Why the hard-Left hate group Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not an Islamic group (although it certainly enables the jihad by smearing and defaming foes of jihad terror) rather than, say, a book of Islamic law? Could it be because the most comprehensive manual of Islamic law in English, Reliance of the Traveller, which has been certified by al-Azhar as conforming to “the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” lays out in precise detail the jihad imperative to wage war against and subjugate Infidels, and all the elements of Sharia — stonings, amputations, the death penalty for apostasy, the laws of dhimmitude, the devaluation of non-Muslims’ lives, and more — that CNN would prefer you did not know?
The article, as you would expect, is full of evasions, distortions, and half-truths. Much more below.
“What is Sharia law?,” by Gul Tuysuz, CNN, August 16, 2016:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says he wants to test Muslims coming into America to make sure they don’t want Sharia law to supersede the US constitution. Meanwhile some states have passed, or are trying to pass, laws to curb the possibility of Sharia law making its way onto the books in the US.
With the rise in recent years of both radical Islamic terrorism and anti-Muslim bigotry, Sharia — or Islamic religious law — has become a hot topic of debate.
Some of its harsher versions can demand women clad in all black, adulterers being stoned and thieves getting their hands cut off. But Sharia governs many other areas of Muslim life, such as prayer. And many Muslims, turning to Sharia for moral guidance, have more moderate and varied interpretations….
In reality, all the principal Sunni madhahib (schools of jurisprudence), the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali, agree on 75% of all their rulings, and all of them contain the mandate to cover women except for their face and hands, stone adulterers, and amputate thieves’ hands. Not all Muslim countries do this because they don’t all enforce Sharia, but wherever Sharia is enforced, we see these aspects of it. There is no Sharia state in the world today that doesn’t do stonings and amputations and mandate that women be veiled. While some individual Muslims may tell CNN that they have more moderate and varied interpretations, wherever we see Sharia enforced, whether it be in Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan, it is pretty much the same. And there is a reason for that: Sharia doesn’t really have much in the way of moderate and varied interpretations.
“Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance,” according to Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What’s in Sharia?
Sharia is based on Islam’s holy book, the Quran, and the life of prophet Mohammed. The majority of it concerns the faith of the individual and how to practice Islam, along with guidance on when to pray and how to fast during Ramadan.
Shariah law, according to Muslims, includes “the principle of treating other people justly, of making sure that the financial system treats people fairly … and most importantly the basic principles of Islamic fate,” says Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman.
Feldman is a world-renowned Sharia “expert” who never gets around to explaining how Sharia institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims.
It encompasses things like marriage, divorce, inheritance and punishments for criminal offenses.
Is it one law, or many?
While the Quran and the life of the prophet make up Sharia, its interpretation is called ‘fikh’ and is done through Muslim scholarship. Most practicing Muslims take their cues about their faith from Sharia, but it is not practiced uniformly.
Of course. No law is ever obeyed uniformly. But that doesn’t change the character of the law itself.
Its implementation varies greatly across the Muslim world. A Pew religious landscape survey found that 57% of American Muslims say there is more than one way to interpret Islam’s teachings.
Terror groups such as ISIS are trying to implement a brutal version of Sharia law, but millions of Muslims are guided by a much more moderate interpretation.
In reality, ISIS is implementing classic and mainstream Sharia provisions. Saudi Arabia is also, which is why it does the same things ISIS does, as has often been remarked. Those Muslim countries that don’t do these things don’t have a “more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions.
Where is it practiced?
Sharia has been applied in varying degrees and with great diversity in practice — both by individual Muslims and predominantly Muslim countries. While both Saudi Arabia and Iran claim to be ruled by Sharia, they differ greatly in how they implement its laws….
Not really. They both do stonings and amputations. They both oppress women, along with those who are not in the dominant Muslim group.
Most Muslims enjoy the religious freedom they need to practice their faith, which is guaranteed by the US constitution.
“It doesn’t consume my life that I want to make it the governing law of the country I live in. I am very content to live in the US under the constitution,” says retired Lt. Col. Shareda Hosein in an interview with CNN. “And for me the constitution affords me my freedom of religion, which is the most important thing for me and other Muslims.”
It would have been interesting if CNN had asked Lt. Col. Shareda Hosein if Sharia affords non-Muslims full freedom of religion, or only freedom of religion insofar as they accept subjugated dhimmi status. But CNN never gets that interesting.

Crusades Were Right! says
CNN has just been exposed as a lie machine for editing the remarks of a black thug’s relative – who called for violence in the suburbs of Milwaukee – so that she appeared to be calling for NO violence.
CNN: Counterfeit News Network
More Ham Ed says
AKA
Crescent News Network
Clinton News Network
Careless News Network
Cowardly News Network
Crack News Network
and more.
Cecilia Ellis says
More Ham, I’m torn in deciding which of your suggestions I best like: Crescent News Network or Clinton New Network. In keeping with the Olympic competition, I am awarding the Gold Medal to the Clinton News Network. ?
DefenderofIslm says
Faul new better Fox New lies than give false information about Islam and moslim. Islam did created cutting off the hand of than habit thief who steal from his clan and tribe repeatedly that desert society have no way to lock up just people for 10 to 20 year in jail. Later on in more civilized part in the Islamist Empire they have pision terms for thief.
Cecilia Ellis says
DefenderofIslm wrote: “Later on in more civilized part in the Islamist Empire they have pision (sic) terms for thief.”
DefenderofIslm, please contact Allah immediately to explain why you have rejected the Quranic mandate that Allah revealed to Mihammad in Quranic verse 5:38:
“As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Pickthall)
There seems to be no indication in the Quran that Allah abrogated this verse, which would explain why Sharia-compliant Saudi Arabia administers this punishment routinely, despite the fact that the Saudis have sufficient funds to build a prison.
Hurry . . . Allah is waiting . . .
J D S says
Does the Muslims not understand islam
Or Is it that Muslims have learned to lie like our top officials or is that the other way around. Guess I’m just confused…..
gravenimage says
“DefenderofIslm”–who cannot even spell “Islam”–wrote:
Faul (sic) new (sic) better (sic) Fox New (sic) lies than (sic) give (sic) false information about Islam and moslim (sic).
………………………………..
What, exactly, has Fox News said that is false about Islam? (Except, of course, when they have some twit on who asserts that Islam is a ‘religion of peace”).
More:
Islam did created (sic) cutting off the hand of than (sic) habit (sic) thief who steal (sic) from his clan and tribe repeatedly that (sic) desert society have no way to lock up just people for 10 to 20 year in jail. Later on in more civilized part in (sic) the Islamist (sic) Empire they have pision (sic) terms for thief (sic).
………………………………..
Islam probably did not originate amputation for petty theft–but like slavery and stoning, Muslims *certainly* have enthusiastically embraced it.
As for amputation being purely necessitated by the conditions of dark ages Arabia, this is, of course, quite false.
Amputation is practiced in many parts of Dar-al-Islam today, including such far-flung places as Iran, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Islamic State–none of which are nomadic desert societies.
The fact is that punishments like this are becoming *more* widespread as more Muslim countries adopt Islamic law. And why not? Amputations are a standard Shari’ah punishment.
marina says
“more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions.
Can you cut a thief’s hand softly or stone an adulterer gently?
billybob says
You could use a really sharp knife and very well rounded stones, like those you get at the beach. That would be much more moderate than using a dull knife or rough stones with sharp edges. More humane too! One way to put a more humane face on Sharia!
Shane says
Nobody trusts the MSM any more and with good reason; how about asking Robert Spencer for his opinion about Sharia law to balance out the lying muslim’s viewpoint!
Peggy says
If you want to drag it out but if in a hurry they turn to a more “humane” method of setting you on fire.
Guest says
In Sharia women receiving less than a man is considered just. Before you start calling it good look what the term, ‘good’ and ‘fair’ means in the Middle East
Christianblood says
Meanwhile, US Air Force officer faces investigation over Bible on his desk. Check it out: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/17/air-force-officer-faces-investigation-over-bible-on-his-desk.html
More Ham Ed says
Yer’ constantly off topic as if trying to run a news outlet. There’s no-way you’re a day over 17 down in your mother’s basement. For the 22nd time:
LEAVE
AND
GO
GET
YOUR
OWN
WEB
SITE.
marc says
Stay on topic @Christianblood or you will be banished, as Mr Ed has suggested, get your own blog. @Everyoneelse, if anyone sees him cross the line again, let me know please.
