• 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

Robert Spencer in Front Page: 51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia

Oct 16, 2015 10:12 pm By Robert Spencer

What could possibly go wrong? My piece today in FrontPage:

lashing2

Lost in the controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks on Sharia and a Muslim President was the fact that a recent poll bears out his concerns.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported during the Carson brouhaha that “Muslims living in the U.S….just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” He also noted “the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

Many key Muslim leaders in the U.S. have said the same thing. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” So said the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, back in 1998. He has since denied saying this, but the original reporter stands by her story.

Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Another prominent Muslim leader in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj, said back in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Younger Muslims have expressed the same sentiments. “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” That was Muhammad Faheed, a young Muslim leader at a Muslim Students Association meeting at Queensborough Community College in 2003.

Some may object that none of these quotes are newer than twelve years old. One wonders, then, what transformation in Islam in the United States has taken place over the last twelve years to make it likely that these men have changed their views.

Others may suggest that these men don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims. If that is so, however, then where is the Muslim group that equals the power and influence of Hamas-linked CAIR while eschewing jihad violence, Islamic supremacism, and any desire to impose Sharia in the United States now or in the future? Where is the Muslim student group that rivals the Muslim Students Association in the number of campuses on which it has chapters (the MSA has hundreds, all over the country) while rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law, such as its denial of the freedom of speech and of the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims?

And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Sperry also quotes the Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, has said: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time….What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

Really, what did you expect? Islam has been supremacist, authoritarian, and expansionist since its inception. U.S. Muslims are not from some sect that rejects all that. Yet a considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history.

But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

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: Featured, Sharia, United States Tagged With: Ibrahim Hooper, Muzammil Siddiqi, Omar Ahmad


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. gravenimage says

    Oct 16, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    Robert Spencer in Front Page: 51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia
    ………………………….

    And yet, a poster here yesterday on this same story was opining that these Muslims probably just wanted to follow “the straight path” (this is what “Shari’a” translates to)–implying that Shari’ah has nothing to so with the savagery of Islamic law. Dream on…

    And this is not just in the United States–a majority of Muslims in every nation in the West wants the imposition of Shari’ah law, as well: 60% in Britain, 62% in Canada, 65% in most of Europe.

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Shariah

    Very disturbing–but knowing Islam, this should not surprise.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 9:06 am

      … these Moslems probably just wanted to follow “the straight path” (this is what “Shari’a” translates to)

      Which is of central importance because the concept of the straight path appears in the very first verse of the Holy Ko-Ran. Islam is quintessentially a corrective belief system, and justifies subjugation and mass murder by the command of Allah to do that to those who have mistakenly strayed from the path dictated by his commands. Thus the slogan Allahu Akbar, “Our God is greater (than your God)”.

      This was fundamental was not factored into the calculations done by Prez Barack Hussein, Secretary War Coward John and next-Prez Hildebeast when they accorded nuclear-tipped missiles to the Supreme Leader.

      • Shane says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 10:24 am

        We need to publize this information so that the average clueless American who thinks that Islam is no worse than any other religion will wake up. This is another good reason why the USA should stop all muslim immigration and stop taking Muslim refugees. Muslims make the worst possible immigrants in that they will always be loyal to Islam first and they will never assimilate. Many European countries are having great problems with their violent, criminal, angry and barbaric Muslim population!

        Muslim Rape Gangs in Britain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0YEtuacUk
        Muslims committing 95% of rapes against Norwegian women:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCdc8vQTQVw
        Welcome to Sweden of Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlG75wb7lLw

    • PRCS says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      Don’t be bashful, GI, it was me.

      So, let me repost the link and the post from yesterday for the benefit of others.

      From the Understanding Islam website (http://www.whyislam.org/faqs/understanding-shariah/):

      “Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.”

      That’s what at least some Muslims believe Shari’ah to be; some of whom might actually have even been the poll’s respondents.

      RS notes a distinction in today’s post as well: “rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law,”

      Here’s what Sperry stated:

      “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law”

      The poll asked if: “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah”, leaving the typical, uninformed citizen unaware that at least some Muslims’ understand Shari’ah differently than does Sperry.

      BareNakedIslam declared: “POLL: More than 50% of Muslims in America want to live under barbaric sharia law”

      The poll’s poorly designed question and resultant misleading conclusion, and it’s various interpretations by pundits wrongly leads the public to believe that Muslims in American may freely reject those of Islam’s teachings, commands, and expectations with which they disagree.

      As others here have rightly noted, Muslims who do that are apostates.

      But the public would not know that from the poll.

      Do please note: I am adamantly opposed to parallel legal systems here.

      My concern is the nature of the poll, it’s conclusion and it’s interpretation by others, and how misinformed our fellow citizens remain as a result.

      Some might argue with my own conclusions, but I believe I’ve done my homework.

      • gravenimage says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 4:40 pm

        PRCS wrote:

        Don’t be bashful, GI, it was me.
        ……………………….

        I wasn’t trying to be ‘bashful’, PRCS–I reply to a lot of posts here, and I could not recall off the top of my head who had made these comments.

        I did a bit more poking around and found the original thread and our exchange, beginning with your post here:

        “51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.”

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/51-of-u-s-muslims-want-sharia-60-of-young-muslims-more-loyal-to-islam-than-to-u-s/comment-page-1#comment-1309819

        More:

        So, let me repost the link and the post from yesterday for the benefit of others.

        From the Understanding Islam website (http://www.whyislam.org/faqs/understanding-shariah/):

        “Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.”

        That’s what at least some Muslims believe Shari’ah to be; some of whom might actually have even been the poll’s respondents.
        ……………………….

        PRCS, you may not be aware that “Why Islam” is a particularly nasty Da’wa site. I ran into them some years ago; their materials appear benign and reasonable, but with a bit more probing the spokesman, once he realized that I understood more than the average Infidel about Islam, admitted the inferior status of women in Islam and that the role of “Isa” (the Muslim “Jesus”) in the last days is to kill Christians. Ugly, ugly stuff.

        Jihad Watch itself has covered stories about this sinister group, backed by the Islamic Circle of North America:

        “Detroit News lauds billboards touting Islam without mentioning sponsoring group’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood”

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/detroit-news-lauds-billboards-touting-islam-without-mentioning-sponsoring-groups-ties-to-muslim-brotherhood

        The same site you link to says “The Shariah in its entirety is justice, mercy and benefit”–since it refers to the *entirety* of Shari’ah, this perforce must also refer to amputating the limbs of petty thieves and stoning rape victims to death.

        It also says that Shari’ah “preserves basic human rights”. Given the horror of Shari’ah law wherever it is applied, is this *really* something you can agree with?

        More:

        RS notes a distinction in today’s post as well: “rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law,”

        Here’s what Sperry stated:

        “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law”
        ……………………….

        PRCS, do you really believe that all of the supremacist statements cited by Robert Spencer in the article above are really just all about Muslims fasting or praying?

        More:

        Do please note: I am adamantly opposed to parallel legal systems here.

        My concern is the nature of the poll, it’s conclusion and it’s interpretation by others, and how misinformed our fellow citizens remain as a result.

        Some might argue with my own conclusions, but I believe I’ve done my homework.
        ……………………….

        I’m glad you are opposed to what you rather blandly characterize as “parallel legal systems”. But are you aware that “Why Islam” falsely claims that the brutality of Shari’ah law “has much in common” with the American Constitution? This is a frequent false claim made by Taqiyya-spewing Muslims.

        I always read your posts with interest, PRCS. With all respect, though, I don’t believe that insisting that the Muslim view of the oppressive and sanguinary horror of Shari’ah law–the imposition of which is the goal of all violent Jihad–is actually perfectly benign is either accurate or in any way helpful in our defending ourselves against Islam.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 9:42 pm

          PRCS, you may not be aware that “Why Islam” is a particularly nasty Da’wa site.

          Yes, I am aware.

          Do you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?

          I wonder how many Muslim women in America think wife beating is a good thing?

          I imagine the Said sisters had a different view of Shari’ah than Anjem Choudary.

          Ditto Noor Amaleki’s understanding vs her father’s.

          I wonder what Huma Abedin’s understanding of Shari’ah is.

          I don’t know if Irshad Manji is just a lying idiot.

          Of course, not every aspect of Shari’ah violates U.S. law.

          Foot washing comes to mind. Praying. Fasting. Wiping one’s backside with the left hand (who checks that?)

