Join us now. It is free, and it takes less than 1 minute to register.
Register now
Subscribe to our daily newsletter. It is free, and it comes with many benefits.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 77 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 1146

Thread: Arguments Redirected from Intro2Islam (obviating derails)

  1. #751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSung View Post
    Anyways, on to the questions that wayfarer raised about whether or not IS/ISIS/ISIL represent Islam.

    I give you (part 1 of 5):

    5 Ways the Quran Explains Today’s Headlines

    by
    Robert Spencer

    5. The kidnapped aid workers in Syria.

    It was revealed Thursday that two young aid workers from Italy, Greta Ramelli, 20, and Vanessa Marzullo, 21, were kidnapped in Aleppo by Islamic jihadists. Western non-Muslim analysts routinely cite such stories as evidence of the evil of the jihadis — or else as evidence of how self-defeating their jihad is, if they would even try to drive out of their lands the people who have come there to help.

    But the Quran makes the reasoning behind the abductions clear. Islam’s holy book directs Muslims to wage war against unbelievers, killing them by beheading and taking captives who may then be freed or ransomed: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens” (47:4).
    Hi SSung

    Thank you for the article. Have you informed your source that the Quranic verse clearly indicates enemy combattants who are prisoners of war?

    I have read the verse thoroughly, and cannot find any reference to abducting aid workers, or the taking of civilian "captives". What I do see is:

    • When met in battle, kill the enemy,
    • firmly secure the enemy survivors of the battle in custody as prisoners,
    • thereafter, the first option mentioned is to freely release them,
    • and the second option mentioned is to impose a penalty on them as a condition for release.
    • the above is only valid during a legitimate war, and is not relevant once the war has subsided (i.e. "...until the war lay down its burdens.")

    It is well-known that the above has indeed been practiced during warfare in classical times.
    Last edited by wayfarer; 13-09-2014 at 02:49 PM.

  2. #752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayfarer View Post
    Hi SSung

    Thank you for the article. Have you informed your source that the Quranic verse clearly indicates enemy combattants who are prisoners of war?

    I have read the verse thoroughly, and cannot find any reference to abducting aid workers, or the taking of civilian "captives". What I do see is:

    • When met in battle, kill the enemy,
    • firmly secure the enemy survivors of the battle in custody as prisoners,
    • thereafter, the first option mentioned is to freely release them,
    • and the second option mentioned is to impose a penalty on them as a condition for release.
    • the above is only valid during a legitimate war, and is not relevant once the war has subsided (i.e. "...until the war lay down its burdens.")

    It is well-known that the above has indeed been practiced during warfare in classical times.
    His response is going to be: "Show me where your commentary is found in the original text"

  3. #753
    Super Grandmaster isie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSung View Post
    by
    Robert Spencer
    Not a scholar (of Islam); may just as well have been written by a mallard.

    Karen Armstrong has criticized Spencer's work as showing "entrenched hostility" towards Islam, and his citations of Islamic scripture as cherry-picked, stating among other examples that "Spencer never cites the Koran's condemnation of all warfare as an 'awesome evil', its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict..." She concludes that "His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to 'prove' ... that the west is incurably hostile to their faith." Spencer responds: "Yet the verse she quotes (2:217) actually says only that warfare during the 'sacred month' is an 'awesome evil', and adds: 'Persecution is worse than killing.'" Spencer accuses Armstrong of context-dropping by omitting the fact that this was a defense for Muhammad's war in response to his persecution.

    Benazir Bhutto accused Spencer of "falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West". She said he was using the Internet to spread hatred of Islam by presenting a "skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict".

    Dinesh D'Souza, of the Hoover Institution, wrote that Spencer downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill to reach one-sided opinions. He contends that Spencer applies a moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any European empire.

    In an article discussing Bat Ye'or's 2005 book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, French academic historian Ivan Jablonka writes that Spencer's views lack academic seriousness. Jablonka also describes Spencer as having a relentless intent to designate "new enemies for wars to come".