XCUZME says
More Ham Ed…
why when we tlk @ religious freedom is it off topic to tlk @ religious freedom = as in Bible followers ?
marc says
@XCUZME I am sure Mr Ed can reply for himself, but that post CB shared is not about religious freedom, it is about 2 evangelists butting heads, it is distracting from the subject in hand, and not the subject of this site, which if you look at the header, and the subject that all the posts are about “Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts”, you and CB really should start your own blog, https://wordpress.com/ will give you a free one.
Christianblood says
Marc
I don’t see the necessity to punish me or anyone else here. I don’t know if you can see it or not but at a deeper level, there is a link between the hard-left groups such as the pro-sharia “Southern Poverty Law Center” and the group that is punishing this air force officer for having an open Bible on his desk. Their names may be different but their target and goals are one and the same and that is to dysintacise and promote islam and sharee’a as peaceful while dismissing and demonizing Christians and their Bible as evil and intolerant and that is what I was trying to expose in my comment.
marc says
no I don’t see it, it’s off topic, have you seen evidence of Weinstein treating any other officer showing any faith differently? any evidence apart from your gut feeling? he looks to be an atheist evangelist, obnoxious as he is, it’s nothing more.
The threat of banishment is not to punish you, (don’t play the victim card) but to keep comments on topic.
Ex-muslim says
Christianblood says
“I don’t know if you can see it or not but at a deeper level, there is a link between the hard-left groups such as the pro-sharia “Southern Poverty Law Center” and the group that is punishing this air force officer for having an open Bible on his desk. Their names may be different but their target and goals are one and the same”.
You are absolutely right, CB. they have the same agenda and the same goals and its exactly as you stated above. Dear CB, the problem is that you get it but most people in the West don’t get it or understand what is going on or the real agenda behind all this.
They don’t get it because they have NO deep emotional or psychological connection to Christianity as you do and that is why they are not outraged when someone denigrates Christians or Christianity or the Bible and that is why muslims and leftists are taking advantage of Christians and trying to ban the Bible and after a short while, trust me, they will start persecuting, banning and murdering Christians in the West, if Christians don’t stand up to their enemies and defend themselves and their faith this will come after a short few years!
@ Mark
you wrote: “have you seen evidence of Weinstein treating any other officer showing any faith differently”.
Mr. Weinstein is exactly targeting the air force this officer because he is a Bible believing Christian. Leftist atheists in the West don’t hate or persecute muslims, hindus, bahais or buddhist’s the only group they hate and go after week after week after week are Christians. Do you live in America and not able to understand this?
Mark wrote: “any evidence apart from your gut feeling?”
You are not God who knows what goes on in the hearts and minds of other people so stop acting like you are God.
marc says
@Ex-muslim not buying it, it’s off topic, go get your own blog, and learn to spell my name, it really isn’t hard, my location and before you ask, my faith is none of your damn business. I have no time for any evangelists of any flavour (for the record I particularly despise the atheist evangelist like Weinstein when they try to enlighten me with their faith), but if you really found he is not treating everyone the same, that is a concern, write it up on you own blog, it’s out of place here. Now jog on.
Angemon says
Ex-muslim posted:
“You are not God who knows what goes on in the hearts and minds of other people so stop acting like you are God.”
This is written as a reply to marc, who asked CB the following:
It’s not marc that’s acting like he knows what goes on in the hearts and minds of other people – it’s CB. And EM, as usual, is running interference for CB.
marc says
@Angemon i see what they are upto collectively, if there’s one thing I hate more when moderating than evangelist (of any flavour, i have to say that or they play the victim card), is disingenuous evangelist, this telling me what is in hearts thing, is a straw man evangelists fall back on.
@CB, EM and Peggy Mikey Weinstein sounds like a right nasty piece of work, I spent a little time researching him, you’re right, most if not all of his actions are against christians, but he has no connection with islam or any of the subject matter of this site from what I see, you are being disingenuous to claim that and trying to bring others into your battle under false pretense.Maybe sheer laziness on your part, he looks like a rodent, take him on, do your own leg work, don’t try hijacking threads here.
Angemon says
Oh, and that is on the same post EM writes:
EM acts like he knows what goes on in the minds and hearts of others – I guess it’s only a bad thing when he is accusing others of doing it…
gravenimage says
“Ex-muslim” has stated many times that he looks forward to Muslims destroying the free West, and “Christianblood” has heartily agreed with him.
marc says
@gravenimage I didn’t see that, was it in anyway on topic, or another case of their misdirection? if you see any new cases since i’m warning them, please let me know.
Angemon says
It’s their standard post – something happens in the west and they jump on it to tell us how islamophilic and anti-Christian the West is and how we deserve to be punished for it.
marc says
@gravenimage “marc said: I didn’t see that, was it in anyway on topic, or another case of their misdirection? if you see any new cases since i’m warning them, please let me know.”
“gravenimage said” It’s their standard post – something happens in the west and they jump on it to tell us how islamophilic and anti-Christian the West is and how we deserve to be punished for it.”
I think it’s time to put an end to that, next time it happens let me know and they are gone. “islamophobic” is a fake word, i hope they are not using that here
Angemon says
marc posted:
I said that, not GI 🙂
““islamophobic” is a fake word, i hope they are not using that here”
Hepresented, a couple of times IIRC, as an example of how the West was pro-islam, claiming it was created by Western elites to silence critics of islam.
Champ says
marc says
August 18, 2016 at 12:07 am
Stay on topic @Christianblood or you will be banished, as Mr Ed has suggested, get your own blog. @Everyoneelse, if anyone sees him cross the line again, let me know please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will do, Marc!!
gravenimage says
marc wrote:
@gravenimage I didn’t see that, was it in anyway on topic, or another case of their misdirection? if you see any new cases since i’m warning them, please let me know.
…………………….
Hi, Marc. “Ex-muslim” and “Christianblood” have done this many times. Here’s one recent example, from just a few days ago:
Ex-muslim says
August 10, 2016 at 11:21 am
@ gravenimage
You Americans and Westerners, you are baking Islamic jihadists to conquer, rule and even murder Christians in ME and other places so why is it a surprise to you when we hope the same fate for you? You hate Christ and your evil and pro-Islamic Western governments are the Anti-Christ forces and you really deserve to be ruled and abused by the evil Islamic jihadists that you support and love so deeply! May God punish you in the hands of Islamic jihadists that you love and support, you Christ-haters!
Reply
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/florida-orlando-jihad-mass-murderers-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally#comment-1499240
“Christianblood’s” reply is the very next post, where he says, “Excellent and very well-said, Ex-muslim!”.
And this was not just some random moment of frustration on their parts, but a regular topic. More from “Ex-muslim”, a couple of weeks ago:
Ex-muslim says
July 20, 2016 at 1:17 pm
I have truly HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE WEST, THEY ARE EVIL TRAITORS WHO LOVE ISLAM AND WHO BETRAYED JESUS CHRIST AND HIS NOBLE GOSPEL AND THEY ALL DESERVE TO BE CONQUERED THE MUSLIM JIHADISTS THEY ARE SO IN LOVE WITH! THE GOD OF THE WEST IS MATERIALISM, SEX, SEX TOYS AND CORRUPTION! THEY ARE ALL TRAITORS. ALL OF THEM. MAY GOD JUDGE THEM AND PUNISH THEM! THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHRISTIANS BUT LOVE MUSLIM JIHADIST KILLERS. THEY ARE TRAITORS!
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/france-muslim-migrant-stabs-woman-and-her-three-daughters-for-being-scantily-dressed#comment-1483813
There are many, many more examples.
“Christianblood” is a Russian supremacist who makes no secret of his hatred of the West, but he does occasionally actually oppose Jihad. Virtually all of “Ex-muslim’s” posts are about how he wants to see the West destroyed by his (former?) coreligionists, however.
He has also often been abusive to commenters here. On that same thread, he had this to say about long-time poster Angemon:
“@ Angemon
You are nothing but an atheistic, pro-Hollywood homo who love muslims and hate Christians. Get lost!”
