Stanford University is a prime example of the fascism that has taken hold on our nation’s campuses, and this piece is an excellent example of it. Student Eliane Mitchell argues for the forcible suppression of certain unwelcome ideas, a quintessentially fascist act, and their banning from being aired and discussed on campuses such as Stanford, on the basis of the spurious and wholly unsubstantiated claim that discussion of such ideas endangers groups of students: Charles Murray’s ideas supposed endanger “students of color,” and mine supposedly endanger Muslim students, and therefore we should be allowed no platform.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to investigate a place where unwelcome ideas really do place people in danger, she can talk to atheists in Tunisia, or Christians in Nigeria. Or she can talk to me; I was poisoned by one of her fellow Left-fascists last year in Iceland because he didn’t like my stand against jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression.
In the course of making her case, Mitchell says that I make “empirically unsubstantiated claims.” Her link on that phrase below goes to an earlier Stanford Daily hit piece on Murray, who can, of course, take care of himself. But the unsubstantiated nature of Mitchell’s claim that I make unsubstantiated claims recalls the uproar at Stanford when I actually answered the many hit pieces that the Daily published about me in advance of my appearance there last November; some people who are actually Stanford professors even accused me of “harassing” the student writers by answering their attacks point-by-point — a chilling illustration of how little free thought and free inquiry are valued today at Stanford.
Stanford University clearly has lost all idea of what a professor should be, and what a university should be. In reality, instead of being an indoctrination center for a certain set of ideas (labeled “diverse” but actually quite monochromatic), a university should be a place where, as Mitchell puts it, students are exposed “to a wide range of ideas” so as to “help them clarify their own views.” This is nothing to be afraid of; it’s actually the basis of becoming informed citizens of a free republic who can make their own choices and guide their own destinies. Professors should be facilitating and encouraging, not trying to block (as in the case of the drearily doctrinaire fascist Stanford prof David Palumbo-Liu) students’ exposure to ideas that may be unpopular or that they have not considered before.
And when students such as Eliane Mitchell make empirically unsubstantiated claims, professors should challenge them to provide evidence for them, and to formulate and present that evidence cogently in the face of intellectual challenge from others with differing views. So despite the fact that Stanford administrators and students made sure that I would be heard by as few students as possible when I was there, by engineering a walkout of the hall and then forbidding students who wanted to enter from coming in, I am hereby offering to take upon myself the task that Stanford’s President Marc Tessier-Levigne and Provost Persis Drell, as well as other Stanford administrators and faculty, are so abysmally failing to do: provide Stanford students an education.
I respectfully challenge Ms. Mitchell or anyone else at the Stanford Daily, or anyone else at Stanford at all, to substantiate her claim that I make “empirically unsubstantiated claims.” I will meet anyone of Stanford’s choosing in free and open debate to discuss these supposedly unsubstantiated claims. I will travel to Stanford at my own expense, and hire my own security against the student fascists there, for this debate.
I look forward to hearing from you, Stanford. But let’s just say I won’t be waiting by the phone.
“The (reckless) wind of freedom blows,” by Eliane Mitchell, Stanford Daily, March 6, 2018:
…Let me be clear before continuing on: I agree with the practical thrust of the sentiment that has defended Murray’s invitation (and those of speakers like him) to campus at its core – exposing students to a wide range of ideas at university might help them clarify their own views. But in the university’s insistence in maintaining this “ideal” – that is, a marketplace of ideas where all speakers are equally respected – it often forgets how coded this ideal has become.