          Asserting what an individual as a member of a group of people DOES or HAS to believe with 100% certainty does not work out well.

          Do you remember the brother and sister from “All American Muslims” who went to the tattoo parlor?

          As it IS open to interpretation, had I been tasked with creating the poll’s questions I would not have addressed Shair’ah–asking instead:

          1) Which specific “divine punishments” do you believe should be implemented here that would violate U.S. law?

          And for those who provide examples:

          2) Do you advocate the imposition of such punishments upon yourself, too?

          There are many methodologies which could have been used, but the one chosen did nothing to educate our “unbelieving” friends and neighbors.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 9:54 pm

          I’m glad you are opposed to what you rather blandly characterize as “parallel legal systems”.

          Like polygamy; no matter who’s practicing it.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 12:41 am

          Thanks for the reply, PRCS.

          You wrote:

          PRCS, you may not be aware that “Why Islam” is a particularly nasty Da’wa site.

          Yes, I am aware.
          …………………………..

          In that case–with respect–I’m not entirely sure why you are citing them for the truth on Shari’ah.

          More:

          Do you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?
          …………………………..

          I believe their assertion that Shari’ah does not conflict with the Constitution to be a deliberate falsehood–used, as it always is, to whitewash Shari’ah and lull Americans into a false sense of security.

          I don’t believe there is any reason to think that those behind this well-funded Da’wa group are in some way naive about their own faith.

          And most Islamic groups don’t even bother with Taqiyya–outfits like Shari4UK are *quite* upfront about what Shari’ah actually means.

          More:

          I wonder how many Muslim women in America think wife beating is a good thing?
          …………………………..

          More than you might think–Muslimahs often enforce Islam on other women–one need only look at “religious police” in Dar-al-Islam or at women who enable “Honor Killings” here.

          But even if all Muslim women opposed wife beating, this is not going to remove Sura 4:34 from the Qur’an, nor is it going to remove the allowance of wife beating from the practice of Shari’ah law.

          More:

          I imagine the Said sisters had a different view of Shari’ah than Anjem Choudary.

          Ditto Noor Amaleki’s understanding vs her father’s.
          …………………………..

          Perhaps these poor girls, rather than having a sanitized view of Shari’ah, preferred not to live under Shari’ah law at all? Certainly, they resisted aspects of Islamic law, or they would not run afoul of their homicidal fathers as they did.

          But in any case, your implication that Muslims simply have widely varying interpretations of Shari’ah, I’m afraid, doesn’t hold water–because these girls were *murdered* for not adhering to Islamic diktats.

          If those who flout orthodox interpretations of Shari’ah are simply butchered, then how can this lead us to believe that Shari’ah is benign? It would seem, instead, that these examples rather tend to prove that it *is not*.

          More:

          I wonder what Huma Abedin’s understanding of Shari’ah is.
          …………………………..

          Huma Abedin has troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–who rather famously do *not* have a benign interpretation of Shari’ah law.

          More:

          I don’t know if Irshad Manji is just a lying idiot.
          …………………………..

          Even assuming that Irshad Manji is completely sincere, it must be noted that she is regularly threatened with death by orthodox Muslims. The fact is that this “reformer” has virtually *no* influence with Muslims themselves–instead, she is trotted out to whitewash Islam *to Infidels*. One can say much the same of Zuhdi Jasser.

          The pair of these figures–there are virtually no others–do nothing, I’m afraid, to influence the reality of Shari’ah law as practiced.

          More:

          Of course, not every aspect of Shari’ah violates U.S. law.

          Foot washing comes to mind. Praying. Fasting. Wiping one’s backside with the left hand (who checks that?)
          …………………………..

          Of course, this is true. And with the possible exception of a small amount of personal disgust over the latter, no Anti-Jihadist has the least problem with the above–so long as it is a *private matter*.

          Alas, little in Islam is private. Libya, the Islamic State, and Iran have all flogged victims for violating the Ramadan fast–all on the basis of Shari’ah law.

          More:

          Asserting what an individual as a member of a group of people DOES or HAS to believe with 100% certainty does not work out well.
          …………………………..

          It especially does not work out well for the many victims of this oppressive creed.

          More:

          Do you remember the brother and sister from “All American Muslims” who went to the tattoo parlor?
          …………………………..

          I managed to avoid watching that show.

          But no one has ever said that lax Muslims do not exist–there are Muslims who drink, who visit strip clubs, and who enjoy pulled pork sliders.

          This in no way renders Shari’ah law benign–nor does it, as you imply, mean that lax Muslims somehow have a different interpretation of Shari’ah law. In most cases they *know* they are violating Shari’ah law, but are in places (usually the free West) where they have reason to believe that they are putting themselves in minimal danger.

          But here is the salient point: we have no reason to believe that these Muslims would fight to protect us from their more orthodox coreligionists when it comes to violent Jihad and the imposition of Shari’ah.

          More:

          As it IS open to interpretation, had I been tasked with creating the poll’s questions I would not have addressed Shair’ah–asking instead:

          1) Which specific “divine punishments” do you believe should be implemented here that would violate U.S. law?

          And for those who provide examples:

          2) Do you advocate the imposition of such punishments upon yourself, too?

          There are many methodologies which could have been used, but the one chosen did nothing to educate our “unbelieving” friends and neighbors.
          …………………………..

          These would, indeed, have been useful questions to ask.

          But you assumption that since they did not do that, that the Shari’ah the Muslims were polled about must ergo be benignant seems to be no more than wishful thinking. I have never heard a Muslim characterize Shari’ah as nothing more than the right to pray and fast–which Muslims *already* have in the United States under the First Amendment.

          More:

          I’m glad you are opposed to what you rather blandly characterize as “parallel legal systems”.

          Like polygamy; no matter who’s practicing it.
          …………………………..

          Polygamy *is* practiced by a small number of fundamentalist Mormons (not mainstream Mormons), and it is appalling.

          But your equivalence over “parallel legal systems” is an odd one–no other faith demands that its faithful impose their law on others wherever they go. Certainly, orthodox Jewish law is not so regarded.

          And no other religious law is so hideous–who besides pious Muslims are flogging, enslaving, mutilating, and stoning people to death based on religious law? Yet, this is happening wherever Shari’ah is fully implemented.

          You may indeed be sanguine about the preponderance of Muslims in the West wanting to impose Shari’ah, due to a hope that that Shari’ah is benign in a way that Shari’ah never has been–I’m afraid I cannot join you, though. I doubt that many other Anti-Jihadists can.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 6:47 am

          I posted:

          “Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.”

          And asked if you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?

          Answering instead, “I believe their assertion that Shari’ah does not conflict with the Constitution to be a deliberate falsehood”; which did not answer my question.

          So, do you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?

          And, no, I don’t think they’re naïve about their religion.

          I also found the Encyclopedia Britannica’s Shari’ah article informative–but lengthy.

          I said I’m opposed to parallel legal systems, and cited polygamy as an example.

          That Mormons may not want to impose their religious beliefs on others does not change the fact that such is a parallel legal system and that I am opposed to such systems.

          I’m sorry that was too “bland” for you.

          After stating, “But in any case, your implication that Muslims simply have widely varying interpretations of Shari’ah ,” you note that “In most cases they *know* they are violating Shari’ah”. Some, then, do interpret/understand it differently.

          Does Daisy Khan wear hijab? Does she receive threats of violence or death for not doing so? I don’t know.

          I note that the woman on the lower left is not covered and doesn’t show any signs of being beaten.
          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/chattanooga-jihadis-father-wanted-to-take-2nd-wife-allowed-under-islamic-law

          Your statement that “Huma Abedin has troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–who rather famously do *not* have a benign interpretation of Shari’ah law.” did not answer my question.

          Did I say the entirety of Shari’ah is benign? I didn’t even use that word, but did give examples of aspects of it that are–about which you seem to agree—followed by:

          “Alas, little in Islam is private. Libya, the Islamic State, and Iran have all flogged victims for violating the Ramadan fast–all on the basis of Shari’ah law.”

          The poll addressed Muslims in America. To what extent is Islamic Law fully complied with here and how much of it does that 51% want—here? The whole enchilada?

          “due to a hope that that Shari’ah is benign”? Mine?

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 2:25 am

          PRCS wrote:

          I posted:

          “Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.”

          And asked if you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?

          Answering instead, “I believe their assertion that Shari’ah does not conflict with the Constitution to be a deliberate falsehood”; which did not answer my question.