Christianblood says
Marc posted
(..Mikey Weinstein sounds like a right nasty piece of work, I spent a little time researching him, you’re right, most if not all of his actions are against christians, but he has no connection with islam or any of the subject matter of this site from what I see..)
Marc, at a deeper level, there is a link between the hard-left groups such as the pro-sharia “Southern Poverty Law Center”, “Media Matters” and Weinstein’s group who are punishing this officer for keeping a Bible in office and so many other hard left groups. They are all enablers of islamic supremacism and sharia and they constantly denigrate and target Christians and the Bible. Marc, I suggest you please read (United in Hate) a great book on the subject matter written by Dr. Jamie Glazov which documents this deep symbiotic relationship.
marc says
Christianblood: said “Marc, at a deeper level, there is a link between the hard-left groups such as the pro-sharia “Southern Poverty Law Center”, “Media Matters” and Weinstein’s group who are punishing this officer for keeping a Bible in office and so many other hard left groups. They are all enablers of islamic supremacism and sharia and they constantly denigrate and target Christians and the Bible. Marc, I suggest you please read (United in Hate) a great book on the subject matter written by Dr. Jamie Glazov which documents this deep symbiotic relationship.”
@Christianblood: so you have no specific evidence they are connected, you just want me to read a book and take your word for it, lazy is what i think, i really don’t have time for this, it’s easier for me to just ban you for a month, try and circumvent the ban and I get nasty, if you have trouble posting again in a month, and you want back in, ping me an email, you can use the form on the sidebar to the right.
African infidel says
Americans brag about “freedom speech” and preach the world that people can express their political opinion etc but if that ‘freedom of speech’ does not fit to their American to their narrow worldview then they would threaten to punish people or ban people etc. What a hypocrisy!
marc says
@american infidel said “Americans brag about “freedom speech” and preach the world that people can express their political opinion etc but if that ‘freedom of speech’ does not fit to their American to their narrow worldview then they would threaten to punish people or ban people etc. What a hypocrisy!”
You’re assuming I am American, I’m just trying to keep conversation on topic, if you agree with taking the conversation in a different direction, please do it on CB’s blog. You are free to say what you want there if CB allows it.
linnte says
I appreciate your efforts Marc! Thanks!
Angemon says
African infidel posted:
“Americans brag about “freedom speech” and preach the world that people can express their political opinion etc”
Which they can. “Freedom of speech” means that people have the right to express their views without being punished by the government. And even then, there are laws and checks limiting speech – basically, don’t lie and don’t call for violence, and you’ll be fine.
“ but if that ‘freedom of speech’ does not fit to their American to their narrow worldview then they would threaten to punish people or ban people etc. What a hypocrisy!”
No hypocrisy whatsoever, just your ignorance of what “freedom of speech” is and an attempt to use it as a shield to hide behind. Jihad Watch is a *privately-owned* website and therefore it is under no obligation to allow you (or anyone else, for that matter) to speak freely in their space. To the staff’s eternal credit, they are extraordinarily hands-off, and it takes something incredibly out of the normal for them to interfere. And even then, as seen here, said intervention came in the form of a warning to stay on topic – CB’s posts are still here for everyone to see.
marc says
@Angemon
“Which they can. “Freedom of speech” means…”
thanks for that, sorry, been far too busy dealing with ddos and hack attacks here and on other counter jihad related site to put the effort into moderation required.
I even told the disingenuous CB that I agreed with them, they should get their own blog and go after their own issues there, and I’ll even help them maintain their freedom of speech when they are inevitably attacked.
African infidel says
marc says
“I’m just trying to keep conversation on topic”.
No, you are threatening to punish certain commenters who don’t fit into your political opinions and your doing this at the recommendations of others whose views you like.
If you are the moderator and you think someone is out of line you give them first and a second warnings and then may decide to take other measures but you are threatening people who are non-Western and you think their political opinions are different from those who you consider have got the right opinions. This is not right, it is like a tribal mentality!
marc says
@African infidel
CB was warned, stay on topic, but they had to double down twice, despite a warning of banishment, i think a month ban is tame.
as for your accusations, i don’t agree with the political opinions of many of the most active commentators here, I actually agree that the west is collectively to blame for the rise of islam for one reason or another, i do not forgive the EU for jumping in and taking sides against serbia, or for creating the climate that led to the stabbing of a Jew today in France. i really don’t have time to argue these points, I am totally focused on the stated aims of this site “Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts”.
Unlike CB and EM, I don’t not belive that the West now deserves whats happening to them, the 10s of thousands of girls raped in the UK by pakistani moslims deserve better.
Angemon says
African Infidel posted:
“No, you are threatening to punish certain commenters who don’t fit into your political opinions”
What “political opinion” is, for example, saying that one will celebrate when muslims murder infidels? This is a red herring – CB was warned to stay on topic. Are you suggesting that trying to derail topics like CB has been doing is, in fact, a political action?
“and your doing this at the recommendations of others whose views you like.”
This is a vile accusation. Provide evidence or retract and apologize. Who made these alleged recommendation? Using which medium?
“If you are the moderator and you think someone is out of line you give them first and a second warnings and then may decide to take other measures”
Huh, spoiler alert: that was exactly what happened here – CB was warned and told that if he continued he’d be banned for a spell.
“but you are threatening people who are non-Western”
First of all, there was no threat. CB got a polite warning to stay on topic. Second, what does CB’s geographic location have to do with anything, especially when you are complaining about “political” opinions? Seems like you’re trying to play all and any victim card you can grasp at …
“and you think their political opinions are different from those who you consider have got the right opinions. This is not right, it is like a tribal mentality!”
Got any evidence to back that assertion, Dr. Mind Reader? Funny that you accuse someone of having a tribal mentality after all the circle-jerk CB and his backup squad (you included) have been engaging for months – not to mention you and your nonsensical assertions about the alleged mass murder of Black Americans by whites.
Ex-muslim says
gravenimage says
“Ex-muslim” has stated many times that he looks forward to Muslims destroying the free West”.
Graven, I am not apologizing for saying that. The West is evil, Anti-Christ, pro-islam, pro-jihadist. Do you know me and the pain me my people had to go through because of the West’s, especialy America’s support of muslim jihadists??????? Do you? No you don’t know and you don’t understand, will never understand until you go through the same problems, pain, hate, murder, evictions, expropriations and persecutions. Years ago, I loved America and the West but now I know what America and the West stand for and because of what they did to me and to millions of other Christians in the ME and I now pray to God that islam takes over the West and that God punishes the West in the severest way possible! Mark my words, my prayers will be answered. I know that for sure!
burmeseyang22@gmail.com says
mark says
“I am totally focused on the stated aims of this site “Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts”.
Add also how Western liberalism is fueling Islamic jihad theology as CB pointed out.
marc says
burmeseyang2, Ex-muslim and African infidel will be all banished for using multiple alises in an abusive way,

https://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EM-fakenames.png
Angemon says
You have to give the guy/girl credit for the creativity – he/she tried to cover as much ground as possible, pretending to be a former muslim from the ME, an African Christian and a Burmese… well, something.
And, of course, the million dollar question is “why”? Why would someone go to the trouble of creating multiple accounts to parrot the same nonsense?
Cecilia Ellis says
Marc, you made my day! Guess the single poster (pick a name from any one of the three) still has not learned this Western adage: “If you can’t play with the big dogs, get off the porch!” ?
gravenimage says
African infidel–who has also joined in with “Christianblood” and “Ex-muslim” in salivating over the supposed immanent destruction of the West by Muslims–wrote:
Americans brag about “freedom speech” and preach the world that people can express their political opinion etc but if that ‘freedom of speech’ does not fit to their American to their narrow worldview then they would threaten to punish people or ban people etc. What a hypocrisy!
………………………………….
What rot. Freedom of speech means that one can speak freely in society; it *does not* mean that any individual need provide a platform from which to speak.
As Angemon notes, Jihad Watch is privately owned. Robert Spencer need not provide a platform to anyone–were this true, he would have to be fine with ISIS or Boko Haram using Jihad Watch to preach violent Jihad.
A privately owned site is like someone’s living room–for instance, surely you would not countenance someone using your living room to denigrate Africans–nor should you have to.
To demand this is not freedom of speech–it would, in fact, take away your freedoms.
