From YAFTV:
When Islamic terror strikes our country, we’re told by the Left that Islam is just a “religion of peace that has occasionally been hijacked by extremists.”
But is it?
Here’s the truth, courtesy of Robert Spencer: Islam is the opposite of a religion of peace.
In fact, Islam is the only religion which demands violence against unbelievers. All mainstream sects of Islam teach this doctrine with no exceptions, and Islamic legal systems reinforce it.
This doesn’t mean that all Muslims are engaged in violence, however, to deny that violent jihad is part of mainstream Islamic teaching is to suggest that Muslims both today and throughout history have drastically misunderstood their own religion.
Are you having difficulty believing that? So are we.
CRUSADER says
50 years ago, these were the words to be spoken by Nixon
— if the Moon Landing had not fully succeeded —
“These men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal:
the search for truth and understanding.”
How quickly that sentiment has become eroded within a society which
prides itself on being intelligent and compassionate and reasonable.
Yet, there still are those among us who strive to seek truth, and to act,
so to tell of it — that we may understand the truth.
Many of them are in the counterjihad movement;
and Robert Spencer is in the lead.
Hail ! Huzzah !
Eric Larsen says
You have an incorrect double negative in your essay. It should say the following:
“…to deny that violent jihad is part…”
CRUSADER says
Eric,
Are you attempting to gear up toward collecting that $5k
by finding “mistakes” ?
mortimer says
The major legal problem with Islam is a feudal law code that hasn’t changed in the last 1,000 years. Muslims live every day in the Middle Ages. Islam is completely incompatible with modernity.
To be a Muslim, you must force your mind to be pre-rational, pre-Enlightenment and pre-psychological. The cognitive dissonance in Muslims must increase exponentially with their level of education.
The texts of Islam are filled with so many factual errors, incoherencies and illogic … and even magic … that they are seen to be the products of primitive, superstitious illiterates.
Islam creates a mentality that pays almost no attention to empirical facts … if not vehemently combatting empiricism at every step of the way.
Garfield says
Islam is a SUPREMACIST death cult. Its a joyless way to live and a total waste of time. I agree…it makes people stupid and hateful bcs everything in it is contradictory negative and FAKE.
I mean…what effect does it have for kids to see their mothers draped in black bags?
What the hell is FGM for?
Why are they obsessed with death?
Its a nasty vile cult masquerading as a religion.
What other group has TAQUIYYA?
Idk what the answer is about how to get rid if it…..Keep exposing it. Never go along with apologists for it. Never vote for anyone who promotes sharia or islamophobia. Tell anyone you can the facts. Its surprising how many people dont know about the palestinian pay for slay program.
Bella says
We know they’re the enemy. Too many attacks have awakened most and the only thing they seem to understand is violence. Everything else is perceived as weakness to them.
CRUSADER says
True that many in the Muslim Brotherhood were upset at UBinL
for conducting the 9-11 strikes, since it woke many in America
from slumber.
Problem was the USA’s response!
Bush reacted by going after ghosts in Iraq,
while stating that Islam is Peaceful as a Religion,
whereas he really should’ve attacked and dressed down
the Islamic ideology, and to appeal to Muslims to reform….
gravenimage says
Sadly, all too many are still in denial of the threat of Islam.
Canada says
Robert,
The cold truth is true- doe and the Gov. controlled media is in Full out swing mode.
Coming from the great white North.
Appeasement in full force, thinking they won’t come after me Truedoe.
It’s bigger here than anybody is able to say, even the Rebel.
CRUSADER says
SPEECH IS NOT VIOLENCE:
Michael Knowles completely owns pretentious professor
Watch this “educator” get educated by Michael Knowles on the definition of violence.
