“Zhao said that he believes speakers like Robert Spencer should be banned from speaking on college campuses, especially if countries like the United Kingdom have deemed them a national ‘security threat.’ ‘The question [of] whether this man is dangerous has already been settled,’ Zhao said. ‘We have to draw a reasonable line between what is educational, what is conducive and what is simply dangerous.'”
Dangerous! I gotta tell you, I’m loving this. I went to Stanford with bodyguards, but if I had known that I was dangerous, I needn’t have bothered. Little did I know that Stanford students would be cowering in horror at the sight of a 5’5″ guy in his mid-fifties who writes books. One would think I had rampaged through the Stanford campus brandishing my top hat that emits laughing gas, or vaulted to the roof of Pigott Hall using the super-secret gravity-defying portable elevator that I deftly conceal in my briefcase, cackling fiendishly at the fools below. Maybe the Stanford fascist community was wise to walk out of my speech and prevent others from entering — after all, what if I had started trying to do standup comedy? Talk about dangerous!
Anyway, seriously, can’t anyone at Stanford think anymore? Apparently not: “Loupeda answered that students’ divided response to Robert Spencer’s arrival to campus was the ideal response: The event drove students to protest, sign a petition against Spencer’s coming to campus and hold conversations about free speech both in person and through student publications.”
No, the “ideal response” would have been to consider the ideas I presented and accept or reject them on their merits. Instead, Stanford students and administrators labeled them “hate speech” a priori, without consideration, and proceeded to the discussion of how much “hate speech” to allow. That is how totalitarian states operate. It is not how universities should operate.
And as for my banning from Britain, it was not in reality because I posed a “security threat.” In reality, I’ve never called for, excused, or justified violence. I am banned from Britain for the crime of stating, quite correctly, that Islam has doctrines of violence against unbelievers. Terence Zhao should refute that assertion using evidence from Islamic texts and teachings, if he can. Also, before using the British ban as evidence that I am “dangerous,” Terence Zhao should consider the fact that Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.” Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.
Anyway, look out, folks: I’m dangerous. Apparently, opposing the jihad massacre of innocent civilians on buses and in pizza parlors — that’s dangerous. Opposing female genital mutilation, honor killing, the death penalty for leaving Islam, the institutionalized subjugation of women under Sharia — dangerous! Opposing the denial of the freedom of speech when that speech violates Sharia blasphemy laws — very dangerous! At least in the eyes of the little totalitarian snowflakes at Stanford.
Stanford has a huge problem that no one there seems to notice or care about: proscribing any ideas is death to a free society. Ideas should be refuted on the basis of evidence, not outlawed. Stanford is training its students to favor an authoritarian state over a free society. That’s what Stanford should be discussing. But it isn’t, and won’t.
Meanwhile, has Stanford ever had a public discussion about how “dangerous” jihad terrorists are? Why, no.
“Robert Spencer came on campus, and we’re still here.”
Mirabile dictu!
“Student panelists debate free speech and hate speech on college campuses,” by Eliane Mitchell, Stanford Daily, January 25, 2018:
On Thursday, six student panelists discussed whether universities have the right to ban campus guest speakers considered hateful for their views at a panel-debate entitled “Who Deserves to Speak?”
Stanford in Government (SIG) hosted and moderated the panel months after the Stanford College Republicans invited “counter-jihadist” Robert Spencer to speak on campus in November, a decision that sparked controversy.
“I assumed that there would be a majority perspective on campus on this issue, but there isn’t,” said Bryce Tuttle ’20, co-director of SIG’s Public Policy Form Committee. “This is really an issue where people are divided.”
The panel featured students representing various positions in the debate: Terence Zhao ’19, an op-ed columnist for The Stanford Daily and co-director of Diversity and Outreach for SIG; Jana Kholy ’20, a co-organizer of the protest against Spencer’s talk in November; Caleb Smith ’17, who circulated a petition calling on the ASSU to withdraw support and funding from Spencer’s event; Melissa Loupeda ’21, a member of Stanford Women in Politics; Alp Akis ’21, a writer for The Stanford Review; and Quinn Barry ’21, a member of the Stanford College Republicans. SIG members Kasha Akrami ’21 and Ngoc Vo ’21 moderated the discussion.
The debate began with one-minute opening speeches from each panelist. Zhao said that he believes speakers like Robert Spencer should be banned from speaking on college campuses, especially if countries like the United Kingdom have deemed them a national “security threat.”
“The question [of] whether this man is dangerous has already been settled,” Zhao said. “We have to draw a reasonable line between what is educational, what is conducive and what is simply dangerous.”
Kholy echoed Zhao, arguing that panelists should consider to whom universities ought to give a platform.
“Everyone has a limit when it comes to free speech,” Kholy said.
She cited Milo Yannipaulous’s [sic — why bother to spell his name correctly? He’s “right-wing”!] resignation from Breitbart due to his comments on pedophilia as an example of this: Even Breitbart, known for its inflammatory views, drew the line at Yannipaulous’ [sic] remarks, she said.
“Free speech is never an absolute,” she reiterated.
The rest of the panelists held contrary views, with Loupeda arguing that the benefits of bringing speakers to campus who hold views that might be deemed hate speech outweigh the drawbacks.
“When we have a controversial speaker on campus, we’re able to partake in difficult conversations that we would not have the opportunity to do otherwise,” Loupeda said. “We’re able to hold speakers accountable to what they say and subject them to public judgment and opinion.”
Smith, Akis and Barry agreed with Loupeda, with Barry adding that choosing to ban some kinds of speech in private academic institutions contradicts a commitment that students should expect institutions to uphold: a duty to educate their students.
“If [universities] want any claim to being a legitimate academic institution that wants to … educate their students, then they need to be committed to the free exchange of ideas,” he said.
Still, speech that incites violence should also not be allowed, Barry added.
While Zhao and Kholy declined to specifically define where the line on allowable speech should be drawn at college campuses, Kholy suggested that institutions should not invite speakers who target “systematically oppressed groups” to speak to their students.
“[Universities] have to uphold the dignities of [their] students,” she argued.
Throughout the debate, Smith held the position that free speech should be respected — but with one important nuance.
“There’s a distinction to be made between University funds and student government funds,” he said. “I would suggest when it comes to the expenditure of student government funds, our student government should adhere to a basic test of ‘we should treat all speakers with equal respect who essentially respect the equality of Stanford students.’”
The moderators of the discussion quickly opened the debate to audience participation, seeing that two audience members were raising their hands even prior to the debate’s close.
One audience member asked the panelists what they thought was the “ideal” student response when speakers known for hate speech are invited to campus.
Loupeda answered that students’ divided response to Robert Spencer’s arrival to campus was the ideal response: The event drove students to protest, sign a petition against Spencer’s coming to campus and hold conversations about free speech both in person and through student publications.
The observation echoed a point that Loupeda made earlier in the debate with regard to the measures that the University takes to prevent events from escalating to violence — for example, making events exclusive to students to keep out “outside agitators.”
“Robert Spencer came on campus, and we’re still here,” she said….
StellaSaidSo says
I didn’t realise that Stanford was a kindergarten. I thought it was a university. Silly moi.
StellaSaidSo says
Yep. It’s not called ‘the Left Coast’ for no reason!
Angus66 says
“Unfortunately, many tech companies have headquarters in Leftist-leaning California and might become infested with students indoctrinated at Jack-Moron Universities like Stanford.”
“Might” be? They most definitely ARE infested already…
JawsV says
Snowflake U.
Jaladhi says
Ah, these are the future leaders of USA!!! We are doomed!
Leon Degney says
My thoughts exactly. Thank you.
PABLO says
Mr. Spencer can’t be beaten in a debate so the snowflakes want to deny him a platform. Zhao, the more you protest the more foolish you become and Mr. Spencer will always own your type.
mortimer says
Exactly.
Message to ZHAO: YOU ARE TOO COWARDLY TO DEBATE ROBERT SPENCER AREN’T YOU?
Robert Spencer says
Mortimer
While I would not turn down a challenge, I am not interested in debating this foolish and thoroughly indoctrinated child. I am just deeply concerned that he and his ilk are not interested in debate at all, but only in forcibly silencing those whose views they consider to be beyond the pale. Mr. Zhao, like so many others at Stanford, is a fascist, and Stanford is breeding fascists at a rapid clip.
StellaSaidSo says
‘…Stanford is breeding fascists at a rapid clip.’
Indeed, Robert, is there a university in the US which is NOT breeding fascists? Is there any campus in the US where speakers who don’t follow leftist orthodoxy can expect a modicum of basic courtesy?
It is especially depressing to see institutions like Stanford, Harvard, Georgetown, Brandeis, UC Berkeley and others which were once considered la crème de la crème of intellectual distinction, disgrace themselves so comprehensively.
At least you’re in good company; all the best people these days are ‘dangerous’. If you’re not on SPLC ‘hate’ list, you’re just not working hard enough! As the fighter pilot observed, ‘If you’re getting flak, you know you’re over the target’. You guys are heroes.
mortimer says
Stella, re THE CHICAGO PRINCIPLES
The University of Chicago has published its support for the freedom of expression on campus. Everyone should learn about it.
The Chicago Principles: 1) ongoing intellectual challenge, 2) rigorous questioning, 3) discourse, 4) argument, and 5) lack of deference
“I have been asked regularly in my many subsequent trips to China, “What is the magic UChicago sauce?”
“I replied that its key ingredient was ongoing intellectual challenge and rigorous questioning. So many leading economists, physicists, chemists, and other scholars have prospered at UChicago because of the strong cultural commitment on campus to discourse, argument, and lack of deference. ”
– Robert J. Zimmer, 13th President of the University of Chicago.
Read more here:
http://president.uchicago.edu/page/address-colgate-university
Statement:
“From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the
preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of
the University’s culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University’s decennial,
President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of
speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the
University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time
be called in question.”
https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/sites/freeexpression.uchicago.edu/files/FOECommitteeReport.pdf
https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/page/statements-and-messages
https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/university#Civil
Westman says
Could it be that this is a new kind of fascism? A supremacy, still Machiavellian, that seeks power without intending to engage in productive labor and allows no valid opposition.
Perhaps that is why it is so sensitive to criticism of its fellow traveler, Islam?
StellaSaidSo says
@ mortimer,
It is reassuring to know that the highest standards are being maintained in some parts of academe, mortimer. Thanks for posting this information. No doubt enrolments at UC will increase as genuine scholars make their escape from leftist indoctrination camps like Stanford!
Champ says
I just *love* it when Robert Spencer joins the discussion! 🙂
JawsV says
Ditto, Champ!
gravenimage says
Mr. Spencer, Terence Zhao turns out to be *far worse* than foolish. Here he is, *whitewashing the appeal of ISIS*:
“The fading appeal of the West”
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/01/21/the-fading-appeal-of-the-west/
He wrote:
“ISIS appeals to the marginalized. It preys on those who are most disaffected with the consensus of the West, those who feel abandoned, ignored or even downright despised by the West. These are the family members of those killed as “collateral damage” in a drone strike, the teenagers from Paris’ ghettoized banlieues who radicalized to escape poverty, unemployment and rampant Islamophobia and social exclusion. These are the people the West left behind — the people for whom the ideas of the West have not delivered — and that is why the alternative ISIS offers, horrific as it might be, can appear appealing.”
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, Stella, much of the UC system is just as bad. I know whereof I speak–I am a Berkeley graduate.
mortimer says
Terence Zhao lives in his own MELODRAMATIC SWOON CASTLE IN THE SKY where FACTS CANNOT ENTER!
The Chicago Principles to Develop a Culture of Ideas in Universities: 1) ongoing intellectual challenge, 2) rigorous questioning, 3) discourse, 4) argument, and 5) lack of deference
“I have been asked regularly in my many subsequent trips to China, “What is the magic UChicago sauce?”
I replied that its key ingredient was ongoing intellectual challenge and rigorous questioning. So many leading economists, physicists, chemists, and other scholars have prospered at UChicago because of the strong cultural commitment on campus to discourse, argument, and lack of deference. ”
– Robert J. Zimmer, 13th President of the University of Chicago.
MFritz says
Don’t worry, Stanford administration, most parents are VERY weary of the ideology you’re pushing on your students. And they’ll vote with their feet, when it is time to decide where the children will go to study. And Stanford has been burning all bridges to sanity for YEARS now.
Westman says
Stanford University, as a creator of European-style Social Democrats, is dangerous to America’s free and vibrant democracy.
Thankfully, we have two oceans to limit an Islamic invasion while we watch the economic destruction of Europe by an ideology that came to feed from the public trough and conquer.
Will that be enough for Stanford to realize it was carried away by the flow of California’s delusional liberalism or will the economic reality of the invasion from its South assail its fortress, first?
One thing is certain. Without the flexibilty to learn from diverse and opposing views, Standford is not preparing itself or its students for the future.
Ron says
Robert Spencer is one of very few honest and brave truth tellers willing to put today’s Islamic death and violence into perspective by citing its doctrine as the cause and effect. No matter if Robert is 5’5” or if he was shorter than Tom Thumb, he is a giant in my eyes.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Ron!
Santa Voorhees says
“Zhao said that he believes speakers like Robert Spencer should be banned from speaking on college campuses, especially if countries like the United Kingdom have deemed them a national ‘security threat.’
Ehi Zhao, if the UK is putting up barriers and road blocks of diversity in its streets, it is not because of Robert Spencer having an opinion, it is because of the massacres committed by your beloved jihadists.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Exactly.
Strange way of thinking isn’t it?
It’s not the irrational violent islamic reaction at every perceived offense that is the threat, but the one who speaks freely and openly while inviting debate.
It’s not the ones who can’t control themselves like civilzed people, but the ones who wish to discuss things in a civilized manner.
These values will not take us to good places i think.
Charlie says
Truth is often very dangerous. They said that Charles Darwin was dangerous as well. We seemed to survive those truths. In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act, and revolutionary acts are always dangerous to the official narrative. It seems that even debate is dangerous at Stanford.
Billy Chickens says
The big bad ugly truth always upsets the My Little Pony type world/mind they live in (eternal sunshine, flowers, rainbows and butterflies).
The truth that Robert Spencer speaks incites them to violence. The truth inflames them with anger (a sign of their fear) to know that the world over the hill is in reality inhabited with vicious marauding killers. They know of no other way to solve the problem of their fear except to become vicious marauding killers themselves – killers of free speech. Killers of critical thinking.
The violence is not done by anyone else but themselves however they project it onto the wider (than their narrow minds) world and erroneously blame the people standing up to the marauding killers for the violence.
But I say that killers are killers, which makes the My Little Pony riders inhabiting the same barn as the marauders. One gallops out to kill the body, the other races out to kill the mind. All for the love of death. Because if enough killing is done the world will be a better place. Especially without the truth or “evil” people who seek it.
Once evil truth seekers are all killed the entire world will be free. Then mankind can live in harmony in eternal sunshine, flowers, rainbows and butterflies.
Wellington says
Free speech is not absolute (e.g., you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and then say that even though you were lying you were exercising your right to free speech) but when a distinction begins to be made between free speech and hate speech, then one has gone in the opposite direction whereby free speech is very much in danger of existing no longer. This is exactly what the snowflakes on college campuses across America have backed and actually instituted.
It’s Orwellian. It’s cowardly. It’s stupid. And it has put free speech in great jeopardy.
Westman says
Amen, Wellington. They are cowards on every level – leveraging the University as their weapon. Not one of them, or their advisors, would shed a single drop of blood to defend their country. Their administrators likely have the deferment application forms at the ready.
Wellington says
On the specific matter, Westman, of these turkeys not being prepared to defend America, Dennis Prager on his talk show yesterday made a great point I think. He said that all the Leftists out there who went apoplectic over President Trump’s comment about many countries being “shitholes,” well, this is essentially what Leftists think about America, that it is a terrible country that is bigoted, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, blah, blah, blah.
Westman says
How similar to Islam and its rejection of fealty to any nation and lack of appreciation for its gained benefits.
The greatest opportunity comes without a safety net for failure. Those who love freedom look at the opportunity, take hold, and are thankful. Cowards look for the safety net, feed each other fear and propaganda, form “gangs”, cry victim, and blame the productive for their own failures.
It’s amazing that the nation could be so “terrible” yet citizens of truly terrible countries and free democracies are lined up by the tens of millions to immigrate to the US.
The Left wants a nation with no borders, no mainstream ethnicity, and no morality except that embedded in civil law. Rome became one of those…
Wellington says
Westman: Leftism is a collective idiocy and Islam is a collective malevolency. Both are errors and so no wonder these two micreants find common ground, the common ground being massive error. And only a dearth of error has ever propelled mankind to better things and which is why ever counting on Leftism or Islam to propel mankind forward is itself an error of the first degree.
Hope you and yours are doing well. Take care, pal.
gravenimage says
You are not wrong, Wellington:
“TRUMP’S AMERICA IS A SHITHOLE COUNTRY”
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-america-shithole-country-780888
And this is not some obscure, far-left blogger–it is *Newsweek*.
The line that most struck me was this:
“We shouldn’t be asking immigrants to prove their worth, when this country seems to be unworthy of them.”
Even though immigrants from all over the world are clamoring to come to America, this writer believes we should feel worthless and guilty. Just appalling.
That some of them are actually dangerous to us–Muslims most of all–does not apparently make any diffference to his appraisal.
joanofark06 says
Speaking of….
If anyone doesn’t know Paul Watson….you should!! Funny but intelligent guy!
The Truth About ‘Sh*thole Countries’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdumFFPLqA&t=37s
gravenimage says
Joan, thanks for that from Paul Watson–I was not familiar with him. Good stuff.
Green Infidel says
What if the guy in the theatre saw some smoke, and out of his genuine concern shouted “fire”?
Westman says
These days, he would immediately be labeled as a smokophobe… 😉
gravenimage says
*Exactly*. Right now, the theater is on fire, and all too many are demanding that we keep quiet.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO JAY — Please let me parachute into the front yard of your thatched-roof cottage, to ask everyone who has a few spare minutes this simple request: SEND A COMMENT TO THAT ARTICLE AT THE STANFORD DAILY. Especially those of us who have never posted comments there.
Include the most devastating examples of Allah’s pathology — quotes from the Qur’an — along with some of the body-count slaughter statistics. For example, that San Bernardino jihad (in the same state as Stanford), with the potential for many hundreds more dead from the arsenal of extra ammunition in their car, only stopped by rare luck of a quick police apprehension.
The intellectual cowardice of “students” like this guy and his pals is waaaaay beyond pathetic. If every one of us responds to it with FACTS ABOUT ISLAM, they might, perhaps, maybe think about how little regard they have for truth.
mortimer says
Terence Zhao can find the sort of CONTROLLED SPEECH environment that he is talking about in communist CHINA.
I for one will contribute to sending him to live PERMANENTLY IN CHINA so he can have the FULL EXPERIENCE of a society that CONFORMS TO HIS IDEAS ON CENSORSHIP.
Leon Degney says
No, no you’re sending him to the wrong country. China (I live in China) is relatively free compared to Saudi Arabia, I suggest sending him there.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, here is Terence Zhao again advocating shutting down freedom of speech:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/05/24/the-problem-with-debates/
And Zhao did indeed live in China–until he was nine. Far from being happy and grateful for living in a free country, he’s ashamed of being an American now:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/04/19/the-american-tourist/
He describes China as ‘free’ and ‘comfortable’. Apparently he has no problem with the oppressive Communist government there.
gravenimage says
I just found something even more appalling from Terence Zhao. In this article, he says re the violence at Berkeley at a planned appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos that “I must admit that I don’t really care for Milo, and there’s some part of me that — regrettably — would not be bothered by his demise”.
His **demise**. He’s not talking about Yiannopoulos contracting a fatal disease here–that would be appalling enough–he is talking about his *being murdered by a protesting mob*.
Whether one likes Yiannopoulos’ style or not is of no consequence–he is an entirely peaceful person who has never called for violence–yet Zhao would have no problem if he was butchered by a mob.
Who else would he be indifferent to seeing beaten to death? This is just horrifying. Does he have no idea of what this would do to America and freedom of speech? Apparently he does not care.
“Not mob violence, but a show of force”
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/08/not-mob-violence-but-a-show-of-force/
simpleton1 says
“Not mob violence, but a show of force”
That is turning the deed, show of force, into an acceptable honor crime and obviously with light sentencing, that is if any one, has a case bought against them.
Honor for sharia law !
gravenimage says
Yes, simpleton1–and he wants to see that barbarism here in America.
Suebe Hatz says
No send him to North Korea, see how he feels about not having any rights, even in religion
Linde Barrera says
Hi jihad3tracker, I am responding to your post of 11:26 am, Jan. 26, 2018. I will definitely make a few comments to the Stanford Daily about this topic. I just cannot believe how these so-called college students are thinking, or rather, are doing non-thinking. Sickens me.
On a lighter note, since Robert Spencer said he was not going there to do stand-up comedy, here is a joke I hope he can use. “Robert Spencer was at a party, finishing the last drop of his drink. His astute hostess, from across the room, noticed right away and went over to him saying: ‘I see your glass is empty. Would you like another one?’ Robert Spencer answered: ‘Why would I want 2 empty glasses?’ ” ???
jihad3tracker says
Hello Linde — Thank you for that chuckle (the empty glass) as I close my insomniac’s night (2:35 AM Eastern US time).
Robert was hilarious in his comedic sarcasm about student Zhao describing him as dangerous.
gravenimage says
The only good thing is that there have been a lot of critical comments left on Zhao’s articles.
Jayell says
Zhou – “We have to draw a reasonable line between what is educational, what is conducive and what is simply dangerous.’”
Mr. Spencer is a well-qualified world authority on islam and his lecture was simply an informative exposition of that subject. That is what we call ‘education’. Education can always be ‘conducive’ where the power of an argument causes people to revise or modify their opinions or beliefs based on the substance of the argument, but that is a matter for the individuals concerned who would be exercising their intellectual freedom to do so, which is what universities are supposed to be about (believe it or not!). The matter of ‘danger’ relates to the consequences of people receiving certain information, and how it might affect their actions and behaviour. Zhou therefore needs to explain how the information expounded by Mr. Spencer might result in such ‘dangerous’ consequences. Would it be that the recipients might react in a dangerous and hostile way? Then that would be a comment on the recipients, not on Mr. Spencer. Or might Mr. Spencer’s input might influence the recipients in a way that is not to Zhou’s liking? In which case, Zhou should explain why he thinks he has any right to dictate the way others on his campus should think.
Kholy – “Free speech is never an absolute”.
So it’s NOT ‘free speech’ then. Or didn’t that simple consideration not enter Kholy’s little mind?
While Zhao and Kholy declined to specifically define where the line on allowable speech should be drawn at college campuses, Kholy suggested that institutions should not invite speakers who target “systematically oppressed groups” to speak to their students.”
So Kholy needs to (a) identify ‘oppressed groups’ and (b) explain in detail exactly how these groups are ‘oppressed’, and (c) present clear evidence of any ‘targeting’ history of before any exclusion of speakers is enacted.
Is this gruesome twosome capable of this?
Prabh108 says
China: Quit India. Tibet is India’s backyard. And Kashmir is our Crown.
Jai Hind.
AlmostAnythingAnytime4AhimsicAryavartanAryaputraoFAryavartasthan.
Bharat Mata di Jai.
Towards a mlecch free India.
may all enemies of freedom perish sooner rather than later.
Thank you for maintaining this site Dr. R. Spencer. I regard you as friend of India. India love friend.
(note: I just looked at title and commented – I have no interest in china except I know they are illegally squatting upon Tibet which historically is part of Greater Historical India.) China admit India is teacher China is student. China very bad student. India would like ALL OF HER TERRITORY BACK pronto.
excuse any typo
Lebel says
Here is my evil secret Muslim demoncrat opinion:
.1. Robert Spencer should have the right to speak his mind in America because it is the only country where free speech is near absolute. That means that people with dangerous and evil opinions, like being critical of Israel, should also be allowed to speak.
I am not sure however that Mr. Spencer defends free speech when it comes to his opponents. We see it time and again, Mr. Spencer seems to find it acceptable that people are fired for voicing their opinions on that most sensitive of topics, Israel.
PABLO says
Please provide proof. I don’t expect any “real” evidence anytime soon. By the way, I said evidence not emotions.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Seconded.
StellaSaidSo says
And why is Israel a ‘sensitive topic’ lebel?
Would it have anything to do with the fact that for 1400 years, Muslims have been taught to hate Jews?
Champ says
Thy name is “Libel” …you are stating falsehoods about Robert Spencer.
JawsV says
Just can it, Lebel. It’s Islam that’s dangerous and evil. Bravo Israel!!!
Champ says
Hear, hear, JawsV!
“Bravo Israel!!!”
Ditto!
joanofark06 says
I second that!! I Love Israel!
Terry Gain says
Lebel
Your comment is bullshit. Change your name to Libel.
gravenimage says
More calumny from Lebel.
For one thing, if Robert Spencer were really against freedom of speech from his opponents, he would have banned Lebel long since.
Few have done more to slander Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch for daring to oppose Jihad terrorism.
Norger says
Robert Spencer was banned from the UK because he is one of the world’s most knowledgeable and effective critics of Islam. The Brits didn’t want anyone to hear the truth about Islam in the wake of Lee Rigby’s beheading. The specific statement for which Spencer was banned—that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of imposing a societal model that is incompatible with Western civilization— was and is demonstrably true. I believe the specific justification given for denying Spencer entry into the UK was that his presence was not conducive to the public good. In other words, the British public shouldn’t be permitted to hear the unvarnished truth about what Islam actually teaches in the wake of the latest Islamic atrocity. As many have pointed out, Winston Churchill has made far more pointed statements about Islam; presumably his presence in the UK today would not be conducive to the public good.
Mr. Zhao needs to get his head out of his posterior.
PRCS says
Pretty sure Zhao is not stupid, and that he has access to a computer and to the internet.
Could be wrong, of course, but rather imagine he did not research the issue; relying instead on what he’d been told.
CRUSADER says
Stanford Blows.
Take the Axe to it.
Let the winds of freedom ….
Bezelel says
’ Zhao said. ‘We have to draw a reasonable line between what is educational, what is conducive and what is simply dangerous.’”
No sheet Sherlock!!! WTF? This clueless dip—- can’t determine,surmise, extrapolate that exploding vests, hijacked airliners, yada yada yada, are not jihad attacks not dangerous enough to make the list? Put the Dunce cap and Stupid Tee shirt on the boy and recycle him through a real education process.
David Stephenson says
The fact that free speech is up for debate at a university is frightening in and of itself.
And the little fascists think they are perfectly correct! Amazing to me that this is happening in America, but unfortunately this is what we have come to.
Tjhawk says
In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny,
“ What a maroon”
mgoldberg says
I would only correct your term… ‘bovine pasture’ to bovine fertilizer.
They spread this crap around like it was mothers mild but it’s just the most inane fertilzier to grow
more and more ignorance.
Champ says
Terence Zhao certainly has defined himself as a coward and a fool by calling the courageous Robert Spencer “dangerous.”
It takes courage to speak the truth about islam, and clearly Zhao does NOT possess this virtue.
gravenimage says
He’s a nasty piece of work, Champ. Check out his articles for the Stanford Daily.
Champ says
Indeed, Graven.
Jack Holan says
Robert
Stanford,the Institution and Student population, does
Not quite meets the standards of yesteryear. It ma Be Far too late by the Freshmen arrive to start their college careers however considering the rediculous Freshman NC courses they are required to take; the Department of Education should Mandate a College Level US Constitution Course to be taught by a Panel Of Conservative and Liberal Professors. If
Mr Zhao uses England’s sense of Democratic Values and lack of guarantees over that of our own; he has a flawed knowledge about our own and probably a non-existent one about England’s. Ms Lohr excludes debate about other peoples I suggest that she not waste her parents or Taxpayers money on her upper level education and be content with her degree of formal education.
Richard says
Robert Spencer possesses the most powerful weapon in existence: He has a mind. Minds seem in short supply today, probably because few people want them. As for dangerous, Stanford and other universities of “higher learning” are destroying young minds, and with them, the futures of those who once possessed them They are turning out crazies who are to a large extent unemployable because of the things the schools have not taught them and for the insane ideas the schools have embedded in them. Many are incapable of performing even minor technical skills. Others are ticking time bombs of radicalism. There was an old saying: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
we have been telling Mr Spencer that there is no différence between hate propagandas against muslims he is leading and Nazi propagandas in Europe which led to holocaust. Mr Spencer is against muslims going to the West ,because they are potentially terrorists echoing savage mad devil Trump’s logic that the United states could not identify Who are terrorists and who are moderates among muslims .The only option is to ban all of them. Mr Spencer in many of his articles maintains that Islamic sources (Mainly Quran and Hadith) teach terrorism and both moderates and believe in the same books, citing such Quranic verses and Hadith out of context and without proper knowledge about their interpretations. Anybody could twist any scripture, but Mr Spencer claims to be an expert on Islam. A certain standard of learning is expected from anyone Who call himself an expert on any field of studies. But we cannot See expertise expositions in Mr Spencer’s criticism against islam .we can only See mere insults and condemnation of Islam, which even someone Who never learn any thing about Islam can do.
As such Mr Spencer led Propaganda campaigns are dangerous, because it could instigate genocide killings of muslims in the West. one of the commentators at this site even stated that since Islam as bad as Mr Spencer has been presenting It, all muslims shall be nuked and eliminated by Christian West. The man was not joking ,because he cited Samuel 15:3 as justification for such mass killings of muslims. Assuming leaders subcribe to this option, what Will follow ? mass slaughter of muslims Will follow starting with those living in the West as Hitler did to Jews in Germany. Nazis started with hate campaigns against Jews in Germany in the same way Mr Spencer is leading hate campaigns against muslims. what is the différence ?
LeftisruiningCanada says
You might offer a few arguments against specific claims made by Mr Spencer, Ibrahim.
Many people here use the same verses and the same interpretations as he does, and yet you don’t seek to argue for your own interpretations.
As i we have covered in a previous (one sided) conversation, 1 Samuel 15:3 has nothing to compare to the korans commands to fight the unbelievers. Where do you see anyone using a one time command to remove another tribe from a specific location, to support attacks against other people in far distant lands?
You don’t, do you.
You unwillingness to handle our texts respectfully makes you own cries regarding our use of the koran, very weak and hypocritical Ibrahim.
Must Try Harder.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“Nazis started with hate campaigns against Jews in Germany in the same way Mr Spencer is leading hate campaigns against muslims. what is the différence ?”
The difference is huge.
Where was the international Jewish campaign to knife, bomb or crush-by-vehicle all non Jews?
No, the muslims are not the ‘new Jews’ as you would like to imagine yourselves.
You are the new Nazis. You are violent ones seeking the take over non muslim nations.
Your filthy prophet, with all of his child sexing pervertery (that i notice you never contest, despite your constant harping on about unproven allegations against Mr Trump) is the classic proto-Nazi, and everybody but muslims, poisoned by the same spirit of evil, can see it.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Oh yes, and i replied to you here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/01/new-jersey-public-school-teaches-muhammad-peace-be-upon-him-is-the-last-final-messenger-of-god#comment-1823957
Thanks again for your initial reply.
Champ says
The lying imbecile wrote:
“one of the commentators at this site even stated that since Islam as bad as Mr Spencer has been presenting It, all muslims shall be nuked and eliminated by Christian West.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We all know that Robert Spencer is presenting what muslims themselves *DO*. And we also know that Robert presents verses from the quran and hadiths …
But the imbecile would have us think that islam is only as bad as Robert Spencer is “presenting it”, which is, of course, a bold-faced lie.
And any comments about genocide are to be reported to Robert, and he will immediately remove these suggestions.
Chand says
Ibrahim itace muhammed says: “As such Mr Spencer led Propaganda campaigns are dangerous, because it could instigate genocide killings of muslims in the West.”
Ya, Ibrahim, that can definitely happen. And not only in the West. If the Islamo-Fascist-Arab supremacist terrorists continue their brutal agenda of targeting innocent civilians in the West, a Hitler like personality might arise and try to carry out a global genocide of ALL Muslims, using their stockpile of devastating weapons and technology.
Another Fascist Holocaust may happen, to defeat this Islamo Fascist threat.
Crypto Nazis like gravenimage pretend to be democratic and defenders of free speech and of Judeo Christian values and such but deep inside they hate ALL Muslims and would prefer to see them wiped off the planet.
Champ says
Chand wrote:
“Crypto Nazis like gravenimage pretend to be democratic and defenders of free speech and of Judeo Christian values and such but deep inside they hate ALL Muslims and would prefer to see them wiped off the planet.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing could be further from the truth about the highly respected Gravenimage. Your bold-faced lies about her are duly noted, pal.
StellaSaidSo says
Whoa, Chand, you are well out of order here. Gravenimage a ‘crypto Nazi’? You should apologise for this slander. And note, for future reference, that he who resorts to ad hominem attacks is admitting that he has lost the argument.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Very far from the truth there Chand.
You’ll see time and time again that GI and many others, including me, would merely like muslims and islam to stop trying to alter and take over our countries. We don’t want islam, and regard it as a foul creed with an even fouler center figure.
Each to their own place, and everything would be just fine.
gravenimage says
The foul Chand wrote:
Ibrahim itace muhammed says: “As such Mr Spencer led Propaganda campaigns are dangerous, because it could instigate genocide killings of muslims in the West.”
Ya, Ibrahim, that can definitely happen. And not only in the West. If the Islamo-Fascist-Arab supremacist terrorists continue their brutal agenda of targeting innocent civilians in the West, a Hitler like personality might arise and try to carry out a global genocide of ALL Muslims, using their stockpile of devastating weapons and technology.
Another Fascist Holocaust may happen, to defeat this Islamo Fascist threat.
………………………………
What a load of tripe. Hitler wasn’t responding to an invasion of violent barbarians when he commited genocide against the Jews and Gypsies and others.
And does Chand not care that Ibrahim itace muhammed has affirmed that Muslims themselves will commit genocide against the Jews, and that he is eager to take part?
And the truth is there has been *no* violent “backlash” against Muslims. What slander that Chand is claiming that Infidels are poised to harm Muslims, when it is Muslims who are mass-slaughtering Infidels. Talk about projection!
That Chand is now in agreement with one of the most vicious Muslim trolls who posts here is very telling.
More:
Crypto Nazis like gravenimage pretend to be democratic and defenders of free speech and of Judeo Christian values and such but deep inside they hate ALL Muslims and would prefer to see them wiped off the planet.
………………………………
Well, this is just sickening calumny. I have never called for violence; in fact, I consistantly stand *against* violence.
Chand’s pretending that since I don’t agree with Muslims mudering us, that I am hence calling for harming Muslims is just grotesque projection.
When have I ever said any such thing? Links, please.
gravenimage says
Thank you so much, Champ, Stella, and LeftisruiningCanada.
Norger says
How ironic. The Jews who are leaving France in droves are in fact being terrorized by the new “crypto-Nazis” i.e. the Muslim Fifth Column living among them. As Christopher Hitchens said we all remember the Jewish suicide bombers, the Jewish calls for holy war against non- believers, for the veiling of women etc. What complete and utter nonsense.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
The repulsive Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
we have been telling Mr Spencer that there is no différence between hate propagandas against muslims he is leading and Nazi propagandas in Europe which led to holocaust.
…………………………
What absolute claptrap. Where to start? Firstly, of course, Robert Spencer has never called for violence against Muslims–the Nazis not only called for violence against Jews, they perpetrated it.
Secondly, what the Nazis had to say about Jews was almost entirely false, while everything Robert Spencer has said about Muslim violence is amply documented.
Then, Ibrahim itace muhammed using the Holocaust to castigate Anti-Jihadists is perverse in the extreme, since it is Muslims who are the threat to Jews now. And not just other Muslims–he has himself said that he looks forward to taking part in the genocide of the Jews.
Further, Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that Muslims can slaughter any Infidels who do not submit to Islam–so he acknowledges that Muslims are indeed a danger to us.
More:
Mr Spencer is against muslims going to the West ,because they are potentially terrorists echoing savage mad devil Trump’s logic that the United states could not identify Who are terrorists and who are moderates among muslims .The only option is to ban all of them.
…………………………
And how is any of this wrong? Ibrahim itace muhammed has also inveighed against any defense against Jihad, and has castigated Infidels for their wanting to constrain Muslims from waging violent Jihad against them.
He is just affirming what a danger Muslims present to us.
More:
Mr Spencer in many of his articles maintains that Islamic sources (Mainly Quran and Hadith) teach terrorism and both moderates and believe in the same books, citing such Quranic verses and Hadith out of context and without proper knowledge about their interpretations. Anybody could twist any scripture, but Mr Spencer claims to be an expert on Islam. A certain standard of learning is expected from anyone Who call himself an expert on any field of studies. But we cannot See expertise expositions in Mr Spencer’s criticism against islam .we can only See mere insults and condemnation of Islam, which even someone Who never learn any thing about Islam can do.
…………………………
Given that Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself confirmed that Muslims can indeed kill any unbelievers who do not submit to Islam, the above is obvious bs.
More:
As such Mr Spencer led Propaganda campaigns are dangerous, because it could instigate genocide killings of muslims in the West.
…………………………
What grotesque projection. Right now, it is Muslims who are committing genocide in so many parts of the world on Infidels, and Ibrahim itace muhammed has–as I noted–said that he is eager to take part in genocide against the Jews himself.
More:
one of the commentators at this site even stated that since Islam as bad as Mr Spencer has been presenting It, all muslims shall be nuked and eliminated by Christian West. The man was not joking ,because he cited Samuel 15:3 as justification for such mass killings of muslims.
…………………………
Ibrahim itace muhammed has been claiming for years now that Jews and Christians are killing people on the basis of Samuel 15:3, without ever producing a single example, and now he is claiming that a poster at Jihad Watch has done this? What rot. Links, please. Of course, he will not produce anything to back up his calumny.
More:
Assuming leaders subcribe to this option, what Will follow ? mass slaughter of muslims Will follow starting with those living in the West as Hitler did to Jews in Germany. Nazis started with hate campaigns against Jews in Germany in the same way Mr Spencer is leading hate campaigns against muslims. what is the différence ?
…………………………
Nothing like this is happening, of course. Muslims continue to murder Infidels, and Infidels are not even supposed to notice it, lest there is a “backlash” against Muslims. Needless to say, there is no such backlash. This is just intended to prevent us from speaking about Muslim violence against us.
theopholus says
Robert Spencer is not dangerous, Stanford is. Our institutions of learning are no more. Education has become indoctrination. Parents! Do you know what your kids are being taught and by whom. Take action while you still can. Your kids are being taken from you.
Terry Gain says
There can be no progress, or enlightenment of any kind, without free speech. This student child does not understand this truth because he has not been exposed to enough free speech and he’s not very bright or he might have figured it out himself. His belief that a decision is correct because it was made in The Land Of Rotherham is revealing. I suspect that he’s never heard of Rotherham.
Robert Spencer is our generation’s Winston Churchill. He is a giant. We are lucky that he shares his knowledge with us.
Indiana Tom says
“Zhao said that he believes speakers like Robert Spencer should be banned from speaking on college campuses, especially if countries like the United Kingdom have deemed them a national ‘security threat.’ ‘The question [of] whether this man is dangerous has already been settled,’
China has deemed Chinese immigrants and their descendents are dangerous to the State and the Party, so Zhao should be banned and deported.
Indiana Tom says
“Everyone has a limit when it comes to free speech,” Kholy said. Adolf Hitler seconded the statement as well as Joseph Stalin who heartily agreed. Mussolini was on the fence as still to decide if he was a Communist or a Fascist.
Stanford University = Animal Farm.
Granddaddy says
Robert Spencer is right on all counts. I watched the video; they should never have done to him what they did, it just made them look foolish and immature. As for Stanford, they are at least having a discussion about free speech (that’s what they say, anyway). Assuming they’re being honest; which is hard to believe so soon after such a display of ignorance. A truly fascist institution would never allow such a debate, so maybe that’s what they’re trying to say (that they’re not being closed-minded). So if they really want to prove their open-mindedness (which is what it looks like), then what they should do is invite Mr. Spencer to participate in the discussion. And then they might have some credibility. Otherwise,, it’s just all show. How much freedom of speech can you have when you know that the next day you have to attend class in an institution that might “disagree” with your opinion (as in public chastisement, ridicule, harassment, etc)? It’s really hard to believe that our colleges have become this way.
Norger says
It is really difficult to believe that “higher learning” has devolved to this point. What makes Robert Spencer so compelling is his extensive knowledge of (and citation to) authoritative Islamic sources. He takes a scholarly approach to his analysis; even those who disagree with him would have to concede that he at least purports to offer a great deal of authoritative Islamic sources in support of his positions.
If Spencer is so clearly wrong in his “scholarly” analysis of Islam or “dangerous” in his views, this is precisely the type of issue that an institution of higher learning should be tackling head on. Why couldn’t an institution as accomplished as Stanford produce multiple audience members who could actually engage with Spencer on a substantive level and expose him as a “dangerous” bigot once and for all? Much easier to pretend that Spencer is beneath contempt than to debate the truth of what he says.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Norger. if Robert Specer were really so wrong in his analysis, it should be easy to logically dismantle his arguments.
But this is false–this is why these fascists do not want him to be heard.
Terry Gain says
How? Leftism on the rise. Critical thinking and free speech in decline.
Stonewall says
Robert Spencer dangerous?
I would not want to mess with him, but dangerous?
I think not.
Of course, Robert Spencer is telling a truth that when told in this world, a world of lies, can be dangerous to some.
The truth is the Left does not care about the truth of Islam. The Left is about destroying the world as it is and it is using Muslims just like it is using anybody and anything it can to gain power. The Left is for anything that will destroy everything.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Leftruinigcanada, i beg to disagree that Samuel 15:3 is limited to command by your mithraist God to eliminate one tribe by Israelites. It is a simili and such applicable to all wars of genocide by Christians. The church relied on it and other evil biblical verses and carried out genocidal killings of more than 20 million muslims and Jews during crusade wars. The church also did the same in spain where ethnic cleansing was carried out against muslim moriscos and Jews.
All Quranic verses on jihad fighting are describing fighting between muslims and pagan meccans. Can we say jîhad fighting has ended when mecca was conquered by Muslims ? No, It is a simili of jîhad fighting anywhere and any time where circumstances warrant as stated in the books of sharia. Eg, the verse which says “faqtuluhum haithu thaqiftumuhum (fight them whereever you find them) Was talking about permission given to muslims fight meccan idolators for breaching the truce of Hudaibiyya they signed. This is applicable whenever hostile enemy unbelivers breach the truce at all times. Even in modern warefare whenever a party breaches the tërms of ceasefire, the fighting has to resume. Note:the verse is only talking about encounter between muslim combatant forces and that of hostile unbelivers , not all unbelivers and non Combatant civilian population as prophet muhammad explained. Hence,attacking soft targets like civilian population as terrorist are doing is not a jîhad contrary to what you and mr Spencer have been saying.
Mr Lifruinicanada,are you saying collective punishment of all muslims is justified for the acts of misguided terrorists Among muslims ? Mr Spencer and savage mad devil Trump are saying all muslims are Potential terrorists because all of believe in the Quran, which sanctions Jihad fighting. Is that not the Same logic you have stated ? Note:cannot reject part of the Quran and remains a muslim. You are saying Islam should be reformed so that muslims should disbelieve in Quranic verses sanctioning Jihad fighting as you have been twisting the verses of genocide explicitly in the mithraist Bible in your hands.
Wyldeirishman says
The “Mithraist” Bible. Yeah.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-mithras-mythology/
Might want to bone up on your studies, friend.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Not a bad start, but he provides no sources for his counter arguments.
I’ve offered these to Ibrahim before, but i don’t think he even noticed:
http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch70.htm
Champ says
BRAVO!
LeftisruiningCanada says
“Leftruinigcanada, i beg to disagree that Samuel 15:3 is limited to command by your mithraist God to eliminate one tribe by Israelites. It is a simili and such applicable to all wars of genocide by Christians. The church relied on it and other evil biblical verses and carried out genocidal killings of more than 20 million muslims and Jews during crusade wars. The church also did the same in spain where ethnic cleansing was carried out against muslim moriscos and Jews.”
You have a made a claim there Ibrahim. You have said that “the church relied on it” to support their ‘wars’.
That is a claim which requires evidence to support it. Do you have any?
“not all unbelivers and non Combatant civilian population as prophet muhammad explained. Hence,attacking soft targets like civilian population as terrorist are doing is not a jîhad contrary”
And yet, so may of your ‘brothers’ believe quite differently, and are to be found defining all people who support their western governments through voting and tax paying as being the enemy.
How do you argue against them?
“Mr Lifruinicanada,are you saying collective punishment of all muslims is justified for the acts of misguided terrorists Among muslims ?”
Where did i say this? And, what do you mean by “punishment”?
“Mr Spencer and savage mad devil Trump are saying all muslims are Potential terrorists because all of believe in the Quran, which sanctions Jihad fighting”
I happen to agree with them on that. Why shouldn’t i? you seem to be saying things which support this opinion.
“You are saying Islam should be reformed so that muslims should disbelieve in Quranic verses sanctioning Jihad fighting as you have been twisting the verses of genocide explicitly in the mithraist Bible in your hands.”
That would be great, but we both know it is impossible to reform islam in this direction.
The problem with your constant hanging on to 1 Samuel 15:3, and other OT verses covering ancient Israel’s conquest of the Land, is that you have no understanding of how Christians, not part of the Old Testament, view those historical stories.
We view them as Historical records of how God interacted with the people of Israel and surrounding tribes and nations. We have inherited some things from them through Jesus Christ. We have not inherited being a Theocracy, which is what Israel was.
You should be concentrating on the New Testament if you really want to have any chance of drawing any parallels between your koranic commands to kill people, and the Christians.
Show me where Christ tells us to kill people who disagree with us? Show me where Christ or his disciples have sex with little girls or ‘marry’ 9 women, while you’re at it.
You can’t. What you do instead is hark on about some verse you don’t understand, all the while complaining that everybody else is taking your koran out of context, which they aren’t.
joanofark06 says
Sorry I meant to give that comment and video below to Ibrahim…. but about the crusades you mentioned, it’s in there….you might want to see someone’s else’s educated knowledge about that!
joanofark06 says
Oh, the Crusade wars…..I do wish you would watch this hour and a half video, and tell again, what you know about the CRUSADES….cause apparently you have NO idea! Maybe you learn a little bit about your prophet Mohammad, and his Islam, while your at it!!
Mohammed’s History: Exposing Islam’s Hidden Truths of Radical Muslims (William Federer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2rqqyCXX-8&t=4s
gravenimage says
Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Leftruinigcanada, i beg to disagree that Samuel 15:3 is limited to command by your mithraist God to eliminate one tribe by Israelites. It is a simili and such applicable to all wars of genocide by Christians. The church relied on it and other evil biblical verses and carried out genocidal killings of more than 20 million muslims and Jews during crusade wars. The church also did the same in spain where ethnic cleansing was carried out against muslim moriscos and Jews.
……………………….
Of course, this is claptrap. Ibrahim itace muhammed has not been able to cite any Jews or Christians refering to this verse to justify violence. After being challenged on this many times, he recently claimed that some poster here at Jihad Watch cited this passage while calling for wiping out Muslims–he has not responded to challenges that he provide proof for this. No surprise there.
And his referring to the Jews is particularly perverse, since he has said that he is looking forward to participating in the genocide of the Jews.
More:
All Quranic verses on jihad fighting are describing fighting between muslims and pagan meccans. Can we say jîhad fighting has ended when mecca was conquered by Muslims ? No, It is a simili of jîhad fighting anywhere and any time where circumstances warrant as stated in the books of sharia. Eg, the verse which says “faqtuluhum haithu thaqiftumuhum (fight them whereever you find them) Was talking about permission given to muslims fight meccan idolators for breaching the truce of Hudaibiyya they signed.
……………………….
Of course, pious Muslims use Qur’anic verses as justification for slaughtering Infidels all the time. Does he think we haven’t noticed this?
More:
This is applicable whenever hostile enemy unbelivers breach the truce at all times. Even in modern warefare whenever a party breaches the tërms of ceasefire, the fighting has to resume. the verse is only talking about encounter between muslim combatant forces and that of hostile unbelivers , not all unbelivers and non Combatant civilian population as prophet muhammad explained. Hence,attacking soft targets like civilian population as terrorist are doing is not a jîhad contrary to what you and mr Spencer have been saying.
……………………….
What rot. Not only are Muslims attacking Infidels all over the world on just this basis, but Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that Muslims may attack and kill any Infidels who refuse to submit to Islam.
More:
Mr Lifruinicanada,are you saying collective punishment of all muslims is justified for the acts of misguided terrorists Among muslims ?
……………………….
By “punishment”, does he mean attempts–no matter how sporadic–to keep Jihadists from flooding into the West to murder us?
And his claim that Jihad terror is “misguided” when he himself has advocated it is ridiculous.
More
Mr Spencer and savage mad devil Trump are saying all muslims are Potential terrorists because all of believe in the Quran, which sanctions Jihad fighting. Is that not the Same logic you have stated ? Note:cannot reject part of the Quran and remains a muslim. You are saying Islam should be reformed so that muslims should disbelieve in Quranic verses sanctioning Jihad fighting as you have been twisting the verses of genocide explicitly in the mithraist Bible in your hands.
……………………….
In other words, Ibrahim itace muhammed is *affirming* that if Muslims are constrained from waging violent Jihad against us, that they are not being allowed to fully practice their faith.
Just a confirmation of why we should stop the flood of Jihadist Muslims into the free West.
Wyldeirishman says
Robert, you can have a beer with me anytime. 🙂
gravenimage says
🙂
Voytek Gagalka says
Terence Zhao? Isn’t he by any chance a great-grandson of Mao Zhao (Tse) Tung? Or related? He certainly sounds as one. But even if not, at least that spiritual great-grand father would be quite proud of him. I am certain of that. What is this? Red China coming to America or what?
LeftisruiningCanada says
Vultures circling what they think is a carcass.
They are wrong, but they’ll try and take a bite anyway.
StellaSaidSo says
Regardless of the origins of the idiot Terence Zhao, China has already come to America, Voytek. It owns most of America’s colossal debt. The Chinese have been quietly buying real estate and businesses throughout the West for years. And buying politicians, too. We can expect to see a lot more flexing of Chinese muscle on the world stage in future.
Leon Degney says
Would you rather Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern “shit-hole” to own America’s debt? Given a choice, I know which I would rather.
StellaSaidSo says
I was not expressing a preference, I was stating a fact.
joanofark06 says
You ever seen the movie RED DAWN? That’s where the Russians came in the US to take over. Now watch that, and imagine the Chinese doing that…
Lydia Church says
Ah yes… in an Orwellian world… the truth becomes… ‘dangerous.’
So glad I’m politically incorrect, because otherwise I could not be correct!
Leon Degney says
Me too Lydia.
Norger says
That is exactly what young Mr. Zhao is saying— that the truth is too dangerous to be spoken. And this is supposed to be academia.
Lydia Church says
The Fourth Reich is rising…!
tgusa says
You are recklessly careening down a two way street mao zhao.
I consider Stanford a hateful national security threat. Therefore they should be banned from the surrounding communities and yes, the entire country.
Why is he here? He doesn’t add anything to our country. It would be great if he and others would just leave. We wouldn’t miss em one single bit.
Champ says
This nincompoop needs an attitude adjustment. A day spent somewhere in the middle east ought to do the trick, and also wipe that smile off of his face …
Champ says
Stanford needs to arrange a field trip to Iraq or Syria to further their ‘studies’ on the subject.
joanofark06 says
Good idea!!
WESTPAC Spy says
I’m put in mind of an immortal Texas Ranger who had to undergo federal training.
During the course of that training the G-man noticed the Ranger had the grip safety of his 1911 tied down and asked, “Sir, isn’t that dangerous?”
The Ranger responded, “Son, it it wasn’t dangerous I wouldn’t have the damned thing around.”
Be Dangerous.
9
gravenimage says
Anyway, look out, folks: I’m dangerous. Apparently, opposing the jihad massacre of innocent civilians on buses and in pizza parlors — that’s dangerous. Opposing female genital mutilation, honor killing, the death penalty for leaving Islam, the institutionalized subjugation of women under Sharia — dangerous! Opposing the denial of the freedom of speech when that speech violates Sharia blasphemy laws — very dangerous! At least in the eyes of the little totalitarian snowflakes at Stanford.
………………………….
Yes–this is the exact inverse of reality. Good grief…
Especially, as noted, that Robert Spencer regularly receives death threats from Jihadists and needs protection, while he is threatening no one and has never advocated violence, but just inveighed against it.
More:
“Robert Spencer came on campus, and we’re still here.”
………………………….
This is just laughable. Doesn’t she realize how ridiculous she sounds?
More:
“If [universities] want any claim to being a legitimate academic institution that wants to … educate their students, then they need to be committed to the free exchange of ideas,” he said.
………………………….
Well, kudos to Quinn Barry for some decency and common sense. He’s a kid, but actually sounds downright old-fashioned here in his classical view of what a universtity should do. I hope there are more like him.
tgusa says
Hey, I cant believe it! You left out Mans best friend (islam hated), Dogs! Probably cats and everything else, too.
WESTPAC Spy says
I need to say up front I’m not the Nazi/Islamofascist thought police. That said, according to the ahadith Muhammad’s edicts were more nuanced. Dogs that herded or hunted were tolerated. That evolved into dogs serving state purposes. Mine hunting dogs, drug hunting dogs, but never pets.
But they deep down hate people. Like they hate dogs.
joanofark06 says
But they LOVE other animals!!! (Links given upon request)
Muslim Migrant Arrested for Raping Pony in German Kid’s Zoo
Boy aged 14 arrested after being accused by neighbour of raping his pet chicken to death
FIFTEEN Muslim teens in Morocco have been treated for rabies after raping an infected local donkey
It’s ALLOWED in ISLAM!! Even making out with the DEAD is!
Islamic Teachings on Sex with Dead Humans and Animals
https://islam-watch.org/home/107-khalaf/1032-islamic-teachings-on-sex-with-dead-humans-and-animals.html
And some idiots, don’t think there’s anything WRONG, with these “people”???
joanofark06 says
Oh, about dogs….
There are 3 recorded cases of dogs in the Koran:
Verse 5:4 says “Lawful for you are all good things, and that trained dogs and falcons catch for you.”
Verse 7:176 says that if you drive a dog away, it lolls out its tongue, panting, but if you leave it alone, it lolls out its tongue anyhow.
Verse 18:18 describes the Companions of the Cave, a group of saintly young men presented in the Qur’an as exemplars of religion, sleeping with “their dog stretching out its forelegs at the threshold.” Further on, in verse 22, the dog is always counted as one of their number, no matter how they are numbered. In Muslim folklore, affectionate legends have grown around the loyal and protective qualities of this dog, whose name in legend is Qi?mir
Futhermore a prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.
gravenimage says
Joan, the most famous incident involving dogs in Islam is Muhammed slaughtering all the dogs he could get his hands on because the “Angel Jibreel” refused to visit him because there was a puppy under his bed.
Pious Muslims *hate* dogs.
gravenimage says
WESTPAC Spy wrote:
I need to say up front I’m not the Nazi/Islamofascist thought police. That said, according to the ahadith Muhammad’s edicts were more nuanced. Dogs that herded or hunted were tolerated…
……………………….
WESTPACF Spy, originally the “Prophet” Muhammed was bent on slaughtering *all* the dogs–it was only after a delegation of prominent people came to him asking if working dogs could be exempted that he reluctantly relented.
gravenimage says
Sorry for misspelling your name, WESTPAC Spy.
tgusa says
All domesticated animals should be treated with the utmost respect. After all, they put their trust in us.
gravenimage says
Agreed, tgusa. But Islam hideously teaches just the opposite.
WESTPAC Spy says
PR, people center yourselves. Help me here.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Leftruinigcanada, are you or other Christian apologists more knowledgeable on the Bible than churchmen ? The church men arried out genocidal killings in the name of mithraist Christ, which they stated by themselves. They had been also maintaining sex Slaves and killings of apostates for centuries and those Biblical verses sanctioning them are still inside the covers of the Bible in your hands. Note :Not all Christian scholars agree with the interpretation of that biblical verse that fulfilling the law(old testament) means that Jésus fulfilled It for christians. The basis for disagreement is the remaining part of the verse which says that application of the law Will continue upto the end of this world.Abolition of slavery and killings of apostates only occured when church was ousted from power in christiesdom and the biblical laws they had been replaced with man made secular laws. Even today there is constant reference to such verses of violence. Eg, one commentator at this site who called himself crusader said all muslims shall be nuked and obliterated from the surface of this earth by Christian West pursuant to Samuel 15:3.Also,when the evil united states invaded Iraq some unexploded cluster bombs were found bearing mithraist evîl biblical verses of genocide .
Note:the différence between killings in Jihad fighting and genocide killings in the mithraist Bible. In the mithraist Bible is to kill those living, including infants, with exception of small girls Who did not expérience sex to be kept as slaves by crucifying their hands and legs before penetrating,while in the Quran as interpreted by prophet muhammad it is only combatants that can be killed or maimed to subdue them ,not non combatant civilian population . Even the combatants Will not be killed or maimed when they surrender or sought for truce as stated in the Quran :Fa in janahu lissilmi fajnah laha (when they incline for peace incline to it ) “.see Hamidullah’s work(In English)) “Islamic law of war and peace “,at a section on treaties and Truce.
so, Mr Leftruinigcanada, to say christianity is non-violent religion is just a myth and déceptions by Christian apologists. It is genocidal religion calling for mass killings as carried out by the church during crusade wars. To conclude otherwise Will be no more than a folklore.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“are you or other Christian apologists more knowledgeable on the Bible than churchmen ?”
No, but that doesn’t mean i’m wrong. Christians are allowed to debate and disagree with anyone without fearing punishment or death. A strange thought for you no doubt.
“The church men arried out genocidal killings in the name of mithraist Christ, which they stated by themselves.”
Yes, several times you have made this claim, and yet you seem unable to prove it with historical evidence.
“They had been also maintaining sex Slaves and killings of apostates for centuries and those Biblical verses sanctioning them are still inside the covers of the Bible in your hands.”
Which verses? You might be confusing it with the koran, which certainly does allow all of the above.
” Note :Not all Christian scholars agree with the interpretation of that biblical verse that fulfilling the law(old testament) means that Jésus fulfilled It for christians. The basis for disagreement is the remaining part of the verse which says that application of the law Will continue upto the end of this world.”
Since you offer no quotations or references to work with, i’m not going to bother explaining what you might be thinking of, especially since you won’t take any notice even if i did.
“Abolition of slavery and killings of apostates only occured when church was ousted from power in christiesdom and the biblical laws they had been replaced with man made secular laws.”
No, it was when the political power of a certain church was broken. The Church was never intended to have that kind of power. You won’t find it in the NT anyway.
” Even today there is constant reference to such verses of violence. Eg, one commentator at this site who called himself crusader said all muslims shall be nuked and obliterated from the surface of this earth by Christian West pursuant to Samuel 15:3.”
Did see him say that. Since you offer no link to his post, i’m going to assume you just made it up.
“Also,when the evil united states invaded Iraq some unexploded cluster bombs were found bearing mithraist evîl biblical verses of genocide”
Source please.
“Note:the différence between killings in Jihad fighting and genocide killings in the mithraist Bible. In the mithraist Bible is to kill those living, including infants, with exception of small girls Who did not expérience sex to be kept as slaves by crucifying their hands and legs before penetrating,”
You just made that up. You lie, as usual, which is why you never source anything to back up your claims.
“while in the Quran as interpreted by prophet muhammad it is only combatants that can be killed or maimed to subdue them ,not non combatant civilian population . Even the combatants Will not be killed or maimed when they surrender or sought for truce as stated in the ”
You never responded to my question above on this issue.
“so, Mr Leftruinigcanada, to say christianity is non-violent religion is just a myth and déceptions by Christian apologists. It is genocidal religion calling for mass killings as carried out by the church during crusade wars. To conclude otherwise Will be no more than a folklore.”
Look at Jesus, not anyone who claims to be His follower. You don’t see Jesus saying or doing anything like you say…prove that wrong please, if you can (you can’t)
We see mohammad doing all of that, and worse, which is way we will never follow him.
I would very much like to be able to have more focused and productive discussions with you Ibrahim, but you either don’t want to, or are not willing to try.
Firing big chunks of text with no references at each other gets us nowhere.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“*Didn’t* see him say that. Since you offer no link to his post, i’m going to assume you just made it up.”
joanofark06 says
I don’t know if this has to do with what you were talking about, LeftisruiningCanada , …but I took this from someone awhile back, and I’m wondering if this would make sense to you:
Those of you who would try to say Muslim violence in the Koran is no different from the violence in Bible should study the Bible more carefully.
Every violent act in the Old testament where acted upon through and by (or will of) God and are stories of events that happened in that era and in a particular war or invasion. Those events are just that and never go on to say or imply anything about going on to kill and maim any other people after nor into the future for any reason including for not accepting the God of Israel.
There is no commandment anywhere in the Bible for ongoing killings and conquering of other lands and peoples into the future. In fact God especially commanded Abraham, Moses and Joshua to exterminate only particular peoples and races in that space of time and not just anyone or at anytime. (There are many exegetical reasons which I don’t have space to elaborate here ) As a matter of fact the Bible narrates that in other military campaigns, God’s people did not to wipe out many of their enemies.
In comparison the Koran commands that every infidel was to be pursued and killed in every place and at any time. The Koran did not discriminate the enemies of Allah, every man woman and child must be killed or maimed that will not accept Islam, the message of the Koran commanded an ongoing jihad of infidels into the future until today. If this wasn’t true then Muslims shouldn’t be killing infidels today, but they are.
The commandments of killing and maiming in the Koran are contemporary in nature. They are nowhere similar to description of killings in the stories of past events as was the case in the Bible. The Bible of the Crusade era was a closed book to most laymen and even more so to the people an evidence to the fact that the Bible was never the inspiration for “Christian” killings. Nevertheless, the “Christian” crusades freed many lands from an oppression of a worst kind….. Islam.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yes, thank you JOA, that’s a decent way of putting it.
The very weak comparison that some try to make between the OT and the koran in this way is just based on a very surface level understanding of the OT, for reasons well expressed in the quote you gave.
The expansion of islam however, is perfectly and precisely expressed in the koran and does not have an expiration date so far as unbelievers are concerned.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Joan and LeftisruiningCanada.
gravenimage says
More from Ibrahim itace muhammed:
Leftruinigcanada, are you or other Christian apologists more knowledgeable on the Bible than churchmen ? The church men arried out genocidal killings in the name of mithraist Christ, which they stated by themselves.
…………………………………….
I’d like to see Ibrahim itace muhammed cite even a single instance of Christians carrying out violence “in the name of mithraist Christ”. Of course, there is no such thing.
More:
They had been also maintaining sex Slaves and killings of apostates for centuries and those Biblical verses sanctioning them are still inside the covers of the Bible in your hands.
…………………………………….
Where is there any demand in the Bible that Christians kill apostates? Instead, this is what *Muslims* do. Talk about projection!
More:
Abolition of slavery and killings of apostates only occured when church was ousted from power in christiesdom and the biblical laws they had been replaced with man made secular laws.
…………………………………….
What rot. It is the Christian West that abolished slavery–Islam has never done so, and Ibrahim itace muhammed himself has affirmed that Muslims can enslave Infidels. Many of the most prominent Abolitionists were devout Christians.
It is Muslims who enslave people and murder apostates on the tenets of Islam.
More:
Even today there is constant reference to such verses of violence. Eg, one commentator at this site who called himself crusader said all muslims shall be nuked and obliterated from the surface of this earth by Christian West pursuant to Samuel 15:3.Also,when the evil united states invaded Iraq some unexploded cluster bombs were found bearing mithraist evîl biblical verses of genocide .
…………………………………….
Ibrahim itace muhammed has made this claim before–after falsely claiming for months that Christians and Jews regularly cite this passage.
I read most of the comments here, and have seen no such thing. Links, please. Of course, he will ignore this.
More:
Note:the différence between killings in Jihad fighting and genocide killings in the mithraist Bible. In the mithraist Bible is to kill those living, including infants, with exception of small girls Who did not expérience sex to be kept as slaves by crucifying their hands and legs before penetrating,
…………………………………….
More crap from the dishonest Ibrahim itace muhammed. Of course, there is no such Biblical passage telling Christians to crucify and rape women–but he goes on making this grotesque claim.
More:
while in the Quran as interpreted by prophet muhammad it is only combatants that can be killed or maimed to subdue them ,not non combatant civilian population . Even the combatants Will not be killed or maimed when they surrender or sought for truce as stated in the Quran :Fa in janahu lissilmi fajnah laha (when they incline for peace incline to it ) “.see Hamidullah’s work(In English)) “Islamic law of war and peace “,at a section on treaties and Truce.
…………………………………….
In other words, Infidels have to submit to Islam, or they will be slaughtered. Quitge an admission.
More:
so, Mr Leftruinigcanada, to say christianity is non-violent religion is just a myth and déceptions by Christian apologists. It is genocidal religion calling for mass killings as carried out by the church during crusade wars. To conclude otherwise Will be no more than a folklore.
…………………………………….
Not only is this claptrap about the Crusades–which were defensive wars–but note that for even this bogus example Ibrahim itace muhammed has to go back almost a millenium. Meanwhile, his pious coreligionists are mass murdering us today.
dapto says
Zhao is a Subversive and should be treated as such, the reason Robert and Pam have been banned from England is that this country is a Islamofascist country now. So much for freedom and fighting the Nazis this lot have let them in the front door.
Champ says
Well since you’re so “dangerous” Robert then this song is dedicated to you man …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9bOsdHckhg
Champ says
And it’s time to work on a new image Robert …yeah this looks “dangerous” woohoo!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyoIQhbLexI
gravenimage says
Hilarious, Champ! Thanks for the moment of levity. 🙂
Champ says
You’re welcome, Graven! 😀
Politicianophobia says
Robert Spencer is dangerous. Look at all the (half the value of a man), women he has following him, GI, Lydia, Stella, Sarah, Carol, the list goes on and on. We are like women who are attracted to men in prison, we are all insecure, we need some man to make our heart race, we can not think for ourselves. What will happen when muslim women start reading him and discover they are not as low on the human scale as they have been taught from day one. I say to you he is dangerous, I’m drawn like a month to a flame, or better still, Wild Thing, you make our hearts sing, you make everything groovy.
Politicianophobia says
moth to a flame– Love you Robert Spencer
J D S says
Universities are made up of faculty and students with administrative factions thrown in…..Universities are supposed to feature higher learning for students…among the students and faculty are strewn in leftist, liberals and uninformed all the same actually. That said…..then our universities need educating and Robert Spencer is the person that fits that mold. The problem ……these liberal leftist don’t want to be informed…Why? That goes back a few generations when these poor dear children’s parents failed them by not teaching them, “at home”, life’s Godly values and respect. so we now have this unruly bunch, both professors and students, running our houses of advanced learning and man are there plenty of advanced learners to go around. Can they be unlearned? It will take several universities filled with Rboert Spencers to even get a start….but we who have never caught the so called “advanced learning” bug or have been “unlearned”, must help the few Robert Spencers who are out there putting their “all” on the line to retrain fellows like these poor uninformed at Stanford.
gravenimage says
Politicianophobia, I just can’t turn down a bad boy like Robert Spencer! 🙂
Hogdude says
Jhao is a looney toon, for sure. We believe in anyone speaking, without inciting violence and death on the audience or the government. Otherwise, into prison.
LR says
As suggested above, I hope a lot of people do write the Stanford paper in response to this little, wimpy, commie boy.
As for me, I might make it quite brief…Maybe something like…
“Dear Mao, oops, or was that “Zhao”? Are you sure it’s not ‘Mao’? He didn’t like much intellectual inquiry either.
I guess I got lost, I thought I was on the U.S. side of the Pacific!?
A ‘Great Leap Backwards”, is all I can see.”
For any ‘youngins’ happening by, who just don’t know.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
LeftisruiningCanada says
They are aiming smaller these days:
https://eastisread.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/one-small-step-forward-a-big-step-for-civilization-61951.jpg
joanofark06 says
“he believes speakers like Robert Spencer should be banned from speaking on college campuses”
I think Zhao, should be banned from breathing!! I think he should convert to islam, and kill his mother, for birthing such an idiot! (ok, we’re getting a little out of hand. I should calm down now!)…Put on a suicide vest, and set it off, on the family reunion….ENOUGH already….!
Remember911 says
Robert, who cares. The camera loves you, you look much taller in pictures. Most Hollywood leading men aren’t any taller. There are people 6 ft. tall and taller who look dull and barely alive compared to you.