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

Jihad Watch

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

Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid slanders Ben Carson, lies about Islam

Oct 4, 2015 4:46 pm By Robert Spencer

Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid is, as Pamela Geller calls him, “a one-man cottage industry of deception and hypocrisy.” He has whitewashed Muhammad’s support for torture and the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive; and lied about Muhammad’s stance toward the persecution of Christians. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but never answers the refutations of his articles on substantive grounds.

Now he is going after Ben Carson — with his usual farrago of lies, half-truths and telling omissions. More below.

Qasim Rashid

“Ben Carson slanders Islam: Here’s exactly why his claims about Muslims are dead wrong,” by Qasim Rashid, Salon, October 4, 2015:

In his recent anti-Muslim crusade, Ben Carson promoted a disturbing form of religious segregation, claiming that a Muslim should only be president if he or she “renounces the tenets of Islam.”…

Does Qasim Rashid not know what the word “segregation” means, or does he just hope that his readers don’t? Carson is not advocating that Muslims be set apart from others in the U.S. He is simply pointing out that there are elements of Sharia that are incompatible with American law, which is manifestly true. Rashid is using the incendiary term “segregation” in order to try to link Carson’s truthful words about Sharia with racism, which for a Leftist is the easiest way to win an argument.

In the process, Dr. Carson has helped promote and sustain frighteningly high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment. A recent PPP survey in North Carolina reported that 72 percent believe a Muslim should not be allowed to be president of the United States. Likewise, 40 percent seek to ban Islam altogether.

Ben Carson “has helped promote and sustain frighteningly high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment”? He has risen sharply in the polls, but still, Rashid is giving him far too much credit. Neither Ben Carson nor any of those whom Rashid defames as “Islamophobes” are famous enough or popular enough to help “promote and sustain frighteningly high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment.” If there are “frighteningly high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment,” it is because of the seemingly endless procession of Muslims raping and brutalizing and killing people and pointing to Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions. But Rashid is in the business of trying to fool you into overlooking that and blaming people like Carson instead. Rashid would have you believe that Carson and others like him are responsible for people linking Islam with terrorism, because he wants you not to notice the many Muslims who link Islam with terrorism.

Under Dr. Carson’s crusade of religious segregation, some Americans appear to have forgotten the First Amendment’s fundamental religious freedom guarantee, and likewise Article VI of the Constitution, which forbids religious tests for any government office. Like his racial segregationist predecessors, Dr. Carson demonstrates that the Constitution is suddenly meaningless when influential politicians use fear and hate to advance their agenda.

In reality, Carson didn’t say that Muslims should not be allowed to hold elected office in the U.S. That would have been a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of religious tests. He just said that it would be ill-advised for Americans to elect a Muslim President, because of the elements of Sharia that contradict the Constitution. Instead of addressing what Carson actually said about the Sharia, Rashid resorted to the ever-ready resort of Islamic supremacists, smearing Carson as spreading “fear and hate.” In reality, it is Rashid who is spreading fear and hate by making these reckless charges against Carson, and refusing to address his legitimate concerns.

Undeterred from his myopic comments on CNN and the resulting blowback last week, Carson advanced his religious segregationist views in a recent email to his constituents, claiming that “Under Shariah law, women must be subservient and people following other religions must be killed.”

Saudi Arabia and Iran are Sharia states. In them, women must indeed be subservient. In fact, everywhere that Sharia is obeyed, women must be subservient. Rashid would have you believe that none of this is real Sharia — that it has been universally misunderstood and misapplied. He reminds me of a doctrinaire Marxist I knew in college, who when confronted with the millions of murders of Communist regimes, denied they were really Communist and claimed that real Communism had not yet been seen. A easy way to avoid inconvenient facts.

Meanwhile, I don’t know if Carson really said that in Sharia states, “people following other religions must be killed,” and don’t trust an inveterate serial liar like Qasim Rashid to report his words accurately. In any case, it isn’t true. If, on the other hand, Carson was referring to those who leave Islam, Sharia does mandate death for apostates. And nowhere in any Muslim country today do non-Muslims enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims. At very least, proselytizing for other religions is forbidden, while Muslim proselytizing proceeds unfettered.

Dr. Carson defends these claims by arguing that he “hate[s] political correctness. It’s dangerous.” More dangerous, however, are his patently false claims about women in Islam, and Islam’s view of non-Muslims. If Dr. Carson is correct—and unfortunately his rising poll figures indicate that enough Americans believe he is correct—then America’s 3 million Muslims are obliged to make America’s 170 million women subservient and likewise kill the nation’s 330 million non-Muslims. Both concepts are beyond absurd and wholly unfounded in Islam.