Illegal immigrants commit federal crimes at higher rates
Majority of legal immigrants in America oppose
Systemic Racism doesn’t force illegal immigrants to act
Premise of assumption is offensive — as if illegals can’t think
People have free will to do what we wish to do
Race does not determine criminality
Speech is not equated with violence
Violence is an objective fact not a feeling of being oppressed
Disagreeing is not to be equated with violence
Universities which cannot understand facts are in no shape to educate
http://www.YAF.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaERkte8ylA
Halal Bacon says
when you worship the best of the deceivers…AKA satan, just saying
BegrensEuropa! says
So, indeed “Islam is the only religion which demands violence against unbelievers. All mainstream sects of Islam teach this doctrine with no exceptions, and Islamic legal systems reinforce it.” We all know that Robert Spencer’s offer of $5000 still stands to anybody who can proof him wrong. May I suggest that Islam should no longer be protected under the terms of “freedom of religion” legislation until such time when all islamic texts, islamic doctrines and islamic legal systems will have been fully sanitized from all references to jihad in the form of violence against unbelievers, homosexuals, jews, christians, polytheists, and apostates. Also, full references to “radical Islamism,” and the “war on terror” must be reintroduced into our national security documents, never to be abandoned for vague terms like “extremism” and “overseas contingencies operations” when talking about fighting the taliban, IS, or any other form of islamic non-peaceful behavior.
CRUSADER says
Al-Azhar should institutionally forfeit $5000 to Robert Spencer.
$5 for each mistake (1000 of ’em!!!) in that Queer’an which Muzzies follow.
Anjuli Pandavar says
BE, “May I suggest that Islam should no longer be protected under the terms of “freedom of religion” legislation until such time when all islamic texts, islamic doctrines and islamic legal systems will have been fully sanitized from all references to jihad in the form of violence against unbelievers, homosexuals, jews, christians, polytheists, and apostates.”
—
I fully agree with what you are trying to achieve, but I think this is exactly the wrong way to go. It is not our business to be concerned with how Islam goes about civilising itself. That’s a problem for Muslims. Our concern is to make sure that to the extent that our civilsation permits its members to practise religion, such practise never impinges on the fundamental Human Rights of anyone. ANY individual who crosses that line, whether religiously-motivated or not, must face the full might of the law for such infraction. No matter what the Bible says or how fervently its followers obey it, *no one* gets to extract an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. The same goes for any followers of any scripture of any religion, no matter how gross its commandments.
Even though Islam is currently the only religion whose practitioners fall foul of the sanctity of Human Rights, to do as you suggest would continue the kind of thinking that makes it so difficult to deal with Islam in the first place: political correctness. It privileges a religion, and through it its adherents, with an identity and rights conceptually on a par with individual identity and rights that in practice *supersede* individual identity and rights. It is a game we oughtn’t to be perpetuating. Far too much damage has already been done.
Following that logic through, I do not agree with banning either Islam or the Qur’an. The pagan religions of ancient Greece and Rome are not banned, yet no one today is moved to follow them. Furthermore, knowledge about and writings on those religions and gods both abound and add generously to the enriching of our civilisation. Islam and the Qur’an are part of the world’s heritage (a tragic part, certainly), but a time will come when we will study Allah and Muhammad as today we study Oden, Zeus and Jupiter. Islam’s contribution will be deeply in the negative, but it is us, humans, who contrived that monstrosity and ultimately it is us we will be trying to fathom. At least, that should be our aim.
Strictly enforcing laws that protect human rights, including the security of those rights, with zero consideration whatsoever to *any* group, religion or community will restrict Islam’s room for manoeuvre so much that Muslims will be faced with a stark choice, finally.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Anjuli. Fine post.
BegrensEuropa! says
Thank you, Anjuli, for your kind reply. The call for violence against unbelievers is deeply entrenched in Islam, which is indeed – in your words – a “monstrosity”. You compare islam’s violence fleetingly with the retaliatory ‘eye for an eye’ concept in Judaism. This is an old trick to let Islam off the hook. First of all, this law has since long been humanized in both ethical Judaism and Christianity (Matthew 5:38–39), even to the point of leaving it defenseless in the face of its enemies, whereas under shariah law it continues to be applied. Secondly, retaliation is a response to violence, whereas the violence of Islam’s historical programme of universal submission (=islam) is unprovoked and unnecessary, except that it is justified in islam to achieve universal submission, e.g. by construing non-submission as a provocation. The second trick you use to let islam off the hook is by insisting that violence impinging on the fundamental Human Rights of anyone, “whether religiously-motivated or not, must face the full might of the law for such infraction.” In the case of Islamic violence, muslims – and those speaking for them – tend to deny its fundamental Islamic nature (“islam is peace”) or to insist on the insanity of the perpetrator. Following your argument through, you say that antique, pagan religions have not been banned, yet they have no followers. I must disappoint you. Paganism has been banned from the 5th century onward in the Roman Empire and its successors and from the 6th and 7th century in North-Western Europe. Over the course of history, Judaism and Christianity went through a great number of reforms and changes, from Hellenism through monasticism to the renaissance, the Enlightenment and the age of science and technology, not to mention the horrors of the wars of religion, Nazism and communism. Most of this bypassed the world of islam, which only came to adopt technology and the uncritical part of education. We can study Islam and its deeply negative contribution to the world now. It is obvious that Muslims are completely blinded by indoctrination and coercion and will not easily be manoeuvred into a position where they – and they are many, with many more to come – will be faced with this “stark choice”, by which I suppose you mean that they will logically, necessarily and willingly give up their monstrous religion, since the prospects for reform are very dim, indeed.
underbed cat says
Robert Spencer is of course, correct. Anjuli is not..Islam is currently spreading in the United States, with more access to comfortable living and privileges since they have deceptively blended over many years and have been protected by the Marxists, our first major historical error. They have been afforded the same opportunities, as the Marxist, who had considerable less financing, since the mosques and migrants have funds from wealthy Islamic regions that form the Islamic world.They are unified in sedition but fight over strategy or who gets all the control, so for many years they fought each other we should have recognized the benefit but we did not have leadership who could view it in reality. The Islamist it appears have unbelievable control and influence in the, Congress, Justice Dept, universities,media, working as advisers who walk the halls of the Pentagon, the Marxist would have been dangerous ,but they just lacked the solidarity and jihadist underground power structure of a MB. or the obligatory doctrine for warfare. The Muslim brotherhood has been comfortable, safe from exposure since the purge of the description or accurate words that were removed from our national security intelligence. Why, did we really allow this deception, was it due to ignorance when we insipidity protected this deadly improperly named religion and reinforced the deceptive narrative crucial for the title of peaceful and tolerant, instead of dangerous or seditious? The results of the hidden identity, the foreign funded mosques grew, the Imams still teach the Quran, that call for killing,(a legal fatwah, such as 9/11 terror attack) they can still convert nonbelievers, publish magazines like Inspire to show future plots such as Vegas, support politicians, this is our walk toward the cliff. The clock is ticking, the deception was ingenious but it has to be outlawed. The mosques only grew, they should not exist, the violence here has slowed but not stopped and is attacking our infrastructure and stability daily as they have set up shop with big tech to control speech and removed businesses efficiently, operate transportation, know every secret. Islamic countries are not allies, they have sent many here to start their powerhouse here, they cannot be truthful, as long as we don’t recognize who they are, we are a nation at risk.They should be long relieved of their spending of petrol cash on influence operation and our demise. Sharia law kills and has no place to be considered.
Anjuli Pandavar says
BegrensEurope!, “You compare islam’s violence fleetingly with the retaliatory ‘eye for an eye’”
—
I make no such comparison.
More: “The second trick you use to let islam off the hook…”
?????????????
More: “you say that antique, pagan religions have not been banned, yet they have no followers. I must disappoint you. Paganism has been banned from the 5th century onward in the Roman Empire and its successors…”
Are you free to practise paganism, or is it banned?
More: “Muslims are completely blinded by indoctrination and coercion and will not easily be manoeuvred into a position where they – and they are many, with many more to come – will be faced with this “stark choice”, by which I suppose you mean that they will logically, necessarily and willingly give up their monstrous religion…”
You are free to suppose that, but it won’t bring you any closer to understanding what I wrote.
Anjuli Pandavar says
underbed cat, “Robert Spencer is of course, correct. Anjuli is not..Islam is currently spreading in the United States…”
—
I am in complete agreement with Robert Spencer. The only differences are that he knows a great deal more than I do about Islam, and that I have a somewhat different perspective. It would help if you’d be a bit more specific about what he is correct about and I not. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think Islam is not spreading in the United States. And that’s about it.
Kilfincelt says
I checked to see what our founding fathers had to say about Islam. Unfortunately, I came across a number of articles that seemed to imply that Islam would be a protected religion under the First Amendment as our founders would not countenance anyone forcing their religious views on another. However, one site stated that our Founders believed that our system of government relied on Christian morality and principles to function properly and that any religious practices that violated that morality would not be tolerated.
Polygamy, as practiced by Mormons, violated Christian norms so in several Supreme Court cases polygamy was determined to be not covered by the First Amendment. Further, if the religion included tenets that allowed for a person to harm himself or other citizens, those tenets wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment either. Based on the history of Islam, the number of passages that call for violence against the non-believer, and the rejection of the Golden Rule along with the Ten Commandments, one could argue that Islam is not a protected religion under the First Amendment unless its followers reject the passages written by Muhammad while resident in Medina and accept Christian principles of morality in their stead.
Based on what our sixth President, John Q. Adams, and our most brilliant has written, I think that he would have agreed with me particularly as he saw the whole religion as fraudulent, backward, and anti-Christian. Further, while our Founders believed in freedom of religion, they were skeptical about what the followers of Islam would bring to this country and their possible negative influence on our institutions.
I also think that our Founders would agree that history is the great teacher and that the story of the Barbary Wars should be required reading with a particular emphasis on why the war was fought. Particularly today, we need to remind people that Jefferson went to war to end the enslavement of American sailors and the extortionary practices of several North African Muslim potentates that were costing our young country a sizable amount. We need to explain to young audiences as well as our older citizens that slavery and extortion were and continue to be a part of Islam. Also, we need to explain the Muslim view on slavery, their long history of enslaving blacks as well as their racism toward blacks, and their actions as middlemen in bringing slaves to the Americas. Only the truth can set us free from the cancer that is Islam.
Kilfincelt says
I forgot to include the address of the site that had the best explanation of how our Founding Fathers felt about Islam. See: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622
eduardo odraude says
The First Amendment protects not just Islam, but other extremist belief systems such as communism and Nazism. What the First Amendment does not protect is explicit and specific calls for violent subversion or treason at a specific time and place in the near future. Muslims can always claim that they do not interpret Islam as calling for violent subversion. They can always say they do not believe Qur’an 9:29 and other violent Islamic teachings apply to today or to the US. First Amendment jurisprudence will thus give benefit of the doubt to religious and ideological freedom of Muslims, communists, Nazis, and others adhering to extremist views. Jihadists who are specifically planning violence will be killed or incarcerated, but the First Amendment will protect Islam as a belief system except in some extreme circumstance, for example if the US were to be at war with the whole Islamic world, or perhaps if there were another jihad attack say 3 times worse than 9/11 WTC attack.
gravenimage says
Muslims can follow their creed so long as it does not break our civilized laws. They cannot impose Shari’ah law on us, rape or behead us.
Kay says
Does the Koran speak of peace at all?
eduardo odraude says
Islam does divide the world into the House of War (Dar al Harb) and the House of Islam (Dar al Islam). If a place is not ruled by Islamic law, it is deemed a place of war, a place where jihad conquest is to proceed whenever possible. So the only real peace that Islam recognizes is a “victory peace,” a peace attained through Islamic domination. And of course, by definition there would be a peace of sorts if the whole world submitted to an Islamic dictator. In order to attain their impossible “peace”, which actually would be the death of humanity, Muslim warriors are prepared to turn the whole world into a war zone, something they have already to some extent done. In practice, they will never achieve their “peace” but only endless jihad slaughter.
Kay says
So no concept of coexist, I guess.
joanofark06 says
It should, with all the “may peace be upon him” they say constantly.
But…our bibles tell us about THAT peace:
By peace he shall destroy many. (Daniel 8:25)
AND I think THIS explains muslims to a T
Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.” John 16:2
JM says
To: Cortez
+1 million
Many thanks for your comment, which is as sharp, concise, and powerful as Robert Spencer’s video.
Very nicely done, especially the brilliant punch line!
Wellington says
Whether one thinks Islam should be expelled from the West or still allowed but marginalized and ostracized, neither can occur as long as Islam continues to be looked upon as some kind of positive.
First things first. Islam needs to be overwhelmingly seen as iniquitous and totalitarian, including by a very large percentage of the elites in the media, the political realm, the judicial realm and in academia (and we’re not even close to this happening yet). Thereafter, reasonable and informed minds can determine how Islam should be handled in free societies, freedom being something which is absolutely incompatible with Islam.
Recognition of evil is paramount. If this does not occur where Islam is concerned, it will continue to grow and fester in the body politic of the West and no good will come of this.
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“Islam needs to be overwhelmingly seen as iniquitous and totalitarian, including by a very large percentage of the elites in the media, the political realm, the judicial realm and in academia…”
100% true. You correctly identified four critical groups:
The elites in the media. A huge advantage if the media told the objective, factual truth about Islam. The media does this in countries like Poland. Check out a Polish TV news website on YouTube. It’s refreshing.
The political realm. This involves educating the citizens to make smart choices at the polls during election time. They should vote for candidates who have a good working knowledge of Islam – at least at the level of the average Jihad Watch reader.
The judicial realm. Regarding dealing with Islam, the more conservative judges the better. Again, citizens need to vote for candidates will protect them from Islam. These elected officials can then go on and appoint appropriate judges. Pres. Trump is doing a great job with appointing conservative judges.
Academia. Our schools and colleges can no longer be controlled by leftists. Lots of ways that this can be attacked, federal funding can be withheld if colleges do not recognize free-speech by conservatives, etc.
Wellington, always a person of reason. Your posts are valuable, keep up the good work.
Wellington says
Thank you, James, for expanding upon the four “critical groups.” As they go, so to a large extent goes a Western nation.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington and James.
Angemon says
Robert Spencer: Islam is the only religion which demands violence against unbelievers.
Theresa May: BANNED!!!
Rev. G says
If only that had meant islam, not Robert, being banned.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer video: The hard truth about Islam
………………
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for bravely continuing to expose the horrors of Islam.
duh swami says
Not all Muslims are ‘natural born killer’, but some are…Those who are not support the ones that are…After all it’s ‘Holy war…Holy fighting in Allah’s
causes…Only the pious need apply…
E T says
Declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group and rid the country of all the jihad promoters/ CAIR. Pay very close attention to the DNC leader. Nigel Mohammed Sakr would like to see Kampala win and win she will.
I watched the video above “Speech is not violence”, and I laughed to myself thinking this young girl had a lot to learn about life, only to discover, much to my chagrin, she is the teacher.
Truth Triumps says
Only One Religion teaches, the so called Creator did an Error of Creating Lot of Humans as Inferior Creatures and the Cries; ‘I Committed an error and Unable to Rectify’. Then Orders to his Fans ‘Butcher the Inferior Creatures, for you will be given Gluttonous Reward after Death’. Fans Sincerely Follow that for them it is the way to Exhibit the Might of the so called Creator.
Any person of Common Sense will ask the question ‘Is it not Better to refrain from Creating the Inferior Creatures, than Creating and Butchering after that’?
Where does this Sex Den and Wine Den Exist? No One knows. No Evidence. Only Myth. But it Arouses the Lust and Greed!!!!!
rufusvondufus says
Who’s gonna play cowboys and muslims? Will it be the lib’s or the con’s? Pretty much both groups have skin in the game.