More:
marc says
“I’m just trying to keep conversation on topic”.
No, you are threatening to punish certain commenters who don’t fit into your political opinions and your doing this at the recommendations of others whose views you like.
If you are the moderator and you think someone is out of line you give them first and a second warnings and then may decide to take other measures but you are threatening people who are non-Western and you think their political opinions are different from those who you consider have got the right opinions. This is not right, it is like a tribal mentality!
………………………………….
Many commenters here are non-Western, and Jihad Watch reflects a wide range of opinion–some of which, I’m sure, neither Robert Spencer nor Marc Louis agree with.
I consider it generous that Jihad Watch has a comments section–certainly, you enjoy using it to regularly excoriate Westerners as “fags” who deserve to murdered by Jihadists.
Champ says
“burmeseyang2, Ex-muslim and African infidel” …are *all* the same person?
Good catch, Marc! Thanks for ending the charade.
gravenimage says
“Ex-muslim” wrote:
gravenimage says
“Ex-muslim” has stated many times that he looks forward to Muslims destroying the free West”.
Graven, I am not apologizing for saying that.
……………………………..
Well, this comes as no surprise–“Ex-muslim” has never said anything else here.
More:
The West is evil, Anti-Christ, pro-islam, pro-jihadist.
……………………………..
I have pointed out before that Jihad Watch is hardly “pro-jihadist”, and that the site is, in fact, run by a devout Christian.
And as usual. “Ex-muslim” makes it clear that he hates the clueless West far more than he does ravening Jihadists.
More:
Do you know me and the pain me my people had to go through because of the West’s, especialy America’s support of muslim jihadists??????? Do you? No you don’t know and you don’t understand, will never understand until you go through the same problems, pain, hate, murder, evictions, expropriations and persecutions.
……………………………..
I have criticized the foolish policies of America and the West here many times.
I have noted that many who have escaped Dar-al-Islam seek to warn Infidels about the threat of Islam; not to salivate over Muslims persecuting and murdering us. Why does “Ex-muslim” despise those like Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, and Simon Deng?
More:
Years ago, I loved America and the West but now I know what America and the West stand for and because of what they did to me and to millions of other Christians in the ME…
……………………………..
Most Americans know very little about Islam. The idea that Westerners are pro-Jihad is just absurd.
As disgusting as the idiots in the article above are, they hope that Shari’ah *is benign*–they are not actually seeking to impose Shari’ah and see amputations and stonings in the streets–and anyone who believes that this is the goal of CNN or even of the SPLC is quite delusional.
More:
…and I now pray to God that islam takes over the West and that God punishes the West in the severest way possible! Mark my words, my prayers will be answered. I know that for sure!
……………………………..
What a sick view of Christianity–again, in what way, exactly, is “Ex-muslim” an ex-Muslim? He has the same aims as any pious Jihadist.
And how he believes the fall of the West to ravening Mohammedans will help Infidels in the Middle East or anywhere else is anyone’s guess.
But I doubt he cares; he just wants to see others suffer more than anything else.
gravenimage says
Oh–I had missed “Ex-muslim”, “African Infidel”, and “burmeseyang2”–this last appears to be a new alias–all being one and the same. Thanks for the information, Marc.
This certainly explains why the first two had always sounded so similar…
Really, how weak is it to create an alias to agree with your other aliases? And how cynical is it to pose as someone from the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Burma?
I wonder where this poster is *really* from?
marc says
@gravenimage: they are using the free wifi at Scarborough Public Library in Ontario, if they start messing around trying to circumvent my security I will “research” them further and let you know what i find.
I’m feeling bad for CB now, if they weren’t egged on by these fake profiles they wouldn’t have acted like they did.
gravenimage says
marc wrote:
@gravenimage: they are using the free wifi at Scarborough Public Library in Ontario, if they start messing around trying to circumvent my security I will “research” them further and let you know what i find.
…………………………..
Good grief–thanks for that information, Marc.
“Ex-muslim”/”African Infidel” always acted as though his only knowledge of the West was from our (supposed) persecution of them via our ‘proxies’ the Jihadists.
To learn that he was actually posting from a library in Toronto could not be more perverse–he is either a Westerner or someone who has been given sanctuary in the West.
More:
I’m feeling bad for CB now, if they weren’t egged on by these fake profiles they wouldn’t have acted like they did.
…………………………..
Oh, “Christianblood” has been excoriating the West and singing the praises of Putin–and whitewashing his enabling of a nuclear Iran and Shari’ah state Chechnya–here since long before “Ex-muslim”/“African Infidel”/“burmeseyang2” ever showed up.
He actually gets around to saying something critical of Islam in perhaps one in ten posts.
I’m sure he’ll be right back to it as soon as the month is up.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“To learn that he was actually posting from a library in Toronto could not be more perverse–he is either a Westerner or someone who has been given sanctuary in the West.”
This comes as no surprise to me – I postulated a month or so ago that if he wasn’t residing in America he was residing in a place where he could freely access American media. I guess Canada fits the bill.
Ex-muslim says
Champ says
“Ex-muslim and African infidel” …are *all* the same person?
Good catch, Marc! Thanks for ending the charade.”
That is rubbish! Was it you who also said that Ex-muslim and “t” are the same person a few weeks back? This is Incredible!
Ex-muslim says
African infidel says
“No, you are threatening to punish certain commenters who don’t fit into your political opinions and your doing this at the recommendations of others whose views you like.”
Thank you (AI). You said it very well! It is called discrimination because of political opinion!
Angemon says
Ex-muslim posted:
“African infidel says
(…)
Thank you (AI).”
Still trying to pretend you’re two different people? You just don’t know when you’re beaten, do you?
“You said it very well! It is called discrimination because of political opinion!”
How is saying that you’ll celebrate when muslims kill westerners a “political opinion”?
marc says
Ex-muslim, African infidel or better Duad of Toronto, I have clear forensic evidence you are the same, now Jog on, play your games elsewhere, and try and get some real friends to back you up, you are too old to have imaginary ones.
Champ says
“…and try and get some real friends to back you up, you are too old to have imaginary ones.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL!!! 😀 …good one, Marc!
David says
Sharia may be “Returning” to the psycopathic muslims BUT NOT for anyone else in the world! And certainly not in any Civilized nation with an Educated and Literal population.
Anyonw with a working brain can see the “truth” of islam in a matter of munutes. And that truth is SATANISM. Just look at the two most famous symbols of islam. The cresent moon. Symbol of ancient paganism, belies the origins of islam as a primative Moon Cult.
Second symbol is the star. Recall your scripture, this has always been THE SYMBOL OF SATAN HIMSELF. The son of the morning star! His brightness was as thst of the morning star!
Angemon says
Because, apparently, those are two equivalent evils – islamic terrorism and “anti-muslim” “bigotry”…
gravenimage says
Yes–witless false moral equivalency.
linnte says
Anti Muslim bigot here, and proud of it! Haahahahahaha!
Robert_K says
Actually the Sharia for Shia Islam is more moderate than Sunni Islam for Huduud (Punishments) for thieves – Shia Sharia only chop of the fingers, while Sunni Sharia chop off the hand. So who says that there aren’t some versions of Sharia which are not more moderate than others?
gravenimage says
Alas, even this “moderation”–which I’m sure you meant sarcastically–is not holding:
“Iran cuts off man’s hand for stealing”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/24/iran-thief-hand-cut-off
Robert_K says
I think you are not giving Iranian Shia moderation due consideration: Iran unveils finger amputating machine for use on thieves
Iran has unveiled its latest innovation in criminal punishment – a machine that cuts off the fingers of thieves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9831727/Iran-unveils-finger-amputating-machine-for-use-on-thieves.html
If you go to Sunni websites they prescribe hand amputation.
By the Theory of Moral Relativism, moderation is a relative term. So Shia Islam could be described as more moderate than Sunni Islam.
Cecilia Ellis says
Robert_K wrote: “Iran has unveiled its latest innovation in criminal punishment – a machine that cuts off the fingers of thieves.”
Thank you, Robert, for posting the link to a report dedicated to Iran’s latest technological invention. While other nations are spending money on medical research devoted to finding cures for diseases or developing programs to enhance quality of life issues for trauma victims, Iran has made a quantum leap from sword to a mechanical shariah-punishment, amputation device — certainly a marvel of modern medical science — in order to streamline those pesky problems that arise when conducting amputations mandated by Allah.
The following extract from the article, to which you provided a link, is interesting as well:
“According to the INSA news service, the prisoner used to demonstrate the brutal contraption had been convicted of theft and adultery by a court in Shiraz last Wednesday.”
One wonders if amputation was limited to fingers . . . ?
gravenimage says
Yes, Robert–the “Finger Amputating Machine” is another fine example of Muslim technological innovation…sarc/off
Ciudadano says
“Its implementation varies greatly across the Muslim world” … perhaps because full implementation of sharia in Islamic countries has been temporarily stopped by western powers
In the last two centuries Western powers have made Islamic countries adopt more secular and modern legal systems or at least more benevolent versions of sharia. If Ottoman Empire hadn’t been defeated in WWI Turkey would still have a legal system based on sharia.
However most Islamic countries haven’t signed yet the UN Bill of Human Rights because it is incompatible with Islam (and sharia) and according to the news reactionary religious Muslims are constantly pushing for full implementation of sharia in Islamic countries.
Now that western civilization has quit the fight for democracy, freedom and human rights, it is just a matter of time before full sharia is implemented in Islamic countries.
Kay says
My heart breaks for the people subjugated under this cruel, violent supremacism. Would that they would all know freedom.
Desperate that our own country remains a place where a person can find freedom.
It’s the creeping part that makes the horror possible. If anyone would see it full-blown, they wouldn’t make concessions. That’s what’s so frustrating to me. It isn’t hard to see it full-blown– in many places in the world right now, in many places in the world in history.
Maybe that’s my comeback: “Where do you think this will lead?”
gravenimage says
Ciudadano wrote:
“Its implementation varies greatly across the Muslim world” … perhaps because full implementation of sharia in Islamic countries has been temporarily stopped by western powers
……………………
This is true. It was much maligned Western colonialism and Western influence that blunted the greatest horrors of Shari’ah and ended slavery in much of the Muslim world.
But now that influence is ebbing and Islam is undergoing a bloody revival.
Peggy says
marc says
August 18, 2016 at 12:11 pm
@XCUZME I am sure Mr Ed can reply for himself
————————————–
I agree that people should not reply on behalf of others but when I point that out to Angemon who replies to me when I speak to someone else he says that everyone has the right to reply to anything or anyone they want here.
Is it OK for some to do it but not others?
It would be good to know the acceptable conduct. Should I pick him up on that or not?
marc says
@Peggy i think if it’s in context and you excuse yourself for butting in it’s OK, this is a public discussion forum where it is normal to see people “backing” each other up. If you think someones being out of order, I’ll check.
Angemon says
marc posted:
“If you think someones being out of order, I’ll check.”
Peggy has expressed, on several occasions, her desire that I should not be allowed to reply to posts she makes:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/corsica-muslims-riot-burn-cars-attack-non-muslims-with-harpoons-over-tourist-photo#comment-1502584
She wants a special status shielding her from replies and criticism. Hence why she latched on to “speak on behalf of” and moved on to “Angemon who replies to me when I speak to someone else” – two completely differentsituations. I never claimed to speak on behalf of someone else. I suspect that if she were to openly say that she wants to prohibit me from replying to her she’d get the same reply she got when she contacted the staff to complain about posts she didn’t like:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/boston-marathon-jihad-murderers-mother-non-muslims-will-burn-in-flames-of-an-eternal-and-terrifying-fire-an-otherworldly-flame-inshaallah#comment-1240861
Peggy says
Marc, contrary to Angemon states, I don’t have problems with people expressing opinions, disagreeing etc. I had people disagree with me and never had problems because they stated their take on the subject and I stated mine. I am sure you won’t find me being rude to trying to chase people off but Angemon really pushes my buttons and I have asked him many times to simply ignore me and I am more than happy to ignore him too but he just won’t because he says he has the right to reply to anyone, anytime.
Even when I am having a conversation with someone, that person might even not have a reply for me but he is replying to my questions or statements and I was directing my question to the other person.
One example.
I stated that France is already lost on one threat and he immediately came at me and said to go away and take my “rhetoric” with me.
I consider that an aggressive approach so I reacted. Then when starts to bring out posts from previous times and includes my replies to him without full context of why I replied that way and just goes on and on and on.
So, my point to you was you didn’t appreciate someone else responding to your reply to another person and you haven’t even asked that person previously to just simply stop paying attention to you. I on the other hand have asked that many times and no basic courtesy to leave me alone. I thought that courtesy was valued.
I don’t want a special status, I just want Angemon to leave me alone.
Marc, here’s an example.
Peggy says
August 18, 2016 at 5:33 pm
He’s probably drunk on vodka.
Like I said before, leaders of non Muslims religions aren’t doing anything more than what the Pope is doing.
The Patriarch should muzzle this idiot.
Reply
Angemon says
August 18, 2016 at 7:22 pm
Transparent damage control.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“I am sure you won’t find me being rude to trying to chase people off ”
Like when you claimed I was seriously disturbed, that I was demented, that I was not very smart, etc.? Is that somehow not rude? Didn’t you told me something along the lines of “if talking to me is so terrible then don’t reply to me”?
“but Angemon really pushes my buttons”
So you have a thin skin. Why is fixing that the responsibility of a site admin?
“and I have asked him many times to simply ignore me and I am more than happy to ignore him too ”
This is a brazen lie. Here’s a little example of how you’re “ignoring” me.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/corsica-muslims-riot-burn-cars-attack-non-muslims-with-harpoons-over-tourist-photo#comment-1503377
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Marc, contrary to Angemon states, I don’t have problems with people expressing opinions, disagreeing etc.”
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“I agree that people should not reply on behalf of others but when I point that out to Angemon”
Bulls***. Where did I ever claim to reply on behalf of someone else? Oh, and way to drag a disagreement across topics.
“who replies to me when I speak to someone else ”
Replying to you is NOT speaking in behalf of someone else. It is, well, replying to you. Anyway, you can’t even get your story straight – you started talking about posting in behalf of others and now you’re complaining that I reply to you.
“he says that everyone has the right to reply to anything or anyone they want here.”
Which we do. There’s no rule here saying otherwise. You know why? Because that would limit the right of response – you could very easily tell someone else that I’m seriously disturbed (as you have) and I wouldn’t have the right to defend myself from your slander.
Oh, and Peggy? You have also replied to others when they were talking to someone else. But apparently it’s not wrong when *you* do it, seeing how I don’t see you complaining about it – just when I do it. Nice dual set of standards.
“Is it OK for some to do it but not others?”
Again: I *never*, ever – not even once – claimed to speak on behalf of someone else. CB and EM were warned because they were posting off-topic drivel.
Peggy says
Is it OK for some to do it but not others?”
Again: I *never*, ever – not even once – claimed to speak on behalf of someone else. CB and EM were warned because they were posting off-topic drivel.
=======================
You don’t have to claim it when you’re actually doing it.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“You don’t have to claim it when you’re actually doing it.”
I never, ever, spoke on behalf of anyone else. Never. What you are saying is not true. It’s a lie. It’s slander. And if you had your little “Angemon can’t reply to me” rule I wouldn’t be able to defend myself from it.
Go ahead – give examples of what you’re accusing me of doing. I bet you can’t. Because I never spoke on anyone’s behalf.
Peggy says
@CB, EM and Peggy Mikey Weinstein sounds like a right nasty piece of work, I spent a little time researching him, you’re right, most if not all of his actions are against christians, but he has no connection with islam or any of the subject matter of this site from what I see, you are being disingenuous to claim that and trying to bring others into your battle under false pretense.Maybe sheer laziness on your part, he looks like a rodent, take him on, do your own leg work, don’t try hijacking threads here
============================
Marc,
Any reason you have included me in this? I don’t believe I have even mentioned Mikey Weistein so how am I trying to hijack anything?
Peggy says
Angemon says
August 18, 2016 at 9:28 pm
Peggy posted:
“You don’t have to claim it when you’re actually doing it.”
I never, ever, spoke on behalf of anyone else. Never. What you are saying is not true. It’s a lie. It’s slander. And if you had your little “Angemon can’t reply to me” rule I wouldn’t be able to defend myself from it.
