The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
I Don't HATE Muslims—I'm PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
path-663x372

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On the campaign trail coming up to the 2012 election, Republican hopeful Herman Cain confessed to not knowing who was the president of, quote, “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.”

I had a soft spot for Cain, although in retrospect it was probably just solidarity with a fellow 1945 baby and math geek, and desperation at the awfulness of the other Republican candidates. I bet Cain still doesn’t know who is the President of Uzbekistan. I don’t either, and I can’t be bothered to look it up. Not all knowledge is worth the trouble of acquiring it.

New York City got a little taste of Uzbekistan last week, though, when a native of that country, inspired by radical Islam, deliberately, with malice aforethought, drove a truck along a Manhattan bike path, killing eight and injuring a dozen more.

The Uzbeki, name of Sayfullo Saipov, 29 years old, married with either two or three young children, came to the U.S.A. in 2010 on a Diversity visa. He’s worked as an Uber driver, perhaps having misread the word “Uber” in the job ad as “Uzbek.”

It’s well known, I think, that there is a desperate shortage of Americans that know how to drive automobiles, so it’s right and good that we import drivers from Central Asia to alleviate the problem. Otherwise vehicles would be left rotting in the garages.

Seriously, though, as I whined in my monthly diary the other day, for commentators like myself, who have been writing about the nation’s immigration follies for, in my case, nigh on twenty years, it’s hard to come up with anything to say that we haven’t said a dozen times before.

Mark Steyn, as imaginative and creative a writer as we could wish, has fallen back on just cutting and pasting from articles he wrote back in the first George W. Bush administration.

I can do even better than that. I have pieces pointing out the insanity of U.S. immigration that I published back when Bill Clinton was President!

Cut’n’paste from me, National Review Online, October 17, 2000:

This lunacy has even affected the Higher Journalism. The current (Sept/Oct 2000) issue of Foreign Affairs has a piece titled “Out-of-Control Immigration” by one James Goldsborough, bylined as “Foreign Affairs Columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune.” Mr. Goldsborough takes us through all the idiocy of current immigration practice (there doesn’t seem much point to saying “law”), and gives a grim picture of the prospects for massive civil disorder if the economy takes a downturn and all those aliens suddenly have no jobs. After all this good sense, he concludes as follows:

If Congress and the next president do not come up with reasonable solutions along the lines proposed by the Jordan Commission, the field will be clear for the unreasonable solutions advanced by politicians such as Pete Wilson and Patrick Buchanan and discriminatory initiatives like Proposition 187.

Those “unreasonable” solutions and “discriminatory” initiatives include such measures as denying welfare services to illegal aliens and free public education to their children. Patrick Buchanan favors—oh, my God!—arresting illegal aliens and deporting them. [Links added]

I intend no disrespect to Mr. Saipov’s victims. I only want to make the point that the pros and cons of immigration issues are not difficult to grasp; but getting them into the public square for open, honest discussion is difficult. There are tens of millions of intelligent adults in the U.S.A., but discussion of anything to do with immigration is conducted at a moron level.

And, full disclosure: I cheated a bit there. My cut’n’paste from seventeen years ago dealt with illegal aliens—a topic that has been fairly openly discussed in respectable circles for twenty years or so—although even then, with the fair application of sensible laws pointed’n’sputtered at as “unreasonable” and “discriminatory.”

Mr. Saipov, though, entered the U.S.A. legally, via the Diversity Visa lottery. Legal immigration is still virtually un-discussable in our public square. There is almost nothing you can say about it without loss of respectability points—nothing, I mean, other than that immigration is a jolly good thing, it enriches and refreshes America, We Are A Nation Of Immigrants, and so on. Anything negative draws frowns, sneers, and accusations of bigotry.

Consider for example the suggestion that we should stop permitting Muslims to settle in the U.S.A., and ask foreign Muslims resident here to leave, with of course a decent interval to close out their affairs. We could also allow temporary exceptions for diplomatic or commercial purposes, or in the case of real, credentialed scholars, or persons who have performed dangerous and difficult services on behalf of our country, or wives and dependent children of citizens: the suggestion is that we decisively turn our faces away from entry of any other Muslims.

If you say that in the public square you are denounced for bigotry and hate; but that, like so much of our public language nowadays, is infantile. I favor the suggestion I just spelled out; but I don’t mind Muslims or Islam. I certainly don’t hate them or it.

I have argued this at length more than once. Here I was ten years ago, for example, also on National Review Online, after some exchanges with famous Islamophobe author Robert Spencer:

A fighting faith is of course a proud faith, and nothing pumps poison into the bloodstream like pride brought low. Inside every Muslim today there is a voice whispering:

“Our faith is so pure and true, our civilizations lasted so long and ruled so many, our God was so potent: yet here we are in the modern world, backward and poor except where accidents of nature have blessed us, our rulers corrupt, our culture mocked or ignored, our people squabbling among themselves, or fleeing the homelands to work as taxi drivers and menials in the great glittering cities of the infidels, those homelands themselves part-stolen by the wretched Jews. It’s all wrong, wrong, wrong! Grrrrr!!!

ORDER IT NOW

That’s the Islam we’re up against. I don’t myself believe we can do much to reform it. Muslims have to do that for themselves. Any helping hand we reach out will be spat upon. While they sort out their problems, though, I do thin k we should keep Islam at arm’s length, for our own safety. Keep ’em out; fence ’em off; send Muslim visitors home; keep a wary eye on Muslim citizens.

Leave them the consolations of their faith, though; stop trying to convince me that there is no good at all in that faith; and, if you’re the praying type, pray that the good will prevail at last.

Is that hateful? I don’t see it.

The title I gave to that piece was “Islamophobophobia.” I was expressing my mild aversion to Islamophobia, and to Islamophobes like Robert Spencer … who, by the way, I also don’t hate. He strikes me as a decent sort of chap, but with a bee in his bonnet.

Can’t we do anything about this childish usage of the word “hate”?

The policy I’m suggesting is of course discriminatory; but as I and everyone else on our side of the issue has been saying for years to anyone willing to listen, the entire point of immigration laws is to discriminate: to discriminate between people you want entering your country, and people you don’t.

Nobody thinks there are none of the latter. Even Open-Borders cranks would keep out, for example, known criminals on the run. At any rate, I assume they would. If they wouldn’t, they’re over the line from crankiness to madness.

I was arguing there—and wouldn’t retract a single word now, ten years later—that while the Islamic world is in the condition it’s in, while it’s afflicted with the common psychopathologies we see expressed in cases like Mr. Saipov, we shouldn’t give visas to any but a tiny number of Muslims.

That’s not hatred–that’s prudence. I certainly don’t hate Islam. To hate it, I’d need to have an informed opinion about it.

Robert Spencer does hate it, and does have an informed opinion. He’s read the Koran, in the original classical Arabic. Should I take him as an authority figure, and hate Islam along with him? I decline to do so, for reasons I spelled out at length when reviewing one of his books.

I decline to have an opinion about Islam. A thoughtful, responsible citizen is not obliged to have an opinion about everything. To have a properly informed opinion about Islam I’d have to read the Koran. I refuse to do so.

I have tried reading other people’s scriptures. I had a go at the Bhagavad Gita once—hoo-ee! I’ve tried the Book of Mormon, too. Sorry, and no offense to anyone—certainly not Hindus or Mormons—but life’s too short.

There is a Taoist bible, did you know that? Yes, the Taoist religion—not to be confused with Taoist philosophy, of course—the Taoist religion has a bible, the Daozang. It’s very big—fifteen hundred volumes, tens of thousands of pages. You can buy an English-language companion to it, with thumbnail descriptions of all those volumes. That companion book is a mere eighteen hundred pages long.

I have no plans to read the Taoist bible, nor even the companion book. I wouldn’t read it even if Taoists were blowing up people at marathons or pop concerts, or mowing down cyclists on bike paths. I feel no necessity to have an opinion about religious Taoism.

If Taoists were doing those horrible things, though, I would raise my voice in favor of U.S. immigration laws discriminating strongly against Taoists. Why wouldn’t I? That would just be a sensible prudence.

Not hate–prudence. They’re different things.

2010-12-24dl[1]

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 302 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for ‘refugees’ and ‘immigrants’. Of course it’s the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim ‘immigrants’ and ‘refugees’. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one’s own race, one’s own people, and one’s own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that “It’s Okay to be White” is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don’t. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for ‘me’. It’s like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or ‘narcissism of small differences’.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn’t because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something ‘new’. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn’t fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn’t some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for ‘gay marriage’, but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren’t allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren’t likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It’s just reported as some new social trend, like it’s cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about ‘white guilt’, the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the ‘sick west’. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many ‘white trash’ masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of ‘injustice’, what they really mean is ‘you weak’. Blacks don’t get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It’s like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say ‘you weak’ and tear him limb from limb. This is why ‘white guilt’ won’t work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today’s goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean ‘you weak!’
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don’t deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard Wolfsdorff
    Brilliant as usual, Priss.
    , @LauraMR
    Come on, admit it. You wrote this on the side and waited until a quasi-relevant generic article popped up to post it.
    , @WHAT
    >black dongs
    >black muscle
    >white wimminz

    Hey there Chechenova!
    , @wow
    Great synopsis...especially that Muslims view the West (whites) as weak.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Zionists don’t really hate Muslims, in so far as they are not in the way. Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them. Saudis, who are as Moslem and Moslem gets, are not in the way, so they are not hated. All in all, Zionists don’t bear any particular animus against the religion of Islam itself, certainly not to the degree they do Christianity.
    , @AaronB
    Would you consider, Priss, that what you call racism - belief in one's people - is a byproduct?

    It is sort of like self-esteem - one cannot pluck it out of thin air.

    Jews, Muslims, even Chinese - all ground their self-belief in seeing themselves as servants of a higher power, manifesters and vehicles of divine values.

    HBD, genes, survival of the fittest - only white people have attempted to ground their self-belief in materialism.

    Ironicaly, racism may not be capable of being based on frank selfishness.

    What a delicious irony!

    A people may only be able to believe in itself when it sees itself as a vehicle of higher values!

    Racism may not be capable of a materialistic basis.

    Certainly, it is striking that white self-belief - white racism - began to decline when whites ceased seeing themselves as bearers of higher values, and became frankly materialistic.

    Your prophet Darwin has failed you, Priss, and has brought ruin upon your people.

    And yet whites cling loyally, with infinite stupidity, to the prophet that has brought them to ruin.

    The attempt now to erect white self-belief, white racism, on a Darwinism basis - with all its talk of genes, HBD, and evolution - what could be stupider?

    What could better evince a lack of insight and clarity?

    Have whites forever lost the ability to think idealistically? Are they condemned to a blind and stupid realism until they vanish from the earth, victims of their own stubbornness?

    , @survey-of-disinfo

    Of course it’s the gentiles
     
    It may interest you to know Priss that in the Quran Muhammad (SAWS) is called "The Gentile Prophet". The specific term used is 'ummi' which typically is translated to as "unlettered". (The Israelites -- not to be confused with the tribe of Judah or the Khazarian horde -- were given "holy letters" via Moses (SA)).

    I also disagree regarding those who hate Muslims. It is not Muslims per se but rather The Quran that infuriates the demons. So any who adheres to falsehood hates that book, and none more than "the enemy" of mankind.

    We hurl the True against the false, and it breaks its head and behold! it vanishes.
     
    , @Mark Green
    Priss' observations are always insightful and often abound with extraordinary insight. This rejoinder is no exception.
    , @Sowhat
    "Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose."

    "Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride."

    SPOT ON! Good Comment, Priss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/i-dont-hate-muslims-im-prudent-about-them-theres-a-difference/#comment-2065286
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. but I don’t mind Muslims or Islam.

    Well, it’s easy not to mind it when it’s thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it’s all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    But when you find yourself surrounded by these culturally hostile bastards, it’s rather difficult to not mind it.

    Personally, I don’t mind confessing that I hate Islam, the religion. I can see nothing admirable or worth emulating in it. It’s a scourge on humanity. I don’t think you can find a more oppressive social force on the planet today. I’d certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day.

    Hating Muslims themselves is more difficult. There are certainly times when I do hate them, but it’s not a constant feeling. And then I feel somewhat guilty when I calm down and remind myself that they’re people too, and it’s not really their fault for being raised in that faith, and most of the time they’re not that bad, and the ones who are racially closer to home – Bosnians, Albanians, even Turks – I often tend to like rather than dislike. (It’s mostly the accursed Arabs who tick me off, the way they congregate in large numbers in nightspots I like to frequent, looking for the slightest excuse to provoke a fight. But perhaps even this is only a temporary phase. From my own experience, they’re not as bad as they were twenty years ago.)

    I decline to have an opinion about Islam. A thoughtful, responsible citizen is not obliged to have an opinion about everything. To have a properly informed opinion about Islam I’d have to read the Koran. I refuse to do so.

    Come off it. You surely know enough to justify having an opinion.

    Also, this sort of thinking provides an opening for multiculturalists to claim that anyone with a negative opinion about Islam doesn’t yet know enough about it to have an opinion. Then no matter how much you study it, as long as your opinion remains negative, they’ll always respond that you still have more to learn; that when you “truly” understand it, you’ll come to appreciate it. That’s a mug’s game.

    All this said, I’m not sure Robert Spencer’s relentless attacks are the way to go. I think that just causes Muslims to dig their heels in even more. It’s better to criticize them, but also leave them a dignified way out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Well, it’s easy not to mind it when it’s thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it’s all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    ... I’d certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day
     
    .

    Well, you see; the genie answered your prayer.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense. Clearly that deity didn't care enough about his creatures to make sure they were all instructed in the unique truth. If you do exert yourself enough to grasp that near truism you not only have an opinion about Islam but you would probably want to put some effort into developing a universal secular morality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Randal says:

    Now you’re getting at one of the foundational lies of the liberal dogmas of political correctness – the dishonest and intentionally smearing conflation of disapproval or dislike with “hatred”, and all that follows on from that.

    It can be found wherever the liars of political correctness gather:

    Don’t approve of the normalisation of homosexual behaviour? You “hate” homosexuals. You’re a “homophobe”.

    Recognise that jewish people have collective interests upon which their lobbies act, that they have disproportionate influence in the societies of the modern US sphere, and that their culture is inherently foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe? You “hate” jews. You’re an “antisemite”.

    Don’t think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they’re better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to blacks and every bad feature of black cultures is due to historic and current white racism? Don’t think that more blacks is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you “hate” blacks. You’re a “racist”.

    Don’t think women are collectively identical to men (except where they’re better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to women and every drawback of femaleness is due to historic and current sexism? Don’t think that more women and more power for women is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you “hate” women. You’re a “misogynist”.

    Recognise that islam is foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe, or that there are downsides to Islamic culture and mass muslim immigration? Then you “hate” islam and muslims. You’re an islamophobe.

    This is one of the core dysfunctions of modern US sphere cultures, and if left unchallenged for much longer it will keep enabling the radicalisation of minority groups and rationalisation of their aggressive violence and thuggery, and the suppression of necessary dissent against globalisation and against unchecked minority lobby power. Ultimately it will leave only revolution and civil war as possible alternatives to the defeat of liberty and of national survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    randal, agree 100%.

