• 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: Does Islam Have A “Surprisingly Complicated Relationship With Terrorism”?

Nov 3, 2017 3:55 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Bruce Ashford, a Professor of Theology and Dean at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, contributed to Fox News his view of the latest  terror attack and what he calls “Islam’s surprisingly complicated relationship with terrorism”:

The horrifying attack in lower Manhattan that killed 8 people on Tuesday is a reminder that hardly a day goes by without an Islamic terror attack somewhere in the world.

We are now familiar with the post-terror routine when a Western city is attacked. Government leaders note the need to shore up security and assure their people that every protective measure will be taken, TV commentators dutifully state that terrorism’s roots are not in Islam but in some other phenomenon.

Is it really true that these terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Islam?

No. But neither is it true that most Muslims are terrorists or approve of terrorism.

Yes, at this point only the demented can continue to believe that these terrorist attacks by Muslims on Infidels have nothing to do with Islam. The pertinent Qur’anic quotes cited by terrorists before, during, and after their attacks, the ISIS or Al-Qaeda flags they wave or place on their vehicles, the cries of “Allahu akbar” after a successful attack — a war cry which, despite the BBC and many other misinforming media outlets, means not “God is great,” but “Our Muslim God is greater than yours” — all demonstrate that Islam has “something to do with terrorism.” But then Ashford befogs his initial clarity by adding, unnecessarily, that it is not true that “most Muslims are terrorists or approve of terrorism.” As to the first statement, of course. If most Muslims are not terrorists, that could be for a number of reasons other than disapproval. Those living in a Muslim land don’t feel the need to attack others like themselves, though terrorism may be employed against Muslims of other sects (e.g., Sunnis terrorizing Shi’a, or Ahmadis, in Pakistan); if they live in the West, they may not agree that terrorism is the most effective weapon to spread Islam, or may out of self-interest not wish to disrupt their own lives, especially if they are determined to take full advantage of the freedoms and opportunities a non-Muslim society offers them; they may wish to concentrate on establishing themselves in the lands of the Unbelievers so that they cannot be dislodged. Few may possess the fanatical fervor to sacrifice their own lives or well-being in acts of terror (which does not mean that they disapprove of others doing so). Besides, some may reason that today’s most effective weapon of Jihad is demographic conquest, and terror attacks may eventually cause some Western countries to tighten immigration policies (which Muslims naturally fear). The refusal to engage in terrorism, that is, may reflect not so much moral disgust as a host of practical considerations, including the lack of opportunity, the desire not to endanger one’s own position in the lands still controlled by Unbelievers, the belief that terrorist attacks may prove inimical to more effective instruments of Jihad, as unrestricted immigration.

Many Muslims in the West are keenly aware that terrorism alienates the Infidels on whom they still must rely. That is why, when Muslims participate in opinion polls about terrorism, some may not trust the poll-taker’s promise of anonymity, and prefer to give the answer that they think will make the least trouble for them or their coreligionists. When Muslims take part in such polls, it makes sense for them to deny approval of terrorism; the distortion in the data will thus always be in the direction of registering more opposition to terrorism than there really is. Polls taken by Saudi-owned Al Arabiya and Gallup suggest considerable support for the September 11 terrorist attacks within the Arab world, with 36% of Arabs polled by Al Arabiya saying the 9/11 attacks were morally justified, while a further 26% of those polled were “unsure,” and only 38% regarded them as unjustified. In effect, 62% called the 9/11 attacks completely or partly justified.  That’s hardly an overwhelming vote against terrorism. In a 2008 Gallup poll, 38.6% of Muslims believed the 9/11 attacks were justified. Another poll conducted in 2005, by the Fafo Foundation in the Palestinian Authority, found that 65% of respondents supported the September 11 attacks. And in all the numerous polls that have been taken of Muslims in many different countries, nowhere does a “vast majority” of Muslims express, as Professor Ashford claims, disapproval of terrorism.

Though there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, there have been no mass demonstrations (meaning more than two-three thousand) by Muslims protesting terrorism carried out against Infidels. After 9/11 the only demonstration in a Muslim land against the attacks was in Iran, where a few hundred Shi’a held a candlelit vigil in Mohseni Square. There were, however, celebrations of 9/11 in several Muslim countries, and in the West Bank and Gaza. In recent years, there have been demonstrations in London against ISIS, involving a few thousand Muslims, but those participating — most were Shi’a — were demonstrating against ISIS not for its attacks on Unbelievers but on fellow Muslims. The last such demonstration, on October 2, 2017, coincided with the Shi’a observance of Ashura. In November 2016 a story appeared in the Western media claiming that “millions of Muslims” in Iraq had demonstrated against ISIS, and that this demonstration had been under-reported, with a deliberate “media blackout,” in order not to put Muslims in a good light. There was no media blackout. Millions of Muslims were on the move, but they were not demonstrating against ISIS. They were Shi’a Muslims taking part in a mass pilgrimage to visit the shrine of Imam Hussein in Karbala, Iraq. ISIS had nothing to do with it.

The relationship between Islam and terrorism is significantly more complicated than either of those extremes would allow. In order to better understand that relationship we must acknowledge at least three complicating factors: Islam’s texts, its varied cultural manifestations, and its humanity.

The Koran is written in classical Arabic, which the majority of Muslims worldwide cannot read. Therefore, knowledge of Islam comes mostly from the Muslim community rather than directly from the Koran.

First, Islam is a text-based religion. The Koran is the supreme Islamic text, and it is supplemented by the hadith which are official collections of reports about Muhammad’s words and deeds. Both the Koran and the hadith contain passages that can be used to support terrorism and those that can be used against it.

One the one hand, there are passages that condone religious warfare (jihad). Although those passages concern conventional warfare rather than modern terrorism, these passages can be drawn upon to support terrorism against “Christian” nations. Koran 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them.” Koran 9:111 promises paradise to those who slay and are slain for Allah.