This is a ridiculous straw-man hash of Carson’s statement. He was speaking about Muslim women being subservient in Sharia-observant Muslim households and societies, not about some imperative for Muslim men to work to bring non-Muslim women into subservient status. But it is easier for Rashid to twist and dismiss Carson’s words than to refute what he actually said.

For example, far from Dr. Carson’s claim that in Islam women are subservient, Islam gave women equal rights in 610 that our own United States haven’t given even in 2015. To this day America has not passed the Equal Rights Amendment. Meanwhile the Quran 33:36 emphatically declares the equality of men and women:

“Surely, men who submit themselves to God and women who submit themselves to Him…God has prepared for all of them forgiveness and a great reward.”

One wonders if Rashid himself believes this. If Islam gave women equal rights in 610, why is there not a single Muslim country, much less Sharia states, in which women enjoy this full legal equality? And as for Qur’an 33:36, Rashid says nothing about Qur’an 4:34: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other…” His claim that in Islam men and women are equal is also belied by the fact that the Qur’an allows men to have as many as four wives, as well as sex slaves (4:3; 4:24) and to beat women from whom they fear disobedience (4:34). It also mandates an inequality in inheritance rights: “Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females….” (4:11) And it devalues women’s testimony: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” (2:282)

Carson’s parents divorced when he was 8—a right American women didn’t have until the 19th century. Meanwhile, Islam was the first religion to give women the right to choose to marry or to divorce, the right to own property, to become secular or religious scholars, the right to inherit, or to run a business—all in the 7th century.

Once again, one wonders why, if Rashid is being truthful, so many Muslim countries that profess to follow Sharia scrupulously misunderstand it so spectacularly. If Muslim women have had the right to choose to marry or divorce since the seventh century, why is asking for a divorce a difficult process that often results in ostracism and penury for Muslim women to this day, while Muslim men can divorce their wives with a single word (“talaq“)? Why are arranged and forced marriages still so commonplace, even among Muslim immigrants in the West, to the extent that even the dhimmi British have made some feeble attempts to forbid forced marriage?

Ayesha, wife of Muhammad, is recognized as one of the foremost legal scholars in Islamic history. Meanwhile, American women finally earn legal recognition as lawyers in the late 1800s. While women of color in 2015 America continue to lag behind white women in terms of college graduation rates and access to financial resources, Fatimah al-Fihri, an African Muslim woman scholar, used her inheritance from her father to establish the world’s first University, al-Qarawiyyin University in 859 C.E.

Prophet Muhammad repeatedly declared, “It is incumbent upon every Muslim male and every Muslim female to attain education.”

So once again it must be asked: if all this was established as long ago as the time of Aisha and the ninth century, why did so many Muslims forget it — especially among the scrupulously Sharia-observant? The Taliban torch girls’ schools and shoot girls who get an education, because they believe it un-Islamic to educate females. Are they all followers of Ben Carson? Or might there be more to Islamic teaching about women than Rashid is telling us?

Dr. Carson’s second claim, that Shariah requires killing people of other faiths, is highly objectionable to both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. In truth, the Qur’an only permits fighting in self-defense, or to protect “churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques” from attack. Prophet Muhammad issued numerous charters with Christians, Jews, and pagans to affirm his commitment to universal religious freedom and equal human rights for all people regardless of faith. Throughout history non-Muslim historians have praised Muhammad for his pluralism and tolerance….

“Narrated Aisha and Abdullah bin Abbas: When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, ‘May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.’ The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.” (Bukhari 1.8.427)

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: ‘I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.'” (Muslim 4366)

One day, maybe Qasim Rashid will confront hadiths such as those and explain them, rather than relying on his readers’ ignorance of their existence. But as he smears this good man Ben Carson, he demonstrates yet again the difference between genuine reform of Islam, which has nothing to do with Qasim Rashid, and cynical deception of unbelievers in order to promote their complacency, which is Qasim Rashid’s business.

His new book is apparently called “Talk to Me.” But he only wants sycophants and fools to talk to him. Anyone who dares to disagree with them he will hector and ridicule, hoping that his followers won’t notice that their emperor has no clothes.

Share this:

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

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Ahmadis, Featured, War is deceit Tagged With: Ben Carson, Qasim Rashid


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. DeMolay says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    Ok so this isn’t a mature point – but he’s got one of those smug faces you just want to slap!
    On another note, how many women politicians in Islamic countries have a chance of becoming leader? Any?