Here’s one.
Clearly a conversation between GI and I
Peggy says
August 16, 2016 at 12:48 am
GI said:
gravenimage says
August 15, 2016 at 11:43 pm
Peggy, you can counsel surrender and despair here if you so desire.
But there are bound to be those here who will disagree with you.
————————————————
I don’t understand why you feel the need to point out the obvious. I know there are some who disagree with me and I disagree with them. Did I give you the impression that I mind that?
Who was I rude to because they disagreed with me? If you are talking about Angemon then please go back and see my post to which he replied not with reason and a better argument but with instructions to get lost and take my “rhetoric” someplace else.
Do you think that was a civil response to my post?
We disagree from time to time and neither one of us speaks to the other that way.
We all have the right to our thoughts and conclusions but we need to be civil.
Reply
Angemon says
August 16, 2016 at 6:10 am
Peggy posted:
“I don’t understand why you feel the need to point out the obvious.”
Probably because you acted like what I and JB did was something inconceivable? Probably because you acted like you wanted to punish me and JB for having the insolence to talk back at you? Probably because you were very clear in saying that you have the right of not getting replies whose content you don’t like?
“I know there are some who disagree with me and I disagree with them. Did I give you the impression that I mind that?”
*ahem*
“
I have every right to express what I think without you telling me to go away (again) and take my “rhetoric” with me.
Again – and you’re purposely answering this by now, there’s simply no other explanation – who gave you those rights?
“Who was I rude to because they disagreed with me?”
Me, for starters. Of course, “rude” is a subjective term. I certainly wasn’t rude to you. I can state that you were certainly were rude to me but, like I said, that’s subjective. Anyway, GI didn’t brought up the rudeness issue. Why are you bringing it up? Could it be that you realize you’re coming across as a rude, obnoxious, rub and you’re trying to justify yourself to GI?
“If you are talking about Angemon then please go back and see my post to which he replied not with reason and a better argument but with instructions to get lost and take my “rhetoric” someplace else.”
I reply with arguments to arguments. Saying that “it’s too late for France” is not an argument so you didn’t get an argument for a response. Had you stated why “it’s too late for France” and things would have went differently. Again, the double-standards are staggering. Arguments? Pfffttt, that’s for others to do – you can simply say that’s “too late for France” without having to explain why you think so.
“Do you think that was a civil response to my post?”
Do you think it wasn’t? If so, why? Do you think telling people a third party can’t control their actions is a civil response? If so, why?
Oh, and please answer my queries regarding that notion of yours where I’m not allowed to say certain things when replying to you.That notion reeks of the same mindset behind the “hate speech is not free speech” con, which is meant to curtail free speech.
Reply
Peggy says
August 16, 2016 at 8:08 am
There is something seriously wrong with you.
You even reply to me when I wasn’t directing my post to you. Do you normally butt in to other people’s conversations? Oh yes, you do. No matter who I reply to, you don’t wait for them to reply to me you jump in.
Can’t you live without conflict? Seriously, you keep using anything as an excuse to get your anger out.
Of course I reply to you in anger. It’s your approach.
Keep it up, you’re really showing all just how demented you really are. Take one small post and you turn it into a war. All this but I have the right to ask questions crap. You don’t ask, you play smart which you are not.
Reply
Angemon says
August 16, 2016 at 9:31 am
Peggy posted:
“There is something seriously wrong with you.
You even reply to me when I wasn’t directing my post to you.”
Oh, look, nice way to address my arguments… No, wait, it’s just more of your petty personal attacks. Again: public forum. I can – and will – reply to whoever I want, regardless of whether or not they are directing their post at me or not. Don’t like it? Too bad.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Here’s one.
Clearly a conversation between GI and I”
Is it taking place in a private medium that I was not privy to? No, it was taking place in a public forum. Anyone can reply to your and/or GI’s posts. You should know this because you have replied to people who were not addressing you. Like you did, for example, here, where I was clearly and specifically replying to GI:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/jihad-martyrdom-bombers-hit-3-saudi-cities-including-muhammads-mosque-in-medina#comment-1474491
That you accuse me of, seemingly expecting to be chastised for, doing something you also do tells a great deal about your character – you either OK with hypocrisy and double standards as long as you get what you want. You came to whine to a member of the site staff in public when you could have emailed your doubts to him. The question is, why did you came to play the victim and complain about me in public when you could have just as easily contacted marc via email, as you have done in the past? The answer, I believe, is pressure – you’re trying to pressure him into acting the way you want by complaining in public and complaining about alleged double standards. It’s the exact same type of pressure you tried to apply when you posted the response your attempted censorship got and complained about the quality of the staff.
Anyway, I asked you to provide an example of what you accused me of – speaking on behalf of someone else. I did not speak on GI’s behalf. Stop obfuscating and either provide evidence that supports the claim you made or retract it and apologize. Which I know you will never do.
Peggy says
@Marc,
Here it is. Another example. I was having a discussion with you and he replies to me.
So Marc as you can see I am not the one who initiates a conversation with him.
Every time it’s him who responds to my post in a way which is obviously meant to bring a reaction. Then when I answer back in order to clarify it he uses the “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you” rubbish.
If he is to leave my posts alone and stop being such an obvious smart a..e there would be no conversation between us.
That’s all I ask of him. Ignore my posts and I will ignore his but he won’t.
I am fed up with defending myself but at the same time do I just let him write whatever he wants and make anything I say look suspicious without trying to correct it? Maybe it just will have to end up being that way.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“@Marc,
Here it is. Another example. I was having a discussion with you and he replies to me.”
Nice try. I’m not speaking on behalf of marc. You accused me of speaking on behalf of others. Either provide evidence or retract and apologize.
“So Marc as you can see I am not the one who initiates a conversation with him.”
No, you prefer to s***post about me in general:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/corsica-muslims-riot-burn-cars-attack-non-muslims-with-harpoons-over-tourist-photo#comment-1503377
Under your rules of engagement, by replying to that I would be the one in the wrong. I would be robbed of the right to defend myself. Not to mention that your rules of engagement, if applied to everyone, would make interacting with other users impossible – you can’t reply to anyone who is not talking to you, but they can’t talk to you because they can’t reply to you unless you’re talking to them.
“Every time it’s him who responds to my post in a way which is obviously meant to bring a reaction.”
See above – made a post saying I was “seriously disturbed”. Champ correctly pointed out that it was nothing more than a provocation. But apparently, me replying to that is the problem.
“Then when I answer back in order to clarify it”
Here’s one of your “clarifications”, to add to the “clarification” above:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/corsica-muslims-riot-burn-cars-attack-non-muslims-with-harpoons-over-tourist-photo/comment-page-1#comment-1503375
There’s plenty more of abuse from where that came from, as well as you saying I “deserved it” because my reply was allegedly aggressive (while your insults and personal attacks apparently aren’t).
“he uses the “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you” rubbish.”
Please link to a post where I told “don’t tell me to stay away from you”. This is simply a falsehood to portray me as having some sort of desire to be near her. Prove what you just wrote or retract and apologize.
“If he is to leave my posts alone and stop being such an obvious smart a..e there would be no conversation between us.”
There’s no conversation to speak of – you invariably don’t address the content of my posts, you’re seemingly happy enough insulting me.
“That’s all I ask of him. Ignore my posts and I will ignore his but he won’t.”
Exactly what percentage of your posts I reply to? Doesn’t matter – you don’t want me replying to anything you say, period. What is that if not a special status?
“I am fed up with defending myself”
“Defending yourself”? Is that what you call to questioning my mental health, lying about what I say, portraying me in the worse way possible, etc.?
“but at the same time do I just let him write whatever he wants and make anything I say look suspicious without trying to correct it? ”
You don’t – like I said, you are swift to resort to petty personal attacks. On the topic I link to above, a cursory look will reveal that I asked you this, no less than 4 times:
You won’t address what I say even when I ask you, repeatedly, to do so – you are seemingly happy enough in insulting me and portraying me in the worse possible way. Heck, just look at what you wrote here: “make anything I say look suspicious”. Do I reply to every single post you make? The majority? A large number? Or a very small minority? Doesn’t matter, you need to play the victim so “anything” it is.
“Maybe it just will have to end up being that way.”
