• 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

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Confusions of Tony Blair, Part I

Dec 15, 2016 2:21 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Soon after the Muslim terrorist attacks of 9/11, Tony Blair let it be known that he was a great admirer of Islam, and that he had taken to carrying around with him the Qur’an, a book that he claimed he read almost every day. Islam, he knew then, was “beautiful” and the Prophet Muhammad “an enormously civilizing force,” claims that he continued to make on every possible occasion. In 2008, he was still reading the Qur’an “every day” or “practically every day.” In June 2011, he again admitted that “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”

After the killing of Lee Rigby in London in 2013, Tony Blair was certain that “there is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.” The two converts to Islam who hacked Rigby to death and then decapitated him apparently understood Islam differently. But at the same time, Blair said “the ideology behind his [Lee Rigby’s] murder is profound and dangerous.” And what is that “ideology”? It could not, of course, be Islam itself. Blair insisted that while Islam has a “true and peaceful nature“ there is a “problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it… I am afraid that the problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion – and of the relationship between religion and politics – that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it.”

In 2015, Tony Blair was still reading the Qur’an “every day.”

Tony Blair will now admit that this “extremist” strain is more widespread than many think, as long as he can continue to insist, defying the evidence pouring in from all over the world, that Islam itself is “peaceful” and, unlike that dangerous mutant “strain” within Islam (which, we all are supposed to repeat ad nauseam, has nothing to do with Islam itself, even though many Muslims for some reason subscribe to it) is “compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.” He is, thus, stuck with this narrative, believing, or at least pretending to believe, that the real Islam is compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.

Of course Blair does not, because he cannot, adduce a single example over the past 1400 years of a Muslim country that has been “pluralistic, liberal, open-minded” in the common understanding of those words. Rather, in the ideology of Islam, free and skeptical inquiry is discouraged, innovation in religion (and in much else) denounced as bida, and religious “pluralism”– in the Western sense of equal treatment before the law of people of different faiths — non-existent, since to the extent that the Sharia is followed, non-Muslims are subject to a host of disabilities, including, but not limited to, the onerous Jizyah, or capitation tax.

When, in 2008, as I’ve noted above, Blair again told the world, as he had a few years before, that he read the Qur’an “practically every day” and still found Muhammad “an enormously civilizing force,” someone begged to differ.

That someone was Robert Spencer, who wondered aloud which parts of the Qur’an Blair had been reading:

But does Blair ever read the uncomfortable bits? The wife-beating verse (4:34)? The verse enjoining warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians (9:29)? The “verse of the sword” and other verses that exhort Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they’re found (9:5, 4:89, 4:91, 2:190-193)? The verse saying the Jews and Christians are under Allah’s curse (9:30)? The verse that says that unbelievers are the most vile of created beings (98:6)? The verse enjoining the beheading of unbelievers (47:4)? The verse exhorting Muslims to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah (8:60)?

Tony Blair didn’t respond; he was too busy, no doubt, what with all that rereading of the Qur’an to take the time to answer those questions.

In June 2011, when he repeated yet again that he read the Qur’an “practically every day” and that he still found it “immensely instructive,” one might wonder if there was more for him to learn. If indeed he has been reading the Qur’an since 9/11 (shortly after which he claims to have gotten started on this reading), every day for 15 years, that is 5,575 days of possible Qur’an reading and, if he were to devote a mere hour each day to that reading and relying on the Internet estimate that it takes 30 hours to read the complete Qur’an, Blair might easily by this point have been able to read the entire Quran about 175 times. By this time he really ought to know what’s in it, including all the violent verses directed at the Kuffar. And one wonders why Blair, though he always talks about the Qur’an, never mentions the Hadith or the Sira. Is it because he is unaware of their significance, as a source both of doctrine and biographical material on Muhammad, or is it because he has read many of the “most authentic” Hadith in the authoritative collections of Bukhari and Muslim, realizes what a disturbing picture they paint of Muhammad, the Perfect Man, and prefers to pretend, like the young Turkish pseudo-reformer Mustafa Akyol, that all Islam needs by way of “reformation” is to forget about the Hadith and stick to the Qur’an, a “reform” described by Akyol as an Islamic version of the Protestant “sola scriptura”?

What did Tony Blair take away from his reading of the Qur’an? He discovered, yet again, that Muhammad was “an enormously civilizing force.” He did not explain what made Muhammad, a ruthless warrior who took part in dozens of military campaigns, delighted in seeing his enemies decapitated, and including the murders of several poets who had mocked him, a “civilizing force.” Possibly Blair meant — taking his cue from Karen Armstrong — that by subduing the warring tribes of Arabia, and bringing them to heel under his rule, he brought about a pax islamica. That is not the same thing as being “an enormously civilizing force.”

In 2007 in Foreign Affairs, Blair described the Quran as being “inclusive.” This description is bizarre, given that the Qur’an is the very opposite of “inclusive,” presenting a world that is uncompromisingly divided between Believers and Unbelievers, Muslims and Non-Muslims, and mandates a state of permanent hostility, if not open war, between them, until the whole world becomes part of Dar al-Islam. Within a Muslim state that follows the Sharia, non-Muslims are subject to a host of legal disabilities including, most importantly, the onerous capitation tax, or Jizyah. Or perhaps what Blair meant was merely that the Qur’an is “inclusive” because, as Muslims like to claim, it covers every possible subject, which may be the view of many Muslims who are adept at reading things into, or teasing things out of, its vaguest verses, especially scientific findings that were made centuries after the Qur’an appeared.

Blair had claimed, in March 2006, that  “the Qur’an is a reforming book. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.” That same description of the Qur’an appears in his 2007 Foreign Affairs article, with only the most trivial change: “way ahead” is now “far ahead.”

Far ahead of its time in attitudes to “marriage”? When polygamy is enshrined, and not only “contextually” but deemed licit for all time (Muhammad, the Perfect Man, allowed himself an unlimited number of wives, and his followers four apiece), is Islam “way ahead”? When in addition to plural wives, a Muslim could have female sex slaves, “those whom your right hand possesses”? Far ahead in attitudes toward “women”? When in Islam women inherit half as much as men (4:11), and their testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282), and they can be divorced simply by the man’s triple-talaq, and they are described in the Qur’an as inferior to men, for “the men are a degree above them” (2:228)? And the Hadith, to which Blair never refers, contains even more extreme remarks on women’s inferiority, as in Sahih Bukhari (6:301)  “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.’“

“Far ahead” in “governance”? It’s unclear what Blair means here. If he means “governance” of the family, the absolute, life-and-death power of the Muslim male over his wife and children is hardly “far ahead” of what was accepted in Europe in the Early Middle Ages, for the European male did not have such complete power over his wife and children. And the tremendous power of the Muslim male over his wife and children even today is shown in the “honor” killings which in Muslim lands are so often committed with impunity, and go unpunished. That is not “far ahead,” but retrograde in its “governance” of the family.

If Blair meant “governance” in the political sense, in what way is the political theory of Islam, where the legitimacy of a ruler depends only on whether he could be considered a good Muslim, any “advance” on the political theories in the West about a good Christian king? Was being a “good Muslim” a moral advance on being a “good Christian”? European political theory, unlike that in Islam, was capable of evolution, so that, for example, Jean Bodin’s “divine right of kings” in the 16th century could develop, in the 18th century, with the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the social contract, into a different theory of the legitimacy of rule, no longer depending on that “divine right of kings,” but rather on whether the ruler reflected, however imperfectly, the will of the people. Islamic political theory, meanwhile, has remained unchanged through the centuries, legitimizing a ruler’s despotism, as long as he could be considered a good Muslim. That is to say, his rule must reflect not the will of the people, but the will of Allah, as set down in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, claimed Blair, both in March 2006 and in January 2007, “extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition” (the description of the Qur’an in his Foreign Affairs article of Jan-Feb 2007 being a verbatim version of that he offered in March 2006). There may be a verse or two from which Muslims have been able to tease out an “extolling” of science or knowledge, but the ideology of Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, the sine qua non for the advancement of science, and encourages the habit of mental submission to the dictates of the Qur’an, which habit then is extended to cover other areas of Muslim life. Bida, or innovation, is mistrusted, and not only in religious matters. Two historians of science, Toby Huff and Stanley Jaki, have pointed to this habit of mental submission and hatred of novelty as helping explain why the scientific revolution took place in Europe rather than in the Muslim East. As for Blair’s claim that Islam “abhors superstition,” the Qur’an contains many examples of Muhammad’s belief in “black magic”: according to 2:102, magic was taught to men by demons. Moses himself was able to practice magic (7:116).  Muhammad was told to “seek refuge” from witchcraft in Sura 113, a passage that is supposed to be recited six times a day by devout Muslims. The Hadith are full of examples of “black magic” and the Prophet’s beliefs and fears about its use.