          So, do you believe their definition of Shari’ah is flawed or is an intentional lie?
          ……………………………….

          No, this part of it is not a lie. But it should not soothe–all this means is that Shari’ah should be seen as a total way of life for Muslims, and that it encompasses more than its savage barbarism–not that such barbarism somehow is not and integral part of it.

          Sorry that you appear to consider the issue of whether brutal Shari’ah conflicts with our constitution to be outside the scope of your concern.

          More:

          After stating, “But in any case, your implication that Muslims simply have widely varying interpretations of Shari’ah ,” you note that “In most cases they *know* they are violating Shari’ah”. Some, then, do interpret/understand it differently.
          ……………………………….

          Where is your proof for this? Has *any* pious Muslim repudiated Islamic law as practiced by the sanguinary “Prophet”?

          More:

          Does Daisy Khan wear hijab? Does she receive threats of violence or death for not doing so? I don’t know.
          ……………………………….

          Daisy Khan usually does wear Hijab. And she *certainly* advocates, also with her nasty husband Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, for the infiltration of Shari’ah here. In fact, he wrote a book on the subject–again, falsely claiming that our constitution is “Sharia compliant”.

          Here’s Nonie Darwish debunking this meretricious nonsense:

          http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/70003/sharia-dummies-nonie-darwish

          The implication that this meretricious stealth Jihadist is somehow flogging a less appalling vision of Shari’ah seems quite questionable.

          More:

          I note that the woman on the lower left is not covered and doesn’t show any signs of being beaten.

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/chattanooga-jihadis-father-wanted-to-take-2nd-wife-allowed-under-islamic-law
          ……………………………….

          Uh–are you positing a polygamous Muslim who fathered a homicidal Jihadist as a sign of “moderate” Shari’ah because his wife has no visible marks of wife beating on her?

          My God–are *these* the standards we want for “moderate” interpretations of Islamic law?

          More:

          Your statement that “Huma Abedin has troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–who rather famously do *not* have a benign interpretation of Shari’ah law.” did not answer my question.
          ……………………………….

          I don’t believe that Huma Abedi has ever clearly outlined her vision of Shari’a law. Why would she?

          But the Muslim Brotherhood sure as hell has–and there is *nothing* moderate about it. Huma Abedin has never repudiated her ties to this group–as any person should do if they want to make it clear that they don’t share their vision of the imposition of brutal Shari;ah.

          I’m not sure why you believe this not salient.

          More:

          Did I say the entirety of Shari’ah is benign? I didn’t even use that word, but did give examples of aspects of it that are–about which you seem to agree—followed by:

          “Alas, little in Islam is private. Libya, the Islamic State, and Iran have all flogged victims for violating the Ramadan fast–all on the basis of Shari’ah law.”
          ……………………………….

          What is benign about flogging for violating Ramadan? I don’t follow…

          But as I have noted, I don’t care if some discreet aspects of Shari’ah *are* benign, because the imposition of Shari’ah does not end there.

          Some few aspects of Nazism were benign, a well–a love of Wagner and championing the Volkswagon bug. But who cares about these aspects? Certainly, not it’s victims.

          More:

          The poll addressed Muslims in America. To what extent is Islamic Law fully complied with here and how much of it does that 51% want—here? The whole enchilada?

          “due to a hope that that Shari’ah is benign”? Mine?
          ……………………………….

          If you *don’t* hope that Shari’ah is benign–and that Muslims in America regard it as such–then how can you possibly be sanguine about a majority of Muslims wanting to impose it here?

          The fact is that only a minority of Muslims in the US believe they should be subject to American law. That does not reassure me–I’m surprised it does you.

        • ECAW says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 3:34 am

          Thanks for the Nonie Darwish article gravenimage. She gets down to brass tacks. Rather than ask Muslims the question “Do you support sharia law” wouldn’t it be more enlightening to ask them to tick the individual items they support?

          For those who only ticked some a following question could be “On what basis do you select and reject?”

          For those who ticked most another question could be “Under what circumstances should they be implemented and take precedence over the laws of your host country and what are you doing to bring about those circumstances?”

          Those who ticked none could be asked “On what basis do you call yourself a Muslim?”

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 10:05 am

          Thanks, Ecaw. I love Nonie Darwish.

          And I do agree with you and PRCS that this poll could have been more precise.

          But I still believe it is very concerning, and do not believe that the majority of Muslims responding in the affirmative to wanting Shari’ah law are anything but a threat to us and our values.

        • ECAW says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 10:15 am

          “But I still believe it is very concerning”

          Too true. With today’s news from Canada to add to the pile, I think we’re just headed towards civil war or subjugation in the West cos there’s no coexisting as equals for anyone who really follows Mohammed. ATB

        • quotha raven says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 2:45 pm

          To Gravenimage – Ditto, Hear, hear! and Cheers! qr

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 21, 2015 at 5:58 pm

          Thanks, Quotha. Good to see you posting.

      • Daniel Triplett says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 7:11 pm

        @PRCS

        Islam sanctions Muslims to deny all aspects of Sharia, with their words and behavior, in order to advance Islam.

        It’s called “Muruna”

        There are many different types of Islamic sanctioned lying besides Taqiyya and Maruna:

        Here are SIX DIFFERENT WAYS of deception that are permissible in Islam:

        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).
        •Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia to make Muslim migrants appear “moderate.”

        Muslims imitate Allah ‘THE GREATEST OF DECEIVERS.’

        Regarding Muruna specifically, here’s a good explanation:

        Muruna was designed to catapult and advance Sharia by using Western means. If one thinks that Sharia, with its harsh code, is problematic enough, how about the elimination of the kinder, gentler laws? Muruna is literally accomplished by permitting behavior normally so eschewed by Sharia that Westerners logically assume a more moderate version of Islam when such prohibitions are suddenly permitted. Westerners’ eyes are, in fact, deceiving them. Muruna is about going to great lengths to gain interests through a much deeper level of deception while simultaneously lowering the guard and gaining the support of the infidels.

        Note the following quote taken from the series titled Preparing the Atmosphere under the title The Workings of Al-Si’a and Muruna:

        “Sharia’s ability to be flexible and inclusive is that it cares for their needs while excusing the burdens Muslims have to endure. For the sake of their destiny, it was made lawful for them to have exceptions from the law that are appropriate for them since these exceptions match their general goals to make it easy for humanity by removing the chains of [Sharia] rules they were made to adhere to in previous Sharia rulings.”

        For a full explanation of Muruna, read the following article. It’s worth the read. Essentially, Islam sanctions Muslims to lie and behave in any manner they deem necessary in order to spread Islam for Allah:

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/muruna-violating-sharia-to-fool-the-west/

        No Muslim can ever be trusted for any reason. Islam gives license to all Muslims to behave “moderately” in every way, until the time is right to slay.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 8:32 pm

          Dear Daniel,

          I’ve posted here for 11 years.

        • Sh. N. says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 11:01 pm

          A very good, thorough and accurate explanation !
          As an ex-Muslim confirm all you said.
          Well done!

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 5:29 am

          @PRCS

          “Dear Daniel,

          I’ve posted here for 11 years.”

          Got it. I see you’re an expert authority on Islam who has nothing more to learn. I’ll keep that in mind from now on.

          I began studying Islam and warring against Muslims 21 years ago in the USAF, but I learned the term “Muruna” just yesterday.

          No need to get offended Friend. We’re on the same side. I was simply posting some info for public consumption, some of which was new to me.

          Apparently my offense was typing “@PRCS” at the top of my post.

          …darn it, I did it again with this post. Please forgive me. I won’t do it again.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 5:52 am

          @Sh. N.

          Thank you Sir. I appreciate the feedback.

          I knew about Taqiyya and Kitman, yet was still unaware of some other forms of Islamic deception. For example: “Mut’a” and “Misyar;” some of the more egregious abuses against women’s dignity, as described in the linked article.

          Congratulations on your Apostasy and discovery of sanity. I’m sure that wasn’t easy, facing great pressure from your peers to not do so.

          As an Apostate yourself, you’re a great resource from whom to learn for the rest of us. If you notice anything I’m saying incorrectly in the future, I welcome your sincere criticism. I’ll always be learning about Islam, and how best to defeat it.

          Stay strong Brother. We have a big fight ahead of us.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 7:11 am

          It was the assumption, on your part, that I’d never heard of that.

          And, no, making a sarcastic assumption about me doesn’t mean you get it.

