I just finished speaking moments ago at the Young America’s Foundation High School Conference at the Reagan Ranch. And because YAF is so wonderfully efficient, I can already bring you the video.
Comments
mortimersays
Islam has NOTHING to do with Islam.
John Fofrbessays
How can the LEFTISTS be defeated in relation to this continual appeasement ? If this appeasement continues it will be very difficult to defeat this ISLAM ,
How is it that the LEFT simply refuses to see the danger of the Push to Impose SHARIA & Destroy Democracy !
Larrysays
And should the Islamist’s be successful in their quest to impose Sharia Law, and no longer need those useful idiots on the left, they will turn on them and eat them. Maybe then, finally, the leftists will understand; but of course then it will be too late.
John Fofrbessays
But how can we the PUBLIC who can see the danger get our leaders to STOP PARROTING this idiotic phrase : Islam Is a Religion of peace & start enforcing the US LAWS & Demanding that SHARIA courts be shut down ?
It is simply Dangerous this continual Appeasement ! With Muslims at less that 4% of the total population WHY will the US federal & state Governments not uphold & enforce US laws ?
To continue like this will certainly lead to Civil Conflict & to act now lessens the impact !
This has to be done of there is a distinct possibility of Losing not only FREE SPEECH but untimely DEMOCRACY itself !!
Mark Swansays
Absolutely John Fofrbes
John Fofrbessays
the other LEFTIST DOCTRINE is MULTICULTURALISM backed by ISLAMOPHOBIA & POLITICAL CORRECTNESS followed closely by the PROTECTION TRICK WORD ISLAMOPHOBIA followed by the TERMS BIGOT & RACIST should there be an examination or Criticism of islam Or the Followers of ISLAM !
To see how HORRIFIC this can be for the local population look at EASY MEAT or ANDREW NORFOLKS – an Uncomfortable Truth speech on the MUSLIM CHILD RAPING INDUSTRY in the UK covered up for 2 decades ! POLICE – supposedly – for fear of being called RACIST would not even INVESTIGATE or ARREST KNOWN CHILD RAPISTS & this is the same now & in the Netherlands & in many EUROPEAN Countries !
Shalomsays
Why is it that not one of these extremists ever say after an attack that Muslims who say they are not Muslims are wrong, and reveal to everyone what they are all playing at – using a practice called taquiya in order to defend/protect/spread Islam.
All you ever hear is that they swore allegiance to I.S. or ‘this is for syria’
There is never a coherent plea (from the attacker) to all Muslims to stop saying that this has nothing to do with Islam. I am continually perplexed by this.
John Fofrbessays
Apparently the killers of the British Soldier – Lee Rigby – when the Judge stated that they wre spoiling the Peaceful religion – stated – no ISLAM is a RELIGION of WAR !
To show how far in DENIAL the PANELS & the BBC are about extremism ! On a show a man showed the leaflets handed out at the Mosque in London & A Muslim Girl also stated that SAUDI Wahabi/Sakafi funded Mosques needed to be temporarily shut down ! ”The leaflet handed out stated that DEMOCRACY was IMMORAL & there is no HONOUR in Democracy !
Another woman stated that she goes to the MOSQUE in question & the leaflet was taken out of CONTEXT !
The panel accepted the BARE FACED LIE – The INITIAL MUSLIM Girl was left shaking her head in DISBELIEF !!! Welcome to the COWARDS of the UK & the DENIERS at the BBC !\
The EUROPEANS Are Betting on HOPE !!! and have NOT a clue what to do & they are SLEEP WALKING to DEFEAT !!
K.7.4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
K.7.5 No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrongdoers.
K.8.60 Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may TERRORIZE the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.286: “The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.”
Bukhari: V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been awarded VICTORY by TERROR so the treasures of the earth are mine.'”
Mortimer, you filthy Christians are more ignorant than primitive Arabs before islam.you cannot understand the Quran and hadith and you deliberately refuse to learn from experts.All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!
Jamessays
Calling Christians “filthy” does not help your argument. If those verses have no connection with terrorism, what meaning do they have ? And why do so many Muslims imagine that those verses require them to engage in acts of terror ?
If Islam is a religion of peace, why does it again and again encourage Muslims to fight and to kill, “to slay and be slain” ?
Albertsays
Ibriahim, you wrote that “All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!”
Sir, that is incorrect. In bin Laden’s “letter to America” cites the following verses:
Quran 22:39
Quran 4:76
He does this in order to justify terrorism.
There is not any doubt that terrorism occurs because jihadists are interpreting the Quran and hadith as justification for a holy war on unbelievers, and that they see it as a defense of Islam, one that is endorsed by the Prophet himself.
Now, I do not deny that there are many enlightened Muslims in the world want peace and do not endorse terrorism, and perhaps you are among them (though calling Christians names is not helping your case).
But if you are enlightened and do not endorse terrorism then I ask you, what are you doing to convince the umma that it is wrong to engage in terrorism? Will you do the right thing and speak out against jihadist terrorism? What are you doing to call for a reformation of Islam, away from violence, and towards peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world?
Lydiasays
Okay, let’s make this simple for you.
1. We see many acts of terrorism committed by Muslims against people of other faiths. This happens on a daily basis and the facts are verifiable. We will call this ‘B’.
2. We look in the quran where it says that Muslims are to commit acts of terrorism against people of other faiths. (see: quran.) We will call this ‘A’.
3. We ‘connect the dots’ and say “Ah! We have B because of A!” It states in the quran that Muslims are to kill those of other faiths (as long as they are remaining in their original faith of course, or have left Islam), and we see the Muslims killing those of other faiths just like it says in the quran, and this on a daily basis.
So we make the connection, and this is called ‘logic.’
Then, someone comes on and starts insulting us for this logic.
They don’t explain anything to defend their position or offer any reasoning.
They just come on here shooting their mouth off.
So, last question:
Who is the irrational, ignorant, filthy idiot?
Answer: Not us
By logical process of elimination between you and us, that leaves only one conclusion as to who the idiot is. Good luck, maybe you will figure it out!
I will not hang around here waiting though…
: D
P.S. I would surmise that if we were both in a dark alley right now, and you did have a knife, I would be dead. What do you think? Am I right in that assumption?
Mosays
@ ibrahim itace muhammed
“Mortimer, you filthy Christians are more ignorant than primitive Arabs before islam.you cannot understand the Quran and hadith and you deliberately refuse to learn from experts.All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!
Thanks for the satire! You sound just like one of those Christian hating, taqiyya spewing followers of the warlord, terrorist, murderer, sex slave owner, child rapist, Mohammad.
Well done!
John Fofrbessays
Little point in taunting the Jihadists ! DOUGLAS MURRAY & the Henry Jackson society have studied all of the actually charged & convicted ones & concluded that there is no rehabilitation & that they should NEVER be released into a democratic Society ! Sadly the UK does not have such a program & many will be released to KILL again !!
Albertsays
The claims by apologists for Islam that the jihadists and ISIS, et al, are not representative of “true” Islam, has been debunked by many religious studies scholars who have been able to show that those that those who call for religious violence –in any religious tradition– are still part of the faith. This idea of a true Islam or true Christianity, or that all religions are just about peace and love and tolerance, is demonstrably untrue. It is an over-simplification from within those traditions that is trying to excuse their more violent aspects. This is not to say that the love of peace and moral teachings are not part of the tradition, because they are, but when Obama says Islam is a religion of peace and dismisses jihadists as not being Muslims, he is woefully incorrect.
Those parts of the tradition that are progressive or moderate and call for peace are part of Islam. These are Muslims too, and they are defending their version of the faith. But here is the issue: the best reformers of the faith acknowledge its violence and call for an end to that (e.g., Imam Tawhidi), but they are typically killed or have to go into exile, while the theocratic and violent elements of the faith dominate. So apologists who fail to acknowledge the violent aspect of the faith and to gloss it over as a religion of peace or even as consistent with LGBTQ or feminism, are disingenuous. They are helping jihadists inadvertently. Do they really think that in an Islamic state where sharia law is in force that feminism would be tolerated for one second? Why don’t they speak up for women in Islamic countries?
Yes, a religious tradition with that many followers is not monolithic and there are elements that are peaceful, and perhaps most Muslims themselves are for peace, in their hearts, but the tradition is dominated by those who feel they are commanded to defend it violently, and to expand it by any means necessary, and they are using naive progressives to do that, in order to silence critics as alleged racists and bigots.
History has shown that the violent theocrats tend to dominate while the progressives are marginalized or even killed. If Islam is growing in leaps and bounds (demography demonstrates this to be true), in 50 years or so Europe will be a caliphate. European culture will be washed away. The progressive will be washed away, as well. That would be tragic if it were allowed to happen.
A sincere reformer will assert the need to do away with the violent ideology that appears in the Quran and hadith. If Islam were to be divorced from political power, as happened with the Roman Catholic church to a great extent, it might find its soul and be accepted within a pluralist society without incident, but as long as there is an element of the lesser jihad within it, that excuses violence, then it is perfectly legitimate to be an outspoken critic of that, in defense of human rights and in defense of Western democratic values.
PRCSsays
“A sincere reformer will assert the need to do away with the violent ideology that appears in the Quran and hadith.”
For that reason, Zhudi Jasser is very insincere. He has never–to the best of my knowledge–cited which specific passages from Islam’s texts he wants to either “reform” or do away with.
There is no interfaith dialogue. It’s deception which will only lead to more Christians dead.
John Fofrbessays
The WEST is betting on HOPE ! Never seen HOPE as a strategy before but it is now in the UK & EUROPE !
When the Killers of LEE RIGBY ( British Soldier who was killed & beheaded in daylight in Loddon) were sentenced – Judge stated you are DISPARAGING the Peaceful faith of ISLAM – Shouted REPLY – NO we are NOT – We are following the Teachings of Mohammed & the KORAN !!!
Douglas Murray – say it best – Check out on YOU TUBE – What have we learned ! Brilliant !
Michael Copelandsays
“It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions such as “Christianity” and “Judaism” are acceptable to Allah….”
Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, w4.
Boston Tea Partysays
Respectfully, Moshe—when simply telling the truth becomes an insurmountable stumbling block for interfaith dialogue, I would suggest that one might want to reconsider the potential value of said dialogue in the first place.
Albertsays
Moshe, I agree with you that inter-faith dialogue is a good idea, of course. I have been to inter-faith meetings and met enlightened Muslims, of which there are many.
However, the problem I see is that these enlightened encounters between a handful of well-meaning people do little to stop the jihadists or the type of men who run the Islamic theocracies, because there is no centralized authority in Islam and anyone is allowed to interpret the Islamic canon as they see fit, and inevitably there are many who interpret it in a violent manner.
And this is easy to do because if you are a scriptural literalist, then the violent verses in the Quran will appear to be commanding religious violence as an act of faith.
An interpretation of the scriptures that endorses peace and goodwill among men is needed, and it exists, but the fundamentalists ignore it or try to crush it, especially in Islamic theocracies. Reformers are killed or have to go into exile. What other religion tries to kill its reformers on such a regular basis? The only other religion I can think of that tried to do that was Christianity, throughout European history and up until the counter-reformation.
So what’s needed, then, is an reformation of this religion, Islam. Maybe inter-faith dialogue can help with that effort, so I would not dismiss it, but it’s also necessary to rationally voice opposition to the politically dominant interpretation of the Quran which does endorse violence. it is not “hate speech” to do so.
If inter-faith dialogue ignores the problem of religion violence, then it is not being helpful. Muslim reformers have to acknowledge what is going on, and not try to portray Islam as only a religion of peace when the evidence indicates otherwise. There are peaceful people in the religion, but right now their voices are being drowned out by the violent ones. That is a problem.
And yes many religions have violence in them (e.g., Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism, and even Buddhism – in Sri Lanka), but none is as violent as Islam at this time in history. That is the problem we are facing, and why there is so much “Islamophobia” (which for many is a rational fear of Islam, not an irrational fear). I hope that your efforts are successful in building bridges, though. Shalom.
Lydiasays
Christianity has no violence in it.
There were cases in the Old Testament that were justified, just like we have the death penalty today for deserving offenders. It is God’s standard, not man’s. But Christians do not go around stoning anyone or anything from the OT law. We leave punishments to the authorities.
As for ‘interfaith dialogue,’ I do not do anything ‘interfaith,’ because I am a Christian and know what that is leading to. I can have a conversation with anybody who is willing to talk about anything for the most part, but I would not label it as interfaith. But there is truly no necessity for ‘dialogue’ because most of us have nothing to say. We go about our daily lives and assume the rest do the same. We have our religion, and they have theirs. Then all this terrorism develops and what can you say? “Stop killing us”? I think they tried that already. The terrorists were not listening. They were not interested in ‘dialogue.’ The ones who were not terrorists did not need any ‘dialogue’ because they were not killing anyone in the first place. Basically, the only ones who would benefit from any ‘dialogue,’ and need it the most; are the ones who are least likely to talk and listen and to engage in dialogue, but most likely to commit violent and irrational acts. It’s just one of those ironies.
During WWII, did they try the ‘dialogue’ approach with the nazi’s? Maybe they did, but obviously that avenue did not lead to successful results, and they needed another approach.
This website is a forum for dialogue and the topic of various faiths comes up. But when the true facts of the relationship between islam and violence, which is commanded in their quran comes up, and the history is proving it, you get a lot of angry muslims leaving angry comments and calling other people names and accusing them of being ‘ignorant.’ Yet they offer no reasons or explanations. So as far as ‘dialogue’ goes, good luck with that one!
( :
Albertsays
Lydia, while it is true that in the NT Jesus gives us the example of nonviolence, the history of Christianity includes violence, and some of it was very similar to the violence that we see with Islam today. There were Christian theocracies, Christian inquisitions, witch burning, murder of apostates, oppression of women, wars of conquest, etc. Christianity in the past was as Islam is today — just not as big in numbers. The Crusades is a good example of violence on both sides: it was an ongoing series of wars.
Re: inter-faith dialogue. This is a real phenomenon. There are clerics and scholars from both Abrahamic and Eastern religions who meet regularly and share perspectives peacefully, with good will. Muslim clerics do this too. Not all of them are bloodthirsty zealots. Some are thoughtful good people. But my point above is that we should not ignore or deny that Islam has a violent side that is now much stronger politically than the reformers and peace-makers in its midst. The latter are marginalized.
Another thing: we should respect others’ freedom to exercise their own religions and try to learn from them. Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Bridge-building is a good thing generally speaking. My point was that we cannot also deny the violence that is going on. Muslims do have to own up to that and work to stop it. It is absolutely impossible to bring an end to Islam.
Think about it: there are 1.6 billion followers and many of them are as committed to their faith as you are. Indeed, many are willing to die or kill for it! So what’s needed is a reformation and open dialogue about reforms, which includes acknowledgement of the violence and why it is wrong. If the violence is not acknowledged and Islam is said to be only a religion of peace, that is clearly untrue.
As a Christian, ask yourself this: What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD) Would Jesus dismiss the possibility of peace through dialogue?
Good on you, Lydia. Jesus said that whoever is not for Him is against Him. Islam has a twisted and simply wrong view of who Jesus is and what He did. There is zero in common between Islam and Christianity. Some people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity but they are obviously going against the teachings of Christ (“Put the Sword away!”). People do terrible things in the name of Allah, but the Koran encourages and incites them to so do.
ploomesays
lol
does a bear sh*t in the woods?
TJsays
Robert – great talk. I would only quibble with your answer regarding religious freedom as it pertains to the United States.
The Constitution’s separation of church and state not only to shield the state from religious interference, but to shield religion from state interference. The founders had the example of the Church of England to guide them which was – and still is if I’m not mistaken – a government institution.
Murder, rape, assault, abuse, etc., are not prohibited by the Constitution. They are laws enacted by legislatures that grew up from the Judeo-Christian traditions of the people who emigrated to the US. Replace that tradition with an Islamic one, and we could have something approaching Sharia in states or localities that would be perfectly Constitutional. In other words, there is nothing in our common binding social contract that would prevent the ‘full exercise’ of the Islamic religion if enough people gathered together to change criminal statutes at the local, state and federal level.
Flavius Claudius Iulianussays
Your last paragraph is wrong. In brief, the implementing of “Islamic traditions” (aka sharia) is, in fact, seditious to ALL constitutional democracies, irrespective of the differences in their criminal code, local statues and civil law practices. Where on earth do you get the hare-brained idea that sharia would be in line with the US Constitution? Not from this website, that’s for sure!
TJsays
I wrote nothing about sedition, only about what the US Constitution does or does not prohibit. And your assertion does not make a coherent argument.
Put aside for the moment the idea that under Islamic tradition there is no separation of church and state – name one other Islamic principle which would be unconstitutional.
Equal treatment under the law, perhaps, would be your only argument. But until the 19th Amendmend was ratified our constitution allowed for different treatment based on gender. It could be amended back, were the population so inclined.
Points taken. There were a few things on that list i hadn’t thought of, and although i might quibble with some of the legal analysis, it does appear I was a little hasty with my original comment.
Would have been nice if you’d included this evidence in your original reply, but i understand ad hominem attacks are what most people default to on the internet.
Flavius Claudius Iulianussays
I was too brisk in my response and that may have been taken as a personal attack. But I regard you, TJ, and most of the other truth seekers reading this site as allies. It would be foolish for us to in-fight.
PRCSsays
That idea is not so hair-brained when you consider that the Sharia consists of EVERY aspect of a Muslim’s life–including such mundane issues as toilet etiquette, praying, fasting, etc.
Pay attention to what lawyers for the two Michigan doctors seem to be arguing in their defense—that FGM is a protected RELIGIOUS practice. If successful—Katy, bar the door against attempts to include those of Islam’s many other practices which currently run afoul of our Constitution.
I learned several things I didn’t know through this presentation and will share with others.
Sharing the truth with others, about Islam, is one of the best ways to defeat the ideology. It cannot withstand truthful analysis and credible critique. TRUTH is always the best defense to a lie.
PRCSsays
Why is the issue still referred to as “Islamic” terrorism?
It’s not ISLAM–the ideology, the books–that are committing the attacks.
MUSLIMS do that.
Why–all these years since 9/11–isn’t the issue labeled MUSLIM terrorists?
And ISLAMIC jihadists?
There aren’t any Presbyterian jihadists.
If the jihadists MUST be identified by the “religion” they follow, why not call them MUSLIM jihadists?
Albert, dialogue requires two honest parties. Islam is a fabric of lies and deceit with one objective – to bring about world caliphate where Islam rules according the Sharia law.
Albertsays
Some Muslims in the West sincerely believe that Islam is a religion of peace and inclusivity, because for them it is. They are not trying to mislead people, I believe. They are just choosing to ignore the violent Muslims and redefine the faith according to how they see it. They call themselves “progressive Muslims.” Unfortunately, they are vastly outnumbered by the non-progressive Muslims, especially in Islamic theocracies where progressive forms of Islam are rejected. For example, there was a gay Muslim man who tweeted about it a few years ago and got death threats from fellow Muslims, and claims that he was not a real Muslim. He was a real Muslim, but not a follower of every single verse in the Quran and hadith, obviously. This is similar to the fact that there can be progressive Christians who don’t literally believe in and follow every verse in the Bible. They interpret the verses figuratively. So there are many Islams, not just one, just as there are many Christianities and Buddhism and Judaisms, etc. Progressive Islam exists, but as I said above, it is vastly outnumbered and those who embrace it are marginalized and often threatened. They are allowed to speak their voice on only in the West, and even then must leave the disapora community in order to do so, since the disapora communities are like miniature Islamic states.
Albertsays
spelling correction *diaspora”
Joeynsays
I tried downloading this video from youtube but unfortunately a ‘Forbidden’ message appears. I would appreciate it very much if someone can show me a way around this problem
Joeynsays
It is ok. I have managed to download it. Thanks.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
mortimer says
Islam has NOTHING to do with Islam.
John Fofrbes says
How can the LEFTISTS be defeated in relation to this continual appeasement ? If this appeasement continues it will be very difficult to defeat this ISLAM ,
How is it that the LEFT simply refuses to see the danger of the Push to Impose SHARIA & Destroy Democracy !
Larry says
And should the Islamist’s be successful in their quest to impose Sharia Law, and no longer need those useful idiots on the left, they will turn on them and eat them. Maybe then, finally, the leftists will understand; but of course then it will be too late.