    • Diana says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      Benazir Bhutto, eleventh Prime Minister of Pakistan.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

      She is probably an exception.

      She lived a very long time after Boudicca became Queen of the Iceni (a British tribe) and led her troops to victory against the Roman invaders.

    • Azacque says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 11:27 pm

      Can I give him a cuff or two, too?

    • Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 2:36 am

      Backpfeifengesicht, face à claque, 欠揍 (Qian Zou).
      Source: http://betterthanenglish.com/backpfeifengeseicht-german/

    • Lia Wissing says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 5:14 am

      Stick to the untruth Mr muslim: it’s the only argument you can raise.

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 6, 2015 at 9:18 am

      DeMolay, he has what my husband refers to as ” an eminently kickable face”. 🙂

  2. Don Foss says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    “…religious segregation.” Oh..anything like Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, Mr, Rashid?

  3. DeMolay says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Ok so this isn’t a mature point – but he’s got one of those smug faces you just want to slap!
    On another note, how many women politicians in Islamic countries have a chance of becoming leader? Any?

    Robert, any chance you can get this guy onto a TV debate and expose his misleading lies ?

    • DeMolay says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 4:09 am

      Sorry for repeating myself – my first post didn’t seem to go.

  4. Angemon says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    Phew, good to know that Rashid is on the case – what would he do otherwise, address the persecution ahmadi suffer in muslim countries? Of course not. Priorities, priorities…

  5. cs says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    There is a fierce debate going on there, I believe you are requested to do a counter-jihad over there.

  6. Beagle says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    “In reality, Carson didn’t say that Muslims should not be allowed to hold elected office in the U.S. That would have been a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of religious tests.”
    — —
    Carson saying no Muslim should hold elective office would not violate the Constitution. The operative word is “saying”.

    Writing a statute precluding Muslim office holders would constitute a religious test and be found unconstitutional.

    The Constitution limits government power, not opinion.

  7. KrazyKafir says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    It’s good Robert write these articles, and dissects the lies, it is good instruction for people like Mr. Carson to read.

  8. BlueRaven says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    There is a common thread among all Muslims – lie by the truck lode. You can talk to a Pakistani/Afghani/Turk/Iraqi ….

    There is a common thread among all Muslims – they follow the same directives written in the Quran;

    The source of the common thread is Quran – that approves lying to the non-Muslims.

  9. Dave J says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Weasel.

    But he chose his hot button words well: “segregation” , “fear and hate”, etc.

    BTW, Dr. Carson was expressing his personal opinion, which any fair-minded person with some knowledge of the Koran would agree with. But holding such personal opinions is on the way to being banned in America.

  10. Westman says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Dear Qasim Rashid,

    The way majority-Muslim countries administer Sharia thunders so loudly in the American ear that your feeble voice sounds like pure propaganda. If Ben Carson had said nothing, the attitude of Americans toward Islam would be exactly the same and increasing.

    If you can’t figure out that Islam Ideology has no future in America then you haven’t been paying attention. Cry foul as much as you please; the foul smell is coming from Islam’s most adherent members.

    • Westman says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 10:20 pm

      And about the inferior staus of women in Islam:

      In the West a boy is considered to be a man when he assumes responsibility and no longer needs his mother to supervise him.

      In Islam a boy becomes a man when he begins supervising his mother to do his responsible work.

  11. Ima Freeman says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t mohammed’s prophetic career (ie, islam) begin in 622, 12 years after Rashid claims that islam gave equal rights to women?

    Ima

    • Robert Spencer says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      Muhammad’s prophetic career began in 610. The Hijrah was in 622.

    • Diana says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 11:32 pm

      Besides, Khadija owned a business twenty years before 610, so how did Islam “give women the right to run a business”? It was standard in pre-Islamic Arabia, and it seems to have been standard a thousand years earlier in ancient Greece and Rome.

      It was also standard in mediaeval Europe. What’s a baxter? A female baker. What’s a brewster? A female brewer. What’s a webster? A female weaver. The existence of such surnames (which are old rather than middle English) proves that Englishwomen ran businesses without help from men. This culture existed a hundred years before Muhammad and it continued for many centuries afterwards.

      • Jay Boo says

        Oct 6, 2015 at 9:45 am

        Khadija traded ‘goods’
        Would that mean her name was in reference to a sex-slave brother madam?

        How else would a woman of that time become wealthy?