This coding is exemplified in its asymmetrical impacts, whereby students of color (and Muslim students in the case of Robert Spencer’s appearance) shoulder the burden of opposing the empirically unsubstantiated claims that controversial speakers hold. Students take on that burden, while the university’s administrators remain complacent, confident that they have done their job. But as Professor David Palumbo-Liu so aptly put it at the protest, the students who attended the protest against Charles Murray paid an emotional tax to be there, in an effort to clear the gaslight and myths about race-determined cognitive capacities that he perpetuates. I highly doubt that Malcolm Gladwell’s appearance on campus, who too has been known to dole out contested research, would have inspired the same intellectual opposition, let alone as much fear….
elee says
I find that the Koran says what you say it says. As regards what Muslims do in obedience to same, I can’t verify what happens in Nigeria or Bangladesh. IMHO you should consult with legal counsel regarding possible action for defamation. If Stanford University wants to call you a liar, they should be required to prove it. Islam tends to fare poorly in courts that require, and examine, reliable evidence. We aren’t Pakistan or Egypt yet…..
CRUSADER says
Stanford took in Sayyid Qutb …..after all….
J D S says
Well what can I say…this is super liberal stanford with a little “s” Parents would be well advised to withdraw their children from such a place……God only knows how they will turn out.
mortimer says
Agree with elee: “the Koran says what (Robert Spencer) says”.
In fact, if you are a Westerner with NO or very little knowledge of Islam, ROBERT SPENCER is the BEST GUIDE to the subject of what Islam TRULY TEACHES as a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
CRUSADER says
Dr Bill Warner has much to contribute on the matter of Political Islam, which means more to Non-Muslims as it affects Non-Muslims the most.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO ELEE — I found Robert Spencer’s superb resource (www [dot] jihadwatch [dot] org) in 2010.
If YOU have recently discovered Jihad Watch, let me suggest these other excellent websites & blogs: www [dot] inquiryintoislam [dot] com / www [dot] barenakedislam [dot] com / www [dot] pamelageller [dot] com / www [dot] politicalislam [dot] com / www [dot] citizenwarrior [dot] com.
Every week, in my comments here, I post those truther facts — facts for newbies just learning about Islam’s pathology of control and slaughter.
For anyone who wants a COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION to understand Muhammad’s compulsion, go to Dr. David Wood’s video [3 part long] “The Psychology Of Islam”. When you have an hour to watch it without distraction.
CRUSADER says
Citizen Warrior is epic.
And, by the way, CounterJihadReport is up and running again….
There is so much TRUTH out there!
Just have to stumble upon it….
Or actively seek it out!
J D S says
We shouldn’t have to stumble upon information about the wilds of islam…Our officials should be at every turn trying to get the word out to the citizenry…..COWARDS PURE COWARDS!
jule says
I think it is important that someone stand up to people publically and even in court regarding Islam, though it might be expensive. Its just too important to the future that people find out what Islam can and is doing without messy rallys or protests. But the Education has to get out.
Emilie Green says
“I look forward to hearing from you, Stanford. But let’s just say I won’t be waiting by the phone.”
When the phone don’t [sic] ring, you’ll know it’s Stanford.
mortimer says
Emilie, the only thing that will restore Stanford U to sanity is if major contributors withhold their funding and tell the university’s BOARD OF GOVERNORS that they MUST adopt rules of ACADEMIC FREEDOM and ENFORCE THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION enshrined in the US CONSTITUTION.
JawsV says
Whoever thought Stanford students could be so dumb?
CRUSADER says
Apparently it snows over Stanford campus these days during Winter Quarter,
which would account for so many snowflake students who are emotionally vulnerable….
even as their minds melt easily from any pressure put upon them to THINK!!!!
Jayell says
What ‘minds’?
CRUSADER says
Well, that had to GET INTO Stanford….
…..after that….it’s just a piece of cake-walk….
Westman says
I can be assured that Eliane Mitchell has never read, “The Bell Curve” and “War and Peace”. Both would bring brain-numbing and tears to one’s eyes.
I did read, “The Bell Curve” and it is very empirical. However, real scientists and engineers have a very different, concise, meaning for the word empirical than the pseudo social sciences.
The true sciences are everything the “human” and social sciences are not and it scares people like junior Eliane Mitchell and her professors that the real scientists are not out demonstrating with them.
Liberals reject the findings that don’t agree with their current narrative yet do it without evidence – effectively claiming an equality of the median value for IQ Bell Curves for all races and declaring there is no genetic basis for race while calling other people racists for identifying races and jauntily checking off their race on application forms. Are they inconsistent and confused enough?
University students are the wrong population to determine questions of race IQ differences because none of them represent an average of their race – they are all exceptional and intend to be among the future elite.
Frankly the answer of Genetics vs Nurture effects on IQ are not precisely known. Liberals can only present current attitudes as evidence, while Charles Murray offers statistics.
The field of Genetics will eventually determine the real basis of IQ unless the field is shut down by those who fear the truth about themselves.
For young liberals like Eliane Mitchell, a philosophy student, there is a severe “emotional tax” coming in their lifetime. Let’s hope government doesn’t determine their future when the genetic dianostic tools become available.
To tie Robert Spencer into an article opposing Murray was a ridiculous stretch intended to undermine Spencer’s solid, evidence backed, claims about Islamic Jihad – a completely different area of interest.
StellaSaidSo says
Excellent post, Westman.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO AGAIN SSS — ALSO TO WESTMAN, CRUSADER, JAWSV, and every other Jihad Watch poster who is commenting about the Stanford University snowflake cowards:
Those of us with just 5 minutes to explain why not every Muslim is a terrorist (for our clueless family and friends) watch David Wood’s video “Three Questions For Moderate Muslims”.
.
CRUSADER says
Hoover Institution worthy, there, Westman!
jihad3tracker says
PLEASE, EVERYONE — Go to that link given above, and POST A COMMENT AT THE END OF HER PIECE. I set up a Disqus account for that purpose — it is easy to do so.
And, remarkably, Stanford Daily actually will post your remarks, even if what you write really nails truth about Islam and the jihad imperative. Just avoid the usual traps of insult and profanity, of course.
For those of us with only a few minutes, include a hotlink to Robert’s post above, and maybe a few verses from Sura 9, the 2nd to last Qur’an chapter CHRONOLOGICALLY, thus canceling prior ones that were benign toward non-Muslims.
Terry Gain says
Done.
jan sobieski says
Thjose Stanford students must like holes; they just keep digging and digging them.
mortimer says
IDEAS can only be refuted by IDEAS, rather than by CENSORSHIP.
Ray Jarman says
Dr. Thomas Sowell is probably the last professor with any degree of integrity left at Stanford. The thing that I continue to praise Mr. Spencer is that he never makes a statement that he has not backed up with documented evidence such as the qu’ran, hadith or surah when I am talking to friends about his books and here at JW.
CRUSADER says
Do NOT forget the esteemed VICTOR DAVIS HANSON !!!
CRUSADER says
True to its school motto: STANFORD BLOWS !
Leland and Jane Stanford would be steaming mad about what’s happened to the institution they began.
Ashley says
If I recall correctly, Stanford set up a “safe place” for students who were uncomfortable with Robert’s presence on their esteemed campus. Dominos pizza, the ultimate comfort food, was to be served to these frightened children during Robert’s speaking engagement.
I just now stumbled upon this gem. I had a buddy who worked at Dominos back in the early 1980’s. She said the pizza oven workers would routinely spit on the pizza dough for laughs and giggles. The delivery drivers did far worse things to the pizza for the regular non-tippers.
http://www.khou.com/article/news/local/dominos-delivering-apology-after-calling-customer-lady-with-muslim-husband/285-526057126
I highly doubt Dominos honored the “clean cut” request…
CRUSADER says
FAIL, STANFORD FAIL!
New lyrics to the traditional Stanford “Fight” song…
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwUjCWk85DI )
===============
“Fail, Stanford, Fail”
Where the rolling libel rises,
Up t’wards shit-heaps higher,
Where at eve the caustic “Daily” lies,
In the slander pyre,
Flushing deep and paling;
Here we sink our voices failing,
REFRAIN:
From the stumbling to the bray
We shall trip,
As we slip;
It shall stink and float away;
Fail, Stanford, Fail!
Fail, Stanford, Fail!