John Fofrbes says
But how can we the PUBLIC who can see the danger get our leaders to STOP PARROTING this idiotic phrase : Islam Is a Religion of peace & start enforcing the US LAWS & Demanding that SHARIA courts be shut down ?
It is simply Dangerous this continual Appeasement ! With Muslims at less that 4% of the total population WHY will the US federal & state Governments not uphold & enforce US laws ?
To continue like this will certainly lead to Civil Conflict & to act now lessens the impact !
This has to be done of there is a distinct possibility of Losing not only FREE SPEECH but untimely DEMOCRACY itself !!
Mark Swan says
Absolutely John Fofrbes
John Fofrbes says
the other LEFTIST DOCTRINE is MULTICULTURALISM backed by ISLAMOPHOBIA & POLITICAL CORRECTNESS followed closely by the PROTECTION TRICK WORD ISLAMOPHOBIA followed by the TERMS BIGOT & RACIST should there be an examination or Criticism of islam Or the Followers of ISLAM !
To see how HORRIFIC this can be for the local population look at EASY MEAT or ANDREW NORFOLKS – an Uncomfortable Truth speech on the MUSLIM CHILD RAPING INDUSTRY in the UK covered up for 2 decades ! POLICE – supposedly – for fear of being called RACIST would not even INVESTIGATE or ARREST KNOWN CHILD RAPISTS & this is the same now & in the Netherlands & in many EUROPEAN Countries !
Shalom says
Why is it that not one of these extremists ever say after an attack that Muslims who say they are not Muslims are wrong, and reveal to everyone what they are all playing at – using a practice called taquiya in order to defend/protect/spread Islam.
All you ever hear is that they swore allegiance to I.S. or ‘this is for syria’
There is never a coherent plea (from the attacker) to all Muslims to stop saying that this has nothing to do with Islam. I am continually perplexed by this.
John Fofrbes says
Apparently the killers of the British Soldier – Lee Rigby – when the Judge stated that they wre spoiling the Peaceful religion – stated – no ISLAM is a RELIGION of WAR !
To show how far in DENIAL the PANELS & the BBC are about extremism ! On a show a man showed the leaflets handed out at the Mosque in London & A Muslim Girl also stated that SAUDI Wahabi/Sakafi funded Mosques needed to be temporarily shut down ! ”The leaflet handed out stated that DEMOCRACY was IMMORAL & there is no HONOUR in Democracy !
Another woman stated that she goes to the MOSQUE in question & the leaflet was taken out of CONTEXT !
The panel accepted the BARE FACED LIE – The INITIAL MUSLIM Girl was left shaking her head in DISBELIEF !!! Welcome to the COWARDS of the UK & the DENIERS at the BBC !\
The EUROPEANS Are Betting on HOPE !!! and have NOT a clue what to do & they are SLEEP WALKING to DEFEAT !!
mortimer says
What terror? Oh…THAT terror!
The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095,100-104; 005:033, 035, 082; 008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048,057-060, 065-075; 009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029,036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083,086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123; 016:110; 022:039, 058, 078; 024:053, 055; 025:052; 029:006, 069; 033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050; 042:039; 047:004, 020, 035; 048:015-024; 049:015; 059:002, 005-008, 014; 060:009; 061:004, 011, 013; 063:004; 064:014; 066:009; 073:020; 076:008.
K.7.4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
K.7.5 No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrongdoers.
K.8.60 Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may TERRORIZE the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.286: “The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.”
Bukhari: V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been awarded VICTORY by TERROR so the treasures of the earth are mine.'”
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mortimer, you filthy Christians are more ignorant than primitive Arabs before islam.you cannot understand the Quran and hadith and you deliberately refuse to learn from experts.All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!
James says
Calling Christians “filthy” does not help your argument. If those verses have no connection with terrorism, what meaning do they have ? And why do so many Muslims imagine that those verses require them to engage in acts of terror ?
If Islam is a religion of peace, why does it again and again encourage Muslims to fight and to kill, “to slay and be slain” ?
Albert says
Ibriahim, you wrote that “All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!”
Sir, that is incorrect. In bin Laden’s “letter to America” cites the following verses:
Quran 22:39
Quran 4:76
He does this in order to justify terrorism.
There is not any doubt that terrorism occurs because jihadists are interpreting the Quran and hadith as justification for a holy war on unbelievers, and that they see it as a defense of Islam, one that is endorsed by the Prophet himself.
Now, I do not deny that there are many enlightened Muslims in the world want peace and do not endorse terrorism, and perhaps you are among them (though calling Christians names is not helping your case).
But if you are enlightened and do not endorse terrorism then I ask you, what are you doing to convince the umma that it is wrong to engage in terrorism? Will you do the right thing and speak out against jihadist terrorism? What are you doing to call for a reformation of Islam, away from violence, and towards peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world?
Lydia says
Okay, let’s make this simple for you.
1. We see many acts of terrorism committed by Muslims against people of other faiths. This happens on a daily basis and the facts are verifiable. We will call this ‘B’.
2. We look in the quran where it says that Muslims are to commit acts of terrorism against people of other faiths. (see: quran.) We will call this ‘A’.
3. We ‘connect the dots’ and say “Ah! We have B because of A!” It states in the quran that Muslims are to kill those of other faiths (as long as they are remaining in their original faith of course, or have left Islam), and we see the Muslims killing those of other faiths just like it says in the quran, and this on a daily basis.
So we make the connection, and this is called ‘logic.’
Then, someone comes on and starts insulting us for this logic.
They don’t explain anything to defend their position or offer any reasoning.
They just come on here shooting their mouth off.
So, last question:
Who is the irrational, ignorant, filthy idiot?
Answer: Not us
By logical process of elimination between you and us, that leaves only one conclusion as to who the idiot is. Good luck, maybe you will figure it out!
I will not hang around here waiting though…
: D
P.S. I would surmise that if we were both in a dark alley right now, and you did have a knife, I would be dead. What do you think? Am I right in that assumption?
Mo says
@ ibrahim itace muhammed
“Mortimer, you filthy Christians are more ignorant than primitive Arabs before islam.you cannot understand the Quran and hadith and you deliberately refuse to learn from experts.All the verses you cited have no connection with terrorism.try again !!
Thanks for the satire! You sound just like one of those Christian hating, taqiyya spewing followers of the warlord, terrorist, murderer, sex slave owner, child rapist, Mohammad.
Well done!
John Fofrbes says
Little point in taunting the Jihadists ! DOUGLAS MURRAY & the Henry Jackson society have studied all of the actually charged & convicted ones & concluded that there is no rehabilitation & that they should NEVER be released into a democratic Society ! Sadly the UK does not have such a program & many will be released to KILL again !!
Albert says
The claims by apologists for Islam that the jihadists and ISIS, et al, are not representative of “true” Islam, has been debunked by many religious studies scholars who have been able to show that those that those who call for religious violence –in any religious tradition– are still part of the faith. This idea of a true Islam or true Christianity, or that all religions are just about peace and love and tolerance, is demonstrably untrue. It is an over-simplification from within those traditions that is trying to excuse their more violent aspects. This is not to say that the love of peace and moral teachings are not part of the tradition, because they are, but when Obama says Islam is a religion of peace and dismisses jihadists as not being Muslims, he is woefully incorrect.
Those parts of the tradition that are progressive or moderate and call for peace are part of Islam. These are Muslims too, and they are defending their version of the faith. But here is the issue: the best reformers of the faith acknowledge its violence and call for an end to that (e.g., Imam Tawhidi), but they are typically killed or have to go into exile, while the theocratic and violent elements of the faith dominate. So apologists who fail to acknowledge the violent aspect of the faith and to gloss it over as a religion of peace or even as consistent with LGBTQ or feminism, are disingenuous. They are helping jihadists inadvertently. Do they really think that in an Islamic state where sharia law is in force that feminism would be tolerated for one second? Why don’t they speak up for women in Islamic countries?
Yes, a religious tradition with that many followers is not monolithic and there are elements that are peaceful, and perhaps most Muslims themselves are for peace, in their hearts, but the tradition is dominated by those who feel they are commanded to defend it violently, and to expand it by any means necessary, and they are using naive progressives to do that, in order to silence critics as alleged racists and bigots.
History has shown that the violent theocrats tend to dominate while the progressives are marginalized or even killed. If Islam is growing in leaps and bounds (demography demonstrates this to be true), in 50 years or so Europe will be a caliphate. European culture will be washed away. The progressive will be washed away, as well. That would be tragic if it were allowed to happen.
A sincere reformer will assert the need to do away with the violent ideology that appears in the Quran and hadith. If Islam were to be divorced from political power, as happened with the Roman Catholic church to a great extent, it might find its soul and be accepted within a pluralist society without incident, but as long as there is an element of the lesser jihad within it, that excuses violence, then it is perfectly legitimate to be an outspoken critic of that, in defense of human rights and in defense of Western democratic values.
PRCS says
“A sincere reformer will assert the need to do away with the violent ideology that appears in the Quran and hadith.”
For that reason, Zhudi Jasser is very insincere. He has never–to the best of my knowledge–cited which specific passages from Islam’s texts he wants to either “reform” or do away with.
He’s just another deceitful media darling, IMO.
Moshe says
I urge the learned Mr. Spencer to focus less on the details of past tragedies and more on opportunities for inter-faith dialogue. Please see this inspirational article in the Jerusalem Post today: http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Children-of-Abraham-break-bread-together-497619
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
There is no interfaith dialogue. It’s deception which will only lead to more Christians dead.
John Fofrbes says
The WEST is betting on HOPE ! Never seen HOPE as a strategy before but it is now in the UK & EUROPE !
When the Killers of LEE RIGBY ( British Soldier who was killed & beheaded in daylight in Loddon) were sentenced – Judge stated you are DISPARAGING the Peaceful faith of ISLAM – Shouted REPLY – NO we are NOT – We are following the Teachings of Mohammed & the KORAN !!!
Douglas Murray – say it best – Check out on YOU TUBE – What have we learned ! Brilliant !
Michael Copeland says
“It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions such as “Christianity” and “Judaism” are acceptable to Allah….”
Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, w4.
Boston Tea Party says
Respectfully, Moshe—when simply telling the truth becomes an insurmountable stumbling block for interfaith dialogue, I would suggest that one might want to reconsider the potential value of said dialogue in the first place.
Albert says
Moshe, I agree with you that inter-faith dialogue is a good idea, of course. I have been to inter-faith meetings and met enlightened Muslims, of which there are many.
However, the problem I see is that these enlightened encounters between a handful of well-meaning people do little to stop the jihadists or the type of men who run the Islamic theocracies, because there is no centralized authority in Islam and anyone is allowed to interpret the Islamic canon as they see fit, and inevitably there are many who interpret it in a violent manner.
And this is easy to do because if you are a scriptural literalist, then the violent verses in the Quran will appear to be commanding religious violence as an act of faith.
An interpretation of the scriptures that endorses peace and goodwill among men is needed, and it exists, but the fundamentalists ignore it or try to crush it, especially in Islamic theocracies. Reformers are killed or have to go into exile. What other religion tries to kill its reformers on such a regular basis? The only other religion I can think of that tried to do that was Christianity, throughout European history and up until the counter-reformation.
So what’s needed, then, is an reformation of this religion, Islam. Maybe inter-faith dialogue can help with that effort, so I would not dismiss it, but it’s also necessary to rationally voice opposition to the politically dominant interpretation of the Quran which does endorse violence. it is not “hate speech” to do so.
If inter-faith dialogue ignores the problem of religion violence, then it is not being helpful. Muslim reformers have to acknowledge what is going on, and not try to portray Islam as only a religion of peace when the evidence indicates otherwise. There are peaceful people in the religion, but right now their voices are being drowned out by the violent ones. That is a problem.
And yes many religions have violence in them (e.g., Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism, and even Buddhism – in Sri Lanka), but none is as violent as Islam at this time in history. That is the problem we are facing, and why there is so much “Islamophobia” (which for many is a rational fear of Islam, not an irrational fear). I hope that your efforts are successful in building bridges, though. Shalom.
Lydia says
Christianity has no violence in it.
There were cases in the Old Testament that were justified, just like we have the death penalty today for deserving offenders. It is God’s standard, not man’s. But Christians do not go around stoning anyone or anything from the OT law. We leave punishments to the authorities.
As for ‘interfaith dialogue,’ I do not do anything ‘interfaith,’ because I am a Christian and know what that is leading to. I can have a conversation with anybody who is willing to talk about anything for the most part, but I would not label it as interfaith. But there is truly no necessity for ‘dialogue’ because most of us have nothing to say. We go about our daily lives and assume the rest do the same. We have our religion, and they have theirs. Then all this terrorism develops and what can you say? “Stop killing us”? I think they tried that already. The terrorists were not listening. They were not interested in ‘dialogue.’ The ones who were not terrorists did not need any ‘dialogue’ because they were not killing anyone in the first place. Basically, the only ones who would benefit from any ‘dialogue,’ and need it the most; are the ones who are least likely to talk and listen and to engage in dialogue, but most likely to commit violent and irrational acts. It’s just one of those ironies.
During WWII, did they try the ‘dialogue’ approach with the nazi’s? Maybe they did, but obviously that avenue did not lead to successful results, and they needed another approach.
This website is a forum for dialogue and the topic of various faiths comes up. But when the true facts of the relationship between islam and violence, which is commanded in their quran comes up, and the history is proving it, you get a lot of angry muslims leaving angry comments and calling other people names and accusing them of being ‘ignorant.’ Yet they offer no reasons or explanations. So as far as ‘dialogue’ goes, good luck with that one!
( :
Albert says
Lydia, while it is true that in the NT Jesus gives us the example of nonviolence, the history of Christianity includes violence, and some of it was very similar to the violence that we see with Islam today. There were Christian theocracies, Christian inquisitions, witch burning, murder of apostates, oppression of women, wars of conquest, etc. Christianity in the past was as Islam is today — just not as big in numbers. The Crusades is a good example of violence on both sides: it was an ongoing series of wars.
Re: inter-faith dialogue. This is a real phenomenon. There are clerics and scholars from both Abrahamic and Eastern religions who meet regularly and share perspectives peacefully, with good will. Muslim clerics do this too. Not all of them are bloodthirsty zealots. Some are thoughtful good people. But my point above is that we should not ignore or deny that Islam has a violent side that is now much stronger politically than the reformers and peace-makers in its midst. The latter are marginalized.
Another thing: we should respect others’ freedom to exercise their own religions and try to learn from them. Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Bridge-building is a good thing generally speaking. My point was that we cannot also deny the violence that is going on. Muslims do have to own up to that and work to stop it. It is absolutely impossible to bring an end to Islam.
Think about it: there are 1.6 billion followers and many of them are as committed to their faith as you are. Indeed, many are willing to die or kill for it! So what’s needed is a reformation and open dialogue about reforms, which includes acknowledgement of the violence and why it is wrong. If the violence is not acknowledged and Islam is said to be only a religion of peace, that is clearly untrue.
As a Christian, ask yourself this: What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD) Would Jesus dismiss the possibility of peace through dialogue?