          I didn’t begin my study of Islam until 15 years after I retired from the Navy

          If I’m not mistaken, RS makes no claims about the beliefs of individual Muslims beyond their acknowledgement of the shahada.

          I try not to do that either.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 11:26 am

          quotha raven:

          Re: Muruna

          “Well, the concept of muruna thus applied certainly helps straighten me out as to my understanding about whether shariah is ‘optional’ (as some would have us believe) or not, whether a muslim who claims to reject it (in favor of local secular law, such as in the USA) is an apostate or not. Enter muruna. I appreciate your explaining it.”

          Claiming to reject aspects of Shari’ah is deceit.
          Actually rejecting aspects of it constitutes apostasy.

          —–

          Re: My one quote from Why Islam:

          “Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.”

          Do you believe their definition is flawed or is an intentional lie?

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40 pm

          PRCS says

          October 19, 2015 at 11:26 am

          Re: Muruna

          …

          “Claiming to reject aspects of Shari’ah is deceit.
          Actually rejecting aspects of it constitutes apostasy.”

          Knowing the difference with sufficient certitude necessary for our society’s safety would require a mind-reading machine.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 7:02 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “Knowing the difference with sufficient certitude necessary for our society’s safety would require a mind-reading machine.”

          That’s what I’ve been telling you for over a year now – you can’t tell who’s a muslim and who isn’t without being able to read minds. Glad to see you finally acknowledging it, considering what it means to you (in more than one way).

      • Daniel Triplett says

        Oct 18, 2015 at 8:35 pm

        I don’t presume to know anything you may or may not know PRCS.

        And I wasn’t being sarcastic.

        When you say: “Dear Daniel, I’ve posted here for 11 years.” What can I infer, other than you already know everything I said in my post, and there’s nothing more I can offer you?

        Perhaps you do have Caliph-level knowledge of Islam. If you do, please accept my apology. I don’t teach Robert Spencer about Islam, because his expertise on the subject is lightyears ahead of mine. From now on, I’ll regard you in his league if you wish.

        I wasn’t even speaking directly to you anyway. Some info I included in the post above, such as Taqiyya, is now common knowledge to Counter-jihadists. Of course I don’t know what any individual may or may not know. I simply broadcast the entire gambit of Islamic deception terms, both common and uncommon, as a one-stop summary of lies for the benefit of everyone.

        Frankly, in reading your posts, I find your logic a bit difficult to follow. You’ll notice I didn’t pick apart your post piece by piece, because the purpose of my post was to share with the public some information I recently gained, and not to highlight where you may or may not have been wrong.

        I noticed you were engaged in a public debate, on a public forum, about Sharia. Graven Image also had salient points to contribute to that debate.

        All of these Reply frames can get confusing to me and perhaps to others when so many are replying. So I simply typed “@PRCS” at the top of my post, in order to identify my post with that debate thread.

        I did, however, notice you said the following above:

        “The poll’s poorly designed question and resultant misleading conclusion, and it’s various interpretations by pundits wrongly leads the public to believe that Muslims in American may freely reject those of Islam’s teachings, commands, and expectations with which they disagree.

        As others here have rightly noted, Muslims who do that are apostates.”

        If you were to dig through my history of posts on this site, you will find several posts where I said something similar to you, believing that those who behave and speak in contravention to the Quran/Sunnah, and even criticize the source texts aren’t Muslim, they are “Apostates.”

        I neither believe you nor I are idiots. Moreover, I have nothing but gratitude and respect for a man who devoted his entire career to defending our Constitution.

        I just recently learned about the Muruna concept. I don’t believe you have been familiar with the Muruna concept either, because if you did know about it, you wouldn’t have made the remark that Muslims speaking or behaving in contravention to Sharia are Apostates.

        My assumption is fair, and your taking offense to it is unwarranted.

        Once again, my comprehensive summary of Islamic deception, posted above, was NOT intended to make you look ignorant.

        My whole point, to EVERYONE, is that every Muslim has Islamic sanctioned license to speak or behave in contravention to ANY Islamic directive, concept, or law, whether it be Sharia or anything else, in order to advance and spread Islam for Allah.

        So, no Muslim who is behaving or speaking as a “Moderate” can be trusted.

        Unless a Muslim says, “I denounce Allah and Muhammad, and renounce the Islamic faith. I formally declare my Apostasy from Islam,” then I’m going to safely consider him to be a full-on orthodox, ISIS level Muslim hiding behind a deceptive mask.

        And perhaps such a Muslim would consider even the above declaration of Apostasy to be allowed by Allah. So that when Stage 3 arrives, he can remove his mask and saw of my head. Who really knows?

        The whole situation is extremely disturbing.

        Anytime you’d like to end the pissing match with others on your side, I’m quite happy to join you. I’m not your enemy. Islam is.

        Time is short. 1.6 Billion Muslims want us dead. And we’d best stick together in order to defeat them.

        • quotha raven says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 10:15 pm

          To Daniel Triplett, who sez “I just recently learned about the Muruna concept. I don’t believe you have been familiar with the Muruna concept either, because if you did know about it, you wouldn’t have made the remark that Muslims speaking or behaving in contravention to Sharia are Apostates.”

          Well, the concept of muruna thus applied certainly helps straighten me out as to my understanding about whether shariah is ‘optional’ (as some would have us believe) or not, whether a muslim who claims to reject it (in favor of local secular law, such as in the USA) is an apostate or not. Enter muruna. I appreciate your explaining it.

          I clicked on the “Why Islam” link proffered by PRCS and was quite surprised to find it full of pro-Islam propaganda, including the preposterous statement that Sharia has much in common with the US Constitution. That link made me feel frazzled and tired! So thanks, too, for your further comment on that link and entity. Keep up the good work. We all benefit.

          Cheers!

          quotha r

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 12:11 am

          Thanks quotha raven. I appreciate your kind and supportive words.

          I’ve felt qualified and have been quite vocal about the solution to the Islamic problem that my military education and war experience has taught me. It’s a solution with which I have great confidence and have been trying to broadcast Infidel-wide for many years.

          But in an effort to learn about and understand Islam itself, the source texts, jihad, and Muslim motivations, I come to JW mostly to learn from Robert and others. Once in a while though, I pick up something new about this elsewhere, for example the Muruna, so I’m happy to come here and offer my small contribution to the collective knowledge.

          I enjoy reading and learning from your posts too q.r.

          Stay strong, and share your knowledge!

          Dan

        • PRCS says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 10:48 am

          Daniel Triplett says
          October 18, 2015 at 5:29 am
          @PRCS
          Got it. I see you’re an expert authority on Islam who has nothing more to learn. I’ll keep that in mind from now on.

          Daniel Triplett says
          October 18, 2015 at 8:35 pm
          I don’t presume to know anything you may or may not know PRCS.
          And I wasn’t being sarcastic.

          Yes, you do and yes, you were.

          —–

          As you quoted, my post:

          “The poll’s poorly designed question and resultant misleading conclusion, and it’s various interpretations by pundits wrongly leads the public to believe that Muslims in American may freely reject those of Islam’s teachings, commands, and expectations with which they disagree.

          As others here have rightly noted, Muslims who do that are apostates.”

          Your argument:

          Daniel Triplett says
          October 17, 2015 at 7:11 pm
          @PRCS
          Islam sanctions Muslims to deny all aspects of Sharia, with their words and behavior, in order to advance Islam.

          Apples and oranges, Daniel.

          Apples and oranges.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 10:18 am

          Hi Daniel and Quotha.

          Yes, Maruna is an important idea–it is basically the Sunni version of Taqiyya, and is key because many Sunnis deny that Taqiyya–lying to advance Islam–is a Sunni concept. This is true, but only in the narrowest sense that Sunnis don’t use the *word* Taqiyya. But the concept is identical.

          So a number of those Muslims replying in the negative to the poll were likely practicing Maruna, which renders the fact that a majority of Muslims still responded in the affirmative to the imposition of Shari’ah all the more alarming.

          Taqiyya and Maruna, as appalling and dangerous as they are, are a back-handed acknowledgement of Infidel confidence–they are only used when Muslims are not in power.

          When Muslims are in full ascendancy, *the mask comes off*–we see this in places like the Islamic State, where Muslims feel no need whitewash Islam or falsely claim it is a “religion of peace”.

          And why would they? They are overtly enslaving and murdering their victims.