    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) listed Spencer as a "Smearcaster" in an article in 2008, stating that "by selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent".

    Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) with Pamela Geller in 2010. Both organizations are designated as hate groups by the Anti-defamation league[31 and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Spencer and Geller American anti-Muslim writers because their writings "promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. This belief system parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." He continued, "we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs."

    In an October 2010 news article, an investigative report by The Tennessean described Spencer as one of several individuals who "...cash in on spreading hate and fear about Islam." Tennessean investigation concluded "IRS filings from 2008 show that Robert Spencer earned $132,537 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Horowitz pocketed over $400,000 for himself in just one year".
    Source
    Some times the internet is so slow, it would be faster to just fly to Google's headquarters and ask them this $h1t in person.!

  4. #754
    Grandmaster Mineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isie View Post
    Not a scholar (of Islam); may just as well have been written by a mallard.



    Source
    foil taqiyah's for all of them
    “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”― Nelson Mandela

  5. #755
    Super Grandmaster isie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mineer View Post
    foil taqiyah's for all of them
    You made my day
    Some times the internet is so slow, it would be faster to just fly to Google's headquarters and ask them this $h1t in person.!

  6. #756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayfarer View Post
    Hi SSung

    Thank you for the article. Have you informed your source that the Quranic verse clearly indicates enemy combattants who are prisoners of war?
    I'm sure that he is aware of that particular obfuscation. The verse does not "indicate enemy combatants who are prisoners of war". What constitutes "battle" can differ for different people. It is not unusual to consider anyone encountered during battle an enemy/collaborator/spy. Some translations don't even mention the word "battle" at all.

    I have read the verse thoroughly, and cannot find any reference to abducting aid workers, or the taking of civilian "captives".
    "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. " John Lyly

    Abducting aid workers/civilians isn't prohibited in Islam. Such acts are therefore considered fair in battle.

    What I do see is:

    • When met in battle, kill the enemy,[by trying to behead them]
    • firmly secure the enemy survivors of the battle in custody as prisoners,
    • thereafter, the first option mentioned is to freely release them,
    • and the second option mentioned is to impose a penalty on them as a condition for release.[there is no mention of a first or second option -maybe you didn't mean to imply an order]
    • the above is only valid during a legitimate war, and is not relevant once the war has subsided (i.e. "...until the war lay down its burdens.")[there is no mention of "legitimate war"]
    It is well-known that the above has indeed been practiced during warfare in classical times.
    Maybe, maybe even by Muslims, but your interpretation is still not part of Islam.

    As mentioned above, some translations don't mention battle at all & others are wildly different, for example:

    "So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allahs Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allahs Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost," -Hilali/Khan

    http://www.internetmosque.net/read/e...47/4/index.htm

    At the end of the day you have to ask yourself; if 'Allah' really didn't want Muslims to kill non-combatants, then why didn't he make a clear distinction between combatants & civilians? Wouldn't such a distinction made everyone's life much better?

  7. #757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suspect99 View Post
    His response is going to be: "Show me where your commentary is found in the original text"
    Commentary has to be verifiable to be useful. If a specific claim[/s] made in the commentary [...] can't be verified by reference to the source then that part of the commentary is useless.
    one character

  8. #758
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    2,654

    Default

    Are you guys genuinely still engaging someone that labels logical reasoning and deduction as "embellishment" when such reasoning and deduction doesn't agree with their preconceived, immutable, literally interpreted, narrow-minded, skewed perception of a piece of text?

    Honestly guys, the most basic requirement for engagement in debate is the ability to think. Why expend so much effort on someone that has repeatedly, and quite insistently, demonstrated that this basic requirement is, to put it mildly, outside of their comfort zone?

    Good luck guys. You're going to need it if you continue trying to have a civil debate with a brick wall.

    Now, moving on to discussions that require people with fully functional brains:

    @wayfarer
    Those are some very interesting bits of information you have posted. The article by K. McDonald highlights the real problem. What would you say is the solution, and specifically, what would the role of average muslims (normal guy in the street) be in this solution?
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAsk View Post
    gEEZUZ, is it an "IN" thing to be so incredibly ignorant?