Pretentious viewpoints ever grew
Thru’ the darkness meet the lies,
Where the red roofs ream the true,
Of the crap-steeped cries,
Fleck’d with falseness flailing,
Hear our dumb voices tailing,
Thee, our Allah Vader.
REFRAIN:
When the doomlight-bathed farce-ade
Stalls in uneven qualms,
When the dank wind so afraid
Whispers in doldrums,
Far off baneful cursing,
Student voices rehearsing
Thee, our Allah Vader.
Fail, Stanford, Fail!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CRUSADER says
…..really, more like a FLIGHT song…..as in: flee from truth….
jihad3tracker says
WELL DONE, CRUSADER ! ! ! I look forward to some of your modifications of classic Limericks, in “honor” of the most deeply-left totalitarian campus swamps.
CRUSADER says
Thank you. If you know the song, and you know the campus, it makes a lot of sense.
mortimer says
Students such as Eliane Mitchell, who make a BOLD CLAIM, have the BURDEN OF PROOF. Otherwise, her (and their) claims are nothing but SLANDER and RUBBISH.
THEY HAVE THE DUTY TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM(S) by finding ONLY ONE unsubstantiated conclusion in ALL of Robert Spencer’s 17 books. (Or is it 18 books now?) THEY MUST PROVE THEIR CLAIM OR BE CALLED ‘LIGHT-WEIGHT’ or SLANDEROUS with some justice.
Stanford University clearly has LOST its way and become an INTOLERANT MOUTHPIECE of neo-Marxist PROPAGANDA.
I have read Robert Spencer’s books and have read the SIRA, HADITHS and KORAN and know that his conclusions are METICULOUSLY PROVED by the ISLAMIC PRIMARY SOURCES.
Moreover, MOST of the conclusions of Robert Spencer are actually quotes from the conclusions of the TRUE GREATS of modern ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP: Patricia Crone, Wansborough, Luling, Angelika Neuwirth, Von Bothmer, Puin, Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq, Tom Holland, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, and Andrew Rippin.
Anyone who knows the PRIMARY Islamic SOURCE TEXTS and has read some of the above AUTHORS will realize IMMEDIATELY that Robert Spencer’s books are all RIGHT ON TARGET and FAITHFULLY describe the LETTER as well as the SPIRIT of CLASSICAL ISLAM.
They CANNOT FIND a scholar who can find fault with ROBERT SPENCER’S BOOKS, because they are so CAREFULLY and ACCURATELY CONSTRUCTED.
Stanford University should start caring about FACTS, REASON and PROPER ACADEMIC STANDARDS and should JETTISON MARXIST IDEOLOGUES who demand to be shown deference BECAUSE OF THEIR FANCY TITLES alone, rather than because of rigorous scholarship of their work.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO AGAIN MORTIMER — Every time I read remarks by you, my knowledge about Islam grows deeper and wider.
If Robert ever chooses “FIVE PILLARS OF JIHAD TRUTH” by our treasured commenters here, yours would certainly be a the apex.
CRUSADER says
TRUE GREATS of modern ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP: Patricia Crone, Wansborough, Luling, Angelika Neuwirth, Von Bothmer, Puin, Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq, Tom Holland, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, and Andrew Rippin.
==========================================
I’m surprised not to see Karen Armstrong in that list….
Well …I’m happy not to find her name in that list, that is.
Voytek Gagalka says
“…empirically unsubstantiated claims.” Whatever that means, it proves only that Stanford students have no idea what word “empirical” stands for. “Unsubstantiated claims” would mean a negative. If logic would be still thought at Stanford, they should know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove negative. Onus of asserting that opponent makes “unsubstantiated claims” is on the one who makes assertion, NOT on the opponent. Where is the PROOF, you Stanford imbeciles? BTW, I would not be surprised if some Stanford’s math professor would develop soon “The Specific Theory of Robert Spencer Unsubstantiated Claims” using all high and sophisticated (but unsubstantiated) math of Topological Hyper-space logic, with Cauchy stress tensors and notwithstanding Riemann curvature tensor to prove beyond any reasonable doubt of irrationality that they are right. And, perhaps, they will receive future Nobel Prize for that, too. Except that no one else would hell understand that it all means. Perhaps that would justify existence of such utterly corrupted and rotten institution as the Stanford University. At least in their own eyes.
mortimer says
The University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression (Chicago Principles) describe what should be the demarcation between permitted and prohibited speech on campus in the following manner:
“The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. … But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas. In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.”
CRUSADER says
“The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America” – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S04kUKRlS6k
The Third Jihad, explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown …
CLARION PROJECT documentary film
Wellington says
Stanford University has become a laughing stock, as have so many other American universities, in the eyes of those who still think that things like facts and freedom matter.
I for one make no contributions to my alma mater (The Pennsylvania State University) because its President, Eric Barron, is a fool who joined with students some two years ago on the steps of Old Main (the most iconic building at Penn State) putting his hands up along with the students to show “solidarity” with these students because Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO fame, who was a thug, never had his hands up, tried to take Officer Wilson’s gun away from him shortly after robbing a convenience store and was thankfully killed by Officer Wilson (who, btw, was exonerated of all potential charges by a mixed-race grand jury) became an icon of that great false narrative, i.e., that the real problem in the black communities of America are the police. No, they are not. The real problems in the black communities of America are such self-induced things as massive out-of wedlock birth, absent fathers, young black men killing other young black men in droves, a victim-oriented mentality (much as Muslims possess), too much dependence on the federal government, et al. In 2016, almost 8,000 black Americans were killed, less than 3% of that figure being by the police and the police in America, per FBI statistics, over the last decade are 18 times more likely to be killed by a black male civilian than the other way around.
Moreover, the head of Penn State, Eric Barron, wrote a letter to President Trump protesting his very temporary ban of people coming from a mere seven Muslim nations (N.B., there are 56 Muslim nations). My alma mater has also instituted all kinds of majors masquerading as real majors (N.B., virtually all “Studies” majors like Women’s Studies, Black Studies, Gay Studies, Latin American Studies, African Studies, et al. are as phony as a three dollar bill because they invariably seek victims and perpetrators (at the top of the list, white males). They’re phony majors, not real majors.
So, no surprise Stanford did what it did. No surprise at all. And a very good reason why any conservative graduate of Stanford should not contribute a dime to said university. Rather like me with Penn State.
CRUSADER says
Thinking no longer is encouraged on college campuses.
Terry Gain says
If your priority is protecting America from Islam, a complete Muslim ban is completely justified. And, in my opinion, necessary.
Norger says
“This coding is exemplified in its asymmetrical impacts, whereby students of color (and Muslim students in the case of Robert Spencer’s appearance) shoulder the burden of opposing the empirically unsubstantiated claims.”
Now that’s rich. If Robert Spencer’s claims about Islam were “empirically unsubstantiated” it should have been an absolute piece of cake for someone, anyone at one of the most prestigious schools in the country to engage with him in debate, or at least discussion, and prove him a liar. Not one single person at Stanford, Muslim or non-Muslim, “asymmetrical” or not, was capable of identifying or exposing a single Spencer’s alleged empirical falsehoods. Instead, Stanford’s courageous students chose to prevent anyone from hearing what Spencer had to say. I express no opinion on Charles Murray, but Stanford’s response to Robert Spencer was a particularly cowardly example of politically correct fascism at work.
I suspect that Ms. Mitchell is intentionally conflating “empirical falsehoods” she attributes to Charles Murray with her unfounded opinions of Robert Spencer (“he must be wrong”). In any event Ms. Mitchell, I am calling 100% pure unadulterated BS on this. How about providing a single example of an “empirical falsehood” attributable to Robert Spencer?
Timothy says
The only endangering of students that takes place is when the fascist students are out there suppressing the honest students. That’s mental as well as physical suppression.
James says
Don’t you all think it’s odd that Mr. Spencer has nothing better in his life to do than complain about college students? For such a “great scholar,” he really just whines. I expected him to be more like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but instead he’s just a whiny child. Well, I guess we can’t all be decent human beings like her who actually change the world.
James says
Hm, now I’m also concerned that my comment has been “awaiting moderation” for hours, while others have been posted quite quickly. Is Mr. Spencer not allowing dissenting speech? That’s awfully leftist and fascist of him. I expected more when I was recommended to check him out. I was told he was similar to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other intellectual critics of Islam, but instead he’s just a charlatan who doesn’t allow dissenting speech. Shame on you, Mr. Spencer.
Robert Spencer says
Sorry to disappoint you, but the moderation feature is automated. No one was holding your comment back.
HugoHackenbush says
Tried to post the following on the Daily Stanford site and was marked as spam. This happened on that site with 3 other totally reasonable statements:
I suggest Ms. Mitchell that you go directly to source material and not rely on what anyone else has to say about the work of Herrnstein and Murray and of Mr. Spencer. Read “The Bell Curve” for yourself. Read the Koran, Hadith and Sira (biography of Mr. you-know-who) for yourself and judge for yourSELF. If you wish to cut-to-chase regarding Islam then simply consult “Reliance Of The Traveller” (sic) and see how the Koran, Hadith and Sira have been distilled down by Islamic scholars into what should be actual Islamic practice (Sharia law). After that then please update us as to your opinion regarding Herrnstein, Murray and Spencer.
CRUSADER says
Ha! Good one!!!
Touche’ !
CRUSADER says
Golly, James. Why the vitriol?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would demonstrate far more class and dignity than you have toward our esteemed Mr Spencer.
Perhaps you have not been following the antics of Stanford — deemed a world class academic institution — and the clamp down on speech per Mr Spencer on said campus?
It is imperative to take Stanford to task, in many ways.
Let the winds of Spencerism blow freely.
sidney penny says
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia
Every College should watch the last ten minutes of this video.Fast forward to the questions and snswers
Lydia Church says
It is these centers for higher academic learning that are exterminating all intellectualism, logic, critical thinking, debate and discussion, analysis, dissent, freedom of thought and speech, reason, the scientific method and the democratic process!
They just want to download all their propaganda, indoctrination, and brainwashing that helps to make you into the robot that will help carry out their agenda, and follow their orders without questioning them.
6woods says
People like Eliane Mitchell use the word ‘code’ or ‘coded, as per her article, as its own sort of code: i.e that which they term to be ‘coded’ speech is just speech with which they disagree.
By contrast, there is nothing ‘coded’ in the Koran, the Hadith, or the Sura: these
are unequivocal in that women are on the same plane as dogs and donkeys – the presence of any one of these 3 nullifies a muslim man’s prayer. That is not just a seventh century edict. Muslims are to observe this to this day.
The islamic cannon is unequivocal in that a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man. It is unequivocal in that a woman must have 4 male witnesses to prove rape. If she doesn’t, she can be stoned to death for having admitted to sex (zina) outside of marriage. This is not just a seventh century edict. This is sharia law, valid until “the last day”.
It is unequivocal, as per the Islamic cannon, that the “last day” shall not come until the trees and rocks cry out “There is a Jew behind me, O muslim. Come and kill him”. It is unequivocal that muhammad said “I have been made victorious through terror”.
It is unequivocal as per the cannon that non-muslims should not be taken as friends by muslims. It is unequivocal that muslims can lie to non-muslims if it furthers the cause of islam.
It is unequivocal, to this day, that muslims can take “what their right hand possesses” (i.e non-muslim women or children) as sex slaves.
The koran is the word of allah and is to be followed by muslims for all time. Muhammad is the insan-al-kamil (the best of all men) and not to be questioned. His example, replete with violence – raping, burning, looting, stoning, cutting, slicing – is to be followed by muslims for all time.
People like Eliane Mitchell have not come close to reading any of the source islamic texts, and are not interested in doing so, but love to virtue signal. They’re looking out for “the underdog”, after all.
Eliane, if you’re reading this (I doubt it – she’s not intellectually honest or curious enough), do you know that women in Iran are fighting to be free from the forced wearing of hijab? Do you know that many of them are now in brutal Evin Prison, raped, tortured, murdered? Do you know that muslims who want to leave the religion are often murdered, or have to go into hiding? Muhammad said “Whoever changes his islamic religion, then kill him”. That’s not just a seventh century edict – that holds true for all time. It’s happening today, Eliane.
Eliane, read about what’s happening in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the majority of European countries, etc., etc. thanks to “the religion of peace”. I know you won’t.
A very cursory search will show that muslims, to this day, are enacting mohammed’s perfect example. But people like you don’t care. You’ve got your fingers in your ears singing “La la la – I can’t hear you”.
Eliane, did you know that allah commanded that molten lead be poured into the ears of musicians, and that’s why most muslims can’t/won’t listen to music? Did you know that mohammed hated dogs and that pet dogs to this day are confiscated and killed in Iran? That muslims even in the West go out of their way to run down dogs? That muslims in the West routinely commit vehicular jihad not just of dogs, but of infidel men, women, children? Of babies in strollers? That’s as per mohammed: “Kill them wherever you find them”.
2 billion muslims believe all this, Eliane. 2 billion. We see atrocities every day, across the world, carried out in the name of this ‘religion’.
Those of us whose eyes are open see it. You, Eliane, won’t see it.
CRUSADER says
It may be that her eyes have lead over them, poured over from the overflow of lead in her ears.
Joe says
Eliane Mitchell there is no thing called an “emotional tax”. I know it sounds hard, but trust me, you can control you emotions. You, my dear, are experiencing immaturity (not tax).
AP says
Elaine Mitchell, What a joke.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
All Mr Spencer’s analyses are bellow intellectual standard obtainable in the university. I contacted one fellow in one of American universities how can he assess Mr Spencer’s criticisms against islam,he said It is rubbish not even thought-provoking
Norger says
You sir have made a “conclusory” statement; i.e. a statement of your ultimate conclusion without any support. Contrary to your assertion, Spencer supports virtually every statement he makes about Islam with citations to authoritative Islamic sources. If his assertions about Islam were “rubbish,” then someone from Stanford, one of the most prestigious universities in the US, should have been able to engage with Spencer and prove him wrong. They didn’t and they can’t. The intellectual elites at Stanford will not allow an intellectually honest examination of Islamic theology, period
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Norger, we are talking about intellectual analysis not mère citation. Anyone could cite references without knowing what they connote for him to apply them to reach a conclusion. Mr Spencer makes references to Islamic books without standard knowledge about them, which is rubbish.
CogitoErgoSum says
So can you provide some examples of criticisms of Islam that ARE thought provoking and NOT considered rubbish, Ibrahim? Oh wait, I guess I should ask this first: Is a person allowed to criticize Islam?
CRUSADER says
Mr Irritates can’t have read any of Mr Spencer’s 17 (or is it 18 now?) books of extraordinary hard work full of distinct scholarship.
Matthieu Baudin says
They want to live – they want everyone to live – in a reality bubble – a bubble whose membrane is determined by a political elite – a trendy postmodern priesthood that views the attitudes of the general population with something approaching absolute contempt. Thankyou Foucault, thankyou Derrida for this retreat into darkness.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
jay Boo, ï don’t want disclose the identity of that fellow scholar for you to inform zionist death squad (Isis/mossAD)to eliminate him. wicked intellectual cowards !!
CRUSADER says
Ah ha.
How convenient.
Infidel says
POISON IVY LEAGUES..
Infidel says
MUST WATCH VIDEO… THE LOGIC OF ISLAM BY CARL GOLDBERG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94L8o44_94
CRUSADER says
It’s it is a worthy video to view and its contents to ingest.
CRUSADER says
Solid point!
L’chaim!!!
Long live Israel, the Holy Land.
+++++++++
DEUS VULT
+++++++++
Linnte says
Mr. Spencer, your “claims” aren’t claims, they’re fact, and substantiated to hell and back.
God bless you Sir!