Professor Ashford writes that “there are passages that condone religious warfare.” Not just (a few) “passages” (he offers only two), but 109 jihad verses that do not merely “condone,” but rather, command, warfare against the Unbelievers. The subject of Jihad is given more attention than any other subject in the Qur’an. And then he makes another error, when he claims that those “passages concern conventional warfare rather than modern terrorism.” If by “modern terrorism” he means only the use of vehicles or explosives, then he’s right. Of course the tools of “terrorism” will vary over time, but the tactic of terror is the same whether Muslims used swords to decapitate those who would not submit to Islam 1400 years ago, or today use trucks in Nice and Barcelona and New York City to strike terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers. In both cases it is terrorism.

Even more disturbingly, Professor Ashford had a perfect opportunity to inform his readers that there are several verses in the Qur’an, and stories in the Hadith, that call not just for Jihad through conventional warfare but specifically, call for the use of “terrorism” as a weapon.

Here are some of those verses:

“We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

“When your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” (Qur’an 8:12)

“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know, whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

And in the hadith we find Muhammad saying: “I have been made victorious with terror.” (Bukhari 4.52.220)

Surely Professor Ashford knows these passages. Why did he not quote any of them? It appears that even though he wants to admit that there is some link between terrorism and Islam, he doesn’t want to offer the evidence of just how unambiguous is the Qur’anic command to “cast (or strike) terror” in the hearts of the enemy, or how clear Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, is in attributing his success to that tactic: “I have been made victorious with terror.’

Ashford might have written: “The Qur’an contains 109 verses urging jihad warfare against the Unbelievers. This subject is given more attention than anything else in the Qur’an. We need to be aware of these verses, and the effect they have on Believers. Among them are 9:5, 9:29, 2:191-193, and 47:4, which I urge you to read, so as to better comprehend the significance of Jihad.” He might then have added: “Furthermore, the Qur’an unambiguously endorses terror as a weapon of war, as does Muhammad in a famous Hadith. The tools of that terror may have changed; the strategy of terror remains the same.”

But instead, he reduced all that to the laconic “there are passages which condone religious warfare.” That is an alarming understatement.

And then, having played down the significance of Jihad and terror in the Qur’an, even while pretending to fully recognize it, he goes on to insist that the Qur’an contains passages that allow Muslims to live peacefully with Unbelievers:

On the other hand, there are passages that encourage peaceful coexistence. In the Koran, we read passages such as 109:6, “To you be your Way [religion] and to me mine.” In another passage, we are told that Allah says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256). So Islam’s texts contain both type of passages.

No, he’s wrong as to both verses. Qur’an 109:6 was an expression of Muhammad’s total disgust with all of the Unbelievers, who had kept trying to make a compromise with him, but still wanted to hold to their essential Unbelief. Here is how one Tafsir (Qur’anic commentary) explains 109:6:

If the Surah is read with this background in mind [the attempt of the non-Muslims to come to some compromise with Muhammad so that he would stop maligning their gods], one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. That is why this Surah continued to be recited when the people to whom it was addressed as a rejoinder, had died and been forgotten, and those Muslims also continued to recite it who were disbelievers at the time it was revealed, and the Muslims still recite it centuries after they have passed away, for expression of disgust with and dissociation from kufr and its rites is a perpetual demand of Faith.

To repeat, 109:6 (“To you be your Way [religion] and to me mine”) is Muhammad’s way of dismissing the Unbelievers (initially, he was addressing the Quriash tribe, but later, the commentators tell us, he meant to include all Unbelievers), it was a way of saying there would be no more discussions; we Muslims have the true faith; you Unbelievers have kufr (unbelief); we have nothing more to say to you.

This is summed up at wikislam.net:

When read in context, like many other verses misinterpreted for apologetic purposes, surat al-Kafiroon advocates the opposite of what is sometimes claimed. This surah is not a proclamation on religious tolerance and freedom or a recognition of religious pluralism. In fact, this surah unequivocally forbids inter-faith dialogue, expresses Muslims’ “total disgust” of non-Islamic beliefs and advocates an “us versus them” mentality between Muslims and disbelievers. This is how the surah is understood by mainstream Islam and the majority of its classical and contemporary scholars. Furthermore, if the historical context were to be ignored, it would still remain an abrogated verse, superseded by “the verses of fighting.”

Professor Ashford says he has spent two years living in a Muslim country. How was it possible for him not to have read the tafsir that explains the real meaning of 109:6? Was he unaware of how that verse has been understood by Muslims, and how it  been presented by those apologists for Islam who practiced in convincing non-Muslims of a benign interpretation?

Then Professor Ashford quotes 2:256, another verse which appears to say something appealing: “there is no compulsion in religion.” This is a favorite of Muslim apologists, and its use, along with the misinterpreted 109:6, raises the question of whether Ashford is knowingly misrepresenting Islam or whether, not knowing nearly enough, he is doing so innocently.

If there is “no compulsion in religion,” then why are Infidels subject to all sorts of onerous disabilities, including the payment of the capitation tax, or Jizyah, in order that they be protected from Muslim attack? All of the humiliating conditions that are placed on Unbelievers — that is, those who refuse to convert — certainly constitute “compulsion in religion.” How many millions of non-Muslims — Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists — over many centuries converted  to Islam, in order to escape the status of  subjugated dhimmis? Don’t those conditions that caused them to convert constitute “compulsion in religion”?

As for the application of 2:256 to Muslims themselves, they are threatened with death if they become apostates, which is another, even clearer, example of “compulsion in religion.” The last word on Muslim apostates and the meaning of “no compulsion in religion” surely belongs to Muhammad, who in the collection of hadith that Muslims deem to be most reliable is depicted as saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). And finally, we might note, in any case, 2:256 is one of the abrogated verses in the Qur’an.

The gross misrepresentation of both 109:6 and 2:256 raises the question of whether Ashford is a deliberate apologist for Islam (even as he offers himself as a model of judiciousness), or — which is also unacceptable — he does not know, because he has never bothered to find out, the real meanings of 109:6 and 2:256. In the first case, the meaning of 109:6 is exactly the opposite of what some non-Muslims think it means; in the second case, the actual practice of Muslims, in how they treat apostates and dhimmis, belies the literal meaning of 2:256.