  9. #759
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sodan View Post
    Are you guys genuinely still engaging someone that labels logical reasoning and deduction as "embellishment" when such reasoning and deduction doesn't agree with their preconceived, immutable, literally interpreted, narrow-minded, skewed perception of a piece of text?

    Honestly guys, the most basic requirement for engagement in debate is the ability to think. Why expend so much effort on someone that has repeatedly, and quite insistently, demonstrated that this basic requirement is, to put it mildly, outside of their comfort zone?

    Good luck guys. You're going to need it if you continue trying to have a civil debate with a brick wall.

    Now, moving on to discussions that require people with fully functional brains:

    @wayfarer
    Those are some very interesting bits of information you have posted. The article by K. McDonald highlights the real problem. What would you say is the solution, and specifically, what would the role of average muslims (normal guy in the street) be in this solution?
    I stopped replying to his nonsense a while ago, as you indicated it is a pointless exercise.

  10. #760
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    nwoT epaC
    Posts
    39,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSung View Post
    Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allahs Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost," -Hilali/Khan
    i think the bold text may hold a few clues.
    to my thinking (understanding), the verse is not about killing anyone - if it were, why bother about saving them from the punishment in the hell-fire, or having people under your protection ?

  11. #761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sodan View Post
    Are you guys genuinely still engaging someone that labels logical reasoning and deduction as "embellishment" when such reasoning and deduction doesn't agree with their preconceived, immutable, literally interpreted, narrow-minded, skewed perception of a piece of text?

    Honestly guys, the most basic requirement for engagement in debate is the ability to think. Why expend so much effort on someone that has repeatedly, and quite insistently, demonstrated that this basic requirement is, to put it mildly, outside of their comfort zone?
    Good luck guys. You're going to need it if you continue trying to have a civil debate with a brick wall.
    Thank you for your contribution & all the best in your showbiz career.

    Now, moving on to discussions that require people with fully functional brains:

    @wayfarer
    Those are some very interesting bits of information you have posted. The article by K. McDonald highlights the real problem. What would you say is the solution, and specifically, what would the role of average muslims (normal guy in the street) be in this solution?
    Shredded here:

    The anxiousness of Western non-Muslims to establish that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam continues, with ever more farfetched explanations of how they came about. Kevin McDonald, a professor of sociology and head of the department of criminology and sociology at Middlesex University, is not the first to ascribe the evils of the Islamic State to Christianity, as you can see from this cartoon that ran in the Hamilton Spectator and was later taken down, but his attempt may be the most imaginative.

    “Isis jihadis aren’t medieval – they are shaped by modern western philosophy,” by Kevin McDonald, the Guardian, September 9, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):

    Over recent weeks there has been a constant background noise suggesting that Islamic State (Isis) and its ideology are some sort of throwback to a distant past. It is often framed in language such as that used last week by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who said Isis was “medieval”. In fact, the terrorist group’s thinking is very much in a more modern, western tradition.

    Clegg’s intervention is not surprising. Given the extreme violence of Isis fighters and the frequent images of decapitated bodies, it is understandable that we attempt to make sense of these acts as somehow radically “other”.

    But this does not necessarily help us understand what is at stake. In particular, it tends to accept one of the core assertions of contemporary jihadism, namely that it reaches back to the origins of Islam. As one Isis supporter I follow on Twitter is fond of saying: “The world changes; Islam doesn’t”.

    This is not just a question for academic debate. It has real impact. One of the attractions of jihadist ideology to many young people is that it shifts generational power in their communities. Jihadists, and more broadly Islamists, present themselves as true to their religion, while their parents, so they argue, are mired in tradition or “culture”.
    But they’re wrong, asserts McDonald:

    It needs to be said very clearly: contemporary jihadism is not a return to the past. It is a modern, anti-traditional ideology with a very significant debt to western political history and culture.