One verse that Muslims like to quote as indicating support for seekers after knowledge is part of 2:239: “He [Allah] has taught you what you did not know.” But that vague half-verse is hardly sufficient to claim that Islam “encourages science,” especially since the whole verse reads: “And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or on horseback. But when you are secure, then remember Allah [in prayer], as he has taught you what you do not know.” In other words, it’s about being saved from an enemy, and once you are safe, then praying gratefully to Allah, because he has “taught you what you do not know.” Taught you what? What you do not know, but need to know, in order to escape from your enemy. That passage is a thin reed on which to rest such a large claim about Islam extolling “science and knowledge.”

Muslims do seem to take a great interest, but not in the enterprise of pure science as much as in the science of military technology. Iran and Pakistan have spent hundreds of billions on their nuclear programs, and Muslim states are among the heaviest spenders on military technology of all kinds, but this is not to be taken as an interest in science undertaken for its own sake, to better make sense of the universe, the enterprise of science as we in the West understand and distinguish it from technology.

Devout Muslims have been trying to claim many modern scientific advances for Islam, by reading scientific discoveries into vague verses of the Qur’an, claiming that scraps of verse (so unclear that they could have practically any meaning read into or out of them), actually foretell modern advances, in biology, cosmology, “cognitive science,” and geology. But the real record of Islamic scientific advancement was, compared to what was achieved in the West, quite small.

Taner Edis, the Turkish historian of science, has noted in his study “The Illusion of Harmony” that most Muslims still deny evolution; that Muslim belief in creationism is widespread; and that many in the Muslim world endow incomprehensible bits of the Qur’an with scientific significance. Professor Edis also notes that in the Islamic world, many assume it was under Islam that the scientific revolution took place, and they have convinced themselves of the enormous scientific achievements supposedly made by Muslims. A quick glance at any Western history of modern science would soon disabuse them, assuming they were willing to recognize the dismal truth.

Pervez Hoodbhoy, one of Pakistan’s leading physicists and a freethinker, was brave enough to review and praise “The Illusion of Harmony”: “Edis makes a compelling case that classical Islamic thought cannot accommodate a modern scientific culture whose basis is experimentation, quantification, and prediction. He exposes the vacuity of faith-based science using a range of examples.”

But here is Tony Blair, who reads the Qur’an everyday, and knows how deep is Islam’s extolling of science and knowledge. He knows this far better than Toby Huff and Stanley Jaki and Taner Edis and Pervez Hoodbhoy, all of whom for some reason have not been as impressed as Blair with Islam’s “extolling” of science.

For fifteen years, Tony Blair has been singing the praises of Islam and the Qur’an. Even until just last year, he insisted that “for those who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.”

But something is going on with Blair. There are glimmerings of intelligent life, there are stirrings. He’s having his doubts. No longer does he repeat that the “Qur’an has been “instructive” and Muhammad an “enormously civilizing force.” He simply remains prudently silent on that score. In October 2015, he began to inject a more worried note, claiming that the “perversion of Islam” (he still couldn’t bring himself to blame Islam itself) “is a source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East today.” What that perversion consisted of, how it came to be, what Qur’anic verses and what stories in the Hadith it relied on, Blair chose not to say. Or perhaps he’s still trying to figure it all out, trying to understand why what he calls a “perversion” looks an awful lot like standard Islam. Nor did Blair notice that the same “perversion of Islam” has been causing a lot of the problems not just in the Middle East, but all over the world, in London and Paris, in Brussels and Amsterdam, in Moscow and New York, in Washington and San Bernardino and Fort Hood and Chattanooga and Orlando.

And we still can see, in his description of the problem, and his prescription for solving it, a kind of terminal misunderstanding of Islam:

The reality is that in parts of the Muslim community a discourse has grown up which is profoundly hostile to peaceful coexistence. Countering this is an essential part of fighting extremism.

This “discourse” is not something that has “grown up,” but is as old as Islam itself, and is not tangential but central to the faith. Islam itself is “profoundly hostile to peaceful coexistence” because it divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel, Muslim and Non-Muslim. And between the two there must be a permanent state of hostility, if not always of open war, until Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. Blair seems to think, despite all his study of the Qur’an, that this is something new in Islam, when it is 1400 years old, as old as the attacks on the Banu Qurayza in Mecca or the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. Islam has always been “hostile to peaceful coexistence,” unless one considers the permanent subjugation of non-Muslims to Muslim rule to be a kind of “peaceful co-existence.”

There’s no point in just tackling the violence unless you tackle the ideology of extremism behind the violence.

You’ve got these broad ideological strands that lie behind a lot of this extremism. If you take, for example, some of the organizations in the Middle East, some of those clerics that are putting out the most extreme stuff — they’ll have Twitter followings that go into millions of people.

Blair seems surprised that Muslim clerics, “putting out the extreme stuff,” continue to flourish, with millions of Twitter followings. But that’s because he cannot understand that the “extreme stuff” is the real Islam, the Islam which you can read about in the Qur’an and in the Hadith (unless you are Tony Blair), and which, so far, no one among our political elites has been able to find a way to combat ideologically, because almost no one wants to recognize it as mainstream Islam.

These people are saying things about Jewish people — about even those in their own religion who are different that we would regard as completely unacceptable — and it’s those waters of extremism in which the violent extremists can swim.

Did Blair just discover last year what is written about “the Jewish people” in the Qur’an and Hadith? These passages are not exactly hidden, but have been easy to find for the past 1400 years, and Blair himself, by his own admission, has been re-reading the Qur’an for the past 15 years. Why then his tone of anguished surprise? Surely he long ago read in the Qur’an about how the Jews “are the strongest in opposition to Muhammad”; that they are schemers (but Allah is the best schemer); that they are not to be taken as friends, for they are friends only with Christians. Surely Blair had read those passages many times over. Why, then, the tone of sudden alarm?

And is it likely that he just now discovered that Muslims sometimes declare other Muslims to be Infidels, and treat them accordingly? Apparently Blair thinks that this practice, too, which he labels “extremism,” is a new phenomenon. But it’s at least as old as Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), declaring the invading Mongols, who had converted to Islam but had not adopted the Sharia, to be incomplete Muslims, and therefore not Muslims at all. And by now it expresses itself in the wholesale dismissal by many Sunnis of Shi’a as not just Infidels, but as the “worst kind of Infidels,” worse even than Christians and Jews.

The majority of people within Islam do not support either the violence or the ideology. What we are talking about, however, is a radical Islamist way of thinking that results in extremism by small numbers of people, but that thinking is shared by larger numbers of people, and you’ve got to attack both — the violence and the extremism, the thinking behind it.

On what evidence does Blair assert that “the majority of people within Islam do not support either the violence or the ideology”? He does not provide such evidence, no results of opinion polls, for example, but he cannot allow himself to accept that most Muslims could possibly believe “the violence” (as mandated in the Qur’an) or the “ideology” (that is, the ideology of mainstream Islam, promoting hostility toward all Infidels).