  12. nacazo says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    I do not advocate electing a nazi to the presidency of the United States?

    Am I saying a nazi cannot run for president? No.

    Am I being a bigot against German-Americans? No

    I’m just saying some ideologies are so bad (sharia, jihad, nazism for example) that electing a president who supports them is a bad idea and I wouldn’t advocate it.

    • Judi says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 6:44 pm

      Well I’m sure, given the chance, your current Liar-in-Chief would like to see more laws passed that are more in keeping with islam than with the American Constitution.

  13. Reuben Scratton says

    Oct 4, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Re. Quran 33:36, Rashid claims it “emphatically declares the equality of men and women”.

    Er, how?

    I’ve just read it several times and can’t see that it declares any such thing.

    • Diana says

      Oct 4, 2015 at 11:26 pm

      It gives equal rights in the post-mortal career, i.e., women can also go to Paradise. Most religions give equal post-mortal rights, so Islam is in no way the first.

      Muhammad only produced this prophecy because one of his wives complained that he never talked about women’s rights.

      • Huck Folder says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 1:33 am

        But aren’t the majority of sojourners
        in hell women, according to mo?

        And Iblis is male, nu?
        So do they all wear asbestos
        burkas and undies, in the stifling heat?
        Can’t be seen in public indecently exposed.
        Might rouse the demons, nearly as ugly as mo.

        Then the ladies would be violently deflowered,
        only to instantly rehymenate (?) – and repeat –
        72 times per hour.

        What says the good book on that?

      • Angemon says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 2:36 pm

        Diana posted:

        “It gives equal rights in the post-mortal career, i.e., women can also go to Paradise. ”

        Yes – if they’re good women. What are good women? According to quran 4:34 they’re “devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard”. Do good women get 72 male virgins in Paradise? No, they get to compete with their husband’s attention with those 72 big-breasted, eternal virgins (although that might actually be preferable to spending eternity with 72 male virgins).

        • dajjal says

          Oct 6, 2015 at 1:41 am

          She gets a horny husband with perpetual priapism, up to 71 sister wives, fine fabrics, rich jewels, all the wine she can drink and all the food she can eat.

          The two houris eat and drink without excreting and grow new hymens. What happens when they get full? The supernumerary wives are Jewish and Christian women taken from the fire.

          The majority of the dwellers of the fire are women.

  14. Angela says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:40 am

    Oh My God …. Pure evil. I have nothing but contempt for these apologists for ISS lam

    I am in Australia, after the shooting of an unarmed civilian, on the streets of Parramatta, A family man, going about his daily life, when one of Rashids “misunderstood” musloids, shoots this peaceful soul…dead.
    Then the savage does a victory dance of joy….
    Unspeakably savage.

    The worst part of this is the flaming rhetoric the media is spinning on this.

    I cant believe how the leftist marxists can lie & twist facts while they goose step their way to destruction… Im dumbfounded.

    God help us all.

  15. dsinc says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 2:04 am

    Qasim Rashid, an Ahmadi, should keep a low profile and his mouth shut because. should some of the real Muslim’s he is covering for ever get hold of him, his life could be in danger.

    http://blog.nabeelqureshi.com/2011/06/ahmadiyya-and-islam-are-ahmadis-muslims.html

    • RonaldB says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 8:27 am

      The Amadiyyas are perfectly aware that if Islam should attain supremacy, they would likely be killed.

      In Islam, any Muslim is expendable. The Amadiyyas serve the function of a “wedge”: they display themselves as an example that Muslims can be peaceful. They are useful generally when Muslims are a small minority, and need to import more Muslims to attain political influence. The Ismaili Muslims also serve this function.

      Once the Muslim population attains a critical proportion sufficient to protect itself politically, the Ahmadiyyas can be pruned away, as is happening in Pakistan right now.

      Why would the Ahmadiyyas participate in their own genocide: they are Muslims, and the primary duty of Islam is to sacrifice yourself for the spread of Islam.

  16. Nilnabh says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 2:28 am

    Don’t get taken in by the propaganda about ahmadis being moderate Muslims. They were one of the primary factors behind the partition of India along with the British supremacists.

    • RonaldB says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 8:28 am

      Actually, it could be argued that the separation of most Muslims from India proved a great boon to freedom and progress in India. So, actually, that’s a plus for the Ahmadiyyas.

  17. dajjal says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 4:43 am

    On killing infidels: QV 9.5 kill them weherever you find them. 9.29 & 6.123 demand war against us, nearest first.