    When he made his speech in July at Mosul’s Great Mosque declaring the creation of an Islamic state with himself as its caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi quoted at length from the Indian/Pakistani thinker Abul A’la Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami party in 1941 and originator of the contemporary term Islamic state.

    Maududi’s Islamic state is profoundly shaped by western ideas and concepts. He takes a belief shared between Islam and other religious traditions, namely that God alone is the ultimate judge of a person, and transforms this – reframing God’s possession of judgment into possession of, and ultimately monopoly of, “sovereignty”. Maududi also draws upon understandings of the natural world governed by laws that are expressions of the power of God – ideas at the heart of the 17th-century scientific revolution. He combines these in a vision of the sovereignty of God, then goes on to define this sovereignty in political terms, affirming that “God alone is the sovereign” (The Islamic Way of Life). The state and the divine thus fuse together, so that as God becomes political, and politics becomes sacred.
    In that paragraph, McDonald betrays his profound ignorance of Islam and the historical caliphates. He seems to think that Maududi invented the idea of the Islamic state, when in fact that concept is as old as the Umayyad caliphate. Another British professor, David Thomas, who shares McDonald’s view that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, was closer to the mark when he noted that in restoring the caliphate, the Islamic State “reverted to a model that has been the reality in parts of the Islamic world for most of its history. For nearly 1,400 years the caliph was head of the entire Islamic state. He often wielded unimaginable power, and always great influence.”

    Such sovereignty is completely absent in medieval culture, with its fragmented world and multiple sources of power. Its origins lie instead in the Westphalian system of states and the modern scientific revolution.
    Nonsense. Such sovereignty existed in the Middle Ages in the Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, and later in the Ottoman caliphate. McDonald shows no sign of knowing that those Islamic states existed, or of how, in them, “the state and the divine” fused together.

    But Maududi’s debt to European political history extends beyond his understanding of sovereignty. Central to his thought is his understanding of the French revolution, which he believed offered the promise of a “state founded on a set of principles” as opposed to one based upon a nation or a people. For Maududi this potential withered in France; its achievement would have to await an Islamic state.
    Maududi was very canny at using modern Western political thought as a vehicle for dawah. He tried to sell Islam to twentieth-century Westerners by appropriating the language of Communism and other contemporary political movements. McDonald is basing his analysis of Maududi’s thought on this essay, which does indeed say that the French Revolution offered the promise of a “state founded on a set of principles,” but does not say what McDonald assumes — that Maududi thought the French originated that concept. In reality, Maududi wrote about the caliphate as the legitimate form of government for the Islamic umma not in terms of concepts borrowed from the French Revolution, but in terms of traditional Islamic understandings of the nature and source of political sovereignty.

    In revolutionary France, it is the state that creates its citizens and nothing should be allowed to stand between the citizen and the state. That is why today French government agencies are still prevented by law from collecting data about ethnicity, considered a potential intermediary community between state and citizen.

    This universal citizen, separated from community, nation or history, lies at the heart of Maududi’s vision of “citizenship in Islam”. Just as the revolutionary French state created its citizens, with the citizen unthinkable outside the state, so too the Islamic state creates its citizens. This is at the basis of Maududi’s otherwise unintelligible argument that one can only be a Muslim in an Islamic state.
    Maududi didn’t originate the concept of the supranational umma, either. The ideas of the Muslims of the world forming a global community and of the faith as a whole only being fully realized in an Islamic state are as old as Islam itself.

    tbc
    Last edited by bwana; 16-09-2014 at 08:26 AM. Reason: Personal Attack on a fellow forumite

  12. #762

    Default

    Don’t look to the Qur’an to understand this – look to the French revolution and ultimately to the secularisation of an idea that finds its origins in European Christianity: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), an idea that became transformed with the birth of modern European states into extra stato nulla persona (outside the state there is no legal personhood). This idea still demonstrates extraordinary power today: it is the source of what it means to be a refugee.
    Maududi’s “otherwise unintelligible argument that one can only be a Muslim in an Islamic state” is actually based on the idea that Islamic law is Allah’s law, is indispensable to Islam, and therefore one can only live the full Muslim life in an Islamic state in which Sharia is implemented. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus or any other Christian idea.