    Modern political rhetoric pretty much destroys nuanced patterns of thought and feeling that, I used to think, were the hallmark of reasonably educated people. Good grief!--what's the point of education if it isn't to cultivate a capacity to discern distinctions that make a difference?

    I've used the expression "cordial but wary" to describe the relations between Blacks and Whites in my northern (USA) industrial city before the tsunami of civil rights legislation. I'd fully expect that phrase would be regarded as "code" of some sort, and I'd be instantly dismissed as a "hater" who wants to "turn the clock back" if I were to use that phrase publicly.
    , @Truth

    Don’t think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they’re better on average, of course),
     
    Of course not, Sport. That would be absolutely ridiculous!

    I have to admit, y'all make pretty good beer.

    Talha, you don't drink, but if you think hard for a few hours, you'll come up with somethin vis-a-vis whites vs. Muslims.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Renoman says:

    The question I ask is “what’s in it for us”? Why bring them into our societies, they hate us, most have a low IQ, they pray 5 times a day, [do you suppose that's not gonna throw a wrench in the capitalist day] they breed like rats, they cover their faces, they don’t integrate with other groups. Near as I can see the only thing they make is more Muslims, why do it? Let them live in their own countries and leave them alone, we don’t need them and they certainly don’t like us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Separate countries for separate people. It's a simple concept.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. I don’t hate Moslems, but I am realistic about how many of them hate me.

    Your list of acceptable Moslems was pretty good. I’d reduce the list by one. The West really has no need for more real or credentialed scholars. We are already heavy laden with persons devoted to books and tax-supported stipends.

    Islam is a triumphal religion. Adherents believe they’re destined to take over the world by any means necessary. That makes Islam inherently violent, even if some individual Moslems are at peace.

    Odd political footnote: Bobby Jindal, the former governor of Louisiana and unsuccessful POTUS candidate, noted that many Moslems have “come here to conquer us.” What a pleasant surprise for a politician to say something so bluntly honest. I don’t advocate reading the whole Tao bible. But we should, like Jindal, know enough to know who’s coming here to conquer us. And then we should say it out loud. Google the string, “bobby jindal Muslims conquer” and you’ll find tons of hits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    You should get up to speed on the barking mad murderous psychopathic god of the Jews.

    Read the "old testament".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Nice work, Derbs. But my impression has been, for twenty years now, since Ok City, that no matter how you slice it, from now on, every now and then, we’re gonna have to take a beatin’. They’re here now. Catch the ones you can and accept that once in awhile, NYC happens. Paris happens, Las Vegas happens. With that knowledge in hand, get out of the M.East, let China handle the Norks, express deterrence toward Russia, China and Iran for the behavior of their client-Norks and leave the Pacific.

    Every other path, doom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Hell no, I will NOT accept that. Muslims already here need to be lawfully removed, under new laws enacted for that purpose. Peacefully and through financial incentives if possible.

    Demolish every mosque in this country.
    And stop allowing “imams” to proselytize and recruit in our prisons and our military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. JackOH says:
    @Randal
    Now you're getting at one of the foundational lies of the liberal dogmas of political correctness - the dishonest and intentionally smearing conflation of disapproval or dislike with "hatred", and all that follows on from that.

    It can be found wherever the liars of political correctness gather:

    Don't approve of the normalisation of homosexual behaviour? You "hate" homosexuals. You're a "homophobe".

    Recognise that jewish people have collective interests upon which their lobbies act, that they have disproportionate influence in the societies of the modern US sphere, and that their culture is inherently foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe? You "hate" jews. You're an "antisemite".

    Don't think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they're better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to blacks and every bad feature of black cultures is due to historic and current white racism? Don't think that more blacks is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you "hate" blacks. You're a "racist".

    Don't think women are collectively identical to men (except where they're better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to women and every drawback of femaleness is due to historic and current sexism? Don't think that more women and more power for women is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you "hate" women. You're a "misogynist".

    Recognise that islam is foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe, or that there are downsides to Islamic culture and mass muslim immigration? Then you "hate" islam and muslims. You're an islamophobe.

    This is one of the core dysfunctions of modern US sphere cultures, and if left unchallenged for much longer it will keep enabling the radicalisation of minority groups and rationalisation of their aggressive violence and thuggery, and the suppression of necessary dissent against globalisation and against unchecked minority lobby power. Ultimately it will leave only revolution and civil war as possible alternatives to the defeat of liberty and of national survival.

    randal, agree 100%.

    Modern political rhetoric pretty much destroys nuanced patterns of thought and feeling that, I used to think, were the hallmark of reasonably educated people. Good grief!–what’s the point of education if it isn’t to cultivate a capacity to discern distinctions that make a difference?

    I’ve used the expression “cordial but wary” to describe the relations between Blacks and Whites in my northern (USA) industrial city before the tsunami of civil rights legislation. I’d fully expect that phrase would be regarded as “code” of some sort, and I’d be instantly dismissed as a “hater” who wants to “turn the clock back” if I were to use that phrase publicly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. unit472 says:

    I think immigration should be handled in a manner similar to how nations deal with trade in goods and services. The US might allow free immigration with Japan, the EU even Mexico and China if those nations allow Americans equal access, including property rights, to their territory. I would have no objection if, e.g. Mexico or Japan, denied residency to American paupers or drug addicts just as we could deny residency to a Mexican derelict or criminal but if Juan wants to come to Texas buy property or open a business fine just as long as John from Texas can do the same in Mexico City.

    Reciprocity is the key here. If China wants any American moving to China to meet some educational or financial threshold fine but we can apply that same threshold to their nationals seeking to move to the US. Once that threshold is met then the immigrant would have the same legal and economic rights as anyone else in either country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Talha says:

    Wow – pretty balanced article on the whole.

    “It’s all wrong, wrong, wrong! Grrrrr!!!” That’s the Islam we’re up against.

    Bingo! That is the version Islam that is causing the problem. The one that is too spiritually immature to recognize that God grants worldly success to various people at various times throughout history, the one that doesn’t recognize that sometimes poverty is better than wealth, that being oppressed is always, always preferable to being on top if you’re just going to become the oppressor, that it might actually be a good thing to be left in the dust by post-modernity as it speeds along the tracks not thinking the bridge is out ahead*.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they’re butchering us left and right as well since we won’t get with their program). Missing one thing though that Mr. Dersbyshire always seems to suffer from which his lack of acknowledgment of the massive part played by foreign policies that have laid to waste a good amount of the ME and caused such tremendous population movement.

    Is that hateful? I don’t see it.

    Neither do I.

    He’s read the Koran, in the original classical Arabic.

    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic – to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.

    I decline to have an opinion about Islam.

    OK – that seems a bit weird, but OK. One doesn’t have to read Spencer’s works – plenty of stuff out there from academic sources.

    we shouldn’t give visas to any but a tiny number of Muslims

    Seems reasonable; after all every country has a right to set policies who gains entry. Plenty would discriminate against letting in people of 70+ years to permanently settle since they are a drain on financial and medical resources. That doesn’t mean they hate the elderly (I mean, maybe they do, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that).

    A thought occurred to me; this seems like a reasonable approach to the subject and has potential to gain wider audience. The Spencer approach (which is tied to Israeli-firster organizations) tends to push the discussion into the unreasonable camp that can distract from the serious discussion about immigration. People in the center may not want to be associated with more extreme views. If it is the case that this is one of the intents behind the work that Mr. Spencer is doing – then it is an impressive feat of the Israeli-firster crowd to control and distract the windows of discussion on the parameters of both invade and invite. All your base is belong to them.

    Peace.

    *It is amazing to me how many people have never pondered why the story of the Tortoise and the Hare appears across the world in various folk traditions; the details differ, but the essence of the story is the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato
    There is tremendous diversity among Christian denominations in their values, politics, and religious fervor. My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims. Most comments by Americans on Islam are comments from a vast distance, where everyone looks the same. Here on unz.com it seems that only Cockburn and the Russian writers know and use the word takfiri. It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies. And, as you say, they are the enemies not only of Christians but, first and foremost, of other Muslims.
    , @SMK
    "I decline to have an opinion about Islam." What does that even mean? That's like saying I decline to have an opinion about blacks, black criminality, black-on-white violence, BLM, the NFL protests, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, feminism, communism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, North Korea, massive nonwhite immigration, and on and on and on. 9-11 and dozens of other terrorist mass murders in the U.S. and France, Germany, the UK, the epidemic of Muslim rapes in Sweden, the sexual assaults of hundreds of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities; the abduction, enslavement, rape, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham; the transformation of France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, ect., into Muslim-majority countries; Sharia Law; the history and legacy of Muhammad, ad nauseam -and he declines to have an opinion about Islam! What does that even mean. It's like saying I decline to have an opinion about anything of great significance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. geokat62 says:

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Well, no need to speculate about the answer, as he recently freely provided it to us.

    Here’s an excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks Geo - this would certainly explain why he is willing to talk about the "invite" portion of the "invade + invite" conundrum.

    He understands that - hmmm, what's the best way to put this - someone else has him by the balls.

    I have to admit though, I was rather impressed that he doesn't just simply support the Spencer nonsense. So it seems to me he that knows that kind of gutter discourse is intellectually beneath him, so it makes sense to me that an intelligent man like him would obviously get the "invade" part of the equation.

    But he simply can't speak about it, because - well - someone will start squeezing and it'll hurt*. He saw what happened to a long-standing figure like Ms. Helen Thomas for expressing her frank views.

    Peace.

    *To a certain degree, this is one of the reasons why many Muslims have a difficult time with being able to criticize the Saudis publicly or holding back how hard punch. They have jurisdiction of the Holy cities. You get out of line and they can make sure you and anybody related to you is barred from the Hajj for good.
    , @Jim Christian

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    Good catch, appropriate. Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did. Meh, as the spread of racist, feminist liberalism spreads like a shit-stain across the land, campus and governments, I'm almost to a point where I don't argue against how Muslims handle THEIR women to liberals anymore. Jews and Muslims are here, protect yourself best you can, forget ever catching them before they pull a bullshit stunt.. Mostly, you have to worry most about, apparently, the Jewish men and Muslims (and the Hollywood celebrities who defend them) raping your daughters and sons. Other than that, Jews and Muslims are just swell, the more the merrier..
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    At one point, he did say that he has been "very, very mildly" anti-Semitic. As in, just didn't like being around them, as opposed to wanting to herd them into cattle cars and send them to Poland.

    Not terribly threatening, one would think, but in these days of PC, committing Thoughtcrime is right up there with being a Mass Murderer.

    I'd save the ordnance for people who wanna kill you, not people who don't want you in their country club, but maybe that's just me.
    , @jacques sheete

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    That'd be one I'd read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Talha says:
    @geokat62
    Do you think we'll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don't HATE Jews—I'm PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Well, no need to speculate about the answer, as he recently freely provided it to us.

    Here's an excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Thanks Geo – this would certainly explain why he is willing to talk about the “invite” portion of the “invade + invite” conundrum.

    He understands that – hmmm, what’s the best way to put this – someone else has him by the balls.

    I have to admit though, I was rather impressed that he doesn’t just simply support the Spencer nonsense. So it seems to me he that knows that kind of gutter discourse is intellectually beneath him, so it makes sense to me that an intelligent man like him would obviously get the “invade” part of the equation.

    But he simply can’t speak about it, because – well – someone will start squeezing and it’ll hurt*. He saw what happened to a long-standing figure like Ms. Helen Thomas for expressing her frank views.

    Peace.

    *To a certain degree, this is one of the reasons why many Muslims have a difficult time with being able to criticize the Saudis publicly or holding back how hard punch. They have jurisdiction of the Holy cities. You get out of line and they can make sure you and anybody related to you is barred from the Hajj for good.

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @Anon

    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic – to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.
     
    Do you have evidence for this? I'm sure you do, but I don't want to go to the trouble of looking it up myself, and I'm sure at least some other commenters won't either, and I would prefer to avoid he-said-he-said-ism where possible.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they’re butchering us left and right as well since we won’t get with their program).
     
    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it's a real pity all the damage they've managed to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @geokat62
    Do you think we'll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don't HATE Jews—I'm PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Well, no need to speculate about the answer, as he recently freely provided it to us.

    Here's an excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Good catch, appropriate. Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did. Meh, as the spread of racist, feminist liberalism spreads like a shit-stain across the land, campus and governments, I’m almost to a point where I don’t argue against how Muslims handle THEIR women to liberals anymore. Jews and Muslims are here, protect yourself best you can, forget ever catching them before they pull a bullshit stunt.. Mostly, you have to worry most about, apparently, the Jewish men and Muslims (and the Hollywood celebrities who defend them) raping your daughters and sons. Other than that, Jews and Muslims are just swell, the more the merrier..

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.
     
    Hey, Jim. I must say, I'm glad to see your thinking on these matters has evolved somewhat over time.

    Take care.
    , @jacques sheete

    Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.
     
    True. And the Zionists have been even worse.

    Muslims have been the scapegoats du jour for more than a few "jours." Isn't it high time the Doobs and their ilk give it up already?
    , @Vinteuil
    "Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did."

    Really? "Thousands of times?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. syonredux says:

    A poem that children should be made to memorize in grade school:

    Kipling’s “The Stranger”

    [MORE]

    The Stranger within my gate,
    He may be true or kind,
    But he does not talk my talk–
    I cannot feel his mind.
    I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
    But not the soul behind.

    The men of my own stock,
    They may do ill or well,
    But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
    They are used to the lies I tell;
    And we do not need interpreters
    When we go to buy or sell.

    The Stranger within my gates,
    He may be evil or good,
    But I cannot tell what powers control–
    What reasons sway his mood;
    Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
    Shall repossess his blood.

    The men of my own stock,
    Bitter bad they may be,
    But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
    And see the things I see;
    And whatever I think of them and their likes
    They think of the likes of me.

    This was my father’s belief
    And this is also mine:
    Let the corn be all one sheaf–
    And the grapes be all one vine,
    Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
    By bitter bread and wine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Derbyshire doesn’t believe in anything so he doesn’t take rival religions seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. geokat62 says:
    @Jim Christian

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    Good catch, appropriate. Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did. Meh, as the spread of racist, feminist liberalism spreads like a shit-stain across the land, campus and governments, I'm almost to a point where I don't argue against how Muslims handle THEIR women to liberals anymore. Jews and Muslims are here, protect yourself best you can, forget ever catching them before they pull a bullshit stunt.. Mostly, you have to worry most about, apparently, the Jewish men and Muslims (and the Hollywood celebrities who defend them) raping your daughters and sons. Other than that, Jews and Muslims are just swell, the more the merrier..

    Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.

    Hey, Jim. I must say, I’m glad to see your thinking on these matters has evolved somewhat over time.