It isn’t that way to begin with. I do not know what tools marc has at his disposal, but if he can filter your posts then he’ll see that what you are accusing me of is factually false.
And I’m going to ask you this here again: why are you addressing marc publicly when you could have done it privately by mail? My guess is that you want to place pressure on him, like you did when you posted a mail from the staff and decried their level – because you did not got the answer you wanted.
Angemon says
“Every time it’s him who responds to my post in a way which is obviously meant to bring a reaction.”
Oh, for f***’s sake – talk about cheap sophistry. Who here posts anything without expecting a reaction from someone? Do you expect no reaction when you tell me “Keep it up, you’re really showing all just how demented you really are”? Or when you say I’m “seriously disturbed”? Everyone who posts something here (or anywhere, for that matter) expects to get a reaction out of people, even if it’s not a direct response – they can be expecting, for example, people will change their minds on a subject.
Saying that I respond to your posts “in a way which is obviously meant to bring a reaction” is unfairly singling me out for literally no reason whatsoever – or are other people who reply to your posts not expecting a reaction from you?
marc says
@Peggy, “Why the hard-Left hate group Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not an Islamic group (although it certainly enables the jihad by smearing and defaming foes of jihad terror) rather than, say, a book of Islamic law? Could it be because the most comprehensive manual of Islamic law in English, Reliance of the Traveller, which […]” is a valid response, as I am sure you have been told, you need to get a thicker skin, if you can’t rebut something, stand down, it doesn’t mean you are wrong, you just don’t have an argument. You really can’t have it your own way just because that how you feel the world should be. what you are complaining of is not someone speaking for someone else which unless they are speaking in your name, you really have no right to complain about, unless they have gone off topic. you’re complaining that you get responses you can’t handle.
Peggy says
I can handle responses which are direct to what I said but as you can clearly see by reading his responses he throws accusations and twist what I said.
Unless I wish it to go on forever then I really can’t respond to anything he comments on my post.
Ok, it’s obvious you don’t see anything wrong in the way he interacts with me so let it go.
I am still confused as to why you mentioned me here:
Peggy says
August 18, 2016 at 9:30 pm
@CB, EM and Peggy Mikey Weinstein sounds like a right nasty piece of work, I spent a little time researching him, you’re right, most if not all of his actions are against christians, but he has no connection with islam or any of the subject matter of this site from what I see, you are being disingenuous to claim that and trying to bring others into your battle under false pretense.Maybe sheer laziness on your part, he looks like a rodent, take him on, do your own leg work, don’t try hijacking threads here
Why am I being connected to Mikey Weinstein?
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“I can handle responses which are direct to what I said”
No, you can not. You reacted to JB, who replied to you with something along the lines of what I said, in pretty much the same way you reacted to me (minus the personal attacks).
“but as you can clearly see by reading his responses he throws accusations and twist what I said.”
Lol! This is hilarious coming from you. And, of course, there’s no example of something I allegedly twisted or of any accusation I made. I linked to your posts and I backed the accusations I made – the same can’t be said of you. Meanwhile – and this is just one example from this topic as to keep things short and to the point – you accused me of saying “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you”. I challenged you to prove that. Which you can’t. Because I never said that. And you either know it to be true or you’re so delusional you are starting to lose whatever tenuous grip on reality you still possess.
Your little narrative does not add up with the available data. You’re basically twisting my words (like when you claimed I spoke on someone else’s behalf), lying about what I say (like when you claimed I said something along the lines of “don’t tell me to stay away from you”) and accusing me of things you do (see the two previous points). You have no evidence for the accusations you make so your response is, well, make more insane accusations.
Retract and apologize for the lies you’re spreading about me, and we’ll work it from there.
Angemon says
marc posted:
“you’re complaining that you get responses you can’t handle.”
Yes, that it pretty much what it all boils down to.
Angemon says
“Then when I answer back in order to clarify it he uses the “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you” rubbish.”
I already addressed this attempt to mischaracterize me and attribute me a motivation but the hole in the narrative was so big I saw through it without realizing it was there to begin with. If you ask me clarification about my posts, why would I say “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you” (which I never did)? Wouldn’t that reply only make sense in the context of you ignoring whatever it was I posted and simply and outright telling me not to reply to you?
Here’s your chance to make your case, Peggy – link to a post where you ask for “clarification” and I reply with what you claim I reply.
gravenimage says
With all respect, Peggy and Angemon, I wish you two were not so often spatting. You both have good observations to make much of the time. And no, I don’t know who started it.
Peggy says
GI, I wish that too.
This is all I said:
Peggy says
August 18, 2016 at 5:33 pm
He’s probably drunk on vodka.
Like I said before, leaders of non Muslims religions aren’t doing anything more than what the Pope is doing.
The Patriarch should muzzle this idiot.
Reply
Angemon says
August 18, 2016 at 7:22 pm
Transparent damage control.
Reply
Peggy says
August 18, 2016 at 8:21 pm
What exactly are you saying by that?
I have put the blame on all non Muslim religious leaders before INCLUDING the Patriarch of Russia. I have never defended Russian top brass in the church. If you can find any evidence of that, go ahead.
_________________
Now I would love not to discuss anything with him but his reaction to my post was “Transparent damage control”.
Look it’s obvious he was implying something and I foolishly responded to that. Now if I don’t reply to his comment on my post chances are he will manage to make my post into something not intended and if I reply he latches on and keeps going.
So contrary to what Marc said that I can’t handle a good reply I just know that he manages to exhaust me by dredging bits and pieces of posts from different topics which are not in full context and certainly not my meaning out to slap me with.
So I have two choices. I can ask what he means by his comment and explain myself and risk never ending to and fro or I ignore his remarks and implications and allow him to make it look the way he wants to.
Best option is for him not to even comment on my posts and I won’t either. I guess that is too much to ask for.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“GI, I wish that too.”
Then stop lying about me. Stop accusing me of things I never did. Stop ascribing me falsehoods. Stop insulting me. Apologize and retract. Show a little of goodwill for a change.
“Now I would love not to discuss anything with him”
You *don’t* discuss things with me. That I have repeatedly *asked* you, on several topics, to explain accusations you’ve levelled against me and/or address specific points I made is proof enough. Flinging insults in my direction and accusing me of things I did not do or write is not “discussing” things with me – it’s attempted character assassination.
“but his reaction to my post was “Transparent damage control”.
You don’t like something I wrote? I’m shocked, shocked!!!
“So contrary to what Marc said that I can’t handle a good reply ”
You can’t. That you replied to JB and me the same way (minus the personal attack) when we said something similar to what I said in response to something you wrote is proof enough.
“I just know that he manages to exhaust me by dredging bits and pieces of posts from different topics which are not in full context and certainly not my meaning out to slap me with.”
Oh, “not in full context”, eh? Such as? Where’s you saying “look at this post, it’s out of context and I don’t mean what he claims because such and such”? For the most part, I post links to your posts and reproduce them in their entirety. Except for the ones that are simple and plain insults – is there any context where you telling me, for example “Keep it up, you’re really showing all just how demented you really are” is actually innocuous?
“So I have two choices. I can ask what he means by his comment and explain myself and risk never ending to and fro or I ignore his remarks and implications and allow him to make it look the way he wants to.”
Here’s an example of you “asking me what I mean by my comment” and “explaining yourself”:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/corsica-muslims-riot-burn-cars-attack-non-muslims-with-harpoons-over-tourist-photo#comment-1503377
Notice that I’m linking to the post and quoting it in its entirety. But please, explain how that is “out of context”, or how that is “asking me for clarification”, or how that is “explaining yourself”.
“Best option”
According to whom?
“is for him not to even comment on my posts and I won’t either. I guess that is too much to ask for.”
A better option would be for you to grow a thicker skin, learn to accept dissenting views, stop the character assassination you’ve been doing for months now and try to make reparations for all you’ve done and said about me. It is literally coming down to this: if I don’t want to be slandered, lied about, insulted, mocked and derided then I should not reply to anything you say. That is textbook bullying and intimidation, and I never, ever backed down in front of a bully, not do I plan to start now.
linnte says
I am new here, relatively, but me too Graven. It gets old clicking to read comments, only to find people bickering back and forth for days on one thing. It wastes time and certainly isn’t good for anyone’s blood pressure. I enjoy both Peggy and Angemon.
gravenimage says
🙂
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“With all respect, Peggy and Angemon, I wish you two were not so often spatting.”