    If Isis’s state is profoundly modern, so too is its violence. Isis fighters do not simply kill; they seek to humiliate, as we saw last week as they herded Syrian reservists wearing only their underpants to their death. And they seek to dishonour the bodies of their victims, in particular through postmortem manipulations.
    “For the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment” — Qur’an 2:90

    Such manipulations aim at destroying the body as a singularity. The body becomes a manifestation of a collectivity to be obliterated, its manipulation rendering what was once a human person into an “abominable stranger”. Such practices are increasingly evident in war today.

    Central to Isis’s programme is its claim to Muslim heritage – witness al-Baghdadi’s dress. Part of countering this requires understanding the contemporary sources of its ideology and its violence. In no way can it be understood as a return to the origins of Islam. This is a core thesis of its supporters, one that should not be given any credence at all.
    Why not? Why the anxiety to dissociate the Islamic State from Islam? Ultimately McDonald’s piece here is designed to reassure Britons about the growing number of Muslims in their midst, and to shore up the British establishment’s disastrous policies on immigration and the appeasement of Islamic supremacists. Don’t worry about the Islamic State, folks. The Muslims in the U.K. will never behave like they’re behaving, since the Islamic State fellows aren’t even Islamic, they’re just imitating European Christians. There. Feel better?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/gu...n-christianity

    Who wants to make the 'not a scholar' argument first?

    I stopped replying to his nonsense a while ago, as you indicated it is a pointless exercise.
    Yes, a pointless exercise when you're being battered, indeed.

  13. #763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sodan View Post
    @wayfarer
    Those are some very interesting bits of information you have posted. The article by K. McDonald highlights the real problem. What would you say is the solution, and specifically, what would the role of average muslims (normal guy in the street) be in this solution?
    Sodan, that is probably the most important question asked on this topic - thank you.

    There are two general prongs to the answer that I would like to proffer.

    1. Education (relevant to both Muslims and non-Muslims) and consideration of scholarship. Ignorance is genius in catastrophising. We need Muslims to educate themselves. The truth is that the vast majority of Muslims (even mainstream Muslims) know very little about their own religion. I have come across Muslims who have based their identities on information that they have gleaned from sensationalist Islamophobic media outlets and hate sites! Mainstream Islam has a rich and proactive scholarly legacy; and trusting in veteran, collective, centuries old, organic scholarship is what kept Muslims safe from harmful innovation for over 1400 years. Muslims have to make a concerted effort to learn their own normative tradition, that they may adhere to it with greater fidelity.

    2. Turning to religion for its intended purpose. Religion has tremendous potential to help human beings to rise above themselves and become actualised as true ones. While it is true that Muslims are victims of such phenomena as ruthless Western hegemonies, Zionist brutality, tyrannical dictators, etc., and Muslims are required to strive against this aggression, activists would do well to remember that history is in Good Hands.

    Islam teaches us that we have 3 enemies - 3 REAL enemies, as these challenge the very safety of our souls. These 3 are:
    1. The baser self (nafs), forever wanting, unsatiated.
    2. The world (dunya), in terms of it trapping and deluding.
    3. Satan, the whisperer, forever calling the nafs to pursue the dunya.

    It is against these enemies that the jihad of Muslims must be most firm. The spiritual refinement that results from this "greater jihad" will instill in the Muslims the insight, mindfulness and steadfastness required to prevent them from being whipped into a frenzy of anti-Islamic extremism conducted in the very name of Islam.

    In short, Muslims have to be more Muslim.
    Last edited by wayfarer; 15-09-2014 at 01:44 PM.

  14. #764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isie View Post
    Not a scholar (of Islam); may just as well have been written by a mallard.
    Please pay attention:

    Originally Posted by wayfarer:

    It appears that you are saying that an expert sociologist/criminologist is not an authority on large scale sociopolitical catastrophes and extremist criminals.

    My reply:

    No, it's just easier to use the argument you'll resort to once you're cornered.