    Take care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    My thinking is my thinking. But they've gone far too many bridges too far in ways they never did. I don't think of Israel the same the last couple of years that I used to, but the Jewish domestic product in media, government and academia was always bent out of shape here. The two of them hand-in-hand recently however aren't to skew Israel's survival but rather to tip the scale in terms of greed and corruption of contractors and their many members on boards and stockholders. And we know who THOSE folks are now, don't we? Their meddling in Syria likewise, including the insistence the past year that we involve ourselves in the mess in Syria to begin with are another tell..

    Harvey and all his domestic partners in the Democrat Party, plus the Israeli influence on an allegedly American citizen such as Harvey don't help. Plus, with perverts like Woody, Weiner, EpStein, there are lots and lots of them out of the woodwork now, it's clearly a depraved and indifferent crowd. Their behavior has certainly "evolved" the past umpteen months, and hence, my opinions. They don't help themselves when they scurry to their rat holes while their religious brethren rape and pillage their waya through our institutions. Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @geokat62
    Do you think we'll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don't HATE Jews—I'm PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Well, no need to speculate about the answer, as he recently freely provided it to us.

    Here's an excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    At one point, he did say that he has been “very, very mildly” anti-Semitic. As in, just didn’t like being around them, as opposed to wanting to herd them into cattle cars and send them to Poland.

    Not terribly threatening, one would think, but in these days of PC, committing Thoughtcrime is right up there with being a Mass Murderer.

    I’d save the ordnance for people who wanna kill you, not people who don’t want you in their country club, but maybe that’s just me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. UK needs Race-Conservatives or Raconservatives.

    It’s RACE that needs to be conserved and preserved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. sansa says:

    I think you should get Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin’s Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. They have arranged the Qur’an in chronological order, with the abrogated verses crossed out with a note as to which verse replaced it, and the most important texts in larger print. There is a long introduction which is one of the best explanations I’ve ever read of the problem facing us.

    This is an issue which everyone in the non-Muslim world needs to learn about and have an educated opinion on, based on well-documented facts.

    I admire Robert Spencer. He is possibly the best-informed person in the world on these issues. He is not hysterical or bigoted, but has a strong historical understanding of the foundations of our modern Islamic Resurgence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    IN another words, a fake and adulterated Koran, as has been done by many in the west over the centuries.
    , @Infidel1776
    Mohammed's Koran is a must-read as it emphasizes the importance of abrogation in interpreting that vile document. Other must-reads are Sahih al Bukhari and Reliance of the Traveler, the Shafi manual of Islamic jurisprudence. The latter is particularly valuable as it was recently certified by scholars at al Azhar University (the MIT of the Muslim world) as being a faithful translation of Islamic law. Chapters O (Justice) and P (Enormities) provide all you need to know about how Muslims view the Infidels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @geokat62

    Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.
     
    Hey, Jim. I must say, I'm glad to see your thinking on these matters has evolved somewhat over time.

    Take care.

    My thinking is my thinking. But they’ve gone far too many bridges too far in ways they never did. I don’t think of Israel the same the last couple of years that I used to, but the Jewish domestic product in media, government and academia was always bent out of shape here. The two of them hand-in-hand recently however aren’t to skew Israel’s survival but rather to tip the scale in terms of greed and corruption of contractors and their many members on boards and stockholders. And we know who THOSE folks are now, don’t we? Their meddling in Syria likewise, including the insistence the past year that we involve ourselves in the mess in Syria to begin with are another tell..

    Harvey and all his domestic partners in the Democrat Party, plus the Israeli influence on an allegedly American citizen such as Harvey don’t help. Plus, with perverts like Woody, Weiner, EpStein, there are lots and lots of them out of the woodwork now, it’s clearly a depraved and indifferent crowd. Their behavior has certainly “evolved” the past umpteen months, and hence, my opinions. They don’t help themselves when they scurry to their rat holes while their religious brethren rape and pillage their waya through our institutions. Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.
     
    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well, and we're not even supposed to know about the likes of Teddy Kolleck and Henry Crown for instance.

    Two minute article that offers a glimpse of the US mobsters who supported the criminal state of Israel in the beginning. The Aspen Institute vid is worth viewing too if only for a glimpse of the smug smirking asses.


    It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little they got– well Most of what they got were smuggled in. Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That’s what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]

    -Philip Weiss, Was it ‘jihad’ when Henry Crown smuggled plane parts to Israel?,July 29, 2013 27
    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/was-it-jihad-when-henry-crown-smuggled-plane-parts-to-israel-and-when-jeffrey-goldberg-moved-there.html
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Forbes says:
    @Renoman
    The question I ask is "what's in it for us"? Why bring them into our societies, they hate us, most have a low IQ, they pray 5 times a day, [do you suppose that's not gonna throw a wrench in the capitalist day] they breed like rats, they cover their faces, they don't integrate with other groups. Near as I can see the only thing they make is more Muslims, why do it? Let them live in their own countries and leave them alone, we don't need them and they certainly don't like us.

    Separate countries for separate people. It’s a simple concept.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Thanks Geo - this would certainly explain why he is willing to talk about the "invite" portion of the "invade + invite" conundrum.

    He understands that - hmmm, what's the best way to put this - someone else has him by the balls.

    I have to admit though, I was rather impressed that he doesn't just simply support the Spencer nonsense. So it seems to me he that knows that kind of gutter discourse is intellectually beneath him, so it makes sense to me that an intelligent man like him would obviously get the "invade" part of the equation.

    But he simply can't speak about it, because - well - someone will start squeezing and it'll hurt*. He saw what happened to a long-standing figure like Ms. Helen Thomas for expressing her frank views.

    Peace.

    *To a certain degree, this is one of the reasons why many Muslims have a difficult time with being able to criticize the Saudis publicly or holding back how hard punch. They have jurisdiction of the Holy cities. You get out of line and they can make sure you and anybody related to you is barred from the Hajj for good.

    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic – to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.

    Do you have evidence for this? I’m sure you do, but I don’t want to go to the trouble of looking it up myself, and I’m sure at least some other commenters won’t either, and I would prefer to avoid he-said-he-said-ism where possible.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they’re butchering us left and right as well since we won’t get with their program).

    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it’s a real pity all the damage they’ve managed to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Do you have evidence for this?
     
    You mean proving a negative - like they asked Saddam to do? I'll do you one better; find proof that Mr. Spencer can read and understand classical Arabic (and no I don't mean look up words in a translation dictionary - that would mean I can read and understand German and Greek) and I will personally send him an apology email and refrain from criticizing him here again.

    The man has:
    1) Published a book questioning the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) - something that is laughable in academic circles.
    2) Puts quotes around Palestinians:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/jihadwatchRS/status/823650702325088256
    3) Makes basic errors such as he can't figure out when a "maa" is being used preposition for negation or as an interrogative noun in a sentence. States that the word "dhimma" means "blameworthy" - something not found in any of the three major Arabic lexicons I use. You can look it up yourself - download "Arabic Almanac" on iOS (specifically the three from Hans Wehr, Penrice, Lane). It is related to the root for "to blame", but the word "dhimma" means a treaty or covenant, the breaking of which entails blame. The word he is trying to conflate the meaning with is the word "dhameem". This is basic stuff - he is either making unprofessional mistakes that are laughable or he is lying - your pick.

    Again - I gave him credit for not ever stating that he knows and understands Arabic. He sometimes leads people on with certain statements to inflate what he knows, but I've never seen him come out and state he knows Arabic beyond the few phrases and words he concentrates on.

    Now, that doesn't mean you can't criticize Islam without knowing Arabic - that would be silly. I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur'an in classical Arabic - not the man himself.

    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it’s a real pity all the damage they’ve managed to do.
     
    Agreed - I think it is curtains for this particular strain, though its embers still seem to be burning here and there. One of the best things to come out of this is that even the Wahabbi scholars are now questioning their own tradition since they know these offshoots are coming out of their particular "brand".

    If you want to have a very serious read on it, this trend was spotted by the late Shaykh Albani (ra) who is a figure that was respected (even in disagreement) by a large number of non-Salafi-Wahhabi Sunnis - well in the nineties:
    https://shaikhalbaani.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-salafi-dawah-in-disarray.pdf

    Peace.

    *LOL! Check out the drive-by (one post) commenter above - yeah don't forget to get your copy about the Qur'an written by Tommy Robinson (whose claim to academic awesomeness on the subject is leading EDL rallies). Shows all the verses listed in chronological order and which ones are abrogated too - wow - homeboy's got mad skills - I wonder if he did all his research on this site:
    http://altafsir.com/index.asp
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. ” or persons who have performed dangerous and difficult services on behalf of our country, ”

    You really do have a thing for treasonous pieces of filth who betray their country, don’t you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @The Grate Deign
    I don't hate Moslems, but I am realistic about how many of them hate me.

    Your list of acceptable Moslems was pretty good. I'd reduce the list by one. The West really has no need for more real or credentialed scholars. We are already heavy laden with persons devoted to books and tax-supported stipends.

    Islam is a triumphal religion. Adherents believe they're destined to take over the world by any means necessary. That makes Islam inherently violent, even if some individual Moslems are at peace.

    Odd political footnote: Bobby Jindal, the former governor of Louisiana and unsuccessful POTUS candidate, noted that many Moslems have "come here to conquer us." What a pleasant surprise for a politician to say something so bluntly honest. I don't advocate reading the whole Tao bible. But we should, like Jindal, know enough to know who's coming here to conquer us. And then we should say it out loud. Google the string, "bobby jindal Muslims conquer" and you'll find tons of hits.

    You should get up to speed on the barking mad murderous psychopathic god of the Jews.

    Read the “old testament”.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter, renfro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Brilliant as usual, Priss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. “I had a soft spot for Cain…I decline to have an opinion about Islam.” Derb, your Chinese wife has turned your brain into chop suey (not that she had much to work with).

    You were once a computer programmer. I surmise the reason you left the profession is because you have no logical skills.

    Is one of your Chinese offspring dating a black Muslim (Cain is black)? You don’t have an opinion about Islam, but I recall reading something you wrote several years ago about being an atheist and not understanding practicing Christians. But you also wrote that you help your Chinese wife with her pagan, ancestor worship rituals.

    You once wrote an article about having “the talk” with your Chinese offspring about blacks.

    You wrote something about Ivanhoe being a hero (your son will never be an Ivanhoe) and defending the West.

    This article is evidence you are discombobulating, shortcircuiting. I’m surprised VDare keeps you on.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Troll: Clyde
    • Replies: @David
    The first time Ivanhoe, the character, comes to the attention of the reader, he is forfeiting his comfortable seat near the fire, in his father's hall, so a Jew can sit and eat his dinner. Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Talha says:
    @Anon

    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic – to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.
     
    Do you have evidence for this? I'm sure you do, but I don't want to go to the trouble of looking it up myself, and I'm sure at least some other commenters won't either, and I would prefer to avoid he-said-he-said-ism where possible.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they’re butchering us left and right as well since we won’t get with their program).
     
    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it's a real pity all the damage they've managed to do.

    Do you have evidence for this?

    You mean proving a negative – like they asked Saddam to do? I’ll do you one better; find proof that Mr. Spencer can read and understand classical Arabic (and no I don’t mean look up words in a translation dictionary – that would mean I can read and understand German and Greek) and I will personally send him an apology email and refrain from criticizing him here again.

    The man has:
    1) Published a book questioning the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) – something that is laughable in academic circles.
    2) Puts quotes around Palestinians:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jihadwatchRS/status/823650702325088256

    3) Makes basic errors such as he can’t figure out when a “maa” is being used preposition for negation or as an interrogative noun in a sentence. States that the word “dhimma” means “blameworthy” – something not found in any of the three major Arabic lexicons I use. You can look it up yourself – download “Arabic Almanac” on iOS (specifically the three from Hans Wehr, Penrice, Lane). It is related to the root for “to blame”, but the word “dhimma” means a treaty or covenant, the breaking of which entails blame. The word he is trying to conflate the meaning with is the word “dhameem”. This is basic stuff – he is either making unprofessional mistakes that are laughable or he is lying – your pick.

    Again – I gave him credit for not ever stating that he knows and understands Arabic. He sometimes leads people on with certain statements to inflate what he knows, but I’ve never seen him come out and state he knows Arabic beyond the few phrases and words he concentrates on.

    Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize Islam without knowing Arabic – that would be silly. I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur’an in classical Arabic – not the man himself.

    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it’s a real pity all the damage they’ve managed to do.

    Agreed – I think it is curtains for this particular strain, though its embers still seem to be burning here and there. One of the best things to come out of this is that even the Wahabbi scholars are now questioning their own tradition since they know these offshoots are coming out of their particular “brand”.

    If you want to have a very serious read on it, this trend was spotted by the late Shaykh Albani (ra) who is a figure that was respected (even in disagreement) by a large number of non-Salafi-Wahhabi Sunnis – well in the nineties:

    https://shaikhalbaani.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-salafi-dawah-in-disarray.pdf

    Peace.

    *LOL! Check out the drive-by (one post) commenter above – yeah don’t forget to get your copy about the Qur’an written by Tommy Robinson (whose claim to academic awesomeness on the subject is leading EDL rallies). Shows all the verses listed in chronological order and which ones are abrogated too – wow – homeboy’s got mad skills – I wonder if he did all his research on this site:

    http://altafsir.com/index.asp

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur’an in classical Arabic – not the man himself.
     
    Okay, this statement is good enough for me.

    Perhaps I didn't express this properly, but I don't really care, which is why I'm not going to download an Arabic lexicon just to find out what words he gets wrong. Why does Derbyshire think he does? I couldn't find out from the links. If Derbyshire reads these comments, perhaps he'll tell us?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. To have a properly informed opinion about Islam I’d have to read the Koran. I refuse to do so.

    You’d also have to learn Arabic, as it exists in no other language. There are better ways to spend your time.

    Unless you’re a Burton or Lawrence, and can’t keep your eyes off their young men.

    Yes, the Taoist religion—not to be confused with Taoist philosophy, of course—

    Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are all just philosophical schools, pinned onto local pagan religions. We seem to get that the last one is mostly philosophy, it never occurs to us that that is equally true of the first one, and few of us know diddly-squat about the second one, other than the opening line or two of the Tao Te Ching.

    Imagine if Vikings had erected giant green statues of Plato in their mead halls, while keeping everything else the same. That’s about what Buddhism is an Eastern version of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. David says:
    @attilathehen
    "I had a soft spot for Cain...I decline to have an opinion about Islam." Derb, your Chinese wife has turned your brain into chop suey (not that she had much to work with).

    You were once a computer programmer. I surmise the reason you left the profession is because you have no logical skills.

    Is one of your Chinese offspring dating a black Muslim (Cain is black)? You don't have an opinion about Islam, but I recall reading something you wrote several years ago about being an atheist and not understanding practicing Christians. But you also wrote that you help your Chinese wife with her pagan, ancestor worship rituals.

    You once wrote an article about having "the talk" with your Chinese offspring about blacks.

    You wrote something about Ivanhoe being a hero (your son will never be an Ivanhoe) and defending the West.

    This article is evidence you are discombobulating, shortcircuiting. I'm surprised VDare keeps you on.

    The first time Ivanhoe, the character, comes to the attention of the reader, he is forfeiting his comfortable seat near the fire, in his father’s hall, so a Jew can sit and eat his dinner. Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.
     