Monty says
Good on you, Lydia. Jesus said that whoever is not for Him is against Him. Islam has a twisted and simply wrong view of who Jesus is and what He did. There is zero in common between Islam and Christianity. Some people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity but they are obviously going against the teachings of Christ (“Put the Sword away!”). People do terrible things in the name of Allah, but the Koran encourages and incites them to so do.
ploome says
lol
does a bear sh*t in the woods?
TJ says
Robert – great talk. I would only quibble with your answer regarding religious freedom as it pertains to the United States.
The Constitution’s separation of church and state not only to shield the state from religious interference, but to shield religion from state interference. The founders had the example of the Church of England to guide them which was – and still is if I’m not mistaken – a government institution.
Murder, rape, assault, abuse, etc., are not prohibited by the Constitution. They are laws enacted by legislatures that grew up from the Judeo-Christian traditions of the people who emigrated to the US. Replace that tradition with an Islamic one, and we could have something approaching Sharia in states or localities that would be perfectly Constitutional. In other words, there is nothing in our common binding social contract that would prevent the ‘full exercise’ of the Islamic religion if enough people gathered together to change criminal statutes at the local, state and federal level.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Your last paragraph is wrong. In brief, the implementing of “Islamic traditions” (aka sharia) is, in fact, seditious to ALL constitutional democracies, irrespective of the differences in their criminal code, local statues and civil law practices. Where on earth do you get the hare-brained idea that sharia would be in line with the US Constitution? Not from this website, that’s for sure!
TJ says
I wrote nothing about sedition, only about what the US Constitution does or does not prohibit. And your assertion does not make a coherent argument.
Put aside for the moment the idea that under Islamic tradition there is no separation of church and state – name one other Islamic principle which would be unconstitutional.
Equal treatment under the law, perhaps, would be your only argument. But until the 19th Amendmend was ratified our constitution allowed for different treatment based on gender. It could be amended back, were the population so inclined.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Short version:
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf
Long version (with a list starting on p. 6):
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20%28Team%20B%20Report%29%20Web%2009292010.pdf
TJ says
Flavius –
Points taken. There were a few things on that list i hadn’t thought of, and although i might quibble with some of the legal analysis, it does appear I was a little hasty with my original comment.
Would have been nice if you’d included this evidence in your original reply, but i understand ad hominem attacks are what most people default to on the internet.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I was too brisk in my response and that may have been taken as a personal attack. But I regard you, TJ, and most of the other truth seekers reading this site as allies. It would be foolish for us to in-fight.
PRCS says
That idea is not so hair-brained when you consider that the Sharia consists of EVERY aspect of a Muslim’s life–including such mundane issues as toilet etiquette, praying, fasting, etc.
Pay attention to what lawyers for the two Michigan doctors seem to be arguing in their defense—that FGM is a protected RELIGIOUS practice. If successful—Katy, bar the door against attempts to include those of Islam’s many other practices which currently run afoul of our Constitution.
marblenecltr says
Excellent presentation of most relevant truths taken from an ocean of lies. It was delivered in very understandable manner.
wm1 says
Thank you, Dr. Spencer!
I learned several things I didn’t know through this presentation and will share with others.
Sharing the truth with others, about Islam, is one of the best ways to defeat the ideology. It cannot withstand truthful analysis and credible critique. TRUTH is always the best defense to a lie.
PRCS says
Why is the issue still referred to as “Islamic” terrorism?
It’s not ISLAM–the ideology, the books–that are committing the attacks.
MUSLIMS do that.
Why–all these years since 9/11–isn’t the issue labeled MUSLIM terrorists?
And ISLAMIC jihadists?
There aren’t any Presbyterian jihadists.
If the jihadists MUST be identified by the “religion” they follow, why not call them MUSLIM jihadists?
Monty says
Albert, dialogue requires two honest parties. Islam is a fabric of lies and deceit with one objective – to bring about world caliphate where Islam rules according the Sharia law.
Albert says
Some Muslims in the West sincerely believe that Islam is a religion of peace and inclusivity, because for them it is. They are not trying to mislead people, I believe. They are just choosing to ignore the violent Muslims and redefine the faith according to how they see it. They call themselves “progressive Muslims.” Unfortunately, they are vastly outnumbered by the non-progressive Muslims, especially in Islamic theocracies where progressive forms of Islam are rejected. For example, there was a gay Muslim man who tweeted about it a few years ago and got death threats from fellow Muslims, and claims that he was not a real Muslim. He was a real Muslim, but not a follower of every single verse in the Quran and hadith, obviously. This is similar to the fact that there can be progressive Christians who don’t literally believe in and follow every verse in the Bible. They interpret the verses figuratively. So there are many Islams, not just one, just as there are many Christianities and Buddhism and Judaisms, etc. Progressive Islam exists, but as I said above, it is vastly outnumbered and those who embrace it are marginalized and often threatened. They are allowed to speak their voice on only in the West, and even then must leave the disapora community in order to do so, since the disapora communities are like miniature Islamic states.
Albert says
spelling correction *diaspora”
Joeyn says
I tried downloading this video from youtube but unfortunately a ‘Forbidden’ message appears. I would appreciate it very much if someone can show me a way around this problem
Joeyn says
It is ok. I have managed to download it. Thanks.