          The fact that a majority of Muslims in the United States are openly declaring for Shari’ah means they believe they can do this and face little resistance from the “filthy Infidels”.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          @PRCS

          The piece you conveniently omitted from your latest post is the part where you said:

          “Dear Daniel,

          I’ve posted here for 11 years.”

          How would you expect me to react to that?

          What that said to me was, in other words, *Just shut up Boy. There’s nothing you can tell me I don’t already know.*

          The only thing I did was post a comprehensive summary of Islamic Deception for everyone. I neither attacked nor criticized you. And aside from “@PRCS” that I typed at the top of the post (admittedly misleading), I wasn’t even speaking directly to you. I don’t see how you had any reason to feel defensive.

          The “11 years” remark implies that such tenure embodies you with the full spectrum of knowledge, and you have nothing to gain from me.

          Which is fine. Perhaps you do know more about Islam than I. Does it matter though?

          People say things all the time to me that I already know. In response, I simply and politely respond, “Thanks,” or “Thanks, I’m familiar with that.”

          You could have chosen any number of words other than those you selected. I’m not telling you how to speak. I’m saying if you respond the way you did with the “11 years” remark, you can expect a less than polite answer in response. I’m neither your subordinate, nor your superior. I’m your peer. And please don’t forget, I’m also a fellow co-Infidel, we’re on the same side, and we must work together to destroy Islam before Islam destroys us.

          Granted, 11 years on JW is an impressive amount of time to be studying Islam from the Infidel Master of Islamic knowledge himself, Robert Spencer. I learned about RS & JW just a few years ago, after I had separated from Active Duty. I sure wish I’d known about him when you did. Robert’s knowledge would’ve been a valuable asset for me and other vets during the war.

          Although I think we’re parsing words unnecessarily here PRCS, and we could be contributing to the Counter-jihad effort in much better ways other than arguing with each other, I will address your specific grievance with me:

          Whether you’ve been familiar with the Muruna concept or not, I will freely admit I was unfamiliar with it until just a few days ago. Here’s my understanding of it, as written in the PJ Media article I linked above:

          “Muruna is literally accomplished by permitting behavior normally so eschewed by Sharia that Westerners logically assume a more moderate version of Islam when such prohibitions are suddenly permitted. Westerners’ eyes are, in fact, deceiving them. Muruna is about going to great lengths to gain interests through a much deeper level of deception while simultaneously lowering the guard and gaining the support of the infidels.”

          Therefore, if a Muslim in downtown Mogadishu (99.9% Muslim) were to exercise his Muruna license, and drink a martini while eating a ham sandwich, while drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, then I’d expect him to be crucified as an Apostate.

          This, I presume, is speaking to your point.

          However, if that same Muslim were to behave and speak in the same manner in downtown Dallas, then this speaks to my point.

          I hope this puts us on the same page now, so we can redirect our focus toward our common enemy…Islam.

          Daniel

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 21, 2015 at 12:56 am

          @gravenimage

          Agreed gravenimage. I think Muslims all over the World, including right here in America, are all looking around at each other thinking, “Yeah, this is it. It’s time.”

          I think we’re seeing 1.6 Billion Muslims at the threshold of Stage 3. Millions of them have already crossed the threshold, and the rest are lining up to join them.

          Meanwhile, the most successful Muslim since the 7th Century is occupying our White House, facilitating the whole thing.

          It’s absolutely stunning that all of us…every free human in the World, and our children, are beholden to ONE foolish, evil, calculating man.

          The Iranians are well aware of the significance of 17 JAN 2017. I’m guessing they’ll launch Armageddon before then.

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 21, 2015 at 6:01 pm

          Exactly, Daniel. Muslims throughout the world, including the West, are feeling further emboldened.

  2. Gary says

    Oct 16, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    “The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

    BULL SHIT!

    The Koran is a lie from the pit of hell. Fact regarding “The Prophet”

    Islam needs to be criticized because the oldest and most trusted Islamic sources do not portray Muhammad as a ‘superior being’ or even faintly ‘the mercy of God among mankind’. Islam’s original sources reveal that he was a plagiarist, a con artist, a highwayman, a liar, an assassin, a paedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous, cheating husband, a rapist, an enslaver, a genocidal mass murderer, a desert pirate, a psychopathic warmonger, an anti-Semite, an intolerant bigot, a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. This portrait is certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion, but that of an amoral cultist and scheming politician.
    Nothing good, nothing noble, nothing progressive, nothing merciful, nothing admirable, nothing just has ever come from Islam. The truth, that Islam is a violent, evil, subversive and supremacist cult of hate and death, must prevail.

    “One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…

    Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

  3. Jay Boo says

    Oct 16, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    This is what happens when the church burner “religion” runs out of churches.
    Muslims seek out a sharia scapegoat to avoid admitting that their evil religion is laughable hoax at its core.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 9:24 am

      Ain’t nobody laughing at this point. It’s gotten serious. I think that hacking off the head of that woman at the food processing plant in Oklahoma City punched through to the consciousness of the population, cuz the news entertainers had little choice but to report it. True, only weeks later we were fed the mythic discrimination against poor lil’ Ahmed the genius clock maker, but his dad Mohamed Mohamed is looking to get paid with that lawsuit, so we’ll see.

      ***

      I’ve noticed that this poll is not being reported and discussed on TV, not even on Fox RINO, which loves to pat itself on the back with the slogans Fair & Balanced and We Report, You Decide. No, RINO, you do not report so we can’t decide, it is unfair to not be informed of dangerous facts, which results in wild and dangerous unbalance, like a drunk ready to fall over and crack his head on a curb.

  4. Westman says

    Oct 16, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    Is anyone else getting push ads from the Jihad Watch server?

    • Cecilia Ellis says

      Oct 16, 2015 at 11:21 pm

      Yes. I just got one.

      • Westman says

        Oct 16, 2015 at 11:30 pm

        I tend to stay away from Pam Geller’s site because it breaks back links and inserts whole ad pages in the back link, isolating the original story so you can’t back up to the home page.

        I hope this isn’t intended to wring revenue out of this site. I don’t trust push ad sites.

        • Cecilia Ellis says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 12:00 am

          Never had this happen before on this site until now, and it is still happening.

        • Katnis says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 2:37 am

          Honestly, I’m surprised he hasn’t done more advertising. With 200,000K uniques a month, Robert would be leaving a lot of cash on the table. The man needs to bring home the bacon, you know. 😉

        • Susan B says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 7:18 am

          Use Addblock. Stops the problem completely. Cost me a donation of $10.

        • TheBuffster says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 8:16 am

          I stay away from Pam Geller’s site because I get so many freakin’ pop-ups, I can’t concentrate on the articles. It’s just too difficult.

          I’ll have to look into Addblock, as Susan B suggested.

    • somehistory says

      Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57 pm

      They come up every time I click on a different article to read or to view the comments. It just began this evening for me.

      • TheBuffster says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 8:17 am

        Yep.

    • sencit says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 3:04 am

      Whenever I go to Jihad Watch, I get a black square inviting me to siign up for subscription, followed by the word “PEACE”.
      I would be grateful if anyone could tell me how to get ris of this annoyance.

      • sencit says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 3:57 am

        Sorry, ‘ris’ = rid.
        ‘siign’ = sign..

      • Mirren10 says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 12:00 pm

        ”I would be grateful if anyone could tell me how to get ris of this annoyance”

        In the same way as one gets rid of pop up ads. Simply click on the x button, usually on the upper right hand corner, and it disappears. Simples.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 9:40 pm

          Agreed Mirren.

          I’d suggest to all those complaining about the very small ad which pops up at the bottom of the page to do one of four things:

          1. Ignore the ad, then read Robert’s post, taking advantage of his hard work anyway.

          2. Open up the ad at bottom of page to read the offer. I did this on an ad for jeans the other day, then I bought some jeans at a substantial discount.

          3. Click the “x” in the upper right corner of the ad, relax, and continue reading Robert’s beneficial and informative posts, that he offers you FOR FREE.

          4. Buy a pop-up ad blocking program. THEN, pull out your wallet and make a large tax deductible donation to Robert’s 501 (c) 3 Jihad Watch organization; an organization providing massive amounts of knowledge and righteousness to the entire World.

          Robert Spencer spends all his time researching Islam and the threat it poses to the World. Then he shares his research in highly informative, interesting, and educational posts and speaking engagements for the benefit of all of us.

          His website also gives all of us the opportunity to make our own contributions to the Counter-jihad, and have our opinions and posts be read by his entire audience…an audience belonging to him, that he amassed, on HIS website.

          For Christ’s Sake, let the man earn some money to support himself and his family. Has he not earned that?

          Those ads just started appearing, so apparently all of our donations so far have been anemic or non-existent. And I’m including myself in this criticism too.

    • TheBuffster says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 8:13 am

      Yep. Very annoying.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 9:29 am

      Are the ads for getting a free copy of the Holy Ko-Ran or joining a mosque? Do the pop-ups show a picture of a cute little 8 yr old girl whose sultry face invitingly asks you to come on in an join the fun? Any content on murdering some Jews today? If yes, then JW has been hacked. Probably some Jews did it looking for sympathy.

    • PRCS says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm

      Started getting them yesterday.

  5. Gary says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 1:44 am

    Can we expect these types of floggings to occur on the streets of Disneyland?

    If Muslims have their way – Yes!

    Wake up America.

  6. Gary says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 1:58 am

    “and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:35-36)

    So I ask you…..

    Who is the masked man in the photo above representing? Your Father or…. allah?

  7. Katnis says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 2:33 am

    Sounds like a rather simple solution.

    51% of muslims living in America want sharia law.
    America is not governed by sharia law. Church and state are separate.
    The following countries are governed by sharia law: Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

    If you want to live under sharia law, choose a country and leave.

    • Gary says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 3:12 am

      Oh no…

      They also want the “Benefits” of America.

      Welfare, Assisted Living, College Tuition, EBT Credit Cards, Transportation.

      Don’t forget…

      Allah can’t supply everything.

      For everything else there’s, you got it…..

      America

      • TheBuffster says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 8:20 am

        And there’s the other thing… it would be such a great victory if they could bring Sharia Law to the USA. Allah might even throw in a couple of extra black-eyed virgins for those participating in that project.

    • Daniel Triplett says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 5:28 am

      @Katnis

      They don’t want to leave.

      They know America is polar opposite to Islam & Sharia. That’s the whole reason they left their mother lands. The “hijrah” is their Islamic duty to spread Islam by emigration. The same way they’re doing it by the millions in Europe.

      Their objective is to emigrate from Dar al-Islam (Muslim lands) to Dar al-Harb (non-Muslim lands) to convert, subjugate, or kill us for Allah. That’s the point. They came to colonize us. They want to make Europe (again), and America (for the first & final time), Dar al-Islam.

      They came to conquer us, and they won’t leave without a fight.

      • Gary says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 5:51 am

        To which they will get a response from American’s much like this recent stabbing attempt in Hebron, Israel……

        The suspect approached a checkpoint in the city and tried to stab one of the security forces. When this attempt failed, he came after an Israeli citizen who used his personal firearm and shot him three times.

        In America we respond to Allahu Akbar with two words: Smith & Wesson

        They want a fight….

        We’ll oblige.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 6:57 am

          Damn right Gary.

          Muslims best review the Second Amendment before they try slaughtering us like the unarmed Christians they’re butchering in the Middle East (for whom Caliph Ohammad is shamefully doing nothing).

          With over 300,000,000 guns in the hands of US citizens, we’ll hand them their heads to them if they go Stage 3 on us.

        • somehistory says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 12:18 pm

          The NRA has an ad aimed esp at moslimes who intend to kill.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 6:20 pm

      Katnis, as Muslims see it, America is not governed by sharia law–*yet*. They aim to change that…

  8. Michael Copeland says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 4:12 am

    Polls can engender much discussion, BUT……
    Islam is not defined by polls.
    It makes no difference how many say they want this or that.
    Islam is defined by its source texts.

    A muslim openly saying he does not want Sharia is no longer a muslim: he is an “apostate”, and can be freely killed by anyone “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, o8.4). The Manual is available as a free download.

  9. DeMolay says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 4:46 am

    So, time to up the ante. Ben Carson is going through defamation of character and slander yet what he says is accurate. Time to start suing the people that use taqqya etc and fight this creeping misinformation cancer head on. If you state something factual and your character is attacked based on lies, take them to court. Put CAIR and the rest of them out of business.

    • Angemon says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 8:44 am

      From what I’ve seen so far, Dr. Carson is a very astute and quick-witted individual. So far, my #1 candidate. Not that I can vote, seeing how I’m not an American citizen, but still.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 9:34 am

        The only bad thing about Dr Ben Carson MD is that he’s come out for amnesty, which will result in a minimum of 60 million Amerind aboriginal new citizens rewarded for their criminal conduct. Don’t we get enough of that in our dealings with Moslems?

        Amnesty is by far the biggest issue in the campaign. And the 11 million number is fictive, how is it that this magical number has stayed the same for decades? It’s more like 20-25 million, at least. When they become citizens the globo-socialist party (i.e., the Democratic Party) will gain a permanent lock on the government, and when they’re not working for national bankruptcy which will result in the breakdown of civil order and street fighting, they are working for the Cause of Allah by helping Moslems by kissing their hairy asses at every turn.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 11:03 am

          I agree APF.

          So does Ann Coulter. She’s rabid about it, and has written many interesting essays on the subject, easily available for viewing on her website. She also wrote a whole book on this alone.

          Amnesty will spell the end of our Republic; and hence, the end of the World.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 11:05 am

          Wasn’t there an amnesty a couple of decades ago? Something about it being ““once and for all“?

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Oct 18, 2015 at 10:16 pm

          @Angemon

          Yes Angemon. And Reagan and America got screwed.

          “Reagan’s Amnesty Didn’t Work,”
          by W. James Antle III

          In part:

          “…..Reagan was the last unambiguously successful president this country had. If you don’t believe me, look around for stagflation and the Soviet Union. But the immigration amnesty he signed into law failed, a fact that influences the debate over this issue to this day.

          Unlike many of his successors in both parties, Reagan was an honest man. He called legalizing illegal immigrants by the correct name — amnesty — rather than shrouding it in euphemisms and weasel words.

          The Gipper also didn’t have the benefit of seeing a similar policy fail before, so his willingness to take a gamble on it is more understandable than Bush or McCain’s. That’s why Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson were on board.

          But we now can see the results. The 1986 amnesty legalized approximately 2.7 million illegal immigrants, a much smaller number than the 11 million estimated today. Washington approved 90 percent of the 1.3 million agricultural workers who sought legal status despite detecting fraud in nearly a third of the applications.

          The amnesty was supposed to be balanced with stronger enforcement measures, such as employer sanctions for those who hire illegal immigrants. This remains a major selling point of the “comprehensive” approach to immigration today.

          This enforcement turned out to be a bait and switch, like when spending cuts are promised in exchange for tax increases. The amnesty happened and is irreversible. The enforcement has been spotty and in some cases never materialized.

          What did materialize was more illegal immigration. By one estimate, illegal immigration increased by 44 percent between 1987 and 1989, from the start of amnesty to its peak. The Congressional Research Service reports that the illegal immigrant population swelled from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, “before leveling off at 11.1 million in 2011.”

          Some analysts believe the number of illegal immigrants reached as high as 20 million. The author of a Bear Stearns report arriving at the figure later told the Wall Street Journal, “The assumption that illegal people will fill out a census form is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard of.”

          It’s also worth noting that four years after amnesty became law, President George H.W. Bush signed a bill increasing legal immigration by 40 percent. Legal immigration has also been higher than in the mid-1980s and illegal immigration still increased.

          Many Republicans who want to repeat the Reagan amnesty hope this will improve the party’s standing among Hispanics. But the actual Republican Hispanic vote share decreased between 1984, before amnesty, and 1988, after.

          George W. Bush is the only Republican who has ever even arguably benefited from advocating these kinds of immigration policies. And he had been conducting Latino outreach for a decade while being to the left of his party on government spending.

          As illegal immigration increased, enforcement decreased. Audits of employers of illegal immigrants dropped 77 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 2003. Warnings fell 62 percent. Notices of intent to fine illegal employers plummeted 82 percent.

          If Reagan couldn’t get a deal with real enforcement, what hope do Republicans have with Obama?…..”

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/06/reagans-amnesty-didnt-work/#ixzz3oyZAKRkb

  10. gungadin says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 6:41 am

    Long, long overdue to seal the borders and STOP all immigration.PERIOD…….Let’s take care of American citizenry FIRST and always and purge the scurge that’s been allowed into our country.

    • Gary says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 7:58 am

      Unfortunately, the borders will never be sealed.

      Unfortunate…..

      for muslims.

      The United States of America will NEVER submit to some PUNK god allah.

      Take your PUNK FALSE -god- back to the sandbox!

    • PRCS says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      I am an American born citizen.

      My wife is a Naturalized U.S. Citizen who will always be an immigrant.

      I sponsored her into the country and had to sign an affidavit of support–declaring that I would not allow her to become a ward of the state.

      All immigration?

      • Isabellathecrusader says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 5:44 pm

        No, not all but we need a moratorium for a while. We’re practically bankrupt and can’t take on the whole world’s problems until we straighten out a few of our own, like reversing Obama’s destruction of our Military and stopping free handouts for illegals who have come in uninvited. Otherwise the immigrants will just go over the cliff with the rest of us. We need a real fix, not a band-aid and more Libs telling us “it’s for the children,” boo hoo hoo.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm

          No, not all.

          I agree with a moratorium on–even cessation of–some immigration (such as the chain migration of adult family members).

          It would be helpful–for our fellow citizens to learn (though probably not from typical MSM) that merely coming here to work and immigration are two separate issues.

        • Isabellathecrusader says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 6:58 pm

          Sorry PRCS, this may appear above your quote as there was no REPLY button under your last post.

          I agree, that would be helpful for our people to learn, and more importantly, to give a darn about. But, I do think that people are starting to realize the inequity of being native born Americans asked to subsidize anybody who feels like dropping in, on top of all the new regulations, fees, tolls and Obamacare fines that we have to deal with since Obama was elected.

        • PRCS says

          Oct 17, 2015 at 10:21 pm

          Sometimes I wish there were a few more Reply buttons.

          It’s not just the native born who recognize that. I sponsored my wife in 1975. After two years of marriage she really wanted to work and has done so–except for one year and 12 days–to this day.

          The imposed burden of subsidizing anybody who feels like dropping in is shared by she and I every April 15th.

          Another myth fed to our friends and neighbors involves the taxes “paid” by illegal aliens. If I were hiring such folks, well, of course “deductions” would be taken from their wages—-right into my pocket.

          It would be difficult to hammer citizens who pick up illegal alien day laborers. But until regular American businesses lose their business licenses for hiring them the problem will persist.

  11. Dan says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 8:41 am

    I don’t know if the 2nd poll question is all that revealing. Imagine a Christian being asked: “Are you more loyal to Christianity or America?” I imagine many would say the former, and that would be perfectly benign! Of course the religions are different; but that poll question doesn’t reveal this. Even a “moderate” Muslim who rejected the pernicious aspects of Shariah could be expected to say they were more loyal to God than country.

    • Isabellathecrusader says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      The difference is I can love my faith and love my country at the same time. And I do, I really, really do.

  12. Cunamarra says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 9:43 am

    The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that believes in racial supremacism. It has an ideology and one would only join it if one believes in that ideology. Islam is an ideology as well, and despite the notion that words don’t have any meaning and that language has no purpose, Islam teaches that Allah does not love unbelievers and that Sharia is the path one should follow. If one doesn’t believe this, one would not be a Muslim.

    • ECAW says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 10:00 am

      Not only does Allah not love unbelievers, he actually hates them. I was surprised to come across these the other day (Shakir translation):

      35:39 “…and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers with their Lord in anything except hatred;”

      40:10 “…Certainly Allah’s hatred (of you) when you were called upon to the faith and you rejected, is much greater than your hatred of yourselves.”

    • quotha raven says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 11:10 am

      To Robert Spencer -“51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia”
      and to Cunamarra, who sez – “…Islam teaches that Allah does not love unbelievers and that Sharia is the path one should follow. If one doesn’t believe this, one would not be a Muslim.”

      Aha! Exactly the source of my fundamental puzzlement and confusion with this article. It is my understanding that if one professes to be a muslim, he MUST accept sharia law, as a fundamental and essential element of the theosophy. Seems to me that polls like this create/illustrate a negative tautology: To be a muslim, one must embrace sharia; if one does NOT embrace sharia, one is not a member of this belief system and therefore NOT a muslim.

      Non? Any discussion of this tautology would be enlightening.

      Cheers!

      quotha r

    • quotha raven says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 11:25 am

      To Robert Spencer, who sez “…51% of US Moslems want sharia law” and to Cunamarra, who sez “…Islam teaches that Allah does not love unbelievers and that Sharia is the path one should follow. If one doesn’t believe this, one would not be a Muslim.”

      Aha! Exactly, Cunamarra – Articles like this one about polls that determine how many muslims prefer sharia law to local law always illustrate a basic negative tautology to me, as I understand Islam and the necessary and essential role of sharia law in the Islamist theocracy.

      Sharia law is a fundamental of the theocracy, is it not? If one did NOT embrace sharia, one would not properly be called a muslim, non?

      I’d be grateful for anyone here addressing this seeming tautology. How can anyone not subscribe to sharia law and still call himself a muslim?

      Cheers!

      quotha r

      • quotha raven says

        Oct 17, 2015 at 11:35 am

        What I’m trying to say here is that the way I understand Islam, sharia is not “optional” for a muslim. Have I misunderstood? Would really appreciate some enlightenment here…Cheers! – qr

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 2:54 am

          quotha raven, your question is good if it does not factor in taqiyya in the service of stealth jihad invasion. Once you factor that in (along with our inability to mind-read millions of Muslims), the question becomes purely academic. Given three factors, we must conclude all Muslims desire sharia and are therefore lying when they claim they don’t:

          1) our inability to mind-read millions of Muslims

          2) the increasing dangers Muslims are causing and will cause in our societies over the coming decades

          3) our knowledge that taqiyya and stealth jihad are real factors, being practiced by innumerable Muslims whom we can’t always (if ever) distinguish from Muslims who aren’t.

          Given all this, we could certainly try to distinguish the lying Muslims from the sincerely reformist Muslims (aside from the problem of whether the latter even exist at all); but not at the expense of our society’s safety, I say.

        • quotha raven says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 8:40 am

          To Voegelinian – Hey! I’ve been wondering where you’ve been! I was hoping you’d weigh in with a response to my question about the “option” of shariah. A while ago I printed and posted the list of six kinds of taqiyya you posted here – the same list as has appeared several times since. And I note that you (or somebody) has designated Muruna as (his/her) favorite. I often review this list of kinds of taqiyya, posted on my desk, but I haven’t read all the way to the bottom, and indeed I was not factoring in taqiyya in muddling over my question. May I call it a “brain cramp”?

          Thank you for your input, which seems a little…toned down from comments you’ve made in the past. Are you mellowing?

          Yikes! You haven’t even mentioned asymptotic pc/mc anti-jihadists!

          Cheers!
          quotha r.

        • Angemon says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 8:50 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “quotha raven, your question is good if it does not factor in taqiyya in the service of stealth jihad invasion. Once you factor that in (along with our inability to mind-read millions of Muslims), the question becomes purely academic. Given three factors, we must conclude all Muslims desire sharia and are therefore lying when they claim they don’t:”

          You claim you can’t read the minds of millions of muslims but you “conclude” that they all desire sharia and are lying when they claim they don’t, which requires mind-reading all of them? How does that work?

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 3:00 am

          ” Given three factors, we must conclude all Muslims desire sharia…”

          When I wrote that, I of course assume that Sharia is the intellectual apparatus of Islam’s voracious hatred, fanatical obsessive-compulsion, and quest for conquest motivating their desire to destroy us. The notion that Sharia itself is “diverse” and the harmless versions are detachable from the deleterious whole is a notion also purveyed by lying Muslims (and their Useful Idiots in the West) in the interest of stealth jihad.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 10:01 pm

          And so, quotha raven, what do you think of the actual substance of my response to your question…? (I couldn’t tell from your reply…)

        • quotha raven says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 12:12 am

          To Voeg, who asks what I think of the substance of his answer to my question:

          The substance of your response leaves me perched uncomfortably on a tautology re shariah, i.e. one who calls himself a muslim but rejects sharia is an apostate (see below) or else he’s employing Muruna, lying with a temporary suspension of sharia so as to appear “moderate”.

          As Aussie Infidel sez above,”Those who reject the Sharia, are essentially rejecting Islam (and hence are apostates), since Sharia is an integral part of Islam.” This is what I have understood, but I did not take into consideration Muruna.

          When I said I hadn’t been reviewing Muruna in the list of six types of shariah, it is because of the format (and small print) of the list, posted at my desk. Muruna is at the bottom, after “and my personal favorite…” so it didn’t catch my eye the way the other forms of sanctioned deceit did.

          Now that I;m reminded of it, a review of Muruna helps to explain the actions of some muslims who are NOT apostates. But do these two explanations (apostasy and muruna) of why and how a muslim might reject or appear to reject sharia encompass ALL shariah-rejecting muslims? I think not. And I have no confidence that I can tell the shariah-rejecting, Muruna-employing muslim from the shariah-rejecting muslim dummy who doesn’t acknowledge sharia as fundamental to Islam and therefore does not realize himself that he is an apostate. Chances are, he’s never even read the Qur’an, let alone the Hadith, from which, as I understand it, shariah springs.

          Because of this conundrum, I prefer not to embrace intellectually the huge generalization that these two factors describe all Muslims who reject or claim to want to reform sharia.

          While it is emotionally satisfying to contemplate deporting all muslims out of this country, that solution strikes me as impractical and falls intellectually short of the mark, so what I usually say to lefty friends is that I am not interested in discussing the “moderate” (aka pretty “invisible”) muslims, but only those who are motivated to step up to their Islamic duty to carry out jihad in one way or another.

          I think this is the best way for me to handle arguments about those muslims who “only want a sandwich,” albeit something of a cop-out on my part. This is surely a result of my not being able to mind read, like many others who contemplate what goes on in the minds of muslims or self-proclaimed muslims or anybody else, for that matter.

          Being aware of Islam as a theocracy, with shariah as an integral part, however, I tend privately to think that any muslim (other than one using Muruna) is by definition and in reality an apostate. But I don’t want to be led into the dangerous waters of all the various interpretations of the Hadith. I’m not conversant with all those various interpretations. So I’m stuck uncomfortably sitting here on a tautology.

          Cheers, Voeg et al!

          quotha r

        • Godless says

          Oct 19, 2015 at 10:14 pm

          You claim you can’t read the minds of millions of muslims but you “conclude” that they all desire sharia and are lying when they claim they don’t, which requires mind-reading all of them? How does that work?

          Strawman.

          Angemon you have pointed out that we don’t have a way to tell the difference between Muslims when it comes to things like Muslims claiming they don’t want Sharia to deceive us and Muslims who sincerely don’t want Sharia. So should we risk out own non-Muslim lives and freedoms or should we accept that we are forced to consider them all a threat?

        • Angemon says

          Oct 20, 2015 at 6:55 am

          Godless posted:

          “Strawman”

          Nope. I know you would love to be so you could dismiss it out of hand, since you and your master don’t deal well with facts, but my question still stands, and it relates to the core of voeg’s statement:

          Voeg claims one can’t read the minds of millions of muslims but “concludes” that they all desire sharia and are lying when they claim they don’t, which requires mind-reading all of them? How does that work?

          “Angemon you have pointed out that we don’t have a way to tell the difference between Muslims when it comes to things like Muslims claiming they don’t want Sharia to deceive us and Muslims who sincerely don’t want Sharia.”

          Have I? If so, why did you act like I never spoked on the subject then? I distinctly remember you recently trying to toss a fallacy-ridden question in my general direction based on whether or not I said that.

          Also, voeg claimed most people here are “fucktards” with a “strange brain impediment“. You’re his mouthpiece – do you agree with that? Do you think most people here are “fucktards” with a “strange brain impediment“? Do you, Godless?

  13. BC says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Of course anybody who has even a basic knowledge of Islam knows this. Every Muslim wants Islam to dominate as it is the perfect religion from ‘god’ and passed down by the ‘perfect man’ (for them)
    It does not matter what anybody else wants or thinks, Islam will prevail and the way things are going they have to feel they are succeeding in their goal. However that is no different from the way Christian missionaries went out into the world in the earlier times, destroying ‘primitive’ cultures without any attempt to understand them, why should they as they saw them as inferior? Many still do the same thing. like evangelicals in Africa for example.
    Christianity is superior to Islam obviously in many ways but is still the same in its hubris

    • quotha raven says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 11:50 am

      To BC – While you may be in large part correct about the hubris of Christian missionaries in Africa (as well as elsewhere) there are disquieting elements of respect for primitive beliefs, perhaps under the chapter heading of cultural diversity…

      When I was in Upper Volta, now known as Burkina Fasso, I was fairly close to a young woman who talked freely to me about female genital mutilation. She had attended a school run by Roman Catholics, where they taught her about health, among other things. When I asked Juanni about whether her teaching sisters ever talked about fgm, she said they never addressed it at all.

      I was torn between being horrified at the sisters for not interfering with this barbaric practice and respect for their not messing with a tradition, carried on by the women, considered so fundamental and intrinsic to the culture of some African tribes, like the Mossi.

      Cheers!

      quotha r

    • Aussie Infidel says

      Oct 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm

      While the Sharia was developed by the Caliphs who came after Muhammad, it was nevertheless based on the Quran and the Sunnah – the word of Allah revealed to Islam’s ‘perfect man’, and his teachings and deeds.
      https://www.google.com/search?q=caliphs+who+developed+the+sharia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

      Those who reject the Sharia, are essentially rejecting Islam (and hence are apostates), since Sharia is an integral part of Islam.

      “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Quran 3:85 SI).

      “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.” (Quran 5.3 SI).

      “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” (Q33:36SI).

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 18, 2015 at 12:58 am

      BC wrote:

      …Islam will prevail and the way things are going they have to feel they are succeeding in their goal. However that is no different from the way Christian missionaries went out into the world in the earlier times, destroying ‘primitive’ cultures without any attempt to understand them, why should they as they saw them as inferior? Many still do the same thing. like evangelicals in Africa for example…
      ………………………..

      BC, what evangelical is spreading Christianity by the sword? I’m afraid this is ridiculous false moral equivalence.

  14. Charles Martel says

    Oct 17, 2015 at 11:49 am

    Faheed got his 2003 wish. There is Muslim in the White House.

  15. Adrian Rainbow says

    Oct 18, 2015 at 3:11 am

    WTF, what are you trying to achieve, I read and re-posted the article only to have someone point out that the link to the ‘Pew research’ leads to a financial page, it will take me ages to re-establish any cred’ on that forum.
    Please tell me it was an error and not just bare faced lying!

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 19, 2015 at 12:37 am

      Links break all the time, Adrian. That would not have happened at Jihad Watch’s end. All you have to do is Google to find the link.

  16. David Young says

    Oct 18, 2015 at 5:54 am

    Let them have sharia…ship them back to the arsehole of the world where islam flourishes.

  17. ECAW says

    Oct 19, 2015 at 3:00 am

    Thanks to quotha raven for asking whether sharia is obligatory and to Daniel Triplett for introducing the concept of muruna.

    I am confused about this too.

    Does the “choice of being governed according to Shariah” mean some sharia or nothing but sharia? The OIC countries are spread along a continuum from total sharia law to totally secular law with most having a mixture.

    If Mohammed came back today what would he make of it? Since the Koran seems fairly clear that Muslims should follow his example, are ISIS not the closest to that in all their cruelty and depravity? Would he not call the rest hypocrites and consign them all to hell (and not only hell but the bottom of hell where it’s 70 times hotter)?

    I don’t know what “modernisers” and “moderates” say about sharia or how they presumably justify jettisoning it (or part of it, in which case how do they decide?).

    Any clarification appreciated.

    By the way, isn’t sharia law a misnomer? Isn’t sharia the total path including helpful but non-legal suggestions on things like how to enter the toilet, a subset of which is Islamic law?

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 20, 2015 at 10:30 am

      ECAW, I believe using the term “Shari’ah law” is useful for Infidels who may not be familiar with the term–it makes it clear that Shari’ah has real world consequences for those who live under it.

      But you are quite right–Shari’ah goes way beyond what we in the West consider law–it is, really, an entire malign overarching regime, that governs every aspect of life for both Muslims and Infidels wherever Islam is in power.

    • Daniel Triplett says

      Oct 22, 2015 at 12:27 am

      @ECAW

      My guess is the only thing Muslim monarchs and dictators love more than Allah/Mo, is the absolute power and wealth they command over their peasants.

      To be a perfect Muslim, they must surrender their power and wealth to the lone Caliphate. Since they don’t want to do that, they’re willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their power, and avoid an insurrection from their constituents. If that means relaxing the rules a bit, or even give the appearance of secular rule, then so be it.

      Just a guess though. Who knows how those demonic fools think?

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

  • 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
  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks

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.