Blair uses the word “extremism” for the most fanatical Muslims (Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Islamic State), but never explains what beliefs distinguish that “extremism” from mainstream Islam. If he were to attempt to define this “extremist ideology,” it would soon be apparent that these beliefs are not different in kind from what mainstream Muslims are taught, but only in the fervor with which they are held and acted upon. And refusing to recognize that melancholy truth helps to explain Tony Blair’s impressive record of confusions.

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, Hugh Fitzgerald, Qur'an Tagged With: Tony Blair


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Stuart Smith says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Tony Blair is a proven liar, he cannot tell the truth. I doubt he has read anything never mind reading the full of shit Koran.

  2. Uriah Sheep says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    He doubled his own country’s Muslim population while in power.

    • JawsV says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 7:53 am

      I just looked at your nic and cracked up! Thanks for the pun on the Dickens character.

      Moslems breed and multiply like protozoa. But I guess Blair turned a blind eye to that demographic fact.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm

      Yes–very witty username.

  3. Ian Clark says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    I could show you a video of Tony Blair saying that he is working with Saudi Arabia and the UN to brainwash the entire world into thinking Islam is a religion of peace, and that the First Amendment is a barrier to this. Seriously. He admits to wanting to subvert the Constitution.

    • Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm

      Ian Clark says, “I could show you a video of Tony Blair saying that he is working with Saudi Arabia and the UN to brainwash the entire world into thinking Islam is a religion of peace, and that the First Amendment is a barrier to this. Seriously. He admits to wanting to subvert the Constitution.”
      The constitution of what country? Is the video you refer on YouTube? Do show it, as promised. A link will suffice.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 3:08 pm

        I’d like to see that video, too, Ian.

    • Adrian Johnson says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

      Pretty soon Blair will hold a press conference to say that he has descovered the mathematical formula to square the circle. What’s worse, the MSM will show up seriously expecting headline news.

  4. Lesley says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Wow– so it’s pretty clear that Tony Blair is either illiterate or has been reading The Joy of Cooking all these years and off his schizophrenia meds…

    • overman says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 5:48 pm

      LOL

  5. JawsV says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Tony Blair is a dumb dodo-brain. He is hugely responsible for ruining London by importing the Mohammedans.

  6. ECAW says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    I saw an amusing interview on Al-Jazeera once between a Muslim interviewer and Blair who was doing his routine about reading the Koran every day etc.

    “That’s wonderful” said the interviewer “What is your favourite verse?”

    Blair started to splutter and flounder and the interviewer had to jump in and spare his embarrassment.

    • Adrian Johnson says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 11:30 am

      Another convincing “weapons of mass destruction” moment.

    • jamesmi says

      Dec 17, 2016 at 1:16 am

      I would *love* a link to that ! Are any available ? Thanks in advance.

  7. Lesley says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    I think the arrogance of this idiot thinking he’s fooling anybody is almost (almost) more offensive than the prescribed violence in the Koran. Down with these arrogant idiots >:-((!

  8. chevalier de st george says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    tony and cheria are the british equivalents of bill and hilary . THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY AMORAL and lining their pockets with saudi and qatari money. wonder who learnt from who?

    • Hugh Fitzgerald says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 5:06 pm

      Tony and Cherie Blair, Bill and Hillary Clinton, all four are recognizable types, similar in their bottomless rapacity: Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth.

      • Benedict says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm

        King Ahab and his screwed wife Jezebel also comes to mind.

  9. Mark A says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I’ve read the Koran too.

    Tony Blair must be reading a different Koran than I’m reading. The one I’m reading leaves no doubt or ambiguity about Islam’s attitude towards non-Muslims. Hint: it’s not peaceful or tolerant.

  10. Dreadnaught says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Another briefing and insightful contribution of the highest standard from Mr Fitz.
    I’ll be brief: Islam minus its capacity for violence, theft, child abuse and misogyny is plagiarism with a mean streak. Other than that, without the texts of Judaism and Christianity, it would be at loss for words or merit.

  11. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    poor ignorant hugh fitzgerald,he does not understand the quran, yet he claims to know.mr fitzgerald you should take note that the quran was revealed in arabic with the most sophisticated style of language not found in any book or in any language throughout human history.you will never appreciate this beauty without mastery of arabic language itself even if your mother tongue is arabic.mr fitzgerald you are making references to quranic verses to support your points that neccessitates that you must unstand the quran itself.that is why islamic scholars developed some subject areas as aids or guides towards proper understanding of the quran before some can form an independant opinion(ijtihad)as you did.if you do not possess such qualifications,it means you are misinterpreting the quran using trial and error,which renders your work academically valueless.for your benefit the subject areas developed are(1)ulumul quran, which include correct recitations, contexts,time and place everry verse was revealed(2)nahw and balagha(grammar and rhetorics)(3)adab and lugah(literature and roots of words/expressions)(4)sira and islamic history(5)iltifat(grammatical shift)(6)fiqh and usul(7)ulumul hadith. if you cannot master all these areas, you have to follow the standard interpretations made by recognised islamic scholars. note i am no talking of mere translation of the quran.i am talking of solutions to the problems tabled before islamic scholars to serve as precedence or working models. i can see you, mr fitzgerald, assuming the position of qualified islamic scholar with ability to build an independant opinion based on what is contained in the quran while debunking mr blair’s view on the quran;even though you cannot even read and understand the quran in arabic to be able to follow the arguements.what you are doing is not acceptable even in bible study, which less sophiscated than the quran. however,if you objective is just condemn islam as you have been doing you are entitled to go your own way.but dont expect those with sense of objectivity to accept your rubbish writeup.to me you have not been able to disabuse blair’s view on the quran or presented better view than what he stands for.

    • overman says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

      ibrahim – tens of millions of your muslim brothers disagree with you.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 11:02 pm

      Vicious Muslim apologist ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:

      poor (sic) ignorant hugh (sic) fitzgerald,he (sic) does not understand the quran (sic), yet he claims to know.mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) you should take note that the quran (sic) was revealed in arabic (sic) with the most sophisticated style of language not found in any book or in any language throughout human history.you (sic) will never appreciate this beauty without mastery of arabic (sic) language itself even if your mother tongue is arabic (sic).
      …………………………………..

      We’ve heard this claptrap before–that there is nothing comparable to the barbaric vaporings of a barbarian warlord, blah, blah, blah.

      Pious Muslims might find it beautiful and edifying to read accounts of dark ages barbarians raping women, crucifying apostates, enslaving children, and mass-murdering unbelievers, but civilized Infidels as a rule do not.

      Several important points here: the Qur’an was written in classical Arabic.

      It is true that few Infidels read classical Arabic–but it is also true that very few Muslims do, either. In fact, there are likely fewer Muslims who speak classical Arabic than there are Christians who read Aramaic, classical Hebrew, and classical Greek.

      What are the chances, in fact, that muhammed here reads classical Arabic? Few to none, I would imagine. Yet he is implying that no one can really understand the Qur’an if they do not read it.

      This would mean that almost all of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world have no idea at all what their vicious “holy book” has to say, which is clearly not the case.

      This is because any language can be translated. A few small shades of nuance may be lost–having read Grimms’ Fairy Tales both in the original German and in good English translations, I know this can be the case–but the basic meaning of any language can be accurately translated. This is certainly the case with Arabic.

      I have now read the Qur’an in half a dozen translations, including all of the major ones–starting with N. J. Dawood, and including the ones by Pickthall, Arberry, and Yusuf Ali. What is notable is how similar these translations are. And this should not surprise–as I noted, any language can be accurately translated.