    Karen Armstrong has criticized Spencer's work as showing "entrenched hostility" towards Islam, and his citations of Islamic scripture as cherry-picked, stating among other examples that "Spencer never cites the Koran's condemnation of all warfare as an 'awesome evil', its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict..." She concludes that "His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to 'prove' ... that the west is incurably hostile to their faith." Spencer responds: "Yet the verse she quotes (2:217) actually says only that warfare during the 'sacred month' is an 'awesome evil', and adds: 'Persecution is worse than killing.'" Spencer accuses Armstrong of context-dropping by omitting the fact that this was a defense for Muhammad's war in response to his persecution.
    Karen Armstrong = useful idiot/charlatan for Islam. She's been shredded by Robert numerous times overt the years:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/search_gcs...en%20armstrong

    Benazir Bhutto accused Spencer of "falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West". She said he was using the Internet to spread hatred of Islam by presenting a "skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict".
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/search_gcs...nazir%20Bhutto

    She claimed that Robert wrote something which was in fact written by one of her fellow Pakistani Muslims & was then assassinated by her fellow Muslims. Grace under fire, I guess.

    I'll post more on the erstwhile Benazir Bhutto later on. Some interesting reading, thank you for bringing her up (so to speak).

    Dinesh D'Souza, of the Hoover Institution, wrote that Spencer downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill to reach one-sided opinions. He contends that Spencer applies a moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any European empire.
    Dinesh D'Souza? Do you have any idea who this peophol is?

    Anyways:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/search_gcse?q=Dinesh

    In an article discussing Bat Ye'or's 2005 book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, French academic historian Ivan Jablonka writes that Spencer's views lack academic seriousness. Jablonka also describes Spencer as having a relentless intent to designate "new enemies for wars to come".
    I'm not sure if Robert is aware of Ivan Jablonka's claims, I'll try to email him. That said, it appears as if Jablonka is making a variation of the 'not a scholar' claim. What does Jablonka make of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has "BA, MA and PhD degrees in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

    tbc

  15. #765

    Default

    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) listed Spencer as a "Smearcaster" in an article in 2008, stating that "by selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent".
    Groups like FAIR are a dime/dozen & not even scholars either. This group seems like a particularly small fry in big pond and they appear to suffer from Islamophilia as well as anti-conservative bias. I'm sure that Robert holds them in the same regard as the SPLC & the ADL below, but I'll check with him via e-mail.

    Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) with Pamela Geller in 2010. Both organizations are designated as hate groups by the Anti-defamation league[31 and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
    Robert Spencer is no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were “anti-German.” It has become common, because of the efforts of Islamic supremacist and Leftist groups, to equate resistance to jihad terror with “hate,” but there is no substance to this. Spencer’s work has been entirely dedicated to defending the freedom of speech and the principle of equality of rights for all people before the law.

    The SPLC keeps tabs on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. And that is good. But the implication of their hate group label is that the group that Spencer and Geller founded, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is another one of those, which is false. While the SPLC may have done good work in the 1960s against white racists, in recent years it has become a mere propaganda organ for the Left, tarring any group that dissents from its extreme political agenda as a “hate group.” Significantly, although it lists hundreds of groups as “hate groups,” it includes not a single Islamic jihad group on this list. And its “hate group” designation against the Family Research Council led one of its followers to storm the FRC offices with a gun, determined to murder the chief of the FRC. This shows that these kinds of charges shouldn’t be thrown around frivolously, as tools to demonize and marginalize those whose politics the SPLC dislikes. But that is exactly what they do. Its hard-Left leanings are well known and well documented. This Weekly Standard article sums up much of what is wrong with the SPLC.

