In this new video, I discuss Peter Beinart’s attacks on NSA chief of staff Fred Fleitz, and on other opponents of Sharia. Beinart shows no understanding of what Sharia really is.
Comments
RichardLsays
another excellent video. I hope they are widely disseminated. Prager U would be a great outlet.
Stevesays
Another thought might be that this leftist doesn’t really care if Sharia ideology is antithetical to the constitution, or even western culture, since so many leftists want to rip up the constitution, themselves, and start over in their socialist utopia.
Kilfinceltsays
Exactly! Beinart is a good example of “you can’t fix stupid”. On the other hand, Fred Fleitz is a great example of someone who actually knows what is going on with Islam and wants to protect our Constitution as well as our way of life.
mortimersays
Beinart has not read the Koran, Sira, hadiths, manuals of Sharia law or the canonical commentaries, and yet, preposterously, he presents himself as a SPONTANEOUS EXPERT on Islam and Sharia.
Beinart is a SPONTANEOUS FRAUD and know-nothing.
imwithstoopidsays
He doesn’t have to.since he will show you all of his tolerant, moderate, Muslim friends.
And they told him all the truths he needs.
God save us from all of these merciful know-it-alls before their “friends” kill us.
gravenimagesays
True, Jay Boo.
Robert_ksays
Peter Beinart is a useful idiot Jew, who favors boycotting Jews who live in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). He says that American Jewish youth support Israel less because of Netanyahu, but is clueless about the systemic causes: assimilation, and Jewish illiteracy, and lack of a Jewish identity. He, himself, veers towards the BDS movement which puts him in the same camp as the Islamists. At least they know Palestine is a religious struggle but Beinart has an idiots understanding of religion. CNN is his proper home.
Muhammed Jacobsays
PETER BEINART IS JEWISH
Beinart was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, in 1971. His parents were Jewish immigrants from South Africa (his maternal grandfather was from Russia, and his maternal grandmother, who was Sephardic, was from Egypt).[2][3][4] His father’s parents were from Lithuania.[5] His mother, Doreen (née Pienaar), is former director of the Harvard’s Human Rights film series at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and his father, Julian Beinart, is a former professor of architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1] His stepfather is theatre critic and playwright Robert Brustein.[6] Beinart attended Buckingham Browne and Nichols School in Cambridge. He then studied history and political science at Yale University, where he was a member of the Yale Political Union, and graduated in 1993. He was a Rhodes Scholar at University College, Oxford University, where he earned an M.Phil. in international relations in 1995.[7]
References
^ :a b “Weddings and Celebrations; Diana Hartstein, Peter Beinart”. The New York Times. October 26, 2003. Retrieved March 29,2012.
^ a b c Allison Hoffman (March 22, 2012). “Lightning Rod”. Tablet Magazine. Retrieved March 24, 2012.
“Rebecca Goldberg, the Northeast Regional Director USD/Hagshama (University Student Division) of the World Zionist Organization,”. http://www.angelfire.com.
Beinart, Peter (28 March 2012). “Rethinking Zionism”.
Beinart, Peter (December 16, 2016). “The Day My Father Lost His Country”. The Atlantic. Retrieved December 17, 2016.
“Weddings and Celebrations; Jean Beinart and Craig Stern”. The New York Times. June 12, 2005. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
^ “Peter Beinart profile”. The New America Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
THE JEWISH RABBI WHO CREATED ISLAM
JEWISHENCYCLOPEDIA
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
SCHWARZ, JOSEPH:
Palestinian geographer; born at Flosz, Bavaria, Oct. 22, 1804; died at Jerusalem Feb. 5, 1865. When he was seventeen years old he graduated as teacher from the Königliches Schullehrerseminar of Colberg, after which he joined his brother Israel at the University of Würzburg, where for five years he devoted himself to the history and geography of the Holy Land, and published a map of Palestine (1829; republished at Vienna, 1831, and Triest, 1832). It was his ardent desire, however, to study in Palestine itself the physical history and geography of the Holy Land, where his knowledge of Talmudic sources and early Jewish writers would be of more service. Accordingly he decided to settle in Jerusalem, whither he went in 1833. Schwarz then began a series of journeys and explorations in various parts of Palestine, to which he devoted about fifteen years.
The results of his investigations and researches into the history, geography, geology, fauna, and flora of that country have placed him in the front rank of Palestinian explorers and geographers. HE IS THE GREATEST JEWISH AUTHORITY ON PALESTINIAN MATTERS SINCE ESTORI FARHI (1282-1357), the author of “Kaftor wa-Feraḥ.”
(Be sure to Google this article:
HISTORY OF PALESTINE
614-1096 C.E.
From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.
By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850
Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, aka Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik. Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph, and was in fact son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, who perceiving a dreadful predicament, sent Rabbi Shallum to Mahomed, and told him to offer his submission, friendship, and services, and endeavour to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted Rabbi Shallum’s proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, Aisha, a handsome young child, for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally:
The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword — Daat Emet
For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men’” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
“The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
Gentiles are likened to animals.
If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
Their members (genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:
“It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,
“Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:
“And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
Wellingtonsays
Seconding Jay Boo, you will make no headway here at JW if you continue as you have. Forget the spamming and the lazy references. Argue in YOUR OWN WORDS what you really think. I’m bettin’ there is actually not much thinking at all going on in your mind, which so far, based on what you have posted, is indeed indicative of not much of a mind at all.
Prove me wrong. IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Do it.
gravenimagesays
What an absolute load of tripe. No, Islam was not created by a Jew, and Abu Bakr was Arab, not Jewish.
Jay Boo and Wellington are right–more and more, it seems that “Muhammed Jacob” is not here because he opposes Jihad–in fact, he has said almost nothing critical of it–but just to spam calumny against the Jews. *Ugh*.
imwithstoopidsays
Whether one believes this or not is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the fact that there was a change in the tenants of Islam between the Medina and Mecca and the hatred of Jews by Islam.
What is also relevant is there are so many similarities between the tenants of and affectations of Islamic and Jewish beliefs this can’t be denied.
What is printed/stated above does represent the underlying tenants of the Jewish beliefs, but also as stated it is no longer what is followed by the majority. The same holds true of the different sects of the Protestant faiths of Christianity. Catholicism still holds true to their faith, that is until the 2nd Ecumenical Council when all was put up for grabs.
The big difference between Isla and the (most) Jews (and Christians) is that the latter grew up.
GPsays
Mr Spencer…..I am enjoying receiving your emails and absolutely agree with your work and research. They confirm what I already have studied and observed over the years.
This is why I am disappointed that my Adguard program keeps trying to block your website when I click on links to your articles.
I have written to Adguard twice this week about this error, but it keeps on happening.
Their pop-up warning states that your site is ‘dangerous’ or is a ‘phishing’ site …… and they issue a strong warning to not proceed…….see a screenshot of the latest warning below.
I know this is not true, but they seem to be not listening, or perhaps they are influenced by lists of sites they have procured from some of the usual censorship giants (such as google, twitter, facebook etc).
Anyway this is my latest correspondence to them……
“Adguard. Why are you blocking Jihad Watch? See screenshot below…. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2fc8f8c51a7049830f32e4702af96c25fb61add0032902f519d702fa1d76657b.png
This site is NOT dangerous and is NOT a phishing website.
The owner of the site is a respected author and journalist who lectures on the history and present day realities of Islamic Jihad and Sharia and the consequences of this on Western societies.
Is this site blocked because of political or social censorship?
I want answers and I want to be able to access this author without your pop up giving a false warning.
This is the second time this week I have asked for this to be attended to.
Please sort this problem out as it feels like unfair and unethical censorship to me.”
Terry Gainsays
Good for you. My guess would be that Adblock is run by the same kind of Leftist Fascists as run Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Disqus.
The implication from Spencer’s excellent video is that there are huge gaps in Beinart’s knowledge of Islam and Sharia or perhaps he’s a self-hating Jew.
imwithstoopidsays
I don’t seem to have that problem with AdBlock +, have you set it to allow this site?
GPsays
Hi ‘imwithstoopid’ This was Adguard……and yes I checked my settings, cache etc.
They seem to have sorted the problem out now…..or maybe it was something else??
It is interesting, however, that it ONLY happened with Pamela Geller’s site and sites that Robert Spencer features in.
I can’t be sure what was happening, but at least by sending correspondence to them, they will be more aware of the concerns of ALL their customers (not just their left-leaning ones LOL).
By the way I’m loving the more intelligent banter and debate that goes on here…..keep it coming people.
gravenimagesays
+1
Walter Sieruksays
What Peter Beinart says such pro-Sharia law statements he is just exposing his own ignorance about the harshness and oppression of freedoms under yolk of the tyrannical Islamic rule of Sharia .
Furthermore, the message needs sent to all ignorant Americans as Peter Beinart as well as to all the Muslims who live in the United States of America who dislike and maybe even despise the US Constitution and would like to replace it with Sharia law. Those same Muslims instead in trying to force Sharia law on American citizens and their nation those are free to leave and really should leave the USA and then go to live in either Shii ‘ite, Iran or Sunni , Saudi Arabia if they actually feel the Sharia law is the grand, great and wonderful .
Moreover, all this is a strong reminder of the wise words declared by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech. “There can be no fifty –fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only one hundred percent Americanism , only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”
CogitoErgoSumsays
I have no problem with a religion having certain laws if those laws apply only to the members of that particular religion. For example, a religious law that a person attend Mass every Sunday or not eat meat on Fridays during Lent would apply only to Roman Catholics. Protestants, Jews, Muslims or others outside the Catholic faith would not be expected to comply. The problem with Sharia is that Christians, Jews and others outside the Islamic faith would have to comply with Islamic law. No way in hell am I going to support something like that. I would eventually end up being either dead, a Muslim or a dhimmi paying the jizya to a religion which is intent on making my life miserable. If Beinart says that is not the goal of Islam then he’s either a liar or an idiot (maybe both).
The law of Islam is taken from the Quran and the Quran is eternal (so Muslims believe). For Muslims Allah’s laws do not change over time (now that Muhammad is gone). The history of Islam in the past will reveal to you the course that Islam will tend to take in the future. Study the Quran and history, Mr. Beinart, and prepare for a life of misery for yourself and your children if you support Sharia.
The arrogance plus ignorance among parts of the left is hard to bear.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)says
Damn Peter Beinart as much as you want, but the final judgment of whether he will go to Jannah or Gehenna will be made on the Last Day by Allah (swt). On one side of the balance, Peter Beinart is a Jew (yuck!), but this will be weighed against his good deeds, including the fact that Donald Trump got his winning slogan from the subtitle of Beinart’s book “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”; see https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/741347.The_Good_Fight
KJWsays
The review of Beinhart’s 2006 book you linked to makes it sound like he’s a bit clueless and it’s scattershot or as the reviewer puts it, mish-mashy. A significant problem with the book is that it’s supposed to be about terrorism and doesn’t even talk about oil and Israel. Modern-day terrorism ramped up in the 1960s and 70s. The whole world with TVs was watching the 1972 Olympics…Mark Spitz breaking a record in Golds and the PLO murdering Israeli wrestling team members. It ramped up more in the 1980s when the beginnings of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah formed. Beinart thinks terrorism comes from poverty which is nonsense, especially with Osama bin Laden from a wealthy construction business family and his over 20 children.
He is also no expert on Islam nor knows Arabic yet his theme in the book is that liberals need to get tougher about totalitarianism. He seems to equate fanatical Islam with totalitarianism when applied sharia is totalitarian and not fanatical. Does he not know anything about Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Brunei and what people have been arrested for? Sharia law isn’t benign if you’re being thrown in jail for premarital sex (UAE) or a $5,000 fine and jail time if Muslims are caught celebrating Christmas-lights on trees? (Brunei) The ulama in Saudi Arabia was against playing chess because of Islamic text. Harsh gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. Slavery is permitted per the sharia including those captured in war or Jews and Christians who don’t pay the jizya can be slaves. An eye for an eye pinishment; in 2003 in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under ‘the law of retaliation’, a girl’s mouth was sewn up, both Iran and Pakistan blinded men who had thrown acid in women’s faces. (Some westerners might be OK with that one.) Saudi Arabia follows Quran 5:33.
Execution of homosexuals: in 1998 the Taliban followed the Quran and Hadith which is sharia and pushed a wall over 3 men convicted of sodomy. That and burning them is sharia. Saudi Arabia was kind in 2005 when more than 100 men went to prison and got flogging for “gay conduct.” Unmarried fornicaters to be whipped Quran 24:2, adulterers atoned though UAE just imprisoned them. Dubai is a playground for foreigners, not the rest of the country.
Even a Muslim deserves death for denying any verse of the Quran or anything by scholarly consensus, being sarcastic about Allah or Muhammad, and even “denying that Allah intended the Prophet’s message…to be the religion followed by the entire world.”
Ironic, while Palestinians have complained about Israel burning olive trees (which was retaliation) that’s a sharia rule of war…”Civilian fruit trees may be burned.” Another rule is that enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. Talk about coercion!
So much more. Al-Azhar University and some Islamic schools in Britain, even, keep teaching this. Muhammad and his fellow pirates got rich. Was it poverty that caused them to start their raids? Why didn’t they just make an honest living trading of farming? Avarice, ego, low self-esteem, wanting to be like past kings and subjugate all to one’s own ideas. If poverty were a significant cause there would be untold more violence and terrorism. Plenty of terrorists have gone to college and had jobs.
imwithstoopidsays
Wrong about Dubai, they have incarcerated women who simply gave a peck on the cheek of a man going away. One was raped in her room (she worked for an American hotel) she filed a complaint and was convicted of adultery and was put away for some time, and no help from anyone despite pleas from her family.
Most of that city was built on the backs of imported labor at wages a penny above slave labor, that is when they were paid. Let’s not talk about their lower than slums living quarters.
They still basically kidnap and use poor women imported household help (24 hour days) and have killed them.
Wellingtonsays
I’m certainly no Peter Beinhart fan to put it mildly. Actually, I find him to be yet another superficial and uninformed commenter (they abound nowadays; they’re practically ubiquitous), but what’s with the Beinhart “is a Jew (yuck!)” comment by you? Please explain, that is if you have the balls to do so.
Carolynesays
Mark Spahn. Yuk.
gravenimagesays
Agree, Wellington and Carolyne. I’m actually surprised and deeply disappointed to see this from Mark Spahn.
eduardo odraudesays
Never saw Mark Spahn say something quite so disgusting.
GPsays
Do you really believe your own writing Mark Spahn. That bigoted and ignorant comment of yours truly belongs in the deleted items bin.
Mr Spencer, anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free social vices. You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.
Wellingtonsays
I understand Sharia quite well, Ibrahim, and I don’t cherish it, rather I loathe it because, among so many other reasons, it endorses such things as 1) death for apostasy; 2) the sanctioning of rape; 3) the adulation of the reputed founder of Islam, one Mohammed, who was a brutal psychopath, narcissist, rapist and pedophile {in addition to so many other wrongs}; 4) Allah’s existence but Allah is a total fiction and a debasement of the Judeo-Christian conception of any possible cosmic deity—and may your Allah strike me dead tonight if this entity exists; 5) a pathetic, childlike view of the afterlife which is so risible that, but for its declared existence by mucho Muslims, would be a view of the afterlife only an idiot would accept; 6) death, or at least severe bodily harm, for any criticism of Mo, Mein Korampf or the religion called Islam which I often call Buttlam because Muslims can’t even manage to pray with dignity, what with their asses in the air when they do (and 5 head-banging times a day no less).
Your turn, Ibrahim. And if you are black, as I think you are, how in the hell can you be an adherent of a religion which engaged in African slavery for many more centuries than the Judeo-Christian world did, had a reputed founder who himself owned black slaves and referred to blacks many times derogatorily (e.g., raisinheads—Bukhari Hadith 1:662), and which religion, contra Judaism and Christianity, has NEVER apologized for its role in African slavery?
As I like to say, show me a Muslim and I will show you a confused human being, but show me a black Muslim and I will show you an extra-confused human being. Oh yeah, Ibrahim, your turn.
gravenimagesays
Fine post, Wellington.
As for whether Ibrahim itace muhammed is Black, it’s hard to tell. He is Nigerian, but says he is Arab.
He may really be so, but it is notable that Muslims from places like Sudan claim to “Arabs” even when it is clear that they are Black Africans–of course this is because Islam is Arab surpremacist and despises Blacks.
welligton, so you prefer savageries to continue in the west like ,half-nakedness like monkeys, priests having anus and vaginal sex with kids, married couples to have sex outside marriage, girls to have sex even before puberty and parents to dip their hands into daughters vaginas? Sharia law could remedy that.
Wellingtonsays
I believe, Ibrahim, among so many other weird obsessions of yours, you are fixated on bodily orifices to a very unhealthy and often times ludicrous degree.
I would tell you to seek help but as long as you remain devoted to the worst religion ever created by man I think you will remain beyond all help.
Gotta’ go and have a couple of beers and a couple of pork chops. Talk to you soon, Ibrahim, unless of course your Allah strikes me dead tonight for asserting so many times as I have that Allah doesn’t even exist, Mo was a pervert and the Koran is putrid nonsense through and through.
gravenimagesays
The vile Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Mr Spencer, anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free social vices. You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.
………………………….
The idea that Infidels only have a problem with Shari’ah because they have heard it mischaracterized by “Christian evangelist liars” is, of course, claptrap.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that under Shari’ah that anyone who takes a sip of beer can be flogged, that petty thieves can have their limbs amputated, that rape victims can be stoned to death, and that anyone who criticizes this horror show can be murdered.
*This* is what Ibrahim itace muhammed’s “ideal society free social vices” looks like. It also involves the selling of little girls to pedophiles, forced “marriage”, persecution of Infidels, slavery, rape, and mass slaughter. *Ugh*.
eduardo odraudesays
Itace, when “morality” is forced on people, that’s not morality. Morality does not mean being an automaton compelled by government theocrats — it means the person wants to do moral actions without any force necessary. Otherwise it’s only slavery, not morality. Much of the “morality” in Islamic countries is not morality but fear and brainwashing.
Flavius Claudius Iulianussays
“… [A]n ideal society free [of] social vices,” has another name. It’s often called an inhumane tyranny.
GPsays
Well put Flavius!
GPsays
Ibrahim Itace, we reject Sharia because we have heard testimony from your own people regarding it’s harsh cruelty and fear driven bondage. The evidence of human misery, hatred and control speaks against it.
I refer to your bizarre statement….
Quote: “You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.”
It is not any statement from a historian or ‘Christian evangelist’ that has convinced me of the dangerous and vile nature of Sharia (and Islam itself).
What has convinced me is the OVERWHELMING evidence of testimony, news, photographic and video evidence and even court documentation that clearly reveals the true nature of the beast you adhere to. FEAR and DESTRUCTION of lives follows wherever Islam makes inroads.
It is only because of Sharia supported apostasy laws (and the ever-present fear of retribution, honour killings and alienation from family that come from this) that Islam has survived this long. The fact that apostasy laws even exist in Islam should be the biggest red-flag that this ideology with it’s veneer of religious fervour is merely a murderous death CULT!!!
GPsays
Ibrahim Itace….your statement……”anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free (of) social vices”
If this was true (and it is clear it is not)….why is there such a large proportion of the Islamic male population that are involved in drug dealing, prostitution, money laundering and theft, as well as domestic abuse and paedophilia.
An acquaintance of mine was involved in prostitution, and the associated underworld dealings of that life, prior to her conversion to Christianity – which created an incredibly positive turn around in her life. She is now committed to helping others and displays a life of gratitude and grace for her new freedom in Christ.
One very interesting discussion I have had regarding her past was around the disproportionately high numbers of observant muslim men (previous clients of hers) who are involved in adulterous affairs, drugs, illegal dealings (such as illegally dealing in car sales while ripping off the customers)…..the list goes on.
So tell me again how Sharia guarantees a society free of social vices????
It seems to me that these same muslim men simply continue their lifestyle of vice, but simply get better at deception and hypocrisy.
imwithstoopidsays
Evidently, you are a male and that explains everything.
Even the Devil like Hell.
Carolynesays
I think you need some mental health assistance,Ibrahim. You are clearly delusional. Believing that imaginary beings are real, i.e. Allah, is a sign of dementia. Best of luck with your treatment.
gravenimagesays
I’m not sure camel urine will help…
gravenimagesays
Robert Spencer video: Why does Peter Beinart love Sharia and hate those who oppose it?
…………………..
Damn good questions.
imwithstoopidsays
The same could be said of all our wonderful lovers of Marxism and haters of the US of A.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
RichardL says
another excellent video. I hope they are widely disseminated. Prager U would be a great outlet.
Steve says
Another thought might be that this leftist doesn’t really care if Sharia ideology is antithetical to the constitution, or even western culture, since so many leftists want to rip up the constitution, themselves, and start over in their socialist utopia.
Kilfincelt says
Exactly! Beinart is a good example of “you can’t fix stupid”. On the other hand, Fred Fleitz is a great example of someone who actually knows what is going on with Islam and wants to protect our Constitution as well as our way of life.
mortimer says
Beinart has not read the Koran, Sira, hadiths, manuals of Sharia law or the canonical commentaries, and yet, preposterously, he presents himself as a SPONTANEOUS EXPERT on Islam and Sharia.
Beinart is a SPONTANEOUS FRAUD and know-nothing.
imwithstoopid says
He doesn’t have to.since he will show you all of his tolerant, moderate, Muslim friends.
And they told him all the truths he needs.
God save us from all of these merciful know-it-alls before their “friends” kill us.
gravenimage says
True, Jay Boo.
Robert_k says
Peter Beinart is a useful idiot Jew, who favors boycotting Jews who live in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). He says that American Jewish youth support Israel less because of Netanyahu, but is clueless about the systemic causes: assimilation, and Jewish illiteracy, and lack of a Jewish identity. He, himself, veers towards the BDS movement which puts him in the same camp as the Islamists. At least they know Palestine is a religious struggle but Beinart has an idiots understanding of religion. CNN is his proper home.
Muhammed Jacob says
PETER BEINART IS JEWISH
Beinart was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, in 1971. His parents were Jewish immigrants from South Africa (his maternal grandfather was from Russia, and his maternal grandmother, who was Sephardic, was from Egypt).[2][3][4] His father’s parents were from Lithuania.[5] His mother, Doreen (née Pienaar), is former director of the Harvard’s Human Rights film series at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and his father, Julian Beinart, is a former professor of architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1] His stepfather is theatre critic and playwright Robert Brustein.[6] Beinart attended Buckingham Browne and Nichols School in Cambridge. He then studied history and political science at Yale University, where he was a member of the Yale Political Union, and graduated in 1993. He was a Rhodes Scholar at University College, Oxford University, where he earned an M.Phil. in international relations in 1995.[7]
References
^ :a b “Weddings and Celebrations; Diana Hartstein, Peter Beinart”. The New York Times. October 26, 2003. Retrieved March 29,2012.
^ a b c Allison Hoffman (March 22, 2012). “Lightning Rod”. Tablet Magazine. Retrieved March 24, 2012.
“Rebecca Goldberg, the Northeast Regional Director USD/Hagshama (University Student Division) of the World Zionist Organization,”. http://www.angelfire.com.
Beinart, Peter (28 March 2012). “Rethinking Zionism”.
Beinart, Peter (December 16, 2016). “The Day My Father Lost His Country”. The Atlantic. Retrieved December 17, 2016.
“Weddings and Celebrations; Jean Beinart and Craig Stern”. The New York Times. June 12, 2005. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
^ “Peter Beinart profile”. The New America Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
THE JEWISH RABBI WHO CREATED ISLAM
JEWISHENCYCLOPEDIA
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
SCHWARZ, JOSEPH:
Palestinian geographer; born at Flosz, Bavaria, Oct. 22, 1804; died at Jerusalem Feb. 5, 1865. When he was seventeen years old he graduated as teacher from the Königliches Schullehrerseminar of Colberg, after which he joined his brother Israel at the University of Würzburg, where for five years he devoted himself to the history and geography of the Holy Land, and published a map of Palestine (1829; republished at Vienna, 1831, and Triest, 1832). It was his ardent desire, however, to study in Palestine itself the physical history and geography of the Holy Land, where his knowledge of Talmudic sources and early Jewish writers would be of more service. Accordingly he decided to settle in Jerusalem, whither he went in 1833. Schwarz then began a series of journeys and explorations in various parts of Palestine, to which he devoted about fifteen years.
The results of his investigations and researches into the history, geography, geology, fauna, and flora of that country have placed him in the front rank of Palestinian explorers and geographers. HE IS THE GREATEST JEWISH AUTHORITY ON PALESTINIAN MATTERS SINCE ESTORI FARHI (1282-1357), the author of “Kaftor wa-Feraḥ.”
(Be sure to Google this article:
HISTORY OF PALESTINE
614-1096 C.E.
From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.
By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850
Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, aka Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik. Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph, and was in fact son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, who perceiving a dreadful predicament, sent Rabbi Shallum to Mahomed, and told him to offer his submission, friendship, and services, and endeavour to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted Rabbi Shallum’s proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, Aisha, a handsome young child, for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally:
The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword — Daat Emet
For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men’” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
“The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
Gentiles are likened to animals.
If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
Their members (genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:
“It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,
“Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:
“And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
Wellington says
Seconding Jay Boo, you will make no headway here at JW if you continue as you have. Forget the spamming and the lazy references. Argue in YOUR OWN WORDS what you really think. I’m bettin’ there is actually not much thinking at all going on in your mind, which so far, based on what you have posted, is indeed indicative of not much of a mind at all.
Prove me wrong. IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Do it.
gravenimage says
What an absolute load of tripe. No, Islam was not created by a Jew, and Abu Bakr was Arab, not Jewish.
Jay Boo and Wellington are right–more and more, it seems that “Muhammed Jacob” is not here because he opposes Jihad–in fact, he has said almost nothing critical of it–but just to spam calumny against the Jews. *Ugh*.
imwithstoopid says
Whether one believes this or not is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the fact that there was a change in the tenants of Islam between the Medina and Mecca and the hatred of Jews by Islam.
What is also relevant is there are so many similarities between the tenants of and affectations of Islamic and Jewish beliefs this can’t be denied.
What is printed/stated above does represent the underlying tenants of the Jewish beliefs, but also as stated it is no longer what is followed by the majority. The same holds true of the different sects of the Protestant faiths of Christianity. Catholicism still holds true to their faith, that is until the 2nd Ecumenical Council when all was put up for grabs.
The big difference between Isla and the (most) Jews (and Christians) is that the latter grew up.
GP says
Mr Spencer…..I am enjoying receiving your emails and absolutely agree with your work and research. They confirm what I already have studied and observed over the years.
This is why I am disappointed that my Adguard program keeps trying to block your website when I click on links to your articles.
I have written to Adguard twice this week about this error, but it keeps on happening.
Their pop-up warning states that your site is ‘dangerous’ or is a ‘phishing’ site …… and they issue a strong warning to not proceed…….see a screenshot of the latest warning below.
I know this is not true, but they seem to be not listening, or perhaps they are influenced by lists of sites they have procured from some of the usual censorship giants (such as google, twitter, facebook etc).
Anyway this is my latest correspondence to them……
“Adguard. Why are you blocking Jihad Watch? See screenshot below…. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2fc8f8c51a7049830f32e4702af96c25fb61add0032902f519d702fa1d76657b.png
This site is NOT dangerous and is NOT a phishing website.
The owner of the site is a respected author and journalist who lectures on the history and present day realities of Islamic Jihad and Sharia and the consequences of this on Western societies.
Is this site blocked because of political or social censorship?
I want answers and I want to be able to access this author without your pop up giving a false warning.
This is the second time this week I have asked for this to be attended to.
Please sort this problem out as it feels like unfair and unethical censorship to me.”
Terry Gain says
Good for you. My guess would be that Adblock is run by the same kind of Leftist Fascists as run Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Disqus.
The implication from Spencer’s excellent video is that there are huge gaps in Beinart’s knowledge of Islam and Sharia or perhaps he’s a self-hating Jew.
imwithstoopid says
I don’t seem to have that problem with AdBlock +, have you set it to allow this site?
GP says
Hi ‘imwithstoopid’ This was Adguard……and yes I checked my settings, cache etc.
They seem to have sorted the problem out now…..or maybe it was something else??
It is interesting, however, that it ONLY happened with Pamela Geller’s site and sites that Robert Spencer features in.
I can’t be sure what was happening, but at least by sending correspondence to them, they will be more aware of the concerns of ALL their customers (not just their left-leaning ones LOL).
By the way I’m loving the more intelligent banter and debate that goes on here…..keep it coming people.
gravenimage says
+1
Walter Sieruk says
What Peter Beinart says such pro-Sharia law statements he is just exposing his own ignorance about the harshness and oppression of freedoms under yolk of the tyrannical Islamic rule of Sharia .
Furthermore, the message needs sent to all ignorant Americans as Peter Beinart as well as to all the Muslims who live in the United States of America who dislike and maybe even despise the US Constitution and would like to replace it with Sharia law. Those same Muslims instead in trying to force Sharia law on American citizens and their nation those are free to leave and really should leave the USA and then go to live in either Shii ‘ite, Iran or Sunni , Saudi Arabia if they actually feel the Sharia law is the grand, great and wonderful .
Moreover, all this is a strong reminder of the wise words declared by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech. “There can be no fifty –fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only one hundred percent Americanism , only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”
CogitoErgoSum says
I have no problem with a religion having certain laws if those laws apply only to the members of that particular religion. For example, a religious law that a person attend Mass every Sunday or not eat meat on Fridays during Lent would apply only to Roman Catholics. Protestants, Jews, Muslims or others outside the Catholic faith would not be expected to comply. The problem with Sharia is that Christians, Jews and others outside the Islamic faith would have to comply with Islamic law. No way in hell am I going to support something like that. I would eventually end up being either dead, a Muslim or a dhimmi paying the jizya to a religion which is intent on making my life miserable. If Beinart says that is not the goal of Islam then he’s either a liar or an idiot (maybe both).
The law of Islam is taken from the Quran and the Quran is eternal (so Muslims believe). For Muslims Allah’s laws do not change over time (now that Muhammad is gone). The history of Islam in the past will reveal to you the course that Islam will tend to take in the future. Study the Quran and history, Mr. Beinart, and prepare for a life of misery for yourself and your children if you support Sharia.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSNDRPtVBnw
eduardo odraude says
The arrogance plus ignorance among parts of the left is hard to bear.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Damn Peter Beinart as much as you want, but the final judgment of whether he will go to Jannah or Gehenna will be made on the Last Day by Allah (swt). On one side of the balance, Peter Beinart is a Jew (yuck!), but this will be weighed against his good deeds, including the fact that Donald Trump got his winning slogan from the subtitle of Beinart’s book “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”; see
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/741347.The_Good_Fight
KJW says
The review of Beinhart’s 2006 book you linked to makes it sound like he’s a bit clueless and it’s scattershot or as the reviewer puts it, mish-mashy. A significant problem with the book is that it’s supposed to be about terrorism and doesn’t even talk about oil and Israel. Modern-day terrorism ramped up in the 1960s and 70s. The whole world with TVs was watching the 1972 Olympics…Mark Spitz breaking a record in Golds and the PLO murdering Israeli wrestling team members. It ramped up more in the 1980s when the beginnings of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah formed. Beinart thinks terrorism comes from poverty which is nonsense, especially with Osama bin Laden from a wealthy construction business family and his over 20 children.
He is also no expert on Islam nor knows Arabic yet his theme in the book is that liberals need to get tougher about totalitarianism. He seems to equate fanatical Islam with totalitarianism when applied sharia is totalitarian and not fanatical. Does he not know anything about Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Brunei and what people have been arrested for? Sharia law isn’t benign if you’re being thrown in jail for premarital sex (UAE) or a $5,000 fine and jail time if Muslims are caught celebrating Christmas-lights on trees? (Brunei) The ulama in Saudi Arabia was against playing chess because of Islamic text. Harsh gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. Slavery is permitted per the sharia including those captured in war or Jews and Christians who don’t pay the jizya can be slaves. An eye for an eye pinishment; in 2003 in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under ‘the law of retaliation’, a girl’s mouth was sewn up, both Iran and Pakistan blinded men who had thrown acid in women’s faces. (Some westerners might be OK with that one.) Saudi Arabia follows Quran 5:33.
Execution of homosexuals: in 1998 the Taliban followed the Quran and Hadith which is sharia and pushed a wall over 3 men convicted of sodomy. That and burning them is sharia. Saudi Arabia was kind in 2005 when more than 100 men went to prison and got flogging for “gay conduct.” Unmarried fornicaters to be whipped Quran 24:2, adulterers atoned though UAE just imprisoned them. Dubai is a playground for foreigners, not the rest of the country.
Even a Muslim deserves death for denying any verse of the Quran or anything by scholarly consensus, being sarcastic about Allah or Muhammad, and even “denying that Allah intended the Prophet’s message…to be the religion followed by the entire world.”
Ironic, while Palestinians have complained about Israel burning olive trees (which was retaliation) that’s a sharia rule of war…”Civilian fruit trees may be burned.” Another rule is that enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. Talk about coercion!
So much more. Al-Azhar University and some Islamic schools in Britain, even, keep teaching this. Muhammad and his fellow pirates got rich. Was it poverty that caused them to start their raids? Why didn’t they just make an honest living trading of farming? Avarice, ego, low self-esteem, wanting to be like past kings and subjugate all to one’s own ideas. If poverty were a significant cause there would be untold more violence and terrorism. Plenty of terrorists have gone to college and had jobs.
imwithstoopid says
Wrong about Dubai, they have incarcerated women who simply gave a peck on the cheek of a man going away. One was raped in her room (she worked for an American hotel) she filed a complaint and was convicted of adultery and was put away for some time, and no help from anyone despite pleas from her family.
Most of that city was built on the backs of imported labor at wages a penny above slave labor, that is when they were paid. Let’s not talk about their lower than slums living quarters.
They still basically kidnap and use poor women imported household help (24 hour days) and have killed them.
Wellington says
I’m certainly no Peter Beinhart fan to put it mildly. Actually, I find him to be yet another superficial and uninformed commenter (they abound nowadays; they’re practically ubiquitous), but what’s with the Beinhart “is a Jew (yuck!)” comment by you? Please explain, that is if you have the balls to do so.
Carolyne says
Mark Spahn. Yuk.
gravenimage says
Agree, Wellington and Carolyne. I’m actually surprised and deeply disappointed to see this from Mark Spahn.
eduardo odraude says
Never saw Mark Spahn say something quite so disgusting.
GP says
Do you really believe your own writing Mark Spahn. That bigoted and ignorant comment of yours truly belongs in the deleted items bin.
Dennis says
Perhaps he could start with this :
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/06/nigeria-muslims-murder-86-christians-burn-50-houses
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer, anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free social vices. You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.
Wellington says
I understand Sharia quite well, Ibrahim, and I don’t cherish it, rather I loathe it because, among so many other reasons, it endorses such things as 1) death for apostasy; 2) the sanctioning of rape; 3) the adulation of the reputed founder of Islam, one Mohammed, who was a brutal psychopath, narcissist, rapist and pedophile {in addition to so many other wrongs}; 4) Allah’s existence but Allah is a total fiction and a debasement of the Judeo-Christian conception of any possible cosmic deity—and may your Allah strike me dead tonight if this entity exists; 5) a pathetic, childlike view of the afterlife which is so risible that, but for its declared existence by mucho Muslims, would be a view of the afterlife only an idiot would accept; 6) death, or at least severe bodily harm, for any criticism of Mo, Mein Korampf or the religion called Islam which I often call Buttlam because Muslims can’t even manage to pray with dignity, what with their asses in the air when they do (and 5 head-banging times a day no less).
Your turn, Ibrahim. And if you are black, as I think you are, how in the hell can you be an adherent of a religion which engaged in African slavery for many more centuries than the Judeo-Christian world did, had a reputed founder who himself owned black slaves and referred to blacks many times derogatorily (e.g., raisinheads—Bukhari Hadith 1:662), and which religion, contra Judaism and Christianity, has NEVER apologized for its role in African slavery?
As I like to say, show me a Muslim and I will show you a confused human being, but show me a black Muslim and I will show you an extra-confused human being. Oh yeah, Ibrahim, your turn.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Wellington.
As for whether Ibrahim itace muhammed is Black, it’s hard to tell. He is Nigerian, but says he is Arab.
He may really be so, but it is notable that Muslims from places like Sudan claim to “Arabs” even when it is clear that they are Black Africans–of course this is because Islam is Arab surpremacist and despises Blacks.
It may well be the same with this Mohammedan.
GP says
Well spoken Wellington.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
welligton, so you prefer savageries to continue in the west like ,half-nakedness like monkeys, priests having anus and vaginal sex with kids, married couples to have sex outside marriage, girls to have sex even before puberty and parents to dip their hands into daughters vaginas? Sharia law could remedy that.
Wellington says
I believe, Ibrahim, among so many other weird obsessions of yours, you are fixated on bodily orifices to a very unhealthy and often times ludicrous degree.
I would tell you to seek help but as long as you remain devoted to the worst religion ever created by man I think you will remain beyond all help.
Gotta’ go and have a couple of beers and a couple of pork chops. Talk to you soon, Ibrahim, unless of course your Allah strikes me dead tonight for asserting so many times as I have that Allah doesn’t even exist, Mo was a pervert and the Koran is putrid nonsense through and through.
gravenimage says
The vile Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Mr Spencer, anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free social vices. You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.
………………………….
The idea that Infidels only have a problem with Shari’ah because they have heard it mischaracterized by “Christian evangelist liars” is, of course, claptrap.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that under Shari’ah that anyone who takes a sip of beer can be flogged, that petty thieves can have their limbs amputated, that rape victims can be stoned to death, and that anyone who criticizes this horror show can be murdered.
*This* is what Ibrahim itace muhammed’s “ideal society free social vices” looks like. It also involves the selling of little girls to pedophiles, forced “marriage”, persecution of Infidels, slavery, rape, and mass slaughter. *Ugh*.
eduardo odraude says
Itace, when “morality” is forced on people, that’s not morality. Morality does not mean being an automaton compelled by government theocrats — it means the person wants to do moral actions without any force necessary. Otherwise it’s only slavery, not morality. Much of the “morality” in Islamic countries is not morality but fear and brainwashing.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“… [A]n ideal society free [of] social vices,” has another name. It’s often called an inhumane tyranny.
GP says
Well put Flavius!
GP says
Ibrahim Itace, we reject Sharia because we have heard testimony from your own people regarding it’s harsh cruelty and fear driven bondage. The evidence of human misery, hatred and control speaks against it.
I refer to your bizarre statement….
Quote: “You hate sharia because you don’t understand it taking garbages from mithraist christian Evangelist liars of old .Those with intellectual curiosity have since thrown away those garbages concocted by Christian evangelist liars as “Rubbish ” from ignorance.”
It is not any statement from a historian or ‘Christian evangelist’ that has convinced me of the dangerous and vile nature of Sharia (and Islam itself).
What has convinced me is the OVERWHELMING evidence of testimony, news, photographic and video evidence and even court documentation that clearly reveals the true nature of the beast you adhere to. FEAR and DESTRUCTION of lives follows wherever Islam makes inroads.
It is only because of Sharia supported apostasy laws (and the ever-present fear of retribution, honour killings and alienation from family that come from this) that Islam has survived this long. The fact that apostasy laws even exist in Islam should be the biggest red-flag that this ideology with it’s veneer of religious fervour is merely a murderous death CULT!!!
GP says
Ibrahim Itace….your statement……”anyone who understands Sharia will cherish it because it guarantees an ideal society free (of) social vices”
If this was true (and it is clear it is not)….why is there such a large proportion of the Islamic male population that are involved in drug dealing, prostitution, money laundering and theft, as well as domestic abuse and paedophilia.
An acquaintance of mine was involved in prostitution, and the associated underworld dealings of that life, prior to her conversion to Christianity – which created an incredibly positive turn around in her life. She is now committed to helping others and displays a life of gratitude and grace for her new freedom in Christ.
One very interesting discussion I have had regarding her past was around the disproportionately high numbers of observant muslim men (previous clients of hers) who are involved in adulterous affairs, drugs, illegal dealings (such as illegally dealing in car sales while ripping off the customers)…..the list goes on.
So tell me again how Sharia guarantees a society free of social vices????
It seems to me that these same muslim men simply continue their lifestyle of vice, but simply get better at deception and hypocrisy.
imwithstoopid says
Evidently, you are a male and that explains everything.
Even the Devil like Hell.
Carolyne says
I think you need some mental health assistance,Ibrahim. You are clearly delusional. Believing that imaginary beings are real, i.e. Allah, is a sign of dementia. Best of luck with your treatment.
gravenimage says
I’m not sure camel urine will help…
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer video: Why does Peter Beinart love Sharia and hate those who oppose it?
…………………..
Damn good questions.
imwithstoopid says
The same could be said of all our wonderful lovers of Marxism and haters of the US of A.