      More:

      mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) you are making references to quranic (sic) verses to support your points that neccessitates (sic) that you must unstand (sic) the quran (sic) itself.that (sic) is why islamic (sic) scholars developed some subject areas as aids or guides towards proper understanding of the quran (sic) before some can form an independant (sic) opinion(ijtihad)as (sic) you did.if (sic) you do not possess such qualifications,it (sic) means you are misinterpreting the quran (sic) using trial and error,which (sic) renders your work academically valueless.for (sic) your benefit the subject areas developed are(1)ulumul quran (sic), which include correct recitations, contexts,time (sic) and place everry (sic) verse was revealed(2)nahw and balagha(grammar and rhetorics (sic))(3)adab and lugah(literature and roots of words/expressions)(4)sira and islamic history(5)iltifat(grammatical shift)(6)fiqh and usul(7)ulumul hadith. if you cannot master all these areas, you have to follow the standard interpretations made by recognised islamic (sic) scholars.
      …………………………………..

      It is notable that one of the strictures of the Pact of Umar, which lays out the oppression of dhimmis, it that they not be allowed to teach the Qur’an to their children. In other words, it posits that Infidels not be allowed to speak *critically* of the Qur’an.

      Of course, civilized Infidels follow no such strictures. Anyone is allowed to read the Qur’an, or any other book.

      And, of course, muhammed is wrong in his assumption that Hugh Fitzgerald–or Robert Spencer–ignore Muslim scholars’ interpretation of the vicious Qur’an–just the opposite, in fact. Orthodox Islamic interpretations of the Qur’an just confirm its hideous violence.

      In fact, all one need do is look around the world today, to see how Muslims are waging violent Jihad against us to see the fruits of this in action.

      More:

      note (sic) i (sic) am no talking of mere translation of the quran.i (sic) am talking of solutions to the problems tabled before islamic (sic) scholars to serve as precedence or working models. i (sic) can see you, mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic), assuming the position of qualified islamic (sic) scholar with ability to build an independant (sic) opinion based on what is contained in the quran (sic) while debunking mr (sic) blair’s (sic) view on the quran;even (sic) though you cannot even read and understand the quran (sic) in arabic (sic) to be able to follow the arguements.what (sic) you are doing is not acceptable even in bible study, which less sophiscated (sic) than the quran (sic).
      …………………………………..

      Not at all. What muhammed here objects to is Hugh Fitzgerald’s *criticism* of the Qur’an–that he does not revere that savage tome. That is why he has a problem with Fitzgerald’s reading of the Qur’an, and not Blair’s. Blair’s clueless reading makes the conquest of Infidels easier–Fitzgerald’s exposing what is in that foul tome anything but.

      And, of course, muhammed’s claim that Christians are not allowed to study the Bible unless they are Biblical scholars is completely false. *Anyone* can study the Bible in the free world, including children, non-Christians, and those apt to be critical of its text. It is open to everyone.

      More:

      however,if (sic) you objective is just condemn islam (sic) as you have been doing you are entitled to go your own way.but (sic) dont expect those with sense of objectivity to accept your rubbish writeup.to (sic) me you have not been able to disabuse blair’s (sic) view on the quran (sic) or presented better view than what he stands for.
      …………………………………..

      What claptrap. Note that it is muhammed who is incapable of citing a single point that Fitzgerald has gotten wrong–because he cannot.

      Instead, Muslims like him hope that they can scare Infidels from reading the Qur’an and other texts of Islam, hoping that he can conceal what his vicious coreligionists have in store for us.

      Tough luck, Mohammedan…

      • jamesmi says

        Dec 17, 2016 at 2:06 am

        Ibrahim is simply playing the rather obvious game of so multiplying the qualifications needed for understanding the Koran. and of making them so stringent, that no kaffir or mushrik on earth will be able to satisfy them. The whole point of these qualifications is to make critivism of the Koran impossible – unless, that is, one wants to be told, “Oh, but you don’t understand the text properly”.

        All that is attained by tightening and multiplying these conditions, is that criticism of the Koran – unfriendly *or friendly* – becomes a methodologically impossible undertaking. Ibrahim has so tightened the conditions to be satisfied before criticism of the Koran can be heard, that he has achieved nothing, except to make any unfavourable criticism of the Koran impossible from the start.

        But if all these conditions must be fulfilled – how can kuffar and mushrikun like us, if we cannot satisfy all these conditions, be impressed by the supposed beauty and excellence of the Koran ? By multiplying and tightening all those conditions so as to silence the criticisms of unbelievers, he has also destroyed the usefulness of translations of the Koran as means of showing infidels the supposed excellence of Islam. How can we admire the supposedly “Glorious Koran”, if the translations we read are as worthless as his argument implies ? But if, OTOH, a reading and comparison of Saleem, Hilali Khan, Arberry, Pickthall, and others can give an impression of the Koran sufficient for us infidels to sense something of its supposed excellences, then his argument falls to the ground.

        His argument makes the Koran so unique and incomparable, that it becomes impossible for infidels to understand. But if we can’t – for all the reasons he gives – understand it, what is the point of arguing that the Koran is morally superior to the Bible ?

        Since we can’t understand the Koran, he might as well argue that Harry Potter is superior to the Bible. The HP books are widely circulated, their content is studied with truly Rabbinic zeal and minuteness, and the meaning of the stories is accessible to anyone over 10 (or, often, younger). And they are not impossible for their critics to understand. They and the Bible can be compared, because neither is beyond being understood – but according to Ibrahim’s argument, the Bible and the Koran are impossible to compare.

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 17, 2016 at 2:32 am

          All true, jamesmi.

    • Aussie Infidel says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 8:30 am

      Ibrahim Itace Muhammed has come to the defence of the confused and foolish Tony Blair. For those who may not remember, Blair was the former British PM who flooded his country with Muslim immigrants to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” What a ridiculous, and disastrous policy that was. How these leftist traitors must hate their own cultures. But it’s probably no wonder. Blair was an Anglican who converted to Catholicism to marry his wife, a barrister who had many Muslim clients. And for good measure, his sister converted to Islam. And you can bet your last dinar that Tony also sat in on a few dawah sessions too.

      Muhammed is simply another Muslim academic trying to convince the ignorant kuffar that they can’t understand Islam unless they read the Quran in its original ancient Arabic. What a load of rubbish! Or should I simply be rude and say ‘camel shit’? The Quran has been ‘transliterated’ by both native Arabic speakers and those for whom Arabic is a second language – by scholars and laymen alike – and the differences in meaning between any of them is to put it bluntly – Bugger all! Is Muhammed telling us that in countries like Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic country, where very few people speak Arabic, they cannot understand the religion they so devoutly follow? Well, I know many Indonesians, and that is also rubbish.

      Of course, what Muhammed is really up to, is trying to blind us with sophisticated argument (taqiyya) that Islam is really a ‘religion of peace’. He can argue about the nuances of translated Quranic verses all he likes, but every mullah (if he is honest), will tell you that the central message of the Quran (apart from the five pillars), is that ‘Muslims are commanded to wage jihad or holy war against infidels, to subjugate their religions and cultures until only Islam remains. Indeed, Jihad is often referred to as the ‘sixth pillar of Islam’. For that reason, throughout its long history of conquest, Islam has been known as the ‘religion of the sword’.

      Ultimately, Islam influences its adherents – or at least the militant imams and mullahs who run the show – not so much by the Quran, but the Sharia. As Muhammed would know, many verses from the Quran and the Hadith have been codified as law in the Sharia, which Muslims regard as ‘sacred’ and binding for all time. Books like ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’, are used in Islamic jurisprudence. Forget about tafsirs on the Quran, if anyone is unsure about the meaning of any specific topic, the Reliance will almost certainly clarify it for him. While the Quran is the original ‘source text’ of Islam, and the ultimate authority for the tenets of the faith, the Sharia is the law of the land – and the authority for how Muslims should behave in practice.

      The Quran, like all other religious texts, also contains a lot of supernatural gobbledegook. In reading such texts, we all would be wise to remember the old computer programmer’s dictum, ‘Garbage in – Garbage out!’

    • Grace says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 8:49 am

      Ibrahim Itace Muhammed: Has Mr. Blair read the Qur’an in its original Arabic? Have tens of millions of other Muslims read it in the original Arabic?? So, all these people are reading it exactly like Robert Spencer…

    • TheBuffster says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 11:33 am

      Ibrahim, it is astoundingly strange that a god would reveal a book to human beings that is so complex and mystifying that those who wish to understand and follow it must turn, second-hand, to alleged experts whose expertise they cannot judge for themselves. If the book requires such a high level of scholarship that the ordinary Muslim or aspiring Muslim can’t read and judge it for himself, but must take on trust the claims of alleged scholars, God has set people on the road to having to have *faith in men* rather than receiving the direct word of God for themselves.

      If it’s so easy (and it is) for the unschooled reader to mistake the Qur’an as a book that demeans and threatens the thinking, questioning mind and urges contempt and hatred of the unbeliever who is being scorched and peeled and peeled again in hell, while the true-believer Muslims enjoy the torturous scene from their couches in Paradise, jeering and mocking at the poor suffering souls who failed to accept “clear signs” that weren’t at all clear, then why is it that Allah claims the Qur’an is perfectly clear? Didn’t he know that Arabic would evolve away from classical Arabic? Didn’t he know that the book would be translated to other languages? Didn’t he know that making it so unclear and untranslatable to the point where it could easily be taken as a command to view unbelievers and the doubters as the lowest of creatures, as contemptible, and as deserving of being conquered, subjugated, or killed would lead to exactly those terrible results?

      Again, for those who rely on scholars to tell them what the Qur’an really means – how is a person supposed to know which scholars have got it right, if the book is so damned difficult to read and understand for oneself?

      What an incredibly bad plan Allah came up with there. You’d think he’d be more intelligent than that. And more benevolent.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 3:11 pm

        Good post, Buffster.

    • Rob says

      Dec 17, 2016 at 2:36 am

      “…you will never appreciate this beauty without mastery of arabic language itself even if your mother tongue is arabic…”
      _______________________________________

      This is an interesting concept.

      God reveals himself, apparently, to many individuals (Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Lot…) and tells them that they’re his “chosen people”, whom he will NEVER abandon.
      He tells them this long before Muhammad (who can’t read or write) get’s a visit from god’s messenger, Gabriel, 1600 years after Adam’s encounter; and is told to “read”.
      We’re never told whether Mohammad ever managed to read anything, and the story proceeds to jump through many phases. In essence, god has told Muhammad that it’s the Muslims (who didn’t exist until then) who are now his “chosen people”.

      So did god wait 600 years, or 1600 years, then change his mind (again – remember, Jesus told his followers that THEY were god’s “chosen people”, so god had already abandoned the Jews…)?

      But god, who knows everything – even the future – get disappointed, even angry when something which he KNOWS will happen, actually takes place…?

      And after changing his mind about who he really favours, he continues to lie to the Jews and the Christians (remember, he speaks to George W Bush every morning), by telling them that THEY’RE still his chosen people, even while he’s saying the same thing to the Muslims.

      By now everyone who’s watching and listening, knows that god is telling some real porkies, to them and to everyone else, but they ignore this knowledge; and continue to accept these lies, because it makes them feel good to believe that they are special, even if their being special means that the other guys are not…
      So no-one actually knows whether they’re really special, but like children, they go along with the story…

      And you tell us that the reason we can’t understand this is because we don’t have mastery of a language in a book which, when it’s translated into rational languages, tells us to kill those who don’t believe that this book is the best book ever.
      It’s the perfect book, dictated by the creator of the Universe, who doesn’t know about germs, or that the earth revolves around the sun – it’s the “most relevant” book on any topic, science, medicine, cosmology, human well-being, the rôle of women in society…
      Muhammad goes on to tell us in exquisite detail, how to cut off a girl’s clitoris without anaesthetics (and even without the girl’s permission, because she doesn’t know what’s good for her)….
      The reason for slicing the clitoris off? Because neither the girl, or the adult woman she will become must be allowed to enjoy sex – this enjoyment is for men only. (It’s not made clear whether the 72 virgins whom each martyred man gets in heaven are clitoris-free too, or whether THEY are allowed to enjoy the act of giving pleasure to their male superiors…)

      Perhaps you’re beginning to see why some rational, intellectually-honest people might have a problem with what this book teaches us to do; and with people who – like you – accept without question every irrational, incoherent and inconsistent point which this book of yours demands we follow…
      …or we’ll end up in eternal fire…

      But we’re to believe that if we gain mastery of Arabic language, all inconsistencies, incoherence and confusion will disappear?

      Where do I sign up?

  12. Wellington says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Yet again here at JW I will reference La Rouchefoucauld, who, among his many wise sayings, observed that, “The most trying fools are the bright ones.” Tony Blair is a sterling candidate in this regard.

    • Rufolino says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:02 am

      Of all her 20th Century Prime Ministers, Tony Blair is the only one who has NOT been invested with the Most Noble Order of the Garter by Her Majesty the Queen.

      Little things can mean such a lot.

      (The Garter is the most venerated Order of Knighthood in the world.)

      • Carolyne says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 9:11 am

        As soon as Blair left office, he became a Roman Catholic. This is not to degrade Catholics, but merely pointing out that England had some trouble back in the Sixteenth Century with Rome having to do with Henry VIII and as yet hasn’t gotten over it. In fact, a Roman Catholic cannot be a monarch. He said he did so because his wife Cherie is Catholic and so they could all go to church together. I don’t think he could have been chosen by his party as PM had he then been Catholic. I just thought that “Going to the same church” lacks something in the religious sincerity department, but whatever.

        It is possible that he is now a Muslim since he seems to change religions as often as his socks, but he certainly gets a lot of money from them. Money could, I think, produce a lot of religious fervor. The Saudis seem to love him and vice-versa.

        • Adrian Johnson says

          Dec 16, 2016 at 2:43 pm

          Just after his “conversion to Catholicism” Blair had the unmitigated gall, in an audience with the Pope, to tell him to “modernise” Catholic Dogma against the Catholic morality Blair had recently sworn that he believed in and would support.

          The Pope was very polite but *surprisingly*, did not take genius Tony Blair’s advice ! (Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs!)

          Tony’s as brilliant a “theologian and moralist” as he is a “peace envoy” to the middle east.

        • Rob says

          Dec 17, 2016 at 10:32 am

          See Hitchens vs Blair:

          even better, see:

      • Adrian Johnson says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm

        Her Majesty is a smart cookie who is an expert at knowing how to use symbols to maintain what is left of Britain as a class act among nations.

        She’s like the scholarly academic Pope emeritus Benedict XVI who pointedly didn’t give the trendy modernist Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols the Cardinal’s hat.

        Modernist Jesuit Pope Francis (cut from the same bolt of cloth as Tony Blair) made Nichols a Cardinal as soon as he could. Pope Francis, like Tony Blair, says Christians have a lot to learn from Muslims. (–How to be second class citizens, inferior if female, — or else martyrs?) “Useful idiot” creatures of the NWO, both of them.

        Trump in all his ghastlyness is preferable to both of them.

        ‘Nuf said.

  13. Cretius says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Islam refuses accommodation or assimilation with non-believers. So be it. Send them back, peacefully if possible. Blair is just another of the useful idiots of the left. He lives in denial of core Koranic teachings. This makes him a real danger.

  14. Benedict says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.” –

    Maybe Tony Blair could help Gerd Rüdiger Puin –
    (born 1940) is a German scholar on Qur’anic historical orthography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts. He is also a specialist in Arabic paleography. He was a lecturer of Arabic at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany.
    – to find immense instruction in “the fifth of the Koranic text that is just incomprehensible.” -?

    To read profound nonsense every day for 15 years can only produce retarded fools, and if the photo on top of this article has not been photoshopped it certainly proves this thesis – and if it has been photoshopped it is a legitimate illustration.

    • Cretius says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 6:43 pm

      Assessment of the Qur’an

      In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:[1]
      My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
      « Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 01:11:23 PM by PeteWaldo »
      Logged

      Please visit
      http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com
      http://www.historyofmecca.com
      http://www.islamandthetruth.com
      http://www.christianeschatology.com
      http://www.ellisskolfield.com
      http://www.beholdthebeast.com
      http://www.brotherpete.com
      http://www.zionismchristian.com
      http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com
      http://www.beyondtheharbinger.com

      • Benedict says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 9:21 pm

        Thank you!

        It’s remarkable that Tony Blair, or anyone for that sake, can find the Quran “immensely instructive” in a positive way.

        Christopher Hitchens could only hope that Allah had had a bad day when he wrote the Quran, and anyone who is not illiterate must admit, that the plagiaries and the mediocrity of this book is hardly worthy the creator and master of the universe.
        And I guess that exonerates Muhammad for having brought the Quran into being. Had he not been illiterate, he would probably have flunked Jibril after the first Surah, and we would not have to put up with this army of parrots and puppets the Quran generates everywhere its nonsense is venerated to day – and also not the Muslim madmen that pop up when this is pointed out to them.

  15. Angemon says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    In June 2011, he again admitted that “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”

    That much is true, I’ll give him that – get yourself a version of the quran with a proper commentary, read it from cover to cover and the next time a jihadi goes out killing for allah you’ll know exactly why he did it.

  16. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    angemon,i said one cannot form an independant scholarly opinion on what he cannot even read and understand in its original form. you anti-islam you are fond of pick from translated text to suit your evil intention.it is like some one who is not learned in law to pick a piece of legislation and give legal opinion on a matter relying on the provisions of that legislation.you have to be learned in law before you can harmonise the relevant provisions using judicial precedent to guide you to make correct interpretation and form an opinion on the matter.in this case, mr fitzgerald cannot even read and understand the original text of the quran in arabic .yet he want tell us that someone is wrong,while he is right based on the translated text. in those verses talking about jihad,for example, the quran uses the word”qatiluu”, which means fight not uqtuluu,which means kill..there is no where the quran says kill the unbelievers.read arabic morphology/grammar and literature to understand such variations.and moreso,you people are using orientalist translations with full biased errors. but as enemies of islam and muslims,this is how you want these verses to mean to achieve your goal.note, we are not saying there is no religious war in islam.we are saying the same quran laid down conditions before fighting can take place within defined rules of engagement.see hamidullah :islamic law of war and peace.

    • Wellington says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 9:14 pm

      So tired of the out-of-context argument. Or the equally bogus argument that you can’t understand what a text says unless it is in the original language.

      I don’t read German but I get the meaning of both Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. And both are full of hate and crap. Ditto for the Koran, which I have read in English translation, all 114 suras (chapters) and I found it boring, stupid, desultory, repetitive, disturbing and wrong, much as I found Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. Or should I make no judgement of said last two works unless I read them in the original language?

      You are at best a fool. At worst an outright deceiver. Take your “arguments” and stick them where the sun never shines. While you’re at it, stick Mohammed there too, ditto for the hadiths and sira. In fact, ditto for the entire Islamic faith which is a burden to all mankind and rooted in anti-freedom as much as Communism and Nazism are.

      Oh yeah, stick it.

    • Will Doohan says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 9:20 pm

      There is no god and studying the Koran or Islam is a waste of time. Science and Technology, based on Reason and Reality, are responsible for the success of the Western world over other ‘civilzations’.
      Wallow in studying your superstitious nonsense all you want. It will avail you nothing.

      • Wellington says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 9:33 pm

        I’m not religious, but a good bit of the success, ethically and otherwise, of the Western world is rooted not only in ancient Greek philosophy but also in the ancient Jewish theological conception of the universe, as virtually all of the Founding Fathers of America understood quite well, even though many (though certainly not all), were themselves religious skeptics.

        One knows this or should know it. Frankly, seems you don’t.

        • Adrian Johnson says

          Dec 16, 2016 at 2:47 pm

          Well said.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        I agree with Wellington here, Will.

        But in any case, no one here, religious or not, reads the Qur’an because they think it was handed down from God (save the Muslim trolls, of course). They read it because it is important to know what our enemies have in store for us.

        I first read the Qur’an after 9/11, to see if such terrorism could actually be condoned in Islam. I had expected there would be a few ambiguous verses that *might* be interpreted violently–instead, I found a vicious text replete with unhinged hatred of unbelievers and constant calls for violence against them.

        I knew nothing about abrogation when I first read the Qur’an, by which more violent verses supersede less violent ones. This only made it worse.

        If you have not read the Qur’an yet, I suggest you do–not to read it for edification or, goodness knows, for pleasure, but so that you can understand just what it is we face from Islam.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 11:28 pm

      More crap from ibrahim itace muhammed:

      angemon,i (sic) said one cannot form an independant (sic) scholarly opinion on what he cannot even read and understand in its original form. you (sic) anti-islam (sic) you are fond of pick from translated text to suit your evil intention.
      …………………………..

      Not at all–one can see the violence of the Qur’an in reading it, in how it is interpreted by respected Islamic scholars such as those at al-Azhar, and in the how it is put into effect by pious Muslims all over the world. It is of a piece.

      What muhammed objects to is anyone being critical of this horror.

      More:

      it (sic) is like some one who is not learned in law to pick a piece of legislation and give legal opinion on a matter relying on the provisions of that legislation.you (sic) have to be learned in law before you can harmonise the relevant provisions using judicial precedent to guide you to make correct interpretation and form an opinion on the matter.
      …………………………..

      We have seen “learned” Fatwas interpreting Qur’anic texts, which lead to edicts about how to rape Infidel sex slaves, how to “marry” children, and how to properly behead unbelievers. This is edifying only if one is a savage–or is studying how to avoid falling victim to savages, as are the good Anti-Jihadists here at Jihad Watch.

      More:

      in (sic) this case, mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic) cannot even read and understand the original text of the quran (sic) in arabic .yet (sic) he want tell us that someone is wrong,while (sic) he is right based on the translated text.
      …………………………..

      Note that muhammed does not say how those learned translations–including those done by pious Muslims–are wrong, nor why it is that all mainstream translations of the Qur’an are virtually identical.

      More:

      in (sic) those verses talking about jihad,for (sic) example, the quran (sic) uses the word”qatiluu”, (sic) which means fight not uqtuluu,which (sic) means kill..there is no where the quran (sic) says kill the unbelievers.read (sic) arabic (sic) morphology/grammar and literature to understand such variations.
      …………………………..

      Is muhammed here claiming that such fighting is non-violent? That goes counter to every interpretation by orthodox Islamic scholars–as well as counter to how his pious coreligionists interpret such matters.

      Is he now going to tell us that “strike at their necks” has a non-violent interpretation, as well?

      More:

      and (sic) moreso,you (sic) people are using orientalist translations with full biased errors. but (sic) as enemies of islam (sic) and muslims,this (sic) is how you want these verses to mean to achieve your goal.
      …………………………..

      Is muhammed claiming that pious Muslim Mirza Abul Fazl was an “orientalist”? How about devout Muslim Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall? They are no different in meaning from editions translated by non-Muslim scholars.

      More:

      note, (sic) we are not saying there is no religious war in islam.we (sic) are saying the same quran (sic) laid down conditions before fighting can take place within defined rules of engagement.see hamidullah :islamic (sic) law of war and peace.
      …………………………..

      Well, this is true–for instance, Muslims are only supposed to enslave Infidels, and to rape unbelieving women in Jihad.

      Don’t all of you “filthy Kuffar” feel better now? sarc/off

    • Jack Diamond says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 1:16 am

      “the quran uses the word”qatiluu”, which means fight not uqtuluu,which means kill.”
      From the Muslim comedian above.

      “But much more significant is the root q-t-l (qital or qatala), the meaning of which is much more narrow or restricted: slaying, killing, fighting, warring, and slaughtering. It appears a total of about one hundred and twenty-three times in the Quran…The purpose of jihad and qital is tied to making Islam prevail over all other religions, and that goal is the perfect definition of a holy war.”
      –James M. Arlandson, “Jihad and Qital in the Qur’an”

      From Wikiislam: “In Arabic, the word “Qatal” = murder. “Maqtool” = the murdered. Maqtal = the place where the killing takes place. Qaatal = the murderer.

      The secondary meaning of the word is more of an interpretation rather than a direct translation of the word, e.g. battle. The idea seems to be based upon collective killings.

      In any case, the word “Qatal” is only used when Muslims are meant to fight to kill, i.e. killing is the primary objective or the desired or required outcome.”

      q-t-l (qital or qatala), the meaning of which is much more narrow or restricted: slaying, killing, fighting, warring, and slaughtering.

      That word simply comes from the root word Qaf Ta Lam which means to massacre or kill in a severe manner.

      Verse 9:29. While the watered-down English translations use the word “fight”, the actual message that is being conveyed to the Arabic-speaking Muslims who read this verse is “Kill those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day”.

      https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Qatal
      ——————–
      “Fight [q-t-l] them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to God alone” (Quran 8:39)

      “Then fight and slay [q-t-l] the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them.” (Quran 9:5)

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir: `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.’ Allah’s statement next,This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.’’

      FIGHT AND KILL….

      “Fight [q-t-l] against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir: “This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand.”

      FIGHT AS IN FIGHT WITH AN ARMY….

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm

        Fine post, Jack. Thank you.

    • Carolyne says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 9:30 am

      Most experts in the field believe that English has the largest vocabulary of the world’s language, so I don’t think translating from Arabic would be difficult for anyone who is proficient in both languages. In fact, I have heard Arabs say, when speaking of an English word, that there is no Arabic equivalent.
      Foiled again.

  17. Shane Brandon says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    One line in the koran.”Lie to the infidel to get gain.”Mr Blair a classical muslim convert.

    • Adrian Johnson says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 2:52 pm

      Touché, Mr Brandon, and Olé !

      If that shoe fits, Mr Blair, put it on and walk around in it.

  18. Custos Custodum says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Anthony Blair is deeply troubled individual.

    Anthony is clearly intelligent and knows full well that the imposition of Islam would result in himself and many of his closest acquaintances being thrown from the roof of the Palace of Westminster.

    • Carolyne says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 9:31 am

      Or from the top of Big Ben’s tower.

  19. Baucent says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    Blair is a little unsure what he believes. He was a protestant at one time and then famously became a Catholic and met the Pope. Now he dabbles in the Koran as well.

    • Adrian Johnson says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 3:01 pm

      “Ecumenical”, is our Tony.
      It appears he thinks “religion” is a sort of smorgasbord.
      Pick and mix your beliefs according to taste.

      Syncretism is new-agey and fashionable until the day when between the the Devil of Sharia scimitar and the deep blue sea of Catholic “anathema”, our Tony realizes that there can’t be two, reconcilable, “one, true” religions.
      As I doubt he is the stuff of which martyrs are made, Blair will probably choose the one that will save his skin.
      (but not his soul).

  20. gravenimage says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”
    …………………….

    The Qur’an is instructive, all right–instructive of the savagery of Islam.

  21. B Deplored says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Jack Nicholson ???

  22. ibrahim itace muhammed says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 2:07 am

    gravenimage,you filthy mithraist christians and evil jews you always call yourselve civilised?how civilised are you?those having indiscriminate sex like beasts and having sex with beasts like donkeys and pigs,with horrible bad smelly foreskins full of maggots?when last you had sex with donkey for writing this rubbish as reply to my comments.you did not say anything.you must be one of those street thugs produced from baby factory.can you truly identify your biological father?

    • Custos Custodum says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 3:04 am

      Another sublime posting by Ibe who doesn’t like Big Letters standing up.

      Nobody could question Ibe’s commitment. Ibe must be committed forthwith.

      The post above should give the psychiatric expert plenty to work with during the hearing.

      Please mark “EXHIBIT 27” and file under “Emergency Commitment – Ibe.”

    • Baucent says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 3:45 am

      Did you get lessons in being vile or is it a natural talent?

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm

      More from the vicious ibrahim itace muhammed:

      gravenimage,you (sic) filthy mithraist (sic) christians (sic) and evil jews (sic) you always call yourselve (sic) civilised?how (sic) civilised are you?those (sic) having indiscriminate sex like beasts and having sex with beasts like donkeys and pigs,with (sic) horrible bad smelly foreskins full of maggots?
      ………………………………….

      Actually, my husband and I have been together over twenty-eight years now, and I have always been completely faithful to him. That’s because he is a wonderful man and I love him very much; not because he has threatened to “Honor Kill” me if I chat with someone in line at Starbucks. Really, something muhammed here would be incapable of understanding.

      As for why we are civilized, it has in part to do with our not “marrying” school girls off to old pedophiles, our not beheading unbelievers, and our not kidnapping women and using them as sex slaves. I hope someday he grasps this.

      And why is muhammed so obsessed with Infidel men’s foreskins? This seems to occupy a great deal of real estate in muhammed’s head. I won’t speculate as to why that is…

      But I hate disappoint him–the average American is so clean that it is a bit of a national joke. Others twit Americans for having whole shelves of shampoo, conditioner, and body wash in their showers, along with deodorant and body sprays and antibacterial wipes.

      Do I even want to touch on his infatuation with bestiality? Ugh–probably not…

      More:

      when (sic) last you had sex with donkey for writing this rubbish as reply to my comments.you (sic) did not say anything.
      ………………………………….

      I always suspected that muhammed had poor reading comprehension–and, sadly, I was correct.

      He thought I was writing about intercourse with a quadruped, when actually I was writing about translations and Qur’anic scholarship.

      More:

      you (sic) must be one of those street thugs produced from baby factory.can (sic) you truly identify your biological father?
      ………………………………….

      How many times do I have to let muhammed here know that the idea that there are “baby factories” here in the free West is just another one of his fevered fantasies? His reading comprehension really *is* very poor.

      As for the last, I just had a rather long conversation with my father this past weekend. I wonder why he’s interested?

    • Champ says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:36 pm

      Thank you for proving how vile mohammedans can be and why Jihad Watch is so important.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 5:14 pm

        🙂

    • TheBuffster says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 5:47 pm

      Ibrahim, Gravenimage’s statements are presented convincingly. She presents arguments that, if incorrect, could be counter-argued. Your resorting to a string of grotesque insults suggests that she’s stumped you and that you have nothing factual or reasonable to offer in reply.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 17, 2016 at 2:36 am

        Thank you, Buffster.

  23. mach37 says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 3:04 am

    English translations of the Quran are full of flowery King Jamesian syntax, but when translated into modern English it turns in contradictory gibberish. Where the verses deal with jihad and treatment of infidels, the words are more clear – death, torture and violence to “unbelievers.” Those verses of violence seem to be interpreted by those who don’t understand the context as “beautiful” only because they end with phrases like “Allah is all-knowing and merciful.” I don’t understand how they can consider the murderous violence as beautiful, peaceful and forgiving based on just the closing words.

  24. Michael Copeland says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 3:24 am

    “if you do not possess such qualifications, it means you are misinterpreting the quran”

    There is an objection: this claim denies the Koran itself, which says:

    “We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember”, 54:17.

    Note the penalty.
    The Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, explains that
    “to deny any verse of the Koran” brings the death penalty (o8.7(7)).
    Anyone may, without repercussion, perform the killing,
    “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (o8.4).

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:26 pm

      True, Michael. It is more Muslim cognitive dissonance to hold that the Qur’an is both clear and easy to understand and at the same time impossible to comprehend unless one reads archaic Arabic and has a PhD in Qur’anic studies from al-Azhar.

  25. Michael Copeland says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 3:46 am

    “There is a problem within Islam”, said Tony Blair.
    “There is a serious problem embedded within the ideology”, says Tommy Robinson.

    The reality, for politicians and people, is that Islam itself instructs “violent extremism”.
    The problem is not ‘Islamism’; the problem is Islam.