    The ADL traffics in the same reckless defamation. They have libeled the preeminent lawyer and orthodox Jew David Yerushalmi as an “extremist,” an “anti-Muslim bigot” and a “white supremacist.” The ADL has even condemned Israel for fighting anti-Semitism. According to Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – biggest Jewish ‘defense’ organization — admits in private that the biggest danger to Jews since WWII comes from Muslim Jew-hatred, but because it fears offending its liberal donors and being charged with ‘Islamophobia,’ the organization remains essentially silent on the issue. In a study of ADL press releases from 1995 to 2011– a good if not perfect indicator of ADL priorities – we found that only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism.” (For the full study, see www.charlesjacobs.org.)

    The ADL has defamed many people. The ADL was successfully sued for over $10 million for defaming a Colorado couple, whom they accused of bigotry. The judgment was confirmed by every court that reviewed it, and was ultimately paid by the ADL. This was the largest defamation judgment in the history of the State of Colorado — paid by the Anti-Defamation League.


    http://www.jihadwatch.org/rebuttals

    Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Spencer and Geller American anti-Muslim writers because their writings "promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. This belief system parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." He continued, "we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs."
    Robert Spencer:

    [I]f anyone is pushing a conspiratorial agenda, it is groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

    It was not Pamela Geller and I, but Brotherhood operative Mohammed Akram, who declared that the Brotherhood organizations” U.S. goal was “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as quoted above.

    Swaim likens our efforts to the anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust “” another wild smear charge. Nowhere have we ever advocated that any innocent person be harmed in any way. Nowhere have we advocated anything like the anti-Semitic laws that National Socialist Germany adopted in the run-up to the Holocaust. The Jews in pre-World War II Germany were innocent victims of slanderous attacks.

    There was no analogy to the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood jihad massacre or the Boston Marathon jihad murders among them. To claim that we cannot fight peacefully and lawfully against the ideology that led to those attacks because other people were falsely accused and persecuted decades ago is not just monstrously foolish and wrong-headed; it is also giving aid and comfort to those who perpetrated those attacks.

    “By blaming all Muslims rather than the minority who are terrorists, hate-mongers like Spencer would deprive us of our best partners.” But Swaim does not, and cannot, adduce a single quotation from me in which I blame all Muslims for the minority who are terrorists.

    In fact, since October 2003, I have had this notice at my website Jihad Watch: “Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/ko...o-caves-to-sme

    In an October 2010 news article, an investigative report by The Tennessean described Spencer as one of several individuals who "...cash in on spreading hate and fear about Islam." Tennessean investigation concluded "IRS filings from 2008 show that Robert Spencer earned $132,537 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Horowitz pocketed over $400,000 for himself in just one year".
    How much are you earning? Do have to spend thousands on security due to death threats from Muslims?

    Robert Spencer:

    The Tennessean report, like Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, completely ignores the genuine concern that people have about jihad and Islamic supremacist activity, and the fact that Muslim groups (aided and abetted by Obama) use claims of “hate” and “bigotry” to shut down honest discussion of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. Killian and Moore expatiated at length about how “inflammatory” speech could violate civil rights laws, and how Arab and Muslim children were being taunted in school, and how Tennesseans should be more welcoming, etc. But no one was there to defend the taunting of Muslim or Arab schoolchildren. No one was there because he hated foreigners. People were there because they know that truthful and accurate exploration of Islam’s violent teachings has been deemed “inflammatory” by both Muslim groups and the Obama regime — and that leaves us unable to examine the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, or to defend ourselves adequately against them. That’s why everyone was so upset with Killian and Moore, but they were either oblivious to that fact or intent on ignoring it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 77 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PE: Train derails
    By MickeyD in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-06-2014, 02:27 PM
  2. Server 2008 Redirected Share/NTFS Security Permissions?
    By MadCat in forum Networking and Security
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20-02-2011, 04:46 PM
  3. Gautrain derails M&R earnings
    By Mila in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-08-2010, 10:21 AM
  4. Facebook Mobile being redirected or cached by VC ?
    By MyDraadloos in forum Vodacom Broadband and Mobile Internet | LTE, HSPA+, HSDPA, 3G, EDGE, GPRS and BIS
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-06-2008, 02:34 PM
  5. Google.co.za being redirected to mweb.co.za
    By mercurial in forum Broadband and IT News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 12:42 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •