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values”
All muslims are culpable in the same sense that Germans living in Nazi Germany were morally culpable for Nazi atrocities.
Those Germans who looked the other way, denied the atrocities, or claimed the atrocities were the work of a ‘small minority’ of SS, that Hitler didn’t order the atrocities, the genocide, but was ‘hijacked’ by Himmler, blah blah blah, etc etc.
** Those** Germans may not have personally driven the Jews into gas chambers, but they did nothing to stop those who did, and stood in their millions cheering and sieg heiling when Hitler said he would annihilate world Jewry.
In the same sense, all muslims are morally culpable, because they adhere to the same religion that drives the IS, Saudi Arabia, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab et al. They may not **themselves** behead, crucify, torture, blow themselves up, but by their silence, or denial that these things are intrinsic to islam, they show culpability.
Where are all these millions of ‘moderate’ muslims, marching against IS, Boko Haram etc, shouting at the tops of their voices, not in *my* name ? Nowhere. But they were out in force to attend a conference on supporting/defending the ‘prophet’, and had themselves filmed standing, oh so decorously, in protest at the draw mohammed contest. All Americans, they think, should obey sharia blasphemy laws.
And who are they protecting and defending ? A desert psychopath, who raped, pillaged, tortured and destroyed, beheaded, murdered, married a six year old girl and raped her when she was nine, and kissed the penises of, and sucked on the tongues of, little boys. And made up a whole religion to sacralise his desires.
So yes, all muslims are indeed morally culpable if they insist on revering mohammed.
”Robert Spencer can set you straight”:
“… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
Certainly this is true, many muslims *don’t* want to be bothered with *personally** doing anything to bring about sharia and islamic hegemony over the entire world; but according to surveys, a hefty percentage of them in *America*, never mind anywhere else, would want to live under sharia.
As far as I know, Ibrahim Hooper isn’t out there beheading infidels, and raping little girls, but he has made no secret of the fact he would like the ”government of the US to be islamic, sometime in the future”. In fact, this ‘moderate’ wants sharia.
”And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values”
Again, this is true, many muslims **do** like certain Western values, (apart from freedom of speech, which must be limited in accordance with sharia); I’m sure they love all the goodies the West provides. Does that prevent them from revering the repulsive and evil mohammed ? No, it doesn’t. Does it prevent them from spreading the lie that IS et al are ‘unislamic’ ? No, it doesn’t. And that is why they are *all* culpable.
Notice also ‘sp”s descent from his previously olympian stance, and pretended bonhomie, into peurile adolescent abuse of both Kathy and Graven.
How can you tell when a leftard muslim apologist and /or muslim is losing the argument? He calls you a hateful racist bigot. 🙂
voegelinian says
Stardusty is trying to exploit the incoherent nougat at the center of the Counter-Jihad (viz., Spencer’s “George Bush moment” or Affleckian spasm). However scurrilous and Alinskytish Stardusty is, that nougat — contiquous in its taffy substance with the very same PC MC TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists) with which the Counter-Jihad otherwise (hence incoherently) contends — ain’t gonna go away by pretending it doesn’t exist.
Stardusty Pscyche says
Hi Mirren10,
“all muslims are morally culpable,”
“How can you tell when a leftard muslim apologist and /or muslim is losing the argument? He calls you a hateful racist bigot.”
It’s good to know you are not suggesting I have been thusly identified ans a “leftard muslim apologist” since I did not call you or Kathy “a hateful racist bigot”
I call you both brazen bigots.
Champ says
I see that “StarDumb Pissant” is busy pissing everyone off …
Tick, Tock!!
Mirren10 says
‘sp’ says;
”It’s good to know you are not suggesting I have been thusly identified ans a “leftard muslim apologist” since I did not call you or Kathy “a hateful racist bigot”
I call you both brazen bigots”
This is typical of ‘sp’s track record here; indeed typical of all leftard muslim apologists, muslims, and useful idiots. Ignore the points that have been made, focus on one little thing, and then smugly imply you have won the argument. Like playing chess with a pigeon.
OK, just for ‘sp’.
How can you tell when a leftard muslim apologist and /or muslim is losing the argument? He calls you a brazen bigot. 🙂
Champ says
How can you tell when a leftard muslim apologist and /or muslim is losing the argument? He calls you a brazen bigot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL!! ..good one, Mirren10! 😀
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
” Ignore the points that have been made, ”
I really do so very much apologize for not refuting directly the seemingly endless strings of fallacious, incoherent, and preposterous “points” you and other JW posters make, and I realize my comments provide a desperately needed service of rational analysis here…but, and I truly regret this reality, I only have a limited number of hours in the day I can devote to the cacophony of disjointed rhetoric here at JW…sorry!!!
But, I promise, I will do my best to increase my volume of contributions!
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“my comments provide a desperately needed service of rational analysis here”
Ah, is that why you’ve been caught lying?
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“is that why you’ve been caught lying?”
Your question presupposes facts not in evidence.
In common American English you are asking a “loaded question”.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Your question presupposes facts not in evidence.”
Your non-denial is dully noted.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Angemon,
“is that why you’ve been caught lying?”
Your question presupposes facts not in evidence.
In common American English you are asking a “loaded question”.
I was not lying in the first place, therefore your question is malformed since I cannot be caught doing something I was not in fact doing.
Ho hummm
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“Your question presupposes facts not in evidence.”
You have been caught lying in the past. Facts are facts. Like I said, your non-denial is dully noted.
gravenimage says
Mirren is quite right that “Stardusty Psyche” is further descending into nastiness, first claiming that Muslims live in fear of Kathy Brown attacking them in the street, and now that she is going to be prosecuted for misconduct.
What grotesque calumny.
Notice, also, how he has turned this around, just as in the story above, positing that it is Muslims who are being prevented from being able to practice freedom of expression, rather than Muslims who are threatening and plotting the murder of Infidels who are practicing their freedoms. Just sickening.
The only upside is that “Stardusty Psyche” is further exposing his ugly agenda here—really, like most Muslim apologists, he has been unable to maintain his pose for long after being challenged.
Champ says
“Stardusty Psyche” is further exposing his ugly agenda here—really, like most Muslim apologists, he has been unable to maintain his pose for long after being challenged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely, Graven!
gravenimage says
Brilliant posts from Davegreybeard, Kathy Brown Esq., and Mirren10.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Thank you GI. I so appreciate your compliment.
I am glad, actually, to find here on SIOA posts which illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left.
Now imagine that sort of viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by muslim/lesbian/illegal alien/black ‘professors’ and students. This is done daily-just as ugly, just as foul-mouthed, just as baseless-to young people who can’t go forward in life w/o a high GPA. Yet it is the very ‘professors’ who malign them who have the power to grade them.
One thing I always wondered at is the uncontrollable rage exhibited by the Left. I mean it is off-the-charts. However: I recently spoke with one our priests about this. And Father said, ‘That rage you see is because they know they are wrong, intellectually dishonest. If you are in the right and someone accuses you falsely, you don’t get enraged. You simply deny it and move on.’
Sometimes it’s the simplest explanation which is correct.
Stardusty Psyche says
“esquire” opines…
“Now imagine that sort of viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by muslim/lesbian/illegal alien/black ‘professors’ . This is done daily-just as ugly, just as foul-mouthed, just as baseless-to young people ”
You are attempting to pass yourself off as an attorney for the people…only if the DA in your jurisdiction regularly wets his shirt with tobacco spittle…
“viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by Muslim professors”
Kathy is a religious bigot
“viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by lesbian professors”
Kathy is a homophobic bigot
“viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by illegal alien professors”
Kathy is a xenophobic bigot
“viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by black professors”
Kathy is a racist bigot
gravenimage says
Once again, “Stardusty Psyche”—here, in his vicious calumny against Kathy Brown—is pretending that voluntarily espousing the horrors of Islam is no different than being black or gay or having been born in a foreign country (he further muddies this by referring to illegal aliens, but foreign-born appears to be his main point).
This is, of course, utterly false.
Islam is a creed, and is—thank goodness!—not intrinsic to any human being. That he continues to pretend this is so shows that he is *not* acting in good faith here.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi graven,
Time for another reading lesson little one…
GI-“he further muddies this by referring to illegal aliens, but foreign-born appears to be his main point)”
KB-“Now imagine that sort of viciousness visited upon students in our colleges, by muslim/lesbian/illegal alien/black ‘professors’ and students.”
Now, little GI, please turn your attention to the words of our claimed lawyer “muslim/lesbian/illegal alien/black”
Note, it is Kathy who lumped all these groups together, not your mentor professor Psyche (an honorary title I admit, but appropriate to the teacher/student relationship between me/you).
Now, little graven, from here on out I will expect you to engage your brain before your run your mouth…there’s a good little one.
TheBuffster says
I’m not convinced that *all* Muslims are responsible for the dangers we face. Some Muslims are struggling through a process of losing faith – a process that seldom if ever happens at a snap.
I’ve been reading a *lot* of apostate testimonials lately. I wanted to get as close to a personal inside look at a variety of Muslims’ lives – their family life, what they believe and what they actually know about their religion, and why they leave the religion. I thought that apostates would be the most likely to be honest about the things I wanted to learn, or at least that it would be easier for me to trust their accounts because they’d have more motivation to be objective about Islam and their experience – it takes an honesty of mind to be able to work one’s way out of the Islamic mind-web.
I have no idea of the size of this group or its proportion of the Muslim community – the group of Muslims whose minds are inquisitive, who are bothered by contradictions, and who are vulnerable to evidence against their religion. But the many accounts I have read show that there are a good number of them.
I wouldn’t say that apostates-in-waiting are responsible for helping the jihad, not intentionally, anyway. But they have to go through a process of discovery and painful confrontation of facts that takes time. Pre-apostates are good people who slowly gather evidence against Islam, and eventually, painfully come to the conclusion that the religion of their loved ones is irrational and evil, and that there’s no way to reconcile it with true morality.
But before they start their journey away from Islam, they seem like ordinary Muslims. Just as we don’t know which Muslims are going to go “radical”, and which are supporting the radicals, we don’t know which ones are vulnerable to reason and information, which ones are struggling with what they know about Islam, and which ones don’t know enough about their texts to start struggling yet.
I think that being more aware of this aspect, this portion of the ummah, whoever they may be, and how they go from believer to unbeliever will be helpful to us. I think we benefit from having as comprehensive an understanding of the Muslim landscape as we can get, and I believe apostates have a lot to show us.
Presently I’m reading a book of apostate testimonials, edited by Ibn Warraq, that I recommend called “Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out” http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689
It begins with a history of apostates in Islam, and then offers us the testimonials of ex-Muslims today. It’s a very interesting read that, in my opinion, also offers many opportunities for helpful insights.
Mirren10 says
Hi, Buffster.
Good post. I take your point about what you call ”pre-apostates”, or ”apostates-in-waiting”.
Thanks for the Ibn Warraq title; I shall certainly read it.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
“all muslims are morally culpable,”
Do you really need TheBuffster to point out to you the number of Muslims who leave Islam?
Have you considered the women of Saudi Arabia…do you really think a woman betrothed as a child, living under threat of violence, is somehow “culpable”?
How many more counter examples to “all muslims” would you like me to provide?
I frequently do not go on to the other “points” when I come upon such a brazenly bigoted and absurdly ignorant statement as “all muslims are morally culpable,” After that, I really do not have the time to go line by line discounting your disjointed “arguments”.
gravenimage says
Brilliant posts from Davegreybeard, Kathy Brown Esq., and Mirren10.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Star: Your statements are false, but I should have taken care to note that there are plenty of white tyrannical professors too.
Mirren10 says
‘sp’, in ever more flagrant refusal/inability to comprehend what has been said;
“all muslims are morally culpable,”
Do you really need TheBuffster to point out to you the number of Muslims who leave Islam?”
Apostates have already **rejected** mohammed and islam. They are no longer **muslims**. ‘sp’ is here underlining his own incoherence of thought, and inability to comprehend.
”Have you considered the women of Saudi Arabia…do you really think a woman betrothed as a child, living under threat of violence, is somehow “culpable”?
How many more counter examples to “all muslims” would you like me to provide?”
This is what I said;
”Those Germans who looked the other way, denied the atrocities, or claimed the atrocities were the work of a ‘small minority’ of SS, that Hitler didn’t order the atrocities, the genocide, but was ‘hijacked’ by Himmler, blah blah blah, etc etc.
** Those** Germans may not have personally driven the Jews into gas chambers, but they did nothing to stop those who did, and stood in their millions cheering and sieg heiling when Hitler said he would annihilate world Jewry”
Substitute Germans for muslims.
”Have you considered the women of Saudi Arabia…do you really think a woman betrothed as a child, living under threat of violence, is somehow “culpable”?”
This is what I said;
”So yes, all muslims are indeed morally culpable if they insist on revering mohammed”
‘sp’, like the majority of leftists, labours under the bigotry of low expectations. The horrors enacted upon women in Saudi Arabia do *not* exculpate them from the imperative to think and act morally.
Indeed, there are several articles in the JW archive, which show that *many* Saudi women are fully on board with their own detrimental treatment, and revile, and punish, those who seek to relieve them of it. ‘sp’ should really do some investigations. But that would be hard work. *Much* easier to sneer with no basis.
More from ‘sp’;
”I frequently do not go on to the other “points” when I come upon such a brazenly bigoted and absurdly ignorant statement as “all muslims are morally culpable,” After that, I really do not have the time to go line by line discounting your disjointed “arguments”
This is merely a face saving excuse, one commonly use by the ilk of ‘sp’. He will not ‘discount’ ‘disjointed’ arguments because he asserts a statement is ‘brazenly bigoted’, and ‘absurdly ignorant’. In what passes for his mind, this assertion relieves him of the unpleasant task of answering difficult questions, or refuting arguments he disagrees with.
He must have been ‘taught’ by Juan Cole. 🙂
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
Here is what buffster said
“I’m not convinced that *all* Muslims are responsible for the dangers we face. Some Muslims are struggling through a process of losing faith – a process that seldom if ever happens at a snap. ”
“all muslims are morally culpable,” is simply a stupid, ignorant, and bigoted thing to say, and no lengthy series of red herrings, straw men, and distinctions without differences you are so fond of posting will make “all muslims are morally culpable,” anything other than a stupid, ignorant, and bigoted thing you said.
Buffster provided you with one counter example. If you got your head out of where the sun don’t shine you could come up with more on your own.
Mirren10 says
And *more* deliberate misrepresentation from ‘sp’. Or is he truly this stupid ? Or does he just hope, in the tradition of his ilk, that others won’t read what has actually been written ?
At this point, indeed, after his second or third post, I came to the conclusion this is **deliberate** lying and misrepresentation; no-one can actually be this thick !
‘sp’ says, in reply to Kathy,
”Hi “Esq.”
“Star: The issue is not, ‘who has the right god’. “If you’re an American, you know that.””
WTF does that even mean? I am an American atheist. The issue of right god has everything to do with it.
If Muslims have the right god then the Qur’an and Mo are the only way to go…’cause god says so and that makes it right.
If Jesus is the guy then Allah is just a bunch of 7th century warlord sickness.”
This is what Kathy said;
”Star: The issue is not, ‘who has the right god’. If you’re an American, you know that.
**The issue is muslims’ manipulation of the ‘dialogue’. Invoke ‘feeling unsafe’ and supposedly, presto-change-o, whoever’s the invokee wins first prize” ** (my emphasis: Mirren)
‘sp’ is deliberately twisting Kathy’s point, that muslims constantly pretend victimisation, and the PC/MC fools like ‘sp’ swallow it; into an irrelevant thesis that all believers think their god is the right one.
Notice how, with this deliberate misrepresentation, ‘sp’ avoids the point ?
Does he really think others here will fall for his nonsense ? Probably. The hubris of the left in general, and their contempt for disagreement, is quite amazing.
gravenimage says
Excellent posts, Mirren.
Mirren10 says
Thank you, graven.
I will only add. you are, in the words of Wellington, the dissector par excellence !