Ashford again:

To complicate matters further, the Koran is written in classical Arabic, which the majority of Muslims worldwide cannot read. (Muslims believe that the Koran cannot be translated into another language and still remain truly the Word of God.) Therefore, knowledge of Islam comes mostly from the Muslim community rather than directly from the Koran.

But where does the “Muslim community” get its knowledge of Islam? From the Qur’an, which over the centuries has been copiously annotated by Muslim commentators, with their tafsirs, or exegetical commentaries. Annotated Qur’ans exist in many translations, but it is still the annotated Qur’an — in modern Arabic, and in other major languages of Islam, including Farsi, Urdu, Bahasa, Turkish, and now, too,  in the new languages of Islam, that is French, English, German, and other European tongues — for those who cannot read the original. It’s unclear what point Professor Ashford is making. If he means to imply that the “meaning” of the Qur’an is whatever the “Muslim community” wants it to be, that isn’t true. We keep coming back to the texts, for Islam is a book-based faith. The Qur’an may appear in many languages, but the range of content is severely constrained. That’s one of the tasks assumed by Muslim scholars in an age of translation: to make sure that whatever the language, the text of the Qur’an is as true to the original as those scholars, and their copious annotations, can make it.

Second, Islam takes many different shapes. Even though its texts serve as an enduring “center point” for Koran, the teachings of those texts are interpreted and applied in a wide variety of ways depending upon context. A given manifestation of Islam might be influenced by Western Christianity, Southeast Asian animism, or secular humanism. It will be affected by its adherents’ language, social and economic status, political situation, and educational level. These influencing factors might tilt a person towards approving of terrorism or away from such approval.

Are there differences in the practice of Islam among Muslims? Of course there are. The Sunnis and Shia differ, and have often been at war with one another over the centuries. The dour and uncompromising Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia differ from the easygoing Sunnis of Bosnia or Niger. Islam in Indonesia, with its cultural substratum of Hinduism and Buddhism, has some folk practices not to be found among Muslims in Yemen or Turkey. There are many sects of Islam — Ashford is telling us what we already know — but he wishes to emphasize their perceived differences, as a way to prevent us from coming to any conclusions, or making any moral judgments, about Islam. But all Muslims read the same verses in the Qur’an, the same stories in the Hadith, the same details of Muhammad’s life set out in his biography, or sira. That sets a limit to those differences. Islam may not be a “monolith,” as apologists like to insist, but nor is it a case of anything goes. The 109 Jihad verses do not change depending on which sect of Islam you belong to, nor do the verses that command Muslims to “strike terror” in the hearts of their enemies. All Muslims are taught these commands, and taught too, not to take Jews and Christians as friends. They learn that Muslims are the “best of peoples” (3:110) and Unbelievers the “most vile of creatures” (98:6). The exemplary figure of Muhammad remains fixed in amber. No sect of Islam denies the stories of the consummation of his marriage to little Aisha, or the treatment of the Banu Qurayza, or the assassinations of Abu ‘Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, or the attack on the Jews of Khaybar. Differences there are within Islam, but they are not so great as to prevent us, as “Islam-is-not-a-monolith” apologists would wish, from talking about, understanding, and judging, a faith called Islam.

Third, Islamic communities are composed of fellow humans. My experience in the Islamic world is one that causes me to believe that the vast majority of Muslims are not inclined to participate in terrorism or approve of it.

That’s anecdotal evidence from someone who has already given signs of being an apologist, deliberate or unwitting, for Islam, as shown by the following: first, his fleeting admission that in the Qur’an there are “passages that condone religious warfare,” a description which hardly does justice to the more than 100 verses that command Jihad; second, his failure to mention the verses that command striking (or casting) terror in the hearts of the Infidels; third, his misreading, possibly deliberate, of 109:6 and  2:256, which are mentioned as examples of another side of Islam ”which show the possibility of “peaceful coexistence” when, if properly understood, they most certainly are not. Participation in terrorism is not practicable for the “vast majority” of Muslims, nor is it necessarily desirable when there are other, more effective ways to spread Islam, including through demographic conquest. Approval of terrorism (carried out by others) is another thing, and as we saw above, a number of opinion polls suggest that nearly as many Muslims (36%) approved of the 9/11 attack  as disapproved (38%), and that was in a poll, moreover, that did not include such countries as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Libya, where we have reason to believe terrorism is regarded with greater favor than in such countries as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, where the poll was taken. In not a single one of the polls of Muslims have the “vast majority” shown themselves disapproving  of terrorism. There is much more data on Muslim attitudes toward ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorism in general, to be found here. The single most disturbing datum was that half of all British Muslims declared their support for ISIS. And one wonders how many of those who claimed to disapprove of ISIS did so only because they mistrusted the poll-taker’s promise of anonymity.  There is plenty more in these opinion polls, conducted with Muslims in many different countries, and following many different terrorist attacks, to make one alarmed. Professor Ashford, who claims the “vast majority” of Muslims disapprove of terrorism, might want to take a look.

I lived and worked in a Muslim republic for two years and have spent time in more than 20 other Muslim contexts in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Although in certain situations I have felt threatened, on the whole I have experienced Muslims as peaceful people of goodwill and extraordinary hospitality.

How do these three factors help us evaluate and respond to terror attacks waged by Muslim organizations?

First, it is inaccurate and dangerous to ignore that terror attacks have their roots in Islam or to minimize the danger represented by ISIS and other similar organizations who justify their warfare by direct appeals to Islam’s texts. Although we should avoid stigmatizing Muslims in general or alienating them to the point that they are more likely to radicalize, we would be wrong not to recognize ISIS’s rootedness in Islamic texts.

Second, it is inaccurate, dangerous, and inhospitable to depict Muslim countries as being composed of teeming swarms of probable terrorists. To portray our more-than-two-billion Muslim neighbors in such a manner is inaccurate, but it is also a dangerous in that it alienates potential allies who are best equipped to fight back against terror-promoting versions of Islam.

Third, it is undemocratic and un-American to try to shut down reasonable exercise of religious freedom. On the one hand, we should rebuke certain voices on the right who wish to provoke or harass Muslim Americans as they go to the mosque or wear their burkas. On the other hand, we should rebuke certain voices on the left who refuse to acknowledge terrorism’s ties to Islam or who bristle when Christians extol Jesus to Muslims. As Nabeel Qureshi recently argued, sharing alternative worldviews with Muslims is one of the best methods to address the roots of terror.

Islamic texts are problematic, but that doesn’t mean my Muslim neighbor should be ostracized. What is true on the micro-level is also true on the macro-level.

Terror organizations such as ISIS do in fact have their roots in Islamic texts and traditions. To deny that fact is to misunderstand our enemy. And yet, our public recognition of that fact should not be communicated in ways that misrepresent, disrespect, and provoke our two billion global neighbors who are Muslim.

Who are all these people “on the right who wish to provoke or harass Muslim Americans as they go to the mosque or wear their burkas”? No doubt there are some, but there is also deliberate exaggeration, with numerous false claims made by Muslims of being victims of “hate crimes,” or claiming to be “afraid” of anti–Islam speakers (such as Robert Spencer) so as to prevent their appearance on campuses. For details on this see here and here. And even while Professor Ashford wants us “to acknowledge terrorism’s ties to Islam,” he downplayed those ties in his own discussion of what is contained in the Qur’an, giving readers no conception of how important are the commands to wage Jihad (his readers do not learn that there are 109 verses about Jihad warfare), not mentioning at all any of the verses or hadiths specifically commanding the use of terrorism (as 3:151, 8:60,8:12, Bukhari 4.52.220), and misrepresenting other verses (109:6 and 2:256), which he wrongly claims contain “passages that encourage peaceful coexistence.” And if “we should rebuke certain voices on the left who refuse to acknowledge terrorism’s ties to Islam,” what of Professor Ashford himself who, even as he appears to give terrorism’s ties to Islam their due, manages to downplay the omnipresence of Jihad in the Qur’an and to omit entirely the commands about using terror. Perhaps he deserves a mini-rebuke, for his mini-acknowledgement of terrorism’s ties to Islam, or more exactly, Islam’s ties to terror, which for 1400 years have been the ties that truly bind, and cannot be undone by sleight of word, no matter how hard a quasi-defender of the faith may try.

Islam does not have a “surprisingly complicated relationship with terrorism.” It is, in fact,very simple. Terrorism was present at Islam’s creation; terrorism is commanded by the Qur’an; terrorism was Muhammad’s major weapon of war; for Muslims, terrorism has worked. He stated it himself: “I have been made victorious by terror.” We should believe him.

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, Jihad doctrine, Qur'an, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Bruce Ashford, Fox News


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Emilie Green says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    “and what he calls ‘Islam’s surprisingly complicated relationship with terrorism'”

    Of course he will not be truthful. But Islam has a direct and unambiguous relationship with terrorism.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 6:03 pm

      Agree with Emilie, that there is a direct relation of Islam to jihad-terrorism and all the verses that mention ‘CASTING TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THE DISBELIEVERS’.

      It gets ‘COMPLICATED’ when we throw in TAQIYYA…the denial of jihad in the past, present and jihads planned for the future. Taqiyya makes it difficult to know what Muslims mean, even when they speak to each other.

      Islam’s relation to terrorism is also ‘COMPLICATED’ when we throw in ‘ABROGATION’ which cancels all the peaceful verses, though not ‘REMOVING’ them from the Islamic words of Allah and the prophet.

      Then, again, the relation to terrorism is complicated by the fact that most Muslims DO NOT OBEY the clear commandments to conduct jihad. Non-jihadist Muslims are called ‘HYPOCRITES’ in the Koran, but they can easily increase their faith and rapidly develop INSTANT JIHAD SYNDROME. Many examples of lax Muslims turning into fighters are known. ANY MUSLIM CAN QUICKLY BECOME A JIHADIST.

      Bruce Ashford is not WRONG in pointing out that the relationship of Islam to JIHAD-TERROR is complicated.

  2. Raymond Hietapakka says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    …in a nutshell, they hate us with a passion and would rather see us all dead…the radical muzzle’em cuts off your head, while the moderate muzzle’ems hold your feet and legs…

  3. Phil says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    What is complicated about Islam? It sure isn’t the “religion of Peace”. Mohammad has broken most,
    if not all of the ten commandments .Anyone who reads the Koran will find out just how violent the
    islamic ideology is. When the rapture happens, just how many muslims will be raptured with all the
    Christians? Absolutely zero, none.

    • Savvy Kafir says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      “Absolutely zero, none.”

      Which is the same number of Christians that will be “raptured” when The Rapture happens … I mean, when it doesn’t happen.

      In the meantime, some of us are focused on trying to save THIS world from the ravages & savages of Islam, by more practical means than religious hocus-pocus.

      • eduardo odraude says

        Nov 3, 2017 at 5:47 pm

        Savvy Kafir, I’m not sure you are as savvy as you think. Even if someone considers Christianity and other religions a pure tissue of fantasy, one must recognize that some of the Christians are among the strongest forces undermining Islam. David Wood is just one brilliant example. His brilliant logic and encyclopedic knowledge of Islam has caused many, many Muslims to abandon Islam. Then there is Father Boutros who broadcasts to the Middle East and had a multi-million dollar bounty put on his head by Al Qaeda. All Boutros does is cite to Muslims specifics of the core Islamic texts to prove to them how monstrous and perverse Muhammad’s doctrine is. Robert Spencer is another Christian doing yeoman’s work. In fact, Europe may go down under Islam precisely because Christianity is rather weak there, or so it seems. The thing is, non-religious people are often so uninterested in religion and so hostile to it that it takes them years to look into details and grasp that Islam is totalitarian while other major religions are not. Non-religious people too often cannot muster the interest and, like racists talking about another race, simply announce that “all religions look alike.” Again, none of this is intended as proof that Christianity is true. I’m just saying that, even if Christianity is fantasy, you are dreaming if you think we can win this struggle without Christians of strong faith. There is room and need for all kinds of non-Muslims to reach all kinds of audiences.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 12:08 am

          Eduardo, I realize that the vast majority of counter-jihad work is being done by devout (right-wing) Christians — not by left-wing heathens like myself. I just wish the conversation didn’t sometimes stray onto topics such as The Rapture, and the idea that God and prayer can save us from Islam, etc. But I realize that I represent a tiny minority in counter-jihad venues, so I don’t really expect to get my way on this point.

          I’m somewhat familiar with David Wood, but didn’t realize that he has caused many Muslims to abandon their faith. If that’s true, it’s really encouraging. Can you point me to some info on that? Thanks!

          SK

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 12:24 am

          Hi, Savvy Kaffir. Here is David Wood’s “Leaving Islam, Volume One”:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_XneEw-_uc

          There are links to Volume Two and Three at the site.

          This is very good news for anyone who is concerned about the threat of Islam, whether they are Christian or not. Note, also, that David Wood lauds those who leave Islam, whether they then convert to Christianity or not. 🙂

        • eduardo odraude says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 2:06 am

          Savvy Kafir,
          gravenimage has provided some relevant links. I’m thankful left wing heathens and right wing Christians are on board. As Ben Franklin said, “If we don’t hang together, we’ll hang separately” — or words to that effect. Left wing heathens have done some excellent work in this area too.

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 8:38 pm

          Agreed, Eduardo.

          And Savvy Kaffir, I happily stand with “left-wing heathens” like yourself! 🙂

        • Chand says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 11:44 pm

          “There is no monasticism in Islam; in Islam the monasticism is jihad”, is what Muhammad said, in the Hadith, I think. It seems that in orthodox Islam jihad is the highest form of worship, the transcending of the small ego into the Cosmic Glory of the One God. People might attain that through meditation as in Christian, Buddhist or Hindu methods or in some Sufi sects which take up the ‘milder’ version of the word jihad as an inner struggle and do some Dervish circling and dancing or through music. Or one can transcend one’s small self by good deeds, voluntary work for the downtrodden or penances, austerities, ascetic practices like yoga or the Oriental martial arts

          .
          But when there is a war on, the straightest path for a Muslim to transcend self is to sacrifice self into a higher being by plunging oneself or one’s dagger or car or bomb vest or whatever into the guts of the infidel enemy. Glory will be attained instantly and he’ll be forever in the Good Book of Allah as a fearless Martyr-Shaheed for the cause of Islam. He’ll be in Jannat, forever secure and at peace with his God.

          Now how does one stop this Jihadi ideology? Can one stop a Christian or a Hindu from renouncing the good material life to pursue an ascetic path to attain Salvation or Moksha/ Nirvana? Can one convince someone not to renounce the small self/ego for the Universal Self? Can someone who has come to believe in the meaninglessness of life in this material planet be forced to find meaning here? Can someone with his mind fixed on a higher goal be dissuaded?

          When there is a war on, some Muslims will find the greatest meaning in sacrificing self for Allah’s cause. Then his meaningless life will finally find a proper and meaningful conclusion.

          So how does one stop Jihadism? By banning the Koran? By prohibiting the practice of Islam? Closing down all Mosques? Defrock all Clerics or Maulvis? Force all Muslims to convert to Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism?…………and become just like them……………………….

          Too late now. That’ll only increase jihadism by turning many other Muslims into Jihadis.Should one then sacrifice all religions in order to stop the menace of this one rogue religion? Ban all religions and then Islamism can be stopped.

          Or point out the faults of their religion to the Muslims, hoping that they’ll somehow see and understand and renounce it themselves, as this site is trying? Might happen with some educated ones. But with many others this jihad genie/meme is out and hovering.

          Always hoping against hope……………………………………………….

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 5, 2017 at 12:46 am

          Chand wrote, after confirming that violent Jihad is indeed a core part of Islam:

          Muslims to convert to Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism?…………and become just like them……………………….
          ………………………………

          Firstly, no one one is forcing Muslims to convert. Secondly, of course, the idea that Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are just like Islam is utterly false.

          More:

          Too late now. That’ll only increase jihadism by turning many other Muslims into Jihadis.
          ………………………………

          In other words, these “moderate” Muslims are poised to wage violent Jihad. Perhaps they are not so moderate after all…

          More:

          Should one then sacrifice all religions in order to stop the menace of this one rogue religion? Ban all religions and then Islamism can be stopped.
          ………………………………

          What a load of tosh. Why should decent faiths be penalized because Islam is evil?

          This would be like saying that Democracy must be banned in order to do anything about Fascism.

          More:

          Or point out the faults of their religion to the Muslims, hoping that they’ll somehow see and understand and renounce it themselves, as this site is trying? Might happen with some educated ones. But with many others this jihad genie/meme is out and hovering.

          Always hoping against hope……………………………………………….
          ………………………………

          What *absolute rot*. The purpose of this site is to educate Infidels about the threat of Islam–not to convince Muslims to convert.

        • Chand says

          Nov 6, 2017 at 3:38 am

          P.s. Like I was saying, God, the omnipotent Being is actually not that omni potent. Just yesterday 26 innocent people were gunned down by Devin Kelley in this Texan church and God did nothing. Was He helpless or doesn’t care or did they somehow deserve to die or what on earth is going on?!

          What is the point of praying to such a disinterested, aloof God?

      • Chand says

        Nov 6, 2017 at 3:21 am

        gravenimage says: “The purpose of this site is to educate Infidels about the threat of Islam–not to convince Muslims to convert.”

        ya, of course, but the very arguments that point to the threat of Islam to infidels just MIGHT work on Muslims to make them renounce Islam or convert or at least not bother about the Koranic garbage any more and also spread that to other fellow Muslims. I am sure Mr. Robert Spencer would welcome that. Muslims too might be checking out this site and pondering on these issues.

        • Chand says

          Nov 6, 2017 at 3:28 am

          gravenimage says: “Why should decent faiths be penalized because Islam is evil?”

          Because all religions are based on unproven truths, make false claims, are full of hocus pocus and are totally irrelevant in today’s world. They are only dividing mankind, keeping us in ignorance and mired in superstition. There might be some psychological benefits which can be supplanted by psychotherapy or secular meditation. Religion might be a subject of study in literature, comparative cultures, history, etc. if done in an objective, scientific manner.

          The basic premise of most religions that there is an Intelligent Being concerned about human affairs is pure tosh. That Being is powerless to stop evil. Or like Woody Allen said……….He is an underachiever.
          No one in any high heaven gives a hoot about us. We make our own destinies.

        • Donald R Laster Jr says

          Nov 6, 2017 at 11:41 am

          Most of the citizens of Islam know exactly what they are doing. It is the non-Islamics that need to learn what Islam is and instructs its citizens to do.

        • Vajapeya says

          Nov 7, 2017 at 4:20 am

          @Chand
          “P.s. Like I was saying, God, the omnipotent Being is actually not that omni potent. Just yesterday 26 innocent people were gunned down by Devin Kelley in this Texan church and God did nothing. Was He helpless or doesn’t care or did they somehow deserve to die or what on earth is going on?!

          What is the point of praying to such a disinterested, aloof God?”

          There are religions without god. For example even Hinduism has schools like Mimamsa and sankhya which do not posit a need for god to grow in spirituality. Even assuming that worshiping god is the most stupid thing we can do on earth, you conflate two things. People choosing to do something out of their own choice not matter how insane and stupid it seems but not imposing their choice and actions on others Vs People who as a matter of religious duty choose to kill others because they think that their superstition is somehow superior to that of the others. Even though i personally dont believe in god, i have seen people deriving strength to handle tough situations with belief in god. It may be at best a mental crutch, but atleast not harmful if you do not start forcing others to do the same thing you do. By banning other religions because of one religion, is like denying a source of strength to millions of people who follow their faith harmlessly, though it may seem to stupid to you.

    • Vajapeya says

      Nov 7, 2017 at 3:56 am

      @Chand
      “Too late now. That’ll only increase jihadism by turning many other Muslims into Jihadis.Should one then sacrifice all religions in order to stop the menace of this one rogue religion? Ban all religions and then Islamism can be stopped.”

      What ineffable nonsense!!! So what you say is that a Hindu or Buddhist renouncing the world to become a Sanyasi/monk, which is the highest forms of worship/ideal in those faiths, is the same as a Muslim resorting to Jihad, the highest ideal in that religion? One shuns the world and the other kills. Is this too hard to see?So you mean to say that just because of the bestiality of one faith, other faiths with higher spiritual objectives need to be banned? Collateral damage eeh?? You sound like one of those “Seculars” who resort to statements like “Terrorism has no religion”, “de-link religion and terror” blah blah blah.

      Instead of making these kind of ridiculous statements, why don’t you call out Muslims to refrain from Jihad or reform Islam. Your aim should be to pull up people on the spiritual value chain, not to pull every other faith down because Islam has Jihad in it and you want to stop it.

  4. Ren says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    It is simple. Islam = terrorism, since Muhammad the prophet of islam was a terrorist.

    • Jaladhi says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      Yup, the original terrorist!

      • Flavius Claudius Iulianus says

        Nov 3, 2017 at 9:47 pm

        Yes. Even the Sunnah says so:

        “Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad) said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'”
        -Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:220

      • Ren says

        Nov 3, 2017 at 11:18 pm

        Muhammad the founder of Islam was a thug. Yet Muslims think he’s a prophet of God. How dumb and how insane!

        • Jack Diamond says

          Nov 4, 2017 at 1:49 am

          Considering he’s a prophet of a bloodthirsty demonic deity who is called the best of deceivers, it is quite fitting.

          In fact, Muhammad promoted himself to co-billing with allah (Muhammad’s judgments of equal weight to allah’s, to obey Muhammad is to obey allah) which makes him guilty of shirk, associating partners with allah. But since Muhammad’s allah is really Old Scratch (he admits as much in the Satanic Verses episode), I guess there is a loophole. No one said you couldn’t associate partners with him.

        • Jaladhi says

          Nov 5, 2017 at 9:36 am

          Actually allah is alter ego of Mohammad – in other words Mohammad is allah and we can call him Mo/allah instead of just Mohammad!

        • Donald R Laster Jr says

          Nov 5, 2017 at 1:12 pm

          “allah”, or the god, is not an alter ego of Mohammad. The first thing people need to learn is that the god of Islam is Hubal the Arab moon god – chief god of the Arab pantheon of around 360 gods. Mohammad was a follower of Hubal. Islam is rooted in a polytheist religion that has existed for at least 3000 years. Also, Islam is a theocracy not a religion.

          The worship of Hubal, like the other Arab gods, was being replaced by Judaism and Christianity. Mohammad first tried to convince people that Hubal was Jehovah and Christ was just a prophet. When his lies were rejected he switched to unrestricted war to force people to worship his god. That is the reason the earlier written parts of the Qur’an are friendly to Jews and Christians, and the later written parts of the Qur’an are hostile to Jews and Christians. Much of Arabia was Christian and Jewish – more than people in this day realize. Recent archeology is showing this more and more. This is one reason Islamics work hard to destroy historical records.

          Remember, the Qur’an is not in the order written but ordered by the length of the chapters. The ordering may have been done for deception purposes. Also, from what I have read the text of the Qur’an only date to the 1000/1100 period. Arabic from the 600s does not have the diacritic marks. Those only date from the 1000/1100 period.

          Mohammad was basically a successful Charles Manson. Also, the word “allah” means “the god”. It is a contraction of the Arabic words “al” (the) and “ilah” (god). Hubal is associated with the moon and is historically known as Baal.

  5. Jaladhi says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    >”Islam does not have a “surprisingly complicated relationship with terrorism.” It is, in fact,very simple. Terrorism was present at Islam’s creation; terrorism is commanded by the Qur’an; terrorism was Muhammad’s major weapon of war; for Muslims, terrorism has worked. He stated it himself: “I have been made victorious by terror.” We should believe him.<"

    Exactly Hugh! This paragraph sums up the whole working theology of Islam and Mo/allah and one does not look any farther as the PC libtards of our society do!

    • Flavius Claudius Iulianus says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 9:47 pm

      +1

  6. Wellington says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    Another fine article by Hugh Fitzgerald (which, sadly, will not become known by the vast majority of dhimmis out there).

    Anyway, here is what struck me as the single greatest error put forth by Bruce Ashford (and there are many as Fitzgerald aptly noted), i.e., that most Muslims aren’t terrorists or approve of terrorism. So what? This is completely irrelevant because an ideology should always be judged by what it says and NEVER by the fact that many people who adhere to that ideology don’t fully implement its tenets (e.g., many Muslims) or wrongly do so (e.g., Christians who are hypocrites).

    Islam, contra all other major faiths, is steeped in a directive for terrorism. My God, it’s all over the place in the Koran, hadiths and sira. The founder of Islam was a damn terrorist himself and actually said, “I have been made victorious with terror.” {Bukhari Hadith 4.52.220}

    After all, one could have found back in the 1930’s some very nice Nazi Party members who didn’t themselves want to start a war for Lebensraum or themselves put Jews in gas ovens (but, of course, they wouldn’t have liked Jews, but then many so-called moderate Muslims, the peaceful ones that Ashford referenced, also don’t like Jews, now do they?), but this didn’t make Nazism OK. During the Cold War one could have traveled to many Communist countries and found Communist Party functionaries who were good with family and friends on a daily basis, hell, they’d split their last bottle of vodka with you, but this would have never made Communism all right. Ditto for “nice Muslims” out there. Also for “nice KKK members,” “nice Neo-Nazis,” “nice anarchists,” et al.

    Amazing how well educated people can be so stupid, that special kind of stupid which is characteristic of so many who have had years and years of schooling. For instance, Bruce Ashford. Shame on him and those like him because they are enablers of the longest-lived and best disguised evil of all time——–Islam. In their own way, a way that fills me with disgust, they have blood on their hands too, just as anyone who excused Nazism did or those who still (foolishly) try to tout the merits of Marxism.

    Education without common sense and moral intelligence, plus a dearth of accurate knowledge, means very little. Indeed, such a combination so very often produces deleterious results. For instance, Bruce Ashford.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Nov 11, 2017 at 7:10 am

      Ashford is not just a product of miseducation.

      Note that he has lived for some periods of time in Muslim countries (though he does not say which ones, precisely). He will have been exposed to the full blast of dawa (as well as, every now and again, having incomprehensibly scary experiences.

      Look carefully at this paragraph – “I lived and worked in a Muslim republic for two years and have spent time in more than 20 other Muslim contexts in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. Although in certain situations I have felt threatened, on the whole I have experienced Muslims as peaceful people of goodwill and extraordinary hospitality.”

      Islam messes with people’s heads: by using the goodcop/ badcop game. Our friend Ashford, who no doubt was very ill-informed about Islam when he trotted off to live and work in Muslim countries, copped the ‘snow job’ or ‘love bombing’ .. .judiciously combined, no doubt, with some truly frightening moments whose full implications he has, I would guess, suppressed/ denies. He’s been *conditioned*. He’s well on the way to dhimmitude. I wonder whether he’s ever heard of Mark Durie’s “The Third Choice”??

      There is one other, further, and nastier possibility. Nuaym bin Mas’ud.

      Has our friend Ashford “gone native” whilst living in the dar al Islam?

      An article like this piece by Ashford that Mr Fitzgerald has just so ably taken to pieces, does enormous damage. It confuses, it distracts, it prevents people from seeing what they’re dealing with, head on. It is about delaying tactics – preventing people, as long as possible, from finding out what Hugh Fitzgerald, at the end of the article, puts so admirably briefly and simply –

      “Islam does not have a “surprisingly complicated relationship with terrorism.”

      “It is, in fact, very simple.

      “Terrorism was present at Islam’s creation; terrorism is commanded by the Qur’an; terrorism was Muhammad’s major weapon of war; for Muslims, terrorism has worked. He stated it himself: “I have been made victorious by terror.” We should believe him.”

      Ashford needs, perhaps, to be confronted head on and asked: WHY are you running interference for the Jihad? Because that’s all that Ashford’s article actually *is*.

  7. eduardo odraude says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 5:31 pm

    It seems clear what audience this author is trying to reach. By speaking of how “complicated” the matter is, he’s trying to prevent lefty types from immediately rejecting his message before he even starts. The left tends to often to suppose that those who call Islam evil are the ignorant unwashed provincials whose bigotry prevents them from being open to the “other” and recognizing that in morality, there are only different shades of grey — except of course for conservatives, who are morally from the blackest pit of hell. The kind of leftist I’m talking about should wake up and notice that while progressives and conservatives are usually in the moral grey zone, Islam is not just black but a black hole. The fact that many Muslims do not practice what Muhammad taught in the core texts of Islam and are not religious does not change the fact that Islam’s core texts represent an evil, monstrous totalitarian program. While there are good, non-practicing Muslim people who know little of what their own core texts say, those good people are morally negligent for in any way supporting Islam.

    http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com

    • eduardo odraude says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 5:33 pm

      “too often” not “to often”

  8. Cameron Tremblay says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    If u are muslim, might be a good idea to convert when you get to the west. That predicted backlash may yet happen and if western political elites don’t start reversing the flow of islam, there will likely be hell to pay! At this point, as pointed out by Mr Douglas Murray, that backlash could turn out to be pretty ugly for both sides. They should feel unsafe, we’ve been fairly tolerant, but current western governments are truly testing that tolerance beyond its limits!

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 11:45 pm

      Ahhhh….right. Violent Jihad is not a problem, but watch out for that phantom “backlash”…

  9. Donald R Laster Jr says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    The relationship between Islam and terrorism is simply and straight forward. All citizens of Islam are obligated to wage war against those who are not citizens of Islam. The way the war is waged is flexible – twisting legal systems using fraud and lies, or actual attacks. Citizens of Islam are taught this and know this. It is because Islam has managed to convince many people it is a religion it has been able to hide the real nature of the war it is waging.

  10. Terry Gain says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    Let me uncomplicate this. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all Muslims are adherents of an ideology which mandates terror.

    • Flavius Claudius Iulianus says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 10:12 pm

      Let me uncomplicated this further, if I may. Jurisdictions that have low numbers of Mohammadins have little or no terrorism problems. So when apologists like Ashford say, “… neither is it true that most Muslims are terrorists or approve of terrorism,” it is completely irrelevant. The relevant and functional fact (one that leaders who really do want to protect their constituents should note) is that no Mohammadins means no terror. Non-combatant Mohammadins, by their mere presence, aid, abet, promote and/or facilitate terrorism irrespective of their attitudes on the subject.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Nov 11, 2017 at 7:15 am

        Yep. The simple and wholly true and accurate slogan – “Got Muslims? Got Jihad” – sums the whole thing up, and needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated, in multiple Infidel languages, till it begins to sink in; and because it is true, the more it is spread about, the more it will be seen to be a description of fact. And then *some* people will see that the only way to not have jihad is not to have mohammedans inside the gates.

  11. Infidel says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 11:09 pm

    Another brilliant piece by Spencer,,,nothing but sheer research and cold hard facts…. TG that we have people like him in these times of darkness…

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 3, 2017 at 11:26 pm

      Agreed–just one small point: the author of the above piece is Hugh Fitzgerald.

  12. gravenimage says

    Nov 3, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    Hugh Fitzgerald: Does Islam Have A “Surprisingly Complicated Relationship With Terrorism”?
    ……………………….

    If by “surprisingly complicated” he means “intrinsic and direct”, then sure…

  13. Matthieu Baudin says

    Nov 4, 2017 at 12:40 am

    “… But instead, he reduced all that to the laconic “there are passages which condone religious warfare.” That is an alarming understatement…”

    He’s not doing anyone a service by this understatement, certainly not the public. Like most shuffling about and evasion regarding Islam and violence, he probably failed to muster sufficient courage and was looking over his shoulder for the criticism that would come his way if he were to be sufficiently honest and to the point.

  14. John Forbes says

    Nov 4, 2017 at 4:42 am

    WHEN IS THIS DENIAL EVER GOING TO END??? THIS IS NONSENSE & HAS TO BE STOPPED.

    CHARACTERS LIKE THIS ARE FACILITATORS OF TERROR & MUST BE CALLED OUT AS SUCH !

    MANY MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE & OR BE MAIMED AS THIS LOW LEVEL WAR THAT WE SIMPLY WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE CONTINUES !

    DEMAND THAT OUR COWARDS IN POWER STOP THE NONSENSE & FACE THE THREAT & SUPPLY THE TOLLS & RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THIS IDEOLOGY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE !!

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Nov 11, 2017 at 7:19 am

      Might be worth doing a print-out of Hugh’s essay, above. Where he goes through Ashford’s piece point-by-point.

      Then… do a little googling and find out Mr Ashford’s official address.

      Then put Hugh’s essay in an envelope and **post it to Mr Ashford**, with a calm and brief and coolly polite covering letter asking Mr Ashford to respond to Mr Fitzgerald’s critiques.

      Might be interesting to see whether and how he *does* respond.

  15. Michael Copeland says

    Nov 4, 2017 at 6:05 am

    Quote: “hardly a day goes by without an Islamic terror attack somewhere in the world”.

    Memo to Bruce Ashford
    On average there are about FIVE ISLAMIC TERROR ATTACKS PER DAY.

    See TheReligionOfPeace.com

  16. 762x51FMJ says

    Nov 4, 2017 at 5:48 pm

    1 National Socialists, 2 Anarchists, 3 Atheists, and 4 Islam all have an unholy romance with terrorism.

    All of these ideologies have violent factions, and are masters of the blame game,

    1 James Alex Fields a KKK Democrat Fascist ran over an Anti Fascist Democrat
    Media still says he is an example of a Christian Conservative Trump voter.

    2,3 Timothy McVeigh was a Militant Atheist Anarchist who hated the IRS and timed the OK City bombing so Janet Reno would investigate sympathetic religious sects instead of Militant Atheist Anarchists like McVeigh,
    The media still claims this was a right wing attack in the name of religion, when It was an action of a hater of all religions and governments..A product associated to militant atheists and their anti fascist wannabe’s.

    #4 Islam is a unique Ideology that has never been translated or even fully understood. Evidence of its brutality is that it is willing to kill amongst its own sects today in 2017… over a family feud that began in 639 AD during the Dark Ages,,
    Following the example of the Roman Empire, Islam then as now remains unchanged and offers the same demands:
    All who refuse to submit as slaves today must pay for the luxury..
    of not being raped, tortured, and then crucified ….until tomorrow.

    .

    • Donald R Laster Jr says

      Nov 4, 2017 at 8:28 pm

      The key is that they are political systems. Islam is a government created by Mohammad to force people to worship his god Hubal (Baal). Islam is a full understood, at least by those who take the time to actually listen, observe, and learn.

  17. 762x51FMJ says

    Nov 4, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    We are witnessing the official date of the fall of Islam,
    As the population of the Levant has been evacuated.
    An exodus is replacing the invaders of our homelands and soon the evil doers will be sent back to us begging for deliverance from the evil they espouse.

    .

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 4, 2017 at 8:59 pm

      What are you talking about here? Israel is in the Levant; their citizens have not “evacuated” anywhere.

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

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

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.