It was perhaps inevitable that despite going to every possible length to make sure that as few students as possible heard what I actually said, Stanford administrators would still be so afraid that some students would go off the Leftist reservation and start thinking for themselves that they had to bring in a speaker who would soothe the student body back to sleep with the lies that are currently acceptable to the political and academic elites. After all, after I was screamed at by fascist students for an hour and a half at the University of Buffalo, even though I barely got a word in edgewise, administrators there made sure their students were thoroughly buffaloed by not one, but two Muslim speakers, both of whom defamed me and lied brazenly, knowing that they had the warm approval of the university to do both.
And so now Stanford, in its never-ending quest to stamp out all diversity of opinion, hosts Karim Khan, QC, and the lies pile up like sexual assault charges against Tariq Ramadan. There is no record, meanwhile, of Stanford’s fascist deans Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik engineering any disruption of Khan’s lecture, as they did at mine. Lies about Islam are just fine with Stanford’s administrators; it’s the truth they can’t stand.
Much more below.
“International lawyer Karim Khan argues peace at core of Islam,” by Justin Daniels, Stanford Daily, December 1, 2017:
International lawyer and prosecutor Karim Khan QC argued that human rights are at the core of Islam in a Thursday talk on campus sponsored by the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice.
Khan, a Muslim himself, opened his talk at the Stanford Humanities by highlighting the peace and universal tolerance that Islam teaches. Islam, he said, means peace; the standard Muslim greeting means, “upon you, peace.” He stressed that this “you” refers not just to Muslims but to all of humanity.”
In reality, “Islam” means submission, not peace. Nor does the “you” in “Peace be upon you” refer not just to Muslims but to all of humanity. Islamic law directs Muslims to say “Peace be upon you” only to fellow Muslims. To a non-Muslim, they are to say, “Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,” i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”
In fact, Khan believes that tolerance is at the core of Islam, citing the Ashtiname of Muhammad as a “shining example” of Islamic human rights from 628 CE. The Ashtiname of Muhammad is a covenant written by the prophet Muhammad guaranteeing the protection of Christians.
“We are with them,” the text reads. “I, my servants, my followers defend them … No compulsion is to be on them. Their judges are not to be removed, nor their monks from their monasteries.”
Furthermore, the text calls on Muslims to defend the Christians, saying that “no one is to force them to travel or fight” and that “the Muslims will fight for them.”
The Achtiname is indeed supposed to have been written by Muhammad around 628 to the monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Unfortunately, it is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command issued just over a decade before their invasion of Egypt?
There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources. Among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).
The document exempts the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery from paying the jizya. While it is conceivable that Muhammad, believing he bore the authority of Allah, would exempt them from an obligation specified by Allah himself in the Qur’an (9:29), the Achtiname specifies that Christians of Egypt are to pay a jizya only of twelve drachmas. Yet according to the seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou, who had firsthand knowledge of what happened when the Arabs invaded Egypt, Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.”
The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims. Modern scholars doubt its authenticity, and the prevailing opinion among Muslims is likewise dubious.
When asked about Robert Spencer, the controversial conservative writer and self-proclaimed Islamophobe who spoke on campus Nov.14, Khan said that many of the Islamic verses Spencer cited were taken out of context.
Such as? Example, please? Funny how all my critics get all general when talking about how wrong I am. Anyway, why do so many jihad terrorists take these verses out of context in the same way?
“The case put forward by [Spencer] is born of a lack of information and maybe a smidgen of prejudice,” he said.
And Khan bases this analysis of my work on what?
However, he stressed that Spencer is free to make his own decisions.
Thanks, bud. Appreciate your permission. I’m free to make my own decisions, just not free to speak to students at Stanford.
I’d be glad to debate you, Mr. Khan, on whether or not the Qur’an teaches violence against unbelievers. You will, however, either contemptuously dismiss this invitation or ignore it altogether. That in itself is telling.
Halal Bacon says
Its worse than that, the shahada is the mark of the beast…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J_qqDT4RVDk/Uj6h9pBCVeI/AAAAAAAAEoI/iUX7iRLY6Y0/s1600/1095054_1379895422237161_1371377801_n.jpg
mummymovie says
I can’t believe that they are still rolling this same, tired old horse s**t out.
I suppose the fact that they still are tells us that there is still a surplus of ignorance about the true nature of islam, even in “instiitutions of higher learning”.
Buffaloed is right!
Phil Copson says
“….offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums….”
“…in lieu of…” – you mean – they weren’t exchanging their children for money…..
mortimer says
The peace of Islam comes only after full submission to Sharia law according to Indonesian cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir, “If the West wants to have peace, then they have to accept Islamic rule.”
Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them…” ( (Bukhari 8:387)
The message of early Islam was “ALIM, TASLAM” (submit and you will be safe). But safe from what? Mohammed explain the ‘safety’ in Islam is to submit to him:
The following message was conveyed by Mohammed to the Roman emperor: “I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe.” (Sahih Muslim Bk.19, No.4380)
This message was conveyed to the Ethiopian emperor: “I call you unto the fold of Islam; if you embrace Islam, you will find safety … Should you reject this invitation, then you will be held responsible for all the evils of the Christians of your people.”
The next message was conveyed by Mohammed to the Persian emperor: “Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”
‘Islam’ is a term similar to ‘appeasement’. It is a synonym to the word ‘submission’.
Barry says
So the guest speaker was ‘correct’ in saying islam means ‘peace’….but saying it in the ‘spirit’ of taqiyya (lying and deceit) projecting a final, end-game Islamic utopian state of worldwide/ sharia rule. When the entire world bows down, prostrating in homage to the pagan sun god sin/ hubal. Then and only then will there be ‘Islamic peace’…..
gravenimage says
And you only have to look at Islamic paradises like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia to see that that “Islamic peace” looks like…
mortimer says
No, Barry, that is not etymologically precise. Semitic language have triliteral consonantal roots… in this case s-l-m. The consonants and affixes of the ‘developed’ words determine the nuances. Some of these roots have ‘developed’ meanings that are quite distinct and understood by the context of the surrounding words. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_root)
“ISLAM” plainly means “submission”. No one is as submitted as a slave. Islam is thus a euphemism for slavery or captivity.
I trust this is obscure, but the above is factual.
Barry says
Mortimer, I know that Islam translates to submission; what I was trying to convey is the tagiyya (lying and deceit) practitioners who labor to stress that islam really means peace….but the islamic peace ‘taqiyyaists’ refer to I is the end game, when it’s all over, when every Jew has been slaughtered and everyone else on the face of the earth has submitted (submission) to islam. Then isa will come and kill all the pigs and break all the crosses…that’s the real islamic peace…
gravenimage says
I knew what you meant, Barry.
Benedict says
“Muhammad guaranteeing the protection of Christians.”
and
“the Muslims will fight for them.” –
What a subtle and self-congratulatory idea. It is always the stronger who protects the weaker. Anyone in a sound mind will always refuse to pay protection money to the religious Mafia called Islam.
Islam is, and will always be, uncalled for in any free and civil society.
Charles Martel says
It amazes me how presumably intelligent, educated persons can claim such absurd and easily rebuked nonsense about Islam. How is this possible? Do they really believe their BS? I realize, like A. E. Houseman, that “The faintest of all human passions is the love of truth”, but something else must be going on.
mortimer says
Agree. They hold “absurd and easily rebuked nonsense about Islam”. That is because the British are obsessed with GOOD MANNERS and COEXISTENCE.
They just want to hide any real discussion of any real social problem because, they say, it would be ‘divisive’. The social problems are ALREADY DIVISIVE.
There is no HARMONIOUS COEXISTENCE with Islam and never was in any country. There is only Islamic SUPREMACISM and Islamic APARTHEID (known as Al Walaa wal Baraa).
Politicians are CULPABLY NEGLIGENT for not knowing the essential doctrines above.
johan elzinga says
Yes, the islam preaches special human rights. Such as the right gays have to be killed, the right to have your wife stoned when she has sex with anybody but her husband, the right to kill humans that stop believing in the Koran and the sharia! Do those students and those university dwellers ever get out in the real world?
mortimer says
Agree with Johan. Islam requires ‘SPECIAL PLEADING’ for its DIVINE COMMANDS to remove the human rights and civil liberties from women and dirty kafirs.
Benedict says
“International lawyer and prosecutor Karim Khan QC argued that human rights are at the core of Islam” –
But evidently and unfortunately Islam is not at the core of human rights.
Islam is at the core of everything that might deceive and mislead human beings and sell its seductive paradise.
mortimer says
Karim Khan must know his words are falsehoods. Al Walaa wal Baraa, the Pact of Omar and Sharia law are enormous examples of how Islam REMOVES and ABOLISHES the human rights of non-Muslims and women.
Karim Khan is a mendacious taqiyya artist to tell such whoppers. The first human right Muslims take away is the freedom of expression… which they are attacking through people like Khan.