    See “Extremism: ‘There is a problem within Islam’” at Liberty GB:
    http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/extremism-–-there-problem-within-islam

  26. A.T.Halmay says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 8:15 am

    The author of this incredibly long piece provided far more than mere mortals with jobs and responsibilities could fully absorb. Suffice to say Tony Blair is insane and a country that had voted him into office needs to examine its own sanity. Of course, the same could be said and should be said about America and Obama. What this brings up is the failure of contemporary Democracy which drifted from the original model in Greece where only the educated and enlightened go to vote. When millions of unqualified voters are given the same power with each vote that a PhD in the subject gets, we end up with lunatics as heads of state. We need new legislation which calls for voters to be licensed to vote after passing intelligence and knowledge tests that prove them to have the competence to make an intelligent vote.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm

      Actually, the average citizen is no more apt to be insane than are many PhDs these days.

      If “intelligence” tests were to be issued, I think you find the whole process turning into a test of ideological purity quite quickly–likely with that “basket of deplorables” politically out in the cold. I’m not sure this could be considered an improvement…

      • TheBuffster says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 7:07 pm

        I agree, Graven. Any such test is highly likely to be skewed in favor of the biases of those who are in political power at the time, rather than being a fully objective means to sort the knowledgeable from the ignorant and the intelligent from the reason-challenged.

        It’s our own universities and intellectuals, in the form of Post Modern irrationalism, who have contributed the most to the social degradation of rational thought and the relegation of anything written by dead white males to the dead-letter box of history (which would include the Constitution of the United States and all of the Enlightenment literature upon which it was founded).

        While many young people studying the humanities are coming out of universities “educated” and deprived of their rational faculty at the same time (and many of them go into teaching at grade schools and high schools), many people without a formal higher education retain their reasoning powers. Their common sense may be superb. But I don’t think they would be the ones deciding on which tests to use to decide who’s intelligent and knowledgeable enough to vote.

        Most of the people I know personally who voted for Obama, for example, are college educated (and many from a better era of education than today’s) and most certainly would score above average on a standard IQ test. Many of those I know who voted against Obama are also college-educated and clearly above average in IQ. Obama himself studied law at Harvard University.

        So which among these educated above average minds would be in charge of creating the tests that decide who are suitable voters?

        If *I* were the one to decide on the criteria for voting, it would be that a person has to show an understanding of the US Constitution, the reasons that it was put together as it was, and why the amendments of the Bill of Rights are what they are (according to *my* carefully considered understanding, of course).

        I’d also want to be sure that everyone who voted understood the fundamental ethical principles that underlie liberty – that each person is a separate mind with the moral responsibility to keep that mind honest, to seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth for oneself through one’s own efforts, and to be legally protected from the initiation of physical force and from fraud. I’d want to see that the people who vote know how to apply those principles in the making of laws, so that they don’t vote to destroy the legal protections of liberty with unethical, range-of-the-moment, knee-jerk solutions that will undermine liberty (including the liberty of the stupid and the ignorant to live their lives as they choose) piecemeal, over time.

        But if I’m not the one in charge of designing those tests, or someone very much like me intellectually, I’m just not sure such tests can be trusted!

  27. Just A Dash says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 9:48 am

    By the word itself muslims claim that Algebra is an Islamic invention -which is rather like saying that America was engendered by an obscure Italian mapmaker nemed “Amerigo”.

    The first few pages of Knuth’s Fundamental Algorithms expose the mismash that gave us “Algorithm” and “Algebra” (“not very algebraic” at all). Real algebra was already in elemental use by the Hellene Diophantus. Viete in France in the 16th century gave us the real algebra that allowed Descartes to formulate an algebraic Geometry. Newton read (and reread) Descartes …and so on to Einstein (that famous Jew -OMG!) etc…two Western men landed on the Moon..vehicles now roam the Red Planet.
    And, oh yes, Arabic Numbers are referred to by real scholars as Hindu-Arabic Numbers because the muslims picked up that clever system after they raped, murdered, plundered their way down the Indian Sub Continent. There’s not much to crow about in “muslimic Science” -not that barbarians like Boko Haram (“Books-Western are Forbidden”) would care much about that.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:39 pm

      All true.

  28. Jan Aage Jeppesen says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Tony Blair is an excellent example of doublethink:

    “Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

    George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother’s formal brainwashing programmes, the novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to “fit in”, or gain status within the Party — to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize — let alone mention — any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that someone to disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members.

    Like many aspects of the dystopian societies reflected in Orwell’s writings, Orwell considered doublethink to be a feature of Soviet-style totalitarianism, as reflected in this statement from a speech by Joseph Stalin:

    We are for the withering away of the state, and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of the state which have existed up to the present day. The highest development of the power of the state, with the object of preparing the conditions of the withering away of the state: that is the Marxist formula. Is it “contradictory”? Yes, it is “contradictory.” But this contradiction is a living thing and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic.

    (Source: Wikikedia article about doublethink).

    • Adrian Johnson says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 3:11 pm

      Brilliant comment.

      At least the Nobel committee was consistent in awarding (cheapening) the Nobel Peace Prize to such creatures as Kissinger, Blair, and Obama; and the EU, which stood by hand-wringing and looking baffled during the Bosnian war.
      —Unless the Nobel committee is heavily into irony.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:42 pm

      That describes Blair very well–and a lot of other otherwise relatively intelligent people in willful denial over the threat of Islam, as well.

  29. Jan Aage Jeppesen says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 10:26 am

    Tony Blair may have been inspired from another socialist expert in doublethink:

    “If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”

    “I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”

    “I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

    (Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936).

    • Ahem says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 4:22 pm

      Those alleged quotes by Shaw are complete fabrications. A search of the web can easily verify that they are false.

    • gravenimage says

      Dec 16, 2016 at 5:07 pm

      Dear Jan, Ahem is correct–this is not a case of dhimmitude, but of Muslim apologists fabricating a passage to make it look as though a well-known Infidel approved of their foul creed.

      This is probably my favorite debunking of this canard–it is erudite, thorough, and evidences a fine sense of humor:

      “Being an Unforgivably Protracted Debunking of George Bernard Shaw’s Views of Islam”

      https://idlethink.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/being-an-unforgivably-protracted-debunking-of-george-bernard-shaws-views-of-islam/

      Here is an actual quote from Shaw regarding Islam:

      “Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell.”

      It sounds as though he had a generally quite accurate grasp of Islam.

  30. Carmel says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Charming Tony Blair in NWO pyramid is under G. Soros inflluence. So , he can’t not say what he think, if ever he is thinking in his life, but he has to say what the NWO agenda needs to push on: Islam . Islam is the useful idiot of NWO . Once you know that ….

  31. William says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Mohammed was an enormously civilizing force as Genghis Khan was an enormously pacifying force.

  32. jamesmi says

    Dec 17, 2016 at 1:10 am

    The violence in Nazism is “nothing to do with Nazism”.

    “Nazism is “beautiful”, and the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler “an enormously civilising force”. In June 2011, [Blair] admitted that “I read Mein Kampf every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly because it is so immensely instructive”.

    Tony Blair was certain that “there is not a problem with Nazism. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.”…But at the same time, Blair said “the ideology behind [the] murder is profound and dangerous.” And what is that “ideology”? It could not, of course, be Nazism itself. Blair insisted that while Nazism has a “true and peaceful nature“ there is a “problem within Nazism, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it… I am afraid that the problematic strain within Nazism is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion – and of the relationship between religion and politics – that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it.””

    How much of the above is not applicable to Nazism ? Nazi thugs committed murder – but so did Hitler. Yet the Night of the Long Knives was not held to disqualify the German Chancellor from decent company; nor were the Nuremburg Laws; nor were later acts of oppression and aggression. Not until the rape of Poland had begun. How much more will it take for Jihadis and their religion to be regarded as the aggressors, criminals, and danger to civilisation that they are, and it is ?

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

  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Westman on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’

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.