Alas, Peggy doesn’t seem to want to stop the character assassination she’s been engaging for some time now. She mischaracterizes me and lies about me all while trying to play the victim. And she’ll never admit she did anything wrong to begin with. It’s the kind of behaviour I’d call out if it it were done by someone who was ideologically opposed to me – why should I let it slide just because it’s being done by someone allegedly on my side? If anything, that makes it worse. Her posts are not sacred or exempt from scrutiny. That she invariably and willingly reacts to scrutiny with verbal abuse means there’s something wrong with her.
Look, a clear-cut example from this page. Peggy wrote this:
“Then when I answer back in order to clarify it he uses the “you reply to me so don’t tell me to stay away from you” rubbish.”
Ignoring how she is grossly mischaracterizing the bulk of her responses to me, which amount to nothing but lies and personal insults, I challenged her to link to one instance where I say “don’t tell me to stay away from you”. I’m not holding my breath. She won’t do that because she can’t. Because I never wrote anything of that sort. It’s clearly an attempt to imply that I’m going after her on purpose because of reasons that have nothing to do with what she writes. And she won’t retract and apologize for her obvious lie either. She wrote that, it’s there for everyone to see and, if she had her way, I would not be able to defend myself from such a blatant lie.
She goes through a lot of work to insult, undermine and lie about me. My question is: why?
Take a little time to look through Peggy’s posts directed at, or talking about, me – you’ll find plenty of accusations and all sort of personal attacks but no substance to back them. I, on the other hand, back what I say. What she says and what actually happens do not add up. Again, why? Why go through the trouble of, topic after topic, lye about, insult, mock and deride me, even when I ask her, repeatedly, to stop the personal attacks and reply to points I made? That she allegedly makes some good points every now and then should not excuse this kind of abuse. Her posts are not sacred, and if she willingly lies, insults and ascribes me falsehoods, all under the implied threat of blackmail (that’s what this is – if I have the audacity of replying to something she says then I’ll be hit with a s***storm of personal attacks and slanderous lies) then there’s something wrong with her and her moral compass.
gravenimage says
Angemon, you know I respect your views, and often say so.
I am certainly not saying you should reply to Peggy’s posts, but I tend to tune out when I see you two going at it. I’m sure I am not alone. Be well.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“I am certainly not saying you should reply to Peggy’s posts, but I tend to tune out when I see you two going at it.”
Like I said, I’m not going to cave in to blackmail. Peggy’s shtick is to verbally abuse me to bully me from replying to her posts. On this very topic, and on the wake of accusing me of “stalking” her (redefining the concept “stalk” to mean “replying to her posts”), she accused me of telling her “don’t tell me to stay away from you”. I never said such a thing. I asked her to provide evidence or retract and apologize and, of course, got no reply. We may be both going at it, but only one is in the wrong – and it’s the one who, despite my insistence, refuses to address points and arguments, preferring instead to abuse the other party.
Like I said, it’s the kind of behaviour I’d call out if it it were done by someone who was ideologically opposed to me – should I let it slide just because it’s being done by someone allegedly on my side? If anything, that makes it worse.”
Peggy says
Saying that I respond to your posts “in a way which is obviously meant to bring a reaction” is unfairly singling me out for literally no reason whatsoever – or are other people who reply to your posts not expecting a reaction from you?
Reply
======================
Not sure what they are expecting but I don’t seem to have any problems with anyone else.
Obviously when they respond to my posts they get a reply in the same respect they give me. You and I both know that you only respond to my posts when you want to take a jab of some sort. Don’t play innocent.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“Not sure what they are expecting”
But apparently, you’re sure of what *I* am expecting. How does that selective mind-reading works?
“but I don’t seem to have any problems with anyone else.”
Bulls***. A couple of days ago JB replied to one of your comments in a way similar to what I did. The reply he got from you was similar in substance to the one you gave me (minus the personal attacks). But thank you for confirming you have a problem with me, as well as with dissenting views.
I bet if mine and JB’s posts were reversed – if JB told you to “go away and take your defeatist rhetoric with you” while I cracked a joke about Pegasus – you would accuse me of trying to be a smartass, trying to belittle you, etc.
“Obviously when they respond to my posts they get a reply in the same respect they give me. You and I both know that you only respond to my posts when you want to take a jab of some sort.”
I reject this accusation. This is nothing but baseless paranoia from someone who seemingly thinks that the universe revolves around her.
“Don’t play innocent.”
Hilarious coming from you, who have been trying to play the victim every single time I inquire you about your abuse. Yes, abuse, because that is what your behaviour amounts to. You lie about me, slander me, twist me words and ascribe me falsehoods all while avowing any points and arguments I make, and always with the “you don’t like what I say? Then don’t reply to me” stick and carrot behind it.
You are actively trying to silence me, and I will not back down from replying to whatever posts I see fit just because you don’t like me or what I have to say.
Of course, I could be wrong here. I’ll give you a chance to prove your point. You wrote:
Give one example of me saying”don’t tell me to stay away from you”. Or admit I never said something of the sort, retract and apologize.
Felix Quigley says
Does Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch speak truth or lie?
If the American ruling capitalist class and the CIA/FBI had a hand inthe promotion of Muslim Obama to become President of the US then that is hardly an expression of socialism in action.
Or is the American capitalist state somehow a communist state?
The whole debate is being skewed continually by campaigners like Robert Spencer. He calls the SPLC a hard left group.
QUOTE…”Why the hard-Left hate group Southern Poverty Law Center”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/cnn-turns-to-hard-left-hate-group-southern-poverty-law-center-to-define-sharia
What is a hard left group then? Socialist, communist, trotskyist, syndicalist, anarchist?
If the American ruling capitalist class have been behind the promotion of Islam in America then does that mean that they also are “hard left”?
When you look at SPLC that is the most distinguishing thing about them. They promote and defend Islam in America.
I can write a book on this but the most outstanding example is how they pushed the building of the Mosque on Ground Zero.
Is this a feature of socialism, communism, Marxism, Trotskyism to promote Islam?
So the question to Spencer therefore how come he describes SPLC as hard left?
His article is good and useful in fighting against Islam but he carries this message relentlessly – basically that Communism is supportive of Islam. Is this the truth or is it a lie?
If it is the latter (a lie) what lies behind the continuous lie and what is its significance?
Angemon says
Felix Quigley posted:
“Is this a feature of socialism, communism, Marxism, Trotskyism to promote Islam?”
Here is a lecture from a KGB defector, explaining the methods they used to destabilize nations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
One of the methods they used was to prop up groups actively fighting the ruling powers. During the civil rights era that would mean supporting, for example, the Black Panthers. It did not mean that it was a feature of Communism, Marxism, etc., to promote black nationalism, it just meant that black nationalism and communists, marxists, etc., had a common enemy so they would gravitate to one another. It’s the same thing today, but instead of the Black Panthers now we have groups like, for example, CAIR.
gravenimage says
Felix Quigley wrote:
Does Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch speak truth or lie?
………………………………….
If you can find anything here that is inaccurate, point it out.
More:
If the American ruling capitalist class and the CIA/FBI had a hand inthe promotion of Muslim Obama to become President of the US then that is hardly an expression of socialism in action.
………………………………….
What?
More:
Or is the American capitalist state somehow a communist state?
………………………………….
America is a Capitalist state with a number of Socialist elements, especially in government; that does not mean that there are not organizations and individuals that are not Communist in their views and aims.
More:
The whole debate is being skewed continually by campaigners like Robert Spencer. He calls the SPLC a hard left group.
………………………………….
The Southern Poverty Law Center is widely regarded as left-of center, even by supporters. Why do you consider a “left-wing” designation to be inaccurate?
More:
When you look at SPLC that is the most distinguishing thing about them. They promote and defend Islam in America.
………………………………….
Not really. Apologia for Islam is, really, only part of what they do.
More:
Is this a feature of socialism, communism, Marxism, Trotskyism to promote Islam?
………………………………….
These are all oppressive and totalitarian systems. Sometimes adherents to these creeds oppose Islam as an unwelcome rival; sometimes they embrace it. Most often in the West it has been the latter.