Wellington says
As mortimer already pointed out, you get peace in Muslimthink only after you submit. If no submission then no peace. And no one who prizes liberty should want the Islamic kind of peace anyway because it is the peace granted a slave for being completely obedient. It is a false peace. A pathetic peace. A vile peace. A peace where freedom does not exist.
And shame again on you, Stanford, for your actions. There really is a large collection of useful idiots at that university. Unfortunately, the same can be said about most (almost all?) colleges and universities in America. Right now, and how ironic, just about the dumbest places in my country are what used to be institutions of higher learning. Upside-down world.
C T says
All a Stanford student has to do to learn the truth of a word’s etymology is look it up. If they’re too lazy to do that, I guess they deserve to be buffaloed.
mortimer says
Many Stanford staff and students are wilfully unstudied and unread in the matter of Islam. Ignorance is not a defense in law. However, WILFULL ignorance is much more to be condemned and deplored.
In fact, Western Leftists and those at Stanford are guilty of CONTRIVED IGNORANCE in the matter of Islam. They REFUSE to inform themselves when the information about jihad is available by the volume on the internet.
Voytek Gagalka says
“… many of the Islamic verses Spencer cited were taken out of context.”
And we suppose to believe that “out of context” are also all those numerous descriptions within the Qur’an of “Hells-fire,” everlasting “torments,” condemning unbelievers “to drink boiling water” or “tasting” fire? Then what is not out of “context” within Qur’an? This line of defense accusing taking out of context something implicates that unless one quotes the long “noble” Qur’an in its entirety, one always will be accused of taking it out of context. Why then, may we ask, Muslims limit their each and every daily prayer quoting only Sura One (Al-Fatihah) and they never are accused of taking their creed “out of context”? Why, even shahada is OUT OF CONTEXT, TOO! And Islam, based on nothing but fear, is out of context also. But fall asleep at this “out of context” soothing and your very life could be at stake! Do that at your own peril.
mortimer says
Robert Spencer knows every context regarding the jihad passages in the Koran and can explain why some explanations of the Koran have merit and others do not.
He clearly explained above why Karim Khan’s ‘context’ arguments fail by showing that he is quoting the same contexts used by MUSLIM TERRORISTS and JURISTS AT AL AZHAR UNIVERSITY.
Robert Spencer is on solid Islamic scholarly ground, while Karim Khan is creating Islam-à-la-carte… a watered-down version of Islam for today’s tastes.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s a good idea not to take at face value the claim that the word Islam means “peace.” For example, the ENCARTA WORLD ENGLISH DICTIONARY copyright 1999 defines Islam as “submission” based on the word “aslama” meaning “he surrendered.” Given the definition it’s an odd phenomenon that after about fourteen hundred years starting on September 12, 2001 the meaning changed from “submission” to “peace.” It’s very well known that if the police are questioning someone and he changes his story something is wrong. Nevertheless, when it comes to Islam no one gets suspicious of the change. The jihadists brag that they will win the war against the West by using the Western ignorance and naive gullible mindset on the subject of Islam against us. It seems that they do have some basis in that claim since so many Westerners are beguiled by the Muslim disinformation campaign.
Barry says
So the once ‘elite’ university named Stanford is only concerned about one side of the Islamic issue …can’t help but wonder if they censor all issues or just islam…. I admit I’m not very bright, I can’t grasp the idea of college censorship because when I went to college in the 80’s, the free exchange of all viewpoints were open to debate…issues were open for all to hear and discuss…..issues were debatable and judged on their merit. Now, in this ‘highly-enlightened’ era….only one side of a coin is recognized and afforded accommodation and value….there are always two sides (or more) of any issue….
that once bastion of knowledge in Palo Alto is now just a prepping ground for uneducated (ignorant), closed minds…..but potentially dangerous closed minds who think they know the truth (when in fact they don’t even know the heart of the issue)…..
we live in a very scary world where truth is not only NOT the most important thing – but truth is actually becoming irrelevant and even despised…even speaking the truth is becoming criminalized….where will this eventually lead to….
JawsV says
Islam means Surrender and Submission. There’s no peace involved.
mortimer says
Karim Khan is a COWARD who would not last 5 minutes in a debate with Robert Spencer.
Karim Khan is afraid to challenge Robert Spencer to a debate.
His soothing, insincere, soporific distractions are not referenced from Islamic sources, but they are merely wishful thinking and taqiyya.
Karim Khan is a TAQIYYA ARTIST and a complete COWARD.
Jaladhi says
Aren’t they all taqiyya artist – they are missing truth bone in their body!1
Benedict says
It is not difficult to understand the policy The Board of Stanford directors pursue vis-à-vis Islam, and the policy even merits some sympathy:
By treating Islam as a benevolent ideology and suppress all scrutiny and criticism of its mr. Hyde face, its adherents and apologists are supposed, politely, to reciprocate the compliment and act accordingly.
But when things heat up – and they will – the spirits of Islam will move in and prove the directors goodwill a vain precaution.
Jaladhi says
Stanford needed that after being exposed to the truth about Islam and Muslims – those poor snow flakes were melting and they needed a soothing touch of Muslim lies – they deserve it if they want to remain delusional!
Charles says
Is Islam a religion of peace? Or, is it a religion of Jihad? The evidence is in the doctrine. I’ve seen scores of debates on the issue, and the evidence is clear. It does not indict all Muslims. Most are peaceful, but the Imams know, and they have the power. When they tell a believer that it is a religion of terrorism, then they have the texts on their side. War is deception according to Muhammad. There are only 3 categories of people who can be deceived. There are the ignorant, and there are the willful ignorant, and there are the deniers. Those at the University level unwilling to understand the tenets of early Islam and how it spread and colonized, are as dangerous as the Jihadists themselves. The deception is little different than gaining the trust of an animal one day, then slaughtering it the next. Smiting the necks of the unbelievers is halal.
Xero_G says
Smug taqqiya artist indoctrinates the clueless snowflakes while Stanford deans congratulate themselves for being so “enlightened”.
gravenimage says
Khan, a Muslim himself, opened his talk at the Stanford Humanities by highlighting the peace and universal tolerance that Islam teaches. Islam, he said, means peace; the standard Muslim greeting means, “upon you, peace.” He stressed that this “you” refers not just to Muslims but to all of humanity.”
…………………………
Good God, what crap. As noted, Islam means “submission”, not peace–and Muslims are specifically not allowed to wish Infidels peace.
Here is Islam Q&A–the most widely-read Islamic site in English–on the subject:
https://islamqa.info/en/48966
More:
In fact, Khan believes that tolerance is at the core of Islam, citing the Ashtiname of Muhammad as a “shining example” of Islamic human rights from 628 CE. The Ashtiname of Muhammad is a covenant written by the prophet Muhammad guaranteeing the protection of Christians.
…………………………
This is famous fraud, where Christians desperately hoped to deflect Muslim violence. Khan almost certainly knows this.
Of course, Khan also dredges up Qur’an 5:32, without mentioning that this is chiding Jews, not saying that Muslims cannot murder their victims.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/12/01/international-lawyer-karim-khan-argues-peace-at-core-of-islam/
The one good thing is that–apart from one very persistent Muslim troll–most of the posters are *very* Islamo-savvy. I hope a lot of Stanford students read the comments section.
Infidel says
Once again.. ROBERT. U are true gentleman in all manner… really it is a previlage to know U thru this site. U are too classy for these selfish LIBTARDs… and it is not Ur loss but theirs….!!
Infidel says
I’m sure that Stanford would have also conferred this Muslim speaker with their highest awards and constituted a chair of Islamic studies under his name!!! with Saudi petro-dollar blessings of course!!!
tgusa says
Let Stanford continue in their blindness regarding the problem with islam that they seem to be completely unaware exists. We will never change these fools they have to change themselves. Let em have it, own it, they will eventually regret it. In the future the campus would be just another target that must be completely destroyed.
Roberta Siena says
News Tip for Mr. Spencer — Cal-Catholic is reporting that Stanford officials are considering demands made by Native American students to remove all traces of St. Junipero Serra from the campus and the Spanish invaders. Imagine! You tried to warn students of a jihadi invasion. They’ve lost their minds!
gravenimage says
This is very common here, I’m afraid.
duh swami says
‘The Ministry pf Peace wages war…It’s been like that since 1984…
FYI says
I see..he actually hasn’t read the koran then has he?
islam ?the word …..
1it means ..whatever a Taqqiya skilled muslim wants you to believe it means
2.it cannot be translated precisely into English from the classical Arabic in the koran.
3.allah alone knows it’s true meaning
4 is an acronym..I Slaughter All Mankind,I.SL.A.M
Cheer Bear Girl says
You’d have to be a complete fool to say Islam means peace.
Especially with Islam’s massive body count.
Bloodshed is an essential teaching in Islam.
Islam means surrender.
Billy Chickens says
God, I hate Islam.
Mindy Robinson says
it is the way of islam, to deceive and kill , given that islam came from satan this is not surprising.
Champ says
Stanford hosts Muslim speaker who falsely claims “Islam” means “peace”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many actually believe this nonsense …