    Relinace o9.9: pagan Arabs must be converted or killed.
    Hedaya 2.216: disbelief is an evil to be removed by death or Islam.
    Hedaya 2.212 Jizya is a species of punishment for infidelity; a payment in lieu of destruction.

    Carson did not say it, had he said it, he’d have been correct.

    • RonaldB says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 8:30 am

      Correct.

      Dhimmitude was available to Jews and Christians and possibly Zoroastrians.

      All other theists and non-theists had only the choice to convert or die.

      • dajjal says

        Oct 5, 2015 at 7:55 pm

        True, but there were so many Buddhists & Hindoos in India that the Muslims ran out of time and patience for exterminating them and let some live.

  18. islam :- the hateful religion of peace says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 6:15 am

    Here’s the thing, I don’t think we have to worry about a muslim POTUS, they are making such a dogs dinner of trying to look like they can run the place, and be the religion of peace, and they do have to the truth of Muhammad …..

    Muhammad: –
    Stoned women for adultery. (Muslim 4206) –
    Permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764) –
    Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857) –
    Owned and traded slaves. (Sahih Muslim 3901) –
    Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys. (Sahih Muslim 4390) –
    Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241) –
    If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you,Transgress ye likewise against him (Qur’an 2:194) –
    Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur’an 33:50) –
    Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236) –
    Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur’an 4:24) –
    Ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995) –
    Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764) –
    Advocated crucifying others. (Qur’an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131) –
    Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute.

    Jesus: –
    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (about adultery).” (John 8:7) –
    “Thou shalt not steal.” (Matthew 19:18) –
    “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” (Matthew 19:18) –
    Neither owned nor traded slaves. – Beheaded no one. – Preached forgiveness. (Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38) –
    “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”(Matthew 5:39) –
    Was celibate. –
    Did not have sex with children. –
    Never harmed a woman. –
    Never encouraged rape.
    Never enslaved women. –
    Suffered torture, but never tortured anyone. –
    Was crucified himself. –
    Demanded nothing for himself.
    Died without possessions.

    You know this is a tall order to convince the voters, they can’t win either way, they’re either dangerous or they’re lying, people like Robert & Pamella & Charlie Hebo & CAIR and others are starting to expose the journalists, the politicans, the actors, that they are all getting it wrong…..

    How could you explain the above (Muhammad’s exploits) when it is “as it is written” (so therefore it must be true) and not be a liar ….

    You really have to stay on a straight line in order run for any election in USA … 🙂

  19. Philip says

    Oct 5, 2015 at 6:21 am

    OMG! We have a community of these Ahmadis down the road from us here in the UK. They’re supposes to be Moslem heretics… This guy sounds downright nasty and dangerous. We have an increasing number of Moslem headscarves in the English community where I live. I tend to see their wearers with a nice neat bullet hole in the forehead… Better than seeing them with a bomb around the waist… Once a Moslem, always a Moslem… Bang, bang. We have a permanent presence in this area of police Armed Response Units (in the UK ordinary police don’t carry guns so we have specially trained armed police teams ready to respond to incidents involving firearms). Don’t know whether its to protect the Ahmadis from being attacked by other Moslems, or to prevent the Ahmadis from turning into Jihadis…

    • RonaldB says

      Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 am

      “Don’t know whether its to protect the Ahmadis from being attacked by other Moslems, or to prevent the Ahmadis from turning into Jihadis…”

      Let me take a guess.

      The Ahmadiyyas are pretty consistently peaceful themselves. Their function is to prepare the ground for the importation of more Muslims, and to counter assertions that Muslim, by their nature and theology, are prone to violence. Therefore, the presence of Ahmadiyyas does not in itself constitute a physical threat. But, they are likely to attract other Muslims, which most definitely present a physical threat.

  20. Willie Braun says

    Oct 6, 2015 at 12:45 am

    What the hell was the point of this article…What I saw was..”In today’s news, a muck lies and slanders….And tomorrow, we will have weather.” That’s not news. Now, if you caught oterrorist telling the truth, THAT would be news.

  21. Adam says

    Oct 6, 2015 at 8:59 am

    Ahmadi Muslims have a heretical view of Islam. Ahmadis don’t speak for the majority of Muslims because most Muslims view them as heretics. Its like trusting a Jehovah’s Witnesses view of Christianity.

  22. Jay Boo says

    Oct 6, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Demagogues of duplicity, thy name is Muslim.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

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

Please wait...

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

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

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

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

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

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

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

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Meena on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with

Popular Categories

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

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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