    Not a huge challenge, hey Atila (wink).
    , @attilathehen
    Sir Walter Scott was a Freemason, a believer in "universal brotherhood," a Protestant Judaizer, hence the traits of Ivanhoe. Derbyshire would select this novel because again his twisted mentality (caused by marrying a Chinese woman) would like Ivanhoe, but deep down knows his son can never be an Ivanhoe (flawed as the character is, i.e., a Semitophile). We are again dealin with Derbyshire degeneracy.

    Oh, by the way, I'm a girrrrlllll!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha

    Do you have evidence for this?
     
    You mean proving a negative - like they asked Saddam to do? I'll do you one better; find proof that Mr. Spencer can read and understand classical Arabic (and no I don't mean look up words in a translation dictionary - that would mean I can read and understand German and Greek) and I will personally send him an apology email and refrain from criticizing him here again.

    The man has:
    1) Published a book questioning the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) - something that is laughable in academic circles.
    2) Puts quotes around Palestinians:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/jihadwatchRS/status/823650702325088256
    3) Makes basic errors such as he can't figure out when a "maa" is being used preposition for negation or as an interrogative noun in a sentence. States that the word "dhimma" means "blameworthy" - something not found in any of the three major Arabic lexicons I use. You can look it up yourself - download "Arabic Almanac" on iOS (specifically the three from Hans Wehr, Penrice, Lane). It is related to the root for "to blame", but the word "dhimma" means a treaty or covenant, the breaking of which entails blame. The word he is trying to conflate the meaning with is the word "dhameem". This is basic stuff - he is either making unprofessional mistakes that are laughable or he is lying - your pick.

    Again - I gave him credit for not ever stating that he knows and understands Arabic. He sometimes leads people on with certain statements to inflate what he knows, but I've never seen him come out and state he knows Arabic beyond the few phrases and words he concentrates on.

    Now, that doesn't mean you can't criticize Islam without knowing Arabic - that would be silly. I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur'an in classical Arabic - not the man himself.

    Luckily they seem to be losing at present, though it’s a real pity all the damage they’ve managed to do.
     
    Agreed - I think it is curtains for this particular strain, though its embers still seem to be burning here and there. One of the best things to come out of this is that even the Wahabbi scholars are now questioning their own tradition since they know these offshoots are coming out of their particular "brand".

    If you want to have a very serious read on it, this trend was spotted by the late Shaykh Albani (ra) who is a figure that was respected (even in disagreement) by a large number of non-Salafi-Wahhabi Sunnis - well in the nineties:
    https://shaikhalbaani.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-salafi-dawah-in-disarray.pdf

    Peace.

    *LOL! Check out the drive-by (one post) commenter above - yeah don't forget to get your copy about the Qur'an written by Tommy Robinson (whose claim to academic awesomeness on the subject is leading EDL rallies). Shows all the verses listed in chronological order and which ones are abrogated too - wow - homeboy's got mad skills - I wonder if he did all his research on this site:
    http://altafsir.com/index.asp

    I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur’an in classical Arabic – not the man himself.

    Okay, this statement is good enough for me.

    Perhaps I didn’t express this properly, but I don’t really care, which is why I’m not going to download an Arabic lexicon just to find out what words he gets wrong. Why does Derbyshire think he does? I couldn’t find out from the links. If Derbyshire reads these comments, perhaps he’ll tell us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Why does Derbyshire think he does?
     
    Bro, I wish I knew.

    I'll throw you a freebie to show you what I'm talking about. So I came across this article where he is talking about the "verse of the sword" (9:5):
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262306/muslim-offers-10000-anyone-who-can-show-quran-robert-spencer

    He goes through his whole spiel for a bit giving his opinion on this and that which I simply ignore - because, really no Muslim cares what he says. But then the first Muslim scholar he actually is cites Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra), by stating:

    On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4).
     
    But that's silly - here is Imam Juzayy's commentary on the verse, right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    The part about the "every peace treaty in the Quran" is completely absent. Now I even looked ahead a few verses and back a few. There is a comment later on talking about how a portion of this verse cancels the Treaty of Hudaybiah. Now the thing is, Imam Juzayy (ra) was an Andalusian Maliki scholar and his exact words are:
    فاقتلوا المشركين } أي: مَن لم يكن له عهد}
    "{Kill the polytheists} - Meaning: The one for whom there is no pact"

    It is literally the opposite of what he is saying it says!

    Then this thing about abrogating "setting free or ransoming". Now it does actually mention that, but what he leaves out is the entire discussion Imam Juzayy (ra) is making clear. It starts at the bottom where he mentions:
    واختلف علماء الناسخ والمنسوخ في هذه الآية على ثلاثة أقوال

    "And there is a difference of opinion among the scholars on the abrogating and abrogated in this verse upon three opinions"

    And then Imam Juzayy (ra) outlines the three:
    1) That this verse is actually abrogated by the directive in 47:4 to set prisoners free or ransom them (which means killing them is impermissible) - and he notes who held this opinion (Imams Hasan al-Basri [ra] and 'Ata [ra])
    2) The opposite of this - that the imperative to set prisoners free or ransom them is abrogated (meaning you have no choice but to execute them) - and he notes, this opinion was held by Imams Mujahid [ra] and Qataadah [ra] - so, yes, this is actually in the text - no doubt about this
    3) That both verses are in effect and that the leadership has the option to set free, ransom or execute based on what they deem the best decision based on circumstance - and he says (وعليه عامة الفقهاء) "and upon this is the mass of the jurists"

    This is not the first time I've seen the man try to pull a fast one. Sure ignorant people are fooled by his shenanigans, and that's fine. They have every right to support him and pay for his snake oil just as much as hiring an idiot mechanic.

    I don't know if anybody takes him seriously in academic circles - I mean, he would get ripped apart in peer review.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Talha says:
    @Anon

    I was just saying that others have made the claim that the man has read the Qur’an in classical Arabic – not the man himself.
     
    Okay, this statement is good enough for me.

    Perhaps I didn't express this properly, but I don't really care, which is why I'm not going to download an Arabic lexicon just to find out what words he gets wrong. Why does Derbyshire think he does? I couldn't find out from the links. If Derbyshire reads these comments, perhaps he'll tell us?

    Why does Derbyshire think he does?

    Bro, I wish I knew.

    I’ll throw you a freebie to show you what I’m talking about. So I came across this article where he is talking about the “verse of the sword” (9:5):

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262306/muslim-offers-10000-anyone-who-can-show-quran-robert-spencer

    He goes through his whole spiel for a bit giving his opinion on this and that which I simply ignore – because, really no Muslim cares what he says. But then the first Muslim scholar he actually is cites Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra), by stating:

    On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4).

    But that’s silly – here is Imam Juzayy’s commentary on the verse, right here:

    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    The part about the “every peace treaty in the Quran” is completely absent. Now I even looked ahead a few verses and back a few. There is a comment later on talking about how a portion of this verse cancels the Treaty of Hudaybiah. Now the thing is, Imam Juzayy (ra) was an Andalusian Maliki scholar and his exact words are:
    فاقتلوا المشركين } أي: مَن لم يكن له عهد}
    “{Kill the polytheists} – Meaning: The one for whom there is no pact”

    It is literally the opposite of what he is saying it says!

    Then this thing about abrogating “setting free or ransoming”. Now it does actually mention that, but what he leaves out is the entire discussion Imam Juzayy (ra) is making clear. It starts at the bottom where he mentions:
    واختلف علماء الناسخ والمنسوخ في هذه الآية على ثلاثة أقوال

    “And there is a difference of opinion among the scholars on the abrogating and abrogated in this verse upon three opinions”

    And then Imam Juzayy (ra) outlines the three:
    1) That this verse is actually abrogated by the directive in 47:4 to set prisoners free or ransom them (which means killing them is impermissible) – and he notes who held this opinion (Imams Hasan al-Basri [ra] and ‘Ata [ra])
    2) The opposite of this – that the imperative to set prisoners free or ransom them is abrogated (meaning you have no choice but to execute them) – and he notes, this opinion was held by Imams Mujahid [ra] and Qataadah [ra] – so, yes, this is actually in the text – no doubt about this
    3) That both verses are in effect and that the leadership has the option to set free, ransom or execute based on what they deem the best decision based on circumstance – and he says (وعليه عامة الفقهاء) “and upon this is the mass of the jurists”

    This is not the first time I’ve seen the man try to pull a fast one. Sure ignorant people are fooled by his shenanigans, and that’s fine. They have every right to support him and pay for his snake oil just as much as hiring an idiot mechanic.

    I don’t know if anybody takes him seriously in academic circles – I mean, he would get ripped apart in peer review.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Talha:

    In reality, I do not fabricate quotes or references. You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite. Here is the source for my quotation that Ibn Juzayy says that Qur’an 9:5 is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an”:

    https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html

    Ibn Juzayy on 9:5: “(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) Abrogating every peace treaty in the QurÕan. It is said that it abrogates, “by setting them free or ransom.” (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.”

    I stand by the accuracy of my work. If you have more specific claims of my being dishonest or inaccurate, kindly post them here or email me at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will address them.

    Cordially,
    Robert Spencer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.
     
    I'm looking at the very source - that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy's tafsir - it's all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator - I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I'm glad you cited her - I would recommend her work to everyone. I'm not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that "it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted". So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion - and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir - he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn't report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) - the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza'ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi'i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) - it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of "takhsees" or "tarjeeh" from the various schools - like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi'i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law - Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi'i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want - but where the rubber meets the road, it's the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it's not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) - but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    "but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers"

    Congratulations - that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen - as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):
    https://youtu.be/2VQ9AvJB_k4?t=38m32s

    So why don't you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn't become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When's the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    "The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law."
    https://youtu.be/5Otch3BKp5Q?t=33s

    Saying "Allahu Akbar" before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yYIFdzLPVc

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn't refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists - I can't think of a single scholar that believes that - where did you get that quote from?:
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley's is an English translation (and apparently summary) - you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh's "Reliance" and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us - have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it - I have no problems with this, but let's get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    I'm sure you do - you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that's not to say you don't get it right once in a while - you do. You usually just never present the whole picture - which is how people who don't know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me
     
    I'd think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir - I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods - I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material - let's just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the "Palestinians" (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site - no thanks - that's your home court advantage. I've seen what happens to Muslims who post there - they get drowned out by tsunamis of "taqiyyah".

    I'm here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though - bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/
    , @survey-of-disinfo
    Isn't it amazing, dear forum, that both the sponsored head-choppers and their "watchers" in the West seem to agree on an extremist interpretation of Islam and should any Muslim raise objection to their extremist notions of Islam, then they are "bad" Muslims.

    Ibn Juzayy
     
    Let me get this straight. Because some guy in 14th century Andalusia has arrived at an understanding X (according to you) then we 21st century Muslims who have a different understanding Y are in error?

    Are you the same character that entertains the idea that you 'know' what is "whispered" in "every Muslim's head"? Generally, that is a sign of a psychological problem. Normal, rational, people do not entertain the thought that they are privy to the mind of a billion people. It is crazy talk.

    Feel free to email me at administer@unrepentantHatemongerWatch.org. I'll be happy to forward a list of mental health professionals in your area.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Talha says:
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    In reality, I do not fabricate quotes or references. You're looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite. Here is the source for my quotation that Ibn Juzayy says that Qur'an 9:5 is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an":

    https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html

    Ibn Juzayy on 9:5: "(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) Abrogating every peace treaty in the QurÕan. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive."

    I stand by the accuracy of my work. If you have more specific claims of my being dishonest or inaccurate, kindly post them here or email me at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will address them.

    Cordially,
    Robert Spencer

    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.

    I’m looking at the very source – that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy’s tafsir – it’s all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator – I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I’m glad you cited her – I would recommend her work to everyone. I’m not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that “it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted“. So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion – and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir – he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn’t report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) – the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:

    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza’ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi’i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) – it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of “takhsees” or “tarjeeh” from the various schools – like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi’i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law – Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi’i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want – but where the rubber meets the road, it’s the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it’s not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) – but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    “but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers”

    Congratulations – that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen – as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):

    So why don’t you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn’t become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When’s the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    “The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law.”

    Saying “Allahu Akbar” before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”, but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn’t refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists – I can’t think of a single scholar that believes that – where did you get that quote from?:

    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley’s is an English translation (and apparently summary) – you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh’s “Reliance” and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us – have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it – I have no problems with this, but let’s get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.

    I’m sure you do – you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that’s not to say you don’t get it right once in a while – you do. You usually just never present the whole picture – which is how people who don’t know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me

    I’d think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir – I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods – I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material – let’s just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the “Palestinians” (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site – no thanks – that’s your home court advantage. I’ve seen what happens to Muslims who post there – they get drowned out by tsunamis of “taqiyyah”.

    I’m here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though – bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer
    , @RadicalCenter
    Oh, just directing the murder of polytheists and not all nonMuslims! Alright then! Great clarification.
    , @AaronB
    Thank you for this very intelligent comment, Talha.

    I have never engaged much with Spencer, nor had any real opinion about him, but from his response to this comment it is clear he is a thoroughly dishonest man who argues rhetorically.

    One can honestly engage with the faults of Islam in a serious way, but Spencer clearly has an agenda.
    , @MEFOBILLS
    You touched on the main root problem:
    it’s not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) – but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind

    Abrogation means that pre-Medina doctrine is abrogated, it is "less" than post Medina. (When Mohammed was in Mecca, his teachings were the "peaceful phase.)

    Until Islam deals with Abrogation, then it cannot be taken seriously. Reform in Islam requires grappling with the problems inherent in Abrogation. In Christianity, a similar construct, called super-cession has new testament supersede old testament. The more violent and retrograde old testament, is put away and completed.

    Islam is thus opposite of Christianity, the more violent retrograde aspects of Islam are enshrined by abrogation. Takfiri behavior is is entirely in alignment with abrogations precepts.

    Imam's then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.

    This coupling of Imam power, abrogation and political Islam i.e. Sharia - can be a deadly combination.

    Islam's followers like Suffi's CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam, but that is NOT DOCTRINE. Suffis keep the crazy aunt in the basement, but she may break out any time.
    , @renfro
    Bravo ...Bravo!

    You nailed Spencer... who is as any informed person knows is nothing but a hack and gimmick writer paid by Jews to stir hatred of Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Truth says:
    @silviosilver

    but I don’t mind Muslims or Islam.
     
    Well, it's easy not to mind it when it's thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it's all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    But when you find yourself surrounded by these culturally hostile bastards, it's rather difficult to not mind it.

    Personally, I don't mind confessing that I hate Islam, the religion. I can see nothing admirable or worth emulating in it. It's a scourge on humanity. I don't think you can find a more oppressive social force on the planet today. I'd certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day.

    Hating Muslims themselves is more difficult. There are certainly times when I do hate them, but it's not a constant feeling. And then I feel somewhat guilty when I calm down and remind myself that they're people too, and it's not really their fault for being raised in that faith, and most of the time they're not that bad, and the ones who are racially closer to home - Bosnians, Albanians, even Turks - I often tend to like rather than dislike. (It's mostly the accursed Arabs who tick me off, the way they congregate in large numbers in nightspots I like to frequent, looking for the slightest excuse to provoke a fight. But perhaps even this is only a temporary phase. From my own experience, they're not as bad as they were twenty years ago.)


    I decline to have an opinion about Islam. A thoughtful, responsible citizen is not obliged to have an opinion about everything. To have a properly informed opinion about Islam I’d have to read the Koran. I refuse to do so.
     
    Come off it. You surely know enough to justify having an opinion.

    Also, this sort of thinking provides an opening for multiculturalists to claim that anyone with a negative opinion about Islam doesn't yet know enough about it to have an opinion. Then no matter how much you study it, as long as your opinion remains negative, they'll always respond that you still have more to learn; that when you "truly" understand it, you'll come to appreciate it. That's a mug's game.

    All this said, I'm not sure Robert Spencer's relentless attacks are the way to go. I think that just causes Muslims to dig their heels in even more. It's better to criticize them, but also leave them a dignified way out.

    Well, it’s easy not to mind it when it’s thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it’s all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    … I’d certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day

    .

    Well, you see; the genie answered your prayer.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Well, yeah, I agree. Doesn't mean I like it. It's just better islamofuckery, that's all.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    ROTFL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Truth says:
    @Randal
    Now you're getting at one of the foundational lies of the liberal dogmas of political correctness - the dishonest and intentionally smearing conflation of disapproval or dislike with "hatred", and all that follows on from that.

    It can be found wherever the liars of political correctness gather:

    Don't approve of the normalisation of homosexual behaviour? You "hate" homosexuals. You're a "homophobe".

    Recognise that jewish people have collective interests upon which their lobbies act, that they have disproportionate influence in the societies of the modern US sphere, and that their culture is inherently foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe? You "hate" jews. You're an "antisemite".

    Don't think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they're better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to blacks and every bad feature of black cultures is due to historic and current white racism? Don't think that more blacks is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you "hate" blacks. You're a "racist".

    Don't think women are collectively identical to men (except where they're better on average, of course), and that everything and everything bad that happens to women and every drawback of femaleness is due to historic and current sexism? Don't think that more women and more power for women is automatically an improvement, anywhere and everywhere? Then you "hate" women. You're a "misogynist".

    Recognise that islam is foreign to the basically Christian cultures of the US, UK and Europe, or that there are downsides to Islamic culture and mass muslim immigration? Then you "hate" islam and muslims. You're an islamophobe.

    This is one of the core dysfunctions of modern US sphere cultures, and if left unchallenged for much longer it will keep enabling the radicalisation of minority groups and rationalisation of their aggressive violence and thuggery, and the suppression of necessary dissent against globalisation and against unchecked minority lobby power. Ultimately it will leave only revolution and civil war as possible alternatives to the defeat of liberty and of national survival.

    Don’t think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they’re better on average, of course),

    Of course not, Sport. That would be absolutely ridiculous!

    I have to admit, y’all make pretty good beer.

    Talha, you don’t drink, but if you think hard for a few hours, you’ll come up with somethin vis-a-vis whites vs. Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL! Whites make pretty good Muslims:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll73_ByYHyI

    And muftis, actually!:
    http://musafurber.com/biography/

    So the match doesn't really make sense in a Venn diagram sort of way; it's like asking Catholics vs those who eat hamburgers.

    Honestly, Whites ran the Muslim world fairly efficiently for a good long time. Many of the Ottoman elite and definitely sultans were successively children of concubines from White populations (Polish, Venetian, etc.). At a certain point they were basically around 90% or more White. And the Bosnians supplied a lot of the officer and front line cadres for the defense of places like the Levant.

    People (not you) keep on bringing up Whites vs Muslims - and I'm like; Dude, we don't care - stop projecting your issues on us!

    By the way, one of the best articles written by an African American scholar (Shaykh Abdullah Ali) that came to the defense of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, when he made a provocative statement regarding BLM and the SJW/Liberal Muslims pounced on him - some highlights:
    "Can a White Man Be Proud of His People?

    Another area of concern related to Muslim activists is the push for cultural Marxist egalitarianism. It is not that one should be opposed to equal opportunity for all members of society. It is just that Islam promotes meritocracy rather than “sameness” and “equal representation” for the sake of equal “representation.” According to this cultural paradigm, it is “good” to celebrate and take pride in what is unique about one’s own culture. This seems the case, at least, for any person who is not “white.” White people, on the other hand, due to their historical domination of others are forbidden from publicly expressing pride about European civilizational contributions lest they be declared a racist or white supremacist. This concern is shared by nativists like Richard Spencer. But Spencer, however, regurgitates the pseudoscientific racist assumptions of the 19th century French aristocrat Arthur De Gobineau who pioneered the Aryan master race theory. Those blinkered notions aside, what legitimate wrong could be claimed about a white man or woman feeling pride about the achievements of their ancestors if it does not result in cultural domination?"
    https://www.lamppostproductions.com/frames/

    So I guess what I'm saying is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

    Kids, yo - old people, yo!

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Truth says:
    @David
    The first time Ivanhoe, the character, comes to the attention of the reader, he is forfeiting his comfortable seat near the fire, in his father's hall, so a Jew can sit and eat his dinner. Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.

    Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.

    Not a huge challenge, hey Atila (wink).

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Ivanhoe is a fictional degenerate male character reflecting Walter Scott's Freemasonry and Protestant Judaizing.

    David conflates fiction with reality. He would have us imitate made up people.

    Also, I'm a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @David
    The first time Ivanhoe, the character, comes to the attention of the reader, he is forfeiting his comfortable seat near the fire, in his father's hall, so a Jew can sit and eat his dinner. Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.

    Sir Walter Scott was a Freemason, a believer in “universal brotherhood,” a Protestant Judaizer, hence the traits of Ivanhoe. Derbyshire would select this novel because again his twisted mentality (caused by marrying a Chinese woman) would like Ivanhoe, but deep down knows his son can never be an Ivanhoe (flawed as the character is, i.e., a Semitophile). We are again dealin with Derbyshire degeneracy.

    Oh, by the way, I’m a girrrrlllll!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Its always good to see your comments as an example that, whites also have their retards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Truth

    Ivanhoe was intended to depict a better man than you.
     
    Not a huge challenge, hey Atila (wink).

    Ivanhoe is a fictional degenerate male character reflecting Walter Scott’s Freemasonry and Protestant Judaizing.

    David conflates fiction with reality. He would have us imitate made up people.

    Also, I’m a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Yeah, that's what I was winking at.
    , @Anonymous

    Also, I’m a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.
     
    What is your ethnic background?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Talha says:
    @Truth

    Don’t think blacks are collectively identical to whites (except where they’re better on average, of course),
     
    Of course not, Sport. That would be absolutely ridiculous!

    I have to admit, y'all make pretty good beer.

    Talha, you don't drink, but if you think hard for a few hours, you'll come up with somethin vis-a-vis whites vs. Muslims.

    LOL! Whites make pretty good Muslims:

    And muftis, actually!:

    http://musafurber.com/biography/

    So the match doesn’t really make sense in a Venn diagram sort of way; it’s like asking Catholics vs those who eat hamburgers.

    Honestly, Whites ran the Muslim world fairly efficiently for a good long time. Many of the Ottoman elite and definitely sultans were successively children of concubines from White populations (Polish, Venetian, etc.). At a certain point they were basically around 90% or more White. And the Bosnians supplied a lot of the officer and front line cadres for the defense of places like the Levant.

    People (not you) keep on bringing up Whites vs Muslims – and I’m like; Dude, we don’t care – stop projecting your issues on us!

    By the way, one of the best articles written by an African American scholar (Shaykh Abdullah Ali) that came to the defense of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, when he made a provocative statement regarding BLM and the SJW/Liberal Muslims pounced on him – some highlights:
    “Can a White Man Be Proud of His People?

    Another area of concern related to Muslim activists is the push for cultural Marxist egalitarianism. It is not that one should be opposed to equal opportunity for all members of society. It is just that Islam promotes meritocracy rather than “sameness” and “equal representation” for the sake of equal “representation.” According to this cultural paradigm, it is “good” to celebrate and take pride in what is unique about one’s own culture. This seems the case, at least, for any person who is not “white.” White people, on the other hand, due to their historical domination of others are forbidden from publicly expressing pride about European civilizational contributions lest they be declared a racist or white supremacist. This concern is shared by nativists like Richard Spencer. But Spencer, however, regurgitates the pseudoscientific racist assumptions of the 19th century French aristocrat Arthur De Gobineau who pioneered the Aryan master race theory. Those blinkered notions aside, what legitimate wrong could be claimed about a white man or woman feeling pride about the achievements of their ancestors if it does not result in cultural domination?

    https://www.lamppostproductions.com/frames/

    So I guess what I’m saying is:

    Kids, yo – old people, yo!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.
     
    I'm looking at the very source - that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy's tafsir - it's all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator - I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I'm glad you cited her - I would recommend her work to everyone. I'm not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that "it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted". So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion - and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir - he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn't report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) - the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza'ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi'i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) - it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of "takhsees" or "tarjeeh" from the various schools - like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi'i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law - Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi'i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want - but where the rubber meets the road, it's the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it's not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) - but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    "but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers"

    Congratulations - that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen - as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):
    https://youtu.be/2VQ9AvJB_k4?t=38m32s

    So why don't you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn't become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When's the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    "The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law."
    https://youtu.be/5Otch3BKp5Q?t=33s

    Saying "Allahu Akbar" before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yYIFdzLPVc

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn't refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists - I can't think of a single scholar that believes that - where did you get that quote from?:
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley's is an English translation (and apparently summary) - you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh's "Reliance" and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us - have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it - I have no problems with this, but let's get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    I'm sure you do - you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that's not to say you don't get it right once in a while - you do. You usually just never present the whole picture - which is how people who don't know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me
     
    I'd think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir - I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods - I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material - let's just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the "Palestinians" (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site - no thanks - that's your home court advantage. I've seen what happens to Muslims who post there - they get drowned out by tsunamis of "taqiyyah".

    I'm here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though - bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I’m quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my “Blogging the Qur’an” series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy’s statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That’s all very well, but I must confess I’m rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    This is all fine. Look - we are presenting our sides for the audience at large here. You are not going to find succor in an ignorant audience of Evangelicals that clap for your claims here.


    I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.
     
    I haven't - I avoid propaganda. I also haven't read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or... I like to stick to academic works like those of men like Rudolph Peters, Olivier Roy, Majid Khadduri, Robert Hoyland, etc. People who get published at Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Not "Bombadier Books" who publish the likes of frauds like Kamal Saleem:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia/

    Seriously, you must have been a bit embarrassed to publish a book questioning the historic figure of the Prophet (pbuh) right? Please at least admit that. I mean, if I even wrote an article about Elvis being alive, I'd hang my head in shame if someone brought it up.'


    I have never made any such claim
     
    OK - I'll take your word for that - and will retract this assertion. So we both agree that Islam can hardly be pinned to minority opinions as being the Islamic stance on something, right? Will you admit that for something to be claimed as "Islam" it should at least have a consensus opinion or a super majority behind it? If so, then you already know that the killing of women and children (even on the battlefield) has been prohibited by consensus - it is backed by hadith that reach a tawatur status. You know this, right? And you know that no school says it's OK to be treacherous to a security agreement once a Muslim enters or resides in non-Muslim lands and harm them.

    So if people like Daesh want to break with 14 centuries of consensus, how is that any more legitimate than Muslims breaking from 14 centuries of consensus on drinking wine? It's a simple question.

    Now, if you want to make the case that Muslim extremist groups can legitimately break with consensus and still be considered normative, then I suggest you hold a joint conference with them in what's left of Mosul or Raqqa.

    Oh - oops! Looks like they're killing their own "scholars" that disagree with them:
    "The dispute concerns the group’s position on takfir, or excommunication—namely, the excommunication of fellow Muslims—and al-Bin‘ali was on the losing side. On May 17, 2017, the Islamic State’s Delegated Committee, its executive council, issued a memorandum setting out the official stance on takfir, and for al-Bin‘ali it was too extreme. Two days later, he refuted the memorandum in a letter to the Delegated Committee, and twelve days after that, he was killed. More such refutations by Islamic State scholars followed, and in at least one other case the result—death by airstrike—was the same...The latter was waging war on “the scholars,” which was to say al-Bin‘ali and his allies. Al-Bin‘ali’s death, he muses, was no accident: al-Bin‘ali and the other scholars who opposed the memorandum were arranged to die in airstrikes, their coordinates being leaked to “the crusaders.”"
    http://www.jihadica.com/caliphate-in-disarray/

    Better hurry! Man, this really sucks for your narrative though, right? I mean, once Daesh is gone (fought and defeated by other Muslims), there goes a massive part of your story. And sucks for Israel too:
    "Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/


    you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material
     
    You completely misrepresented it - and I showed everyone that you did not mention the second important portion of what Ms. Bewley wrote. The record is here for everyone to see. And again, where did you get that quotation from Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) using the word "unbelievers" instead of "polytheists/pagans"? I'll retract this assertion too if you provide proof. Either way, if you use altafsir.com than you have the source text - there is no excuse:
    وقوله { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ } أي من الأرض، وهذا عام
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    He leaves the term as is; "mushrikeen" and proceeds to mention (since he is a Shafi'i) "meaning; in/from the world, and this is general (ie. not restricted)". He never turns around and replaces the word with "kafireen".

    So will you make a change to your article? Will you stop telling people it says "unbelievers"? Thought so.


    I must confess I’m rather busy.
     
    Same here - I've got four kids to raise for the demographic jihad. Takes time and patience to practice my mad taqiyyah skillz. That's why I stick to academic works that have been peer reviewed.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    That's cool - I like my dad better than your dad. How exactly am I supposed to respond to this?

    You still have not stated clearly, do you or do you not understand and read Arabic at a fluent level - have you ever taken a formal class on it? This should take ten seconds to answer.

    Peace.

    , @Talha
    As my brother in Bani Adam, I sincerely warn you about what you are doing. It will not end well in the next life.

    There is still time to change.

    "And we are not responsible except for clear notification." (36:17)

    https://youtu.be/IswAcuA83_Y?t=2m26s

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    Read through that blog post of yours. Much better, far more accurate than that other article. So this is good, this is the kind of thing you should write more of. And since you are capable of it, why do you resort to the other silliness?

    You may want to mention that indeed people like Daesh and al-Qaeda execute prisoners of war in contravention of international norms. The other Muslim countries are signatories to these agreements and are morally obligated to uphold them by the Shariah; thus the option of killing of war captives is interdicted. If Western countries start to return to the days when they executed war captives then, of course, Muslim nations will have no reason to abide by this restriction other than at their own discretion. It is in the interests of all involved that we make sure everyone adheres to the current international protocols on warfare.

    As for groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda and other fringe groups that refuse to abide by international agreements; the solution is simple - give their fighters no quarter since they grant no quarter to their captives. It's a fairly straight-forward issue.

    Peace.

    , @attilathehen
    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there. Also, your bravery in confronting Islam head-on (and leftists, i.e., in Iceland) is a modern day version of Charles Martel, Don Juan of Austria and Queen Isabella of Spain and their bravery in dealing with Islam.

    I have read Talha's responses to you. His comment no. 45, a warning to you, is a perfect example of the evil and degeneracy of Islam. But there is also another factor when dealing with people like Talha. Talha is from Pakistan, a country where the average IQ is 84. Talha is brighter though, at least an IQ of 100, placing him in the talented 10% of his nation. But Pakistanis fall under the Asian category. Caucasians are the highest IQ people, Asians are second and blacks are last.

    I know you are a practicing Greek Catholic, which I believe is aligned with the Roman Catholic Church. I was a cradle RCCer, but left the RCC because I don't accept black/Asian priests-popes. In dealing with the Islamic problem we must first separate biology from beliefs. Caucasians, Asians, blacks have distince biological markings. But beliefs can be held by anyone, i.e, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc.

    The West (Western Europe in particular) cannot save itself until it deals with the issues of IQ which are directly tied to race. The RCC is the biggest problem because as the "universal church" its duty is to convert the world and accepts all peoples as equals. This is the first problem. The second problem comes from the cowardice of the RCC and the present pope to state that Islam is a Christian heresy. This was a common belief and stated by popes before Vatican II. The USA Conference of Bishops should be stating this, but the RCC has been taken over by homosexuals so this issue will not be addressed.

    Talha is engaging in his usual spiel - but again, his biological degeneracy is a contributing factor to his religious degeneracy so he unable to think coherently and logically. I have engaged with him before and told him he is inferior to Caucasians. That is a biological fact.

    The first step in dealing with Talha types is deportation and repatriation.

    , @Anon
    Mr. Spencer,

    Thanks for responding here. I must admit I'm not much of a fan of yours, but then I'm not much of a detractor either. But as long as you're here, you could gratify me immensely if you so desired by answering the original question: Do you speak Arabic?

    I understand you're in no way accountable for Mr. Derbyshire's beliefs, but thought I might as well go straight to the horse's mouth, since the horse has condescended so much as to show up here anyway.

    RSDB
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false.
     
    It would probably be a greater challenge to find anything truthful in anything this assclown writes.
    , @Clyde
    Thank you RS!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Truth says:
    @attilathehen
    Ivanhoe is a fictional degenerate male character reflecting Walter Scott's Freemasonry and Protestant Judaizing.

    David conflates fiction with reality. He would have us imitate made up people.

    Also, I'm a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.

    Yeah, that’s what I was winking at.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Talha says:
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    This is all fine. Look – we are presenting our sides for the audience at large here. You are not going to find succor in an ignorant audience of Evangelicals that clap for your claims here.

    I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    I haven’t – I avoid propaganda. I also haven’t read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or… I like to stick to academic works like those of men like Rudolph Peters, Olivier Roy, Majid Khadduri, Robert Hoyland, etc. People who get published at Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Not “Bombadier Books” who publish the likes of frauds like Kamal Saleem:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia/

    Seriously, you must have been a bit embarrassed to publish a book questioning the historic figure of the Prophet (pbuh) right? Please at least admit that. I mean, if I even wrote an article about Elvis being alive, I’d hang my head in shame if someone brought it up.’

    I have never made any such claim

    OK – I’ll take your word for that – and will retract this assertion. So we both agree that Islam can hardly be pinned to minority opinions as being the Islamic stance on something, right? Will you admit that for something to be claimed as “Islam” it should at least have a consensus opinion or a super majority behind it? If so, then you already know that the killing of women and children (even on the battlefield) has been prohibited by consensus – it is backed by hadith that reach a tawatur status. You know this, right? And you know that no school says it’s OK to be treacherous to a security agreement once a Muslim enters or resides in non-Muslim lands and harm them.

    So if people like Daesh want to break with 14 centuries of consensus, how is that any more legitimate than Muslims breaking from 14 centuries of consensus on drinking wine? It’s a simple question.

    Now, if you want to make the case that Muslim extremist groups can legitimately break with consensus and still be considered normative, then I suggest you hold a joint conference with them in what’s left of Mosul or Raqqa.

    Oh – oops! Looks like they’re killing their own “scholars” that disagree with them:
    “The dispute concerns the group’s position on takfir, or excommunication—namely, the excommunication of fellow Muslims—and al-Bin‘ali was on the losing side. On May 17, 2017, the Islamic State’s Delegated Committee, its executive council, issued a memorandum setting out the official stance on takfir, and for al-Bin‘ali it was too extreme. Two days later, he refuted the memorandum in a letter to the Delegated Committee, and twelve days after that, he was killed. More such refutations by Islamic State scholars followed, and in at least one other case the result—death by airstrike—was the same…The latter was waging war on “the scholars,” which was to say al-Bin‘ali and his allies. Al-Bin‘ali’s death, he muses, was no accident: al-Bin‘ali and the other scholars who opposed the memorandum were arranged to die in airstrikes, their coordinates being leaked to “the crusaders.””

    http://www.jihadica.com/caliphate-in-disarray/

    Better hurry! Man, this really sucks for your narrative though, right? I mean, once Daesh is gone (fought and defeated by other Muslims), there goes a massive part of your story. And sucks for Israel too:
    “Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/

    you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material

    You completely misrepresented it – and I showed everyone that you did not mention the second important portion of what Ms. Bewley wrote. The record is here for everyone to see. And again, where did you get that quotation from Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) using the word “unbelievers” instead of “polytheists/pagans”? I’ll retract this assertion too if you provide proof. Either way, if you use altafsir.com than you have the source text – there is no excuse:
    وقوله { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ } أي من الأرض، وهذا عام

    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    He leaves the term as is; “mushrikeen” and proceeds to mention (since he is a Shafi’i) “meaning; in/from the world, and this is general (ie. not restricted)”. He never turns around and replaces the word with “kafireen”.

    So will you make a change to your article? Will you stop telling people it says “unbelievers”? Thought so.

    I must confess I’m rather busy.

    Same here – I’ve got four kids to raise for the demographic jihad. Takes time and patience to practice my mad taqiyyah skillz. That’s why I stick to academic works that have been peer reviewed.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.

    That’s cool – I like my dad better than your dad. How exactly am I supposed to respond to this?

    You still have not stated clearly, do you or do you not understand and read Arabic at a fluent level – have you ever taken a formal class on it? This should take ten seconds to answer.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Talha, you miss the larger point. We in the West don't care about your sectarian disputes. We don't care and we don't want to be made to care. We don't care how you support your argument with which chapter and verse, which alleged expert of your funky religion.

    The point is, we don't want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse. We have finally purged Christian sectarian disputes from the forefront of our consciousness and now you Muzzies force us to bear with you while you hash out yours.

    As scientists, we of the West want to know more about ourselves and the universe we find ourselves in. Whether God or Allah or Jahweh loves one of us more than He does his neighbor or vice versa is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth.

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors. We of the West have developed beyond that stage of human consciousness. Squabbling over religious canon lies behind us. Persons like you spend all your life's energy trying to drag it in front of us.

    , @Clyde
    Mr Spencer punked you good. Go back to wacky Paki land and preach your Koran scientist knowledge over there. Your fellow Muslims need you.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    If all muslims were like you, there would be no problems. Your comments are always a pleasure to read. Thank you.
    , @Randal

    I haven’t – I avoid propaganda. I also haven’t read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or
     
    You certainly should read (or at least skim) Mein Kampf, at least. Far from "propaganda" (or at any rate no more propaganda than is contained in - necessarily - every biographical piece by an active politician), it's a primary source on the thinking and personality of one of the most important and influential players in global politics.

    It's reasonably well written and does contain many striking insights, plus a lot of tosh (as do all such books), and some pretty turgid bits. But imo you're going to struggle to understand the history of WW2 (and therefore much of the basis of subsequent events right up to today) without it. The ongoing demonisation of Hitler (I make no assertion here as to whether and to what extent such demonisation is justified) and the ongoing use of his name, his views and his actions to drive modern politics and even military strategy, means his personal relevance has not faded nearly so much as that of many of his contemporaries.

    , @iffen
    ignorant audience of Evangelicals

    You need to walk the walk if you are going to give the talk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Ivanhoe is a fictional degenerate male character reflecting Walter Scott's Freemasonry and Protestant Judaizing.

    David conflates fiction with reality. He would have us imitate made up people.

    Also, I'm a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.

    Also, I’m a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.

    What is your ethnic background?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well according to other posters on this site, when she expresses an opinion that white men should marry white women, that makes her Jewish.
    , @attilathehen
    Anonymous - the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I've told you before I'm a Heinz 57 Caucasian.

    And one more time, I'm a real giiiiirrrrrlllll!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Talha says:
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    As my brother in Bani Adam, I sincerely warn you about what you are doing. It will not end well in the next life.

    There is still time to change.

    “And we are not responsible except for clear notification.” (36:17)

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    lol You are trying to put the whammy on Robert Spencer. Why don't you summon up some wayward djinn to do it for you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Truth says:
    @Anonymous

    Also, I’m a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.
     
    What is your ethnic background?

    Well according to other posters on this site, when she expresses an opinion that white men should marry white women, that makes her Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Anonymous

    Also, I’m a girl. I keep having to remind commentators about this or restate this when they ask me.
     
    What is your ethnic background?

    Anonymous – the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I’ve told you before I’m a Heinz 57 Caucasian.

    And one more time, I’m a real giiiiirrrrrlllll!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I’m a Heinz 57 Caucasian.
     
    So does that mean you're Middle Eastern like Robert "Spencer"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Talha says:
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Read through that blog post of yours. Much better, far more accurate than that other article. So this is good, this is the kind of thing you should write more of. And since you are capable of it, why do you resort to the other silliness?

    You may want to mention that indeed people like Daesh and al-Qaeda execute prisoners of war in contravention of international norms. The other Muslim countries are signatories to these agreements and are morally obligated to uphold them by the Shariah; thus the option of killing of war captives is interdicted. If Western countries start to return to the days when they executed war captives then, of course, Muslim nations will have no reason to abide by this restriction other than at their own discretion. It is in the interests of all involved that we make sure everyone adheres to the current international protocols on warfare.

    As for groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda and other fringe groups that refuse to abide by international agreements; the solution is simple – give their fighters no quarter since they grant no quarter to their captives. It’s a fairly straight-forward issue.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there. Also, your bravery in confronting Islam head-on (and leftists, i.e., in Iceland) is a modern day version of Charles Martel, Don Juan of Austria and Queen Isabella of Spain and their bravery in dealing with Islam.

    I have read Talha’s responses to you. His comment no. 45, a warning to you, is a perfect example of the evil and degeneracy of Islam. But there is also another factor when dealing with people like Talha. Talha is from Pakistan, a country where the average IQ is 84. Talha is brighter though, at least an IQ of 100, placing him in the talented 10% of his nation. But Pakistanis fall under the Asian category. Caucasians are the highest IQ people, Asians are second and blacks are last.

    I know you are a practicing Greek Catholic, which I believe is aligned with the Roman Catholic Church. I was a cradle RCCer, but left the RCC because I don’t accept black/Asian priests-popes. In dealing with the Islamic problem we must first separate biology from beliefs. Caucasians, Asians, blacks have distince biological markings. But beliefs can be held by anyone, i.e, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc.

    The West (Western Europe in particular) cannot save itself until it deals with the issues of IQ which are directly tied to race. The RCC is the biggest problem because as the “universal church” its duty is to convert the world and accepts all peoples as equals. This is the first problem. The second problem comes from the cowardice of the RCC and the present pope to state that Islam is a Christian heresy. This was a common belief and stated by popes before Vatican II. The USA Conference of Bishops should be stating this, but the RCC has been taken over by homosexuals so this issue will not be addressed.

    Talha is engaging in his usual spiel – but again, his biological degeneracy is a contributing factor to his religious degeneracy so he unable to think coherently and logically. I have engaged with him before and told him he is inferior to Caucasians. That is a biological fact.

    The first step in dealing with Talha types is deportation and repatriation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Anonymous - the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I've told you before I'm a Heinz 57 Caucasian.

    And one more time, I'm a real giiiiirrrrrlllll!!!!!

    I’m a Heinz 57 Caucasian.

    So does that mean you’re Middle Eastern like Robert “Spencer”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Anonymous - the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I am not Middle Eastern and Robert Spencer is Greek.

    Your anti-Greek emotions are showing. Being Turkish and Asiatic (thus second class) really grinds on you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anonymous

    I’m a Heinz 57 Caucasian.
     
    So does that mean you're Middle Eastern like Robert "Spencer"?

    Anonymous – the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I am not Middle Eastern and Robert Spencer is Greek.

    Your anti-Greek emotions are showing. Being Turkish and Asiatic (thus second class) really grinds on you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Spencer" is Middle Eastern with a fake English surname. His religion is Greek Orthodox. Do you look like Robert "Spencer"? Is that what you mean by "Heinz 57 Caucasian"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Cato says:
    @Talha
    Wow - pretty balanced article on the whole.

    "It’s all wrong, wrong, wrong! Grrrrr!!!" That’s the Islam we’re up against.
     
    Bingo! That is the version Islam that is causing the problem. The one that is too spiritually immature to recognize that God grants worldly success to various people at various times throughout history, the one that doesn't recognize that sometimes poverty is better than wealth, that being oppressed is always, always preferable to being on top if you're just going to become the oppressor, that it might actually be a good thing to be left in the dust by post-modernity as it speeds along the tracks not thinking the bridge is out ahead*.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they're butchering us left and right as well since we won't get with their program). Missing one thing though that Mr. Dersbyshire always seems to suffer from which his lack of acknowledgment of the massive part played by foreign policies that have laid to waste a good amount of the ME and caused such tremendous population movement.


    Is that hateful? I don’t see it.
     
    Neither do I.

    He’s read the Koran, in the original classical Arabic.
     
    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic - to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.

    I decline to have an opinion about Islam.
     
    OK - that seems a bit weird, but OK. One doesn't have to read Spencer's works - plenty of stuff out there from academic sources.

    we shouldn’t give visas to any but a tiny number of Muslims
     
    Seems reasonable; after all every country has a right to set policies who gains entry. Plenty would discriminate against letting in people of 70+ years to permanently settle since they are a drain on financial and medical resources. That doesn't mean they hate the elderly (I mean, maybe they do, but it doesn't necessarily mean that).

    A thought occurred to me; this seems like a reasonable approach to the subject and has potential to gain wider audience. The Spencer approach (which is tied to Israeli-firster organizations) tends to push the discussion into the unreasonable camp that can distract from the serious discussion about immigration. People in the center may not want to be associated with more extreme views. If it is the case that this is one of the intents behind the work that Mr. Spencer is doing - then it is an impressive feat of the Israeli-firster crowd to control and distract the windows of discussion on the parameters of both invade and invite. All your base is belong to them.

    Peace.

    *It is amazing to me how many people have never pondered why the story of the Tortoise and the Hare appears across the world in various folk traditions; the details differ, but the essence of the story is the same.

    There is tremendous diversity among Christian denominations in their values, politics, and religious fervor. My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims. Most comments by Americans on Islam are comments from a vast distance, where everyone looks the same. Here on unz.com it seems that only Cockburn and the Russian writers know and use the word takfiri. It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies. And, as you say, they are the enemies not only of Christians but, first and foremost, of other Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Cato, you are an enemy. Takfiris are nothing more than Christian heretics. I've been to the Middle East and have seen Islam up close. Where I live I've had Muslims try and convert me. I tell them Islam is a Christian heresy and they walk away.

    You used the word "diversity." Diversity has to be defined. There is a difference between biology and beliefs. Christianity and Islam are belief systems - there is nothing biological about them.

    But the believers, adherents of these belief systems can be seen objectively to differ in physical appearance. Most Muslims are blacks/Asians. There is diversity among blacks/Asians but one thing is for sure, they are not Caucasians and thus, not Western.

    IQ is a clear, biological empirical truth that can be measured. Caucasians have the highest IQs, then Asians, blacks are last.

    In what do you really believe? Or maybe takfiris are really Jews and you believe they are behind all the problems in the world?
    , @Talha
    Hey Cato,

    My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims.
     
    To a certain degree yes, and to a certain degree no.

    The beliefs of Muslims (meaning creed) is actually amazingly uniform across the Sunnis and on core principles, we actually don't differ much from Shias. It is quite extraordinary since we've never held synods or councils or had the equivalent of the sanhedrin to figure out what is orthodox and heterodox. It kind of bubbled up by itself through (world wide) debates in the medieval period.

    As far as jurisprudence or praxis, then there has been wide leeway and there has been a general respect for difference of opinions on these matters. The only thing that mattered was; is the person making a juristic opinion qualified to do so. And that determination was made by his peer jurists (just as a board of doctors or lawyers confers a degree to people of their trade and how top surgeons are ranked by their own peers). For instance, in the class I currently take with a Hanafi mufti, we study the Hidayah of Imam Marghinani (ra). It is a comparative juristic work which shows the Hanafi schools ruling on matters and proofs for how they are derived. Almost every other page the text shows what the divergent opinion of Imam Shafi'i (ra) is on a matter and how he is mistaken, but always puts (رحمة الله عليه - May God have mercy on him) after his name.

    The takfiris break with all of this. For them, there is only one way to interpret Islam and it is theirs. Anyone else is not only wrong, but they are excommunicated. As you can see in the video by Prof. Cook, these people won't even recognize giants in our tradition like Imam Nawawi (ra) as baseline Muslims. In their eyes, there are practically about 20 million Muslims in the world maybe - max. The fact that they would pull off suicide bombings in the middle of Ramadan in the city of the Prophet (pbuh) shows the depth of their delusional thinking:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36706761

    And you can see how they even deal with their own scholars that they disagree with in that jihadica.com (an awesome resource by the way to find out exactly what these takfiri groups are up to and writing about) by setting them up for assassination.

    This kind of thinking goes all the way back to the first takfiris that arose at the time of the Companions (ra) - they were calling Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) - the fourth caliph, cousin of the Prophet (pbuh), and jurist of the highest rank - an apostate and killed him.

    It is a kind of psychosis and spiritual disease and the fruits of it are obvious; here they run over people with trucks, in Muslim lands, they blow up trucks among kids waiting for ice cream.

    I can certainly understand the concern of people in the West in wanting to prevent them from entering even if it means other harmless people are also barred.

    Peace.
    , @Anon

    It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies.
     
    Not so. Visit a parish in Pakistan sometime.

    Still, by and large Muslims and Christians can get along, as they often have, especially when either Muslims and Christians are both minorities (as in Ceylon) or where Christians are a large majority (as in the US). Your Muslim neighbors are, as you say, not your enemies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Anonymous - the Turkish, anti-white, atheist, jihadi sympathizer. I am not Middle Eastern and Robert Spencer is Greek.

    Your anti-Greek emotions are showing. Being Turkish and Asiatic (thus second class) really grinds on you.

    “Spencer” is Middle Eastern with a fake English surname. His religion is Greek Orthodox. Do you look like Robert “Spencer”? Is that what you mean by “Heinz 57 Caucasian”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    You Muslim Turks can't deal with the superiority of Greek Christians.
    , @Anonymous
    It means that she's got Negro admixture and is too ashamed to admit it, so she hides it in "white." Anyone who actually was of good stock such as a pure Anglo or Teuton birth would mention it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anonymous
    "Spencer" is Middle Eastern with a fake English surname. His religion is Greek Orthodox. Do you look like Robert "Spencer"? Is that what you mean by "Heinz 57 Caucasian"?

    You Muslim Turks can’t deal with the superiority of Greek Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Cato
    There is tremendous diversity among Christian denominations in their values, politics, and religious fervor. My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims. Most comments by Americans on Islam are comments from a vast distance, where everyone looks the same. Here on unz.com it seems that only Cockburn and the Russian writers know and use the word takfiri. It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies. And, as you say, they are the enemies not only of Christians but, first and foremost, of other Muslims.

    Cato, you are an enemy. Takfiris are nothing more than Christian heretics. I’ve been to the Middle East and have seen Islam up close. Where I live I’ve had Muslims try and convert me. I tell them Islam is a Christian heresy and they walk away.

    You used the word “diversity.” Diversity has to be defined. There is a difference between biology and beliefs. Christianity and Islam are belief systems – there is nothing biological about them.

    But the believers, adherents of these belief systems can be seen objectively to differ in physical appearance. Most Muslims are blacks/Asians. There is diversity among blacks/Asians but one thing is for sure, they are not Caucasians and thus, not Western.

    IQ is a clear, biological empirical truth that can be measured. Caucasians have the highest IQs, then Asians, blacks are last.

    In what do you really believe? Or maybe takfiris are really Jews and you believe they are behind all the problems in the world?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato

    Caucasians have the highest IQs, then Asians, blacks are last.
     
    Huh? You are commenting here, as if your opinions are valuable, and you believe this?

    I’ve had Muslims try and convert me
     
    Well, I've been a missionary and tried to bring souls to Christ, and see absolutely nothing wrong with what I did. In my experience, we Christians do much more proselytizing than do Muslims.

    In addition: many Muslims are whites. Go to Athens, then go to Istanbul, and tell me where you see more blue-eyed people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Sir Walter Scott was a Freemason, a believer in "universal brotherhood," a Protestant Judaizer, hence the traits of Ivanhoe. Derbyshire would select this novel because again his twisted mentality (caused by marrying a Chinese woman) would like Ivanhoe, but deep down knows his son can never be an Ivanhoe (flawed as the character is, i.e., a Semitophile). We are again dealin with Derbyshire degeneracy.

    Oh, by the way, I'm a girrrrlllll!!!!

    Its always good to see your comments as an example that, whites also have their retards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    WOW!!! Again, what is your point in commenting on pro-Western sites? You've stated you're Turkish, anti-white, atheist and a jihad sympathizer. Robert Spencer even if he has Lebanese or Syrian admixture is still acceptable. You are not. Do you not have better things to do with your life? Oops, I forgot you're an inferior, non-Western, Asian male. Maybe commenting like this is a way to make you feel better?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    "Spencer" is Middle Eastern with a fake English surname. His religion is Greek Orthodox. Do you look like Robert "Spencer"? Is that what you mean by "Heinz 57 Caucasian"?

    It means that she’s got Negro admixture and is too ashamed to admit it, so she hides it in “white.” Anyone who actually was of good stock such as a pure Anglo or Teuton birth would mention it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Another "Anonymous?" What is your background? Jewish? Involved with Asians? Are you a Muslim atheist? Do you also dislike Robert Spencer? Are you one and same and now commenting and answering yourself?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Truth

    Well, it’s easy not to mind it when it’s thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it’s all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    ... I’d certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day
     
    .

    Well, you see; the genie answered your prayer.

    Well, yeah, I agree. Doesn’t mean I like it. It’s just better islamofuckery, that’s all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. m___ says:

    Might be all next to the question of what defines future society.

    Is it group differences, or individual quality assessments.

    Does it mean redefining hierarchical priorities to “other” values as IQ, character traits, as floating on top of prepositions in the pool for health, mental and physical, looks, strength and anything else?

    Does above need to impact as a first the elites, or is it at all important to consider the masses of humans colonizing a dying planet?

    Could it be that a match of a jew and a white women and a “big dick”(as an also) negro, over the span of a few generations and opening up to eugenics in a positive sense, give a future to humanity? Is the clue rather voluntary selection, of dating reading a cheat-sheet of what a person has as a genetic potential for the critical values?

    All other selection criteria have after all failed, it can be given as true that jews, and whites, and some Asians have in the short term been doing better then others, but the derivatives of long term negative impacts for any group exceed the short-term progress, what might be called progress by a current definition: more money, more comfort, more power over others, solutions that crumble when opening the context of say ten thousand years.

    The psychology, the sociology, the criteria of what constitutes power, are off, now a-n-d then, the only difference is the level of assessment that can be applied now as compared to then. This includes race, “good but not good enough”, rewriting the paradigms is an evident requisite.

    As far as muslims, christians, jews, blacks and shapes and flavours of Asians, they all have their “bends”. Different times require humble reconsideration of a large number of variables, probably too many for an individual to convolute into an authoritative diagram. Again the future might be in “quality” human, not based on racial differences but by pooling the best, the genetically superior, the interaction between these and artificial intelligence. To be defined: as far as a level of writing algorithms influenced by current human psychological predispositions, to turn them into somewhat independent running processes, we might even corrupt the promise of artificial intelligence into a multiplication of backwardness.

    The point: individuals, pool creation, redefining elites, and drop the mass psychosis of human-global as irrelevant, a survival systemic, urgency a-n-d relevancy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Mr. Spencer,

    Thanks for responding here. I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either. But as long as you’re here, you could gratify me immensely if you so desired by answering the original question: Do you speak Arabic?

    I understand you’re in no way accountable for Mr. Derbyshire’s beliefs, but thought I might as well go straight to the horse’s mouth, since the horse has condescended so much as to show up here anyway.

    RSDB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Addendum:

    Use of the term "horse" was meant to imply no disrespect, of course, simply facetiousness. I thought I should clarify this in case it was misconstrued.*

    RSDB

    *(not to Mr. Spencer) I used to write all my comments like this. Isn't it horrible what a year or UR does to people? /sarc
    , @Talha
    Hmmm - the silence in response to a simple yes/no question (asked three times now) is...deafening.

    Arabic is not a language somebody simply trips into. And the classical form requires a special effort to learn because, though it is like modern standard Arabic, people simply don't talk and write like that any more except for people in circles of religious knowledge*. On top of that there are terms that are jargon and nomenclature of that field. For instance, a "pointer" or "class" mean something different in the mind of a programmer than for the masses.

    I consider myself only a student of the language, even after 10 years of study; I'm constantly looking up new words (it's why I've got three Arabic lexicons on my smart phone). But then again, I'm not touting myself around the country as a "scholar of Islam".

    Peace.

    *My sister-in-law went to Egypt to study the language after she converted and came back after like 8 years of study and now teaches at the university level. However, there are terms I've casually asked her about and she has never come across them.
    , @attilathehen
    Mr. Spencer does not have to speak or read Arabic to pass judgment on the Koran. As a Catholic, I did not need to read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to read the Bible. I relied on a good translation.

    I have read the Koran. It is a farrago, dog's breakfast of pasted together items from the Old and New Testaments and Arabic pagan beliefs. What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.

    I saw your comment no. 67, about how Christians and Muslims can live together? Where do you live? I've seen your name but I don't remember commenting to you. Are you Jewish, Christian, involved with Asians?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Mr. Spencer,

    Thanks for responding here. I must admit I'm not much of a fan of yours, but then I'm not much of a detractor either. But as long as you're here, you could gratify me immensely if you so desired by answering the original question: Do you speak Arabic?

    I understand you're in no way accountable for Mr. Derbyshire's beliefs, but thought I might as well go straight to the horse's mouth, since the horse has condescended so much as to show up here anyway.

    RSDB

    Addendum:

    Use of the term “horse” was meant to imply no disrespect, of course, simply facetiousness. I thought I should clarify this in case it was misconstrued.*

    RSDB

    *(not to Mr. Spencer) I used to write all my comments like this. Isn’t it horrible what a year or UR does to people? /sarc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. geokat62 says:

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there…

    Mr. Spencer,… I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either.

    As is my wont, I did a little background search on Mr. Spencer to learn more about him. It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Here’s an excerpt from William Saletan’s article Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?

    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose “sharia laws” and that “there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called ‘peaceful’ or ‘moderate’ Muslims.” He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by “Fjordman”—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller’s site—which argued that “radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies” and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html

    And here is what that Islamic Radical, Abe Foxman, had to say about Spencer’s and Geller’s work:

    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.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Excellent find Geo - thanks!

    Just like we have our extremists blaming everything on and lying about non-Muslims (you should hear some of the conspiracies that come out of Muslim areas - whack!) in order to rile people up and recruit for their cause, there are extremists in the West too. Rallying their extremists - which is obvious just on this forum from which people seem to be uncritical "big fans" of their writings.

    As I have mentioned before - I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone.

    Then they could leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults.

    I might not agree with Mr. Derbyshire, but he is an intelligent man and is bringing up valid concerns that should be able to be discussed and debated publicly. I only wish that he would add the very important "invade" part of the equation into his analysis.

    Peace.

    , @Talha
    Geo - you gotta get a load of this man - LOL! Thus stuff is soooo good! You cannot make this up!

    This is our homegirl that Mr. Spencer hangs out with; check her out pretending to be Muslim and just letting it all hang out for Israel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqPbM7WGSIQ

    Bibi deserves a Nobel Peace Prize - I kid you not! How can you say that with a straight face? That skill is impressive, though I admit she looks like she is about to crack a smile once in a while. And I love that audience, I think the Wally George crew found a home with Huckabee.

    I mean OK - so she has a problem with Islam, I get it; it don't let you do your feminist thang or your gay thang or your frat-bros around the keg thang. But how does this automatically translate to love - I mean LOVE - for Israel?

    Any more proof needed how this is all tangled up?

    Peace.
    , @KenH

    It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.
     
    Don't forget that for all the supposed anti Muslim hate Brevik imbibed he targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals and not Muslims. As I recall this was because Brevik judged them guilty of high treason to Norway and the West for bringing Muslims into Norway and I found it hard to disagree with his reasoning.

    He could have exacted a very bloody toll on Norwegian Muslims if he chose to do so.

    , @Anon
    Suddenly you're taking Foxman of the ADL seriously? Is this the geokat we know and love, or some sort of false flag? Will we hear more Foxman citations in future?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Talha says:
    @geokat62

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there...

    Mr. Spencer,... I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either.
     

    As is my wont, I did a little background search on Mr. Spencer to learn more about him. It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Here's an excerpt from William Saletan's article Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?


    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html
     

    And here is what that Islamic Radical, Abe Foxman, had to say about Spencer's and Geller's work:

    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."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
     

    Excellent find Geo – thanks!

    Just like we have our extremists blaming everything on and lying about non-Muslims (you should hear some of the conspiracies that come out of Muslim areas – whack!) in order to rile people up and recruit for their cause, there are extremists in the West too. Rallying their extremists – which is obvious just on this forum from which people seem to be uncritical “big fans” of their writings.

    As I have mentioned before – I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone.

    Then they could leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults.

    I might not agree with Mr. Derbyshire, but he is an intelligent man and is bringing up valid concerns that should be able to be discussed and debated publicly. I only wish that he would add the very important “invade” part of the equation into his analysis.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    "I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone...leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults."

    Talha, you're slipping down to Pakistan average IQ of 84. Caucasian, Christian Westerners should leave you the heck alone? How about if you leave the West alone and go back to Pakistan?

    "Discuss serious concerns." I am discussing serious concerns. I am pointing out biological and theological facts, i.e., about Islam and Pakistan. I discuss the serious problems that arise from biological degeneracy, i.e., low IQs. I refuse to let you get away with your attempts to justify your heretical belief system, because I am a Christian.

    And you claim to be serious???
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Talha says:
    @Cato
    There is tremendous diversity among Christian denominations in their values, politics, and religious fervor. My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims. Most comments by Americans on Islam are comments from a vast distance, where everyone looks the same. Here on unz.com it seems that only Cockburn and the Russian writers know and use the word takfiri. It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies. And, as you say, they are the enemies not only of Christians but, first and foremost, of other Muslims.

    Hey Cato,

    My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims.

    To a certain degree yes, and to a certain degree no.

    The beliefs of Muslims (meaning creed) is actually amazingly uniform across the Sunnis and on core principles, we actually don’t differ much from Shias. It is quite extraordinary since we’ve never held synods or councils or had the equivalent of the sanhedrin to figure out what is orthodox and heterodox. It kind of bubbled up by itself through (world wide) debates in the medieval period.

    As far as jurisprudence or praxis, then there has been wide leeway and there has been a general respect for difference of opinions on these matters. The only thing that mattered was; is the person making a juristic opinion qualified to do so. And that determination was made by his peer jurists (just as a board of doctors or lawyers confers a degree to people of their trade and how top surgeons are ranked by their own peers). For instance, in the class I currently take with a Hanafi mufti, we study the Hidayah of Imam Marghinani (ra). It is a comparative juristic work which shows the Hanafi schools ruling on matters and proofs for how they are derived. Almost every other page the text shows what the divergent opinion of Imam Shafi’i (ra) is on a matter and how he is mistaken, but always puts (رحمة الله عليه – May God have mercy on him) after his name.

    The takfiris break with all of this. For them, there is only one way to interpret Islam and it is theirs. Anyone else is not only wrong, but they are excommunicated. As you can see in the video by Prof. Cook, these people won’t even recognize giants in our tradition like Imam Nawawi (ra) as baseline Muslims. In their eyes, there are practically about 20 million Muslims in the world maybe – max. The fact that they would pull off suicide bombings in the middle of Ramadan in the city of the Prophet (pbuh) shows the depth of their delusional thinking:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36706761

    And you can see how they even deal with their own scholars that they disagree with in that jihadica.com (an awesome resource by the way to find out exactly what these takfiri groups are up to and writing about) by setting them up for assassination.

    This kind of thinking goes all the way back to the first takfiris that arose at the time of the Companions (ra) – they were calling Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) – the fourth caliph, cousin of the Prophet (pbuh), and jurist of the highest rank – an apostate and killed him.

    It is a kind of psychosis and spiritual disease and the fruits of it are obvious; here they run over people with trucks, in Muslim lands, they blow up trucks among kids waiting for ice cream.

    I can certainly understand the concern of people in the West in wanting to prevent them from entering even if it means other harmless people are also barred.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    we actually don’t differ much from Shias.

    That is nonsense. The interpretations of the Hadith are so totally different between the two as to render them alien to each other. You know this. Shias generally do not marry Sunnis and their beliefs regarding the descendants of Ali and Muhammed are completely at odds, which has been the source of war and enmity between the two religions.

    , @Cato
    Talha, I always appreciate your knowledgeable comments and the calm way in which you conduct yourself. When I referred to diversity I actually meant something broader than the denominations or schools of jurisprudence. Islam has many adherents focused on "works," who, much like Orthodox Jews, focus on ritual acts, such as eating only things that are halal, performing salat, etc. Within Christianity, there are a few denominations that might be somewhat focused on works (the Orthodox and Catholics with their sacraments), but most of us are in the path of St. Paul, and focus on "faith". Islam has many adherents who resemble Christians in this respect. Very few of the Muslims I know go to mosque, most don't do salat at home, and many consider the dietary restrictions irrelevant, yet they clearly have a strong belief in God and are trying to live life as godly people. So when I say that Islam is more diverse than Christianity, I am saying that it spans a wider spectrum across works and faith.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anonymous
    Its always good to see your comments as an example that, whites also have their retards.

    WOW!!! Again, what is your point in commenting on pro-Western sites? You’ve stated you’re Turkish, anti-white, atheist and a jihad sympathizer. Robert Spencer even if he has Lebanese or Syrian admixture is still acceptable. You are not. Do you not have better things to do with your life? Oops, I forgot you’re an inferior, non-Western, Asian male. Maybe commenting like this is a way to make you feel better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "You’ve stated you’re Turkish, anti-white, atheist and a jihad sympathizer."

    A person cannot, with any logical consistency, be an ***atheist*** AND a ***jihad sympathizer*** at the same time, since the meaning of jihad is "holy war against infidels and unbelievers". If this jackass is really stating that he is both simultaneously, then either:

    - He is an idiot, OR;
    - He is a schizoid individual, OR;
    - He is a typical Islamo-Turkic liar and mountebank, whose every utterance about these issues is unadulterated bullshit not to be taken seriously, OR;
    - This is an indication of the present internal situation of Turkey and Turkish society ruled by the regime of the Islamic psycho-tyrant Erdogandog, where, in order to be able to state that you are an atheist (or even strongly secular) without being murdered or other bad things happening to you, you need to follow up immediately with stating that you are a "jihad sympathizer", in order to mollify the fanatic maniacs. Which just goes to show you how far down the rathole today's Turkey has descended, from the forward-looking secular republic set up by Ataturk 94 years ago.

    For my money, I would say that probably it is a combination of the last two points.

    But the much more important question, of course, is: WHY is the Comments section of The Unz Review filled up with taqiyyah-practicing Islamic apologists like the Pakistani scumbag "Talha" and European-hating, anti-white racist Turkish Islamo-nationalists like this "Anonymous" swine?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Anonymous
    It means that she's got Negro admixture and is too ashamed to admit it, so she hides it in "white." Anyone who actually was of good stock such as a pure Anglo or Teuton birth would mention it.

    Another “Anonymous?” What is your background? Jewish? Involved with Asians? Are you a Muslim atheist? Do you also dislike Robert Spencer? Are you one and same and now commenting and answering yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Do you look like a Jew or Muslim like Robert Spencer does? Is that what you mean by "Heinz 57 Caucasian"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Cato
    There is tremendous diversity among Christian denominations in their values, politics, and religious fervor. My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims. Most comments by Americans on Islam are comments from a vast distance, where everyone looks the same. Here on unz.com it seems that only Cockburn and the Russian writers know and use the word takfiri. It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies. And, as you say, they are the enemies not only of Christians but, first and foremost, of other Muslims.

    It is really only the takfiri who are our enemies.

    Not so. Visit a parish in Pakistan sometime.

    Still, by and large Muslims and Christians can get along, as they often have, especially when either Muslims and Christians are both minorities (as in Ceylon) or where Christians are a large majority (as in the US). Your Muslim neighbors are, as you say, not your enemies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Mr. Spencer,

    Thanks for responding here. I must admit I'm not much of a fan of yours, but then I'm not much of a detractor either. But as long as you're here, you could gratify me immensely if you so desired by answering the original question: Do you speak Arabic?

    I understand you're in no way accountable for Mr. Derbyshire's beliefs, but thought I might as well go straight to the horse's mouth, since the horse has condescended so much as to show up here anyway.

    RSDB

    Hmmm – the silence in response to a simple yes/no question (asked three times now) is…deafening.

    Arabic is not a language somebody simply trips into. And the classical form requires a special effort to learn because, though it is like modern standard Arabic, people simply don’t talk and write like that any more except for people in circles of religious knowledge*. On top of that there are terms that are jargon and nomenclature of that field. For instance, a “pointer” or “class” mean something different in the mind of a programmer than for the masses.

    I consider myself only a student of the language, even after 10 years of study; I’m constantly looking up new words (it’s why I’ve got three Arabic lexicons on my smart phone). But then again, I’m not touting myself around the country as a “scholar of Islam”.

    Peace.

    *My sister-in-law went to Egypt to study the language after she converted and came back after like 8 years of study and now teaches at the university level. However, there are terms I’ve casually asked her about and she has never come across them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yeah...

    No argument with the above.

    Personally, from what I've heard of the guy I wouldn't call him a hack exactly, and along with more unsavory company like Pamela Geller (sorry, if you're reading this, ma'am) he seems to interact with genuinely sincere people like Peter Kreeft (there's a debate between them I found when casually googling Spencer, didn't watch) or the late Larry Auster.

    But “scholar of Islam” ... no.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Talha says:
    @geokat62

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there...

    Mr. Spencer,... I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either.
     

    As is my wont, I did a little background search on Mr. Spencer to learn more about him. It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Here's an excerpt from William Saletan's article Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?


    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html
     

    And here is what that Islamic Radical, Abe Foxman, had to say about Spencer's and Geller's work:

    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."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
     

    Geo – you gotta get a load of this man – LOL! Thus stuff is soooo good! You cannot make this up!

    This is our homegirl that Mr. Spencer hangs out with; check her out pretending to be Muslim and just letting it all hang out for Israel:

    Bibi deserves a Nobel Peace Prize – I kid you not! How can you say that with a straight face? That skill is impressive, though I admit she looks like she is about to crack a smile once in a while. And I love that audience, I think the Wally George crew found a home with Huckabee.

    I mean OK – so she has a problem with Islam, I get it; it don’t let you do your feminist thang or your gay thang or your frat-bros around the keg thang. But how does this automatically translate to love – I mean LOVE – for Israel?

    Any more proof needed how this is all tangled up?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Bibi deserves a Nobel Peace Prize
     
    Why, of course he does... along with his two "xian" sidekicks, George W Bush and Tony Blair (Israel's former "peace" envoy).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Another "Anonymous?" What is your background? Jewish? Involved with Asians? Are you a Muslim atheist? Do you also dislike Robert Spencer? Are you one and same and now commenting and answering yourself?

    Do you look like a Jew or Muslim like Robert Spencer does? Is that what you mean by “Heinz 57 Caucasian”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    No, and Robert Spencer does not look Jewish or Muslim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false.

    It would probably be a greater challenge to find anything truthful in anything this assclown writes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Ditto.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. geokat62 says:
    @Talha
    Geo - you gotta get a load of this man - LOL! Thus stuff is soooo good! You cannot make this up!

    This is our homegirl that Mr. Spencer hangs out with; check her out pretending to be Muslim and just letting it all hang out for Israel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqPbM7WGSIQ

    Bibi deserves a Nobel Peace Prize - I kid you not! How can you say that with a straight face? That skill is impressive, though I admit she looks like she is about to crack a smile once in a while. And I love that audience, I think the Wally George crew found a home with Huckabee.

    I mean OK - so she has a problem with Islam, I get it; it don't let you do your feminist thang or your gay thang or your frat-bros around the keg thang. But how does this automatically translate to love - I mean LOVE - for Israel?

    Any more proof needed how this is all tangled up?

    Peace.

    Bibi deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

    Why, of course he does… along with his two “xian” sidekicks, George W Bush and Tony Blair (Israel’s former “peace” envoy).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. KenH says:

    I don’t think Robert Spencer has a bee in his bonnet nor do I think he hates Muslims. When I was only vaguely familiar with his work I thought he might overstate things a bit, but recently I bought several of his books and have almost completed one. He argues very dispassionately and persuasively about Islamic doctrine and the threat that it poses to the West and how damning information is being concealed about “moderate” Muslim organizations in America and other parts of the world. I haven’t detected any malice in his work thus far.

    I’m not saying he has all the answers or that he’s right in all of his claims, but people really shouldn’t arrogantly dismiss him unless they’ve examined his body of work instead of relying on ad hominem laced press releases from CAIR, ADL and other groups who have their own political agendas. If someone can come up with a cogent point by point refutation of major claims made by Spencer then I might take them more seriously.

    The other thing is that Spencer has never shied away from debate with Muslims and Western liberals and seems to gave gotten the best of most of his adversaries judging by youtube videos I’ve viewed. Ironically, it was an Icelandic left winger in Iceland who poisoned Spencer when he was speaking in that country and not a Muslim.

    My only gripe is that Spencer points out the saltier verses in the Koran and Islam’s other foundational texts but not the Jewish Talmud. Or that only Islam poses a threat to the West but not Jews and Judaism or that Jews do not mistreat Christians.

    https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    You are right about Mr. Spencer not dealing with the Talmud. The best to deal with this is to deal with the Roman Catholic Church and Zioevangizers who give the Jews their "power" by defending them as the chosen.
    , @Anonymous
    The Talmud is just a collection of personal opinions. It's not divine law.
    , @Druid
    Of course he does!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. KenH says:
    @geokat62

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there...

    Mr. Spencer,... I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either.
     

    As is my wont, I did a little background search on Mr. Spencer to learn more about him. It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Here's an excerpt from William Saletan's article Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?


    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html
     

    And here is what that Islamic Radical, Abe Foxman, had to say about Spencer's and Geller's work:

    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."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
     

    It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Don’t forget that for all the supposed anti Muslim hate Brevik imbibed he targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals and not Muslims. As I recall this was because Brevik judged them guilty of high treason to Norway and the West for bringing Muslims into Norway and I found it hard to disagree with his reasoning.

    He could have exacted a very bloody toll on Norwegian Muslims if he chose to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The bubble people. They do not practice what they preach. Diversity-mayhem for you; gated communities and security details for me. He punctured their bubble.
    , @geokat62

    Brevik... targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals...
     
    Hey, KenH. Think about how these young Norwegians became self hating liberals. Where did the "Diversity is Our Strength" meme come from?

    While The Lobby "Norweigian Style" may not be as effective as its "Swedish Style" counterpart, I do know they are active in Norway (see the Norwegian Centre Against Racism).

    Take a look at this 5 min. video:

    https://youtu.be/iYqiv4GJKUs

    Or just read this article, Norway is TOO WHITE! According to the President of the Jewish Community in Oslo:

    "The Norwegian people have very little experience dealing with minorities" So we have a BIG "job to do" in bringing minorities to them, according to Ervin Kohn (Twitter).

    Kohn is the President of The Jewish Community in Oslo and the Deputy Director at the Norwegian Center Against Racism.

    The question is, since when did Norwegians decide they needed an organization to solve the "problem" of racism in their country? After all, isn't Norway a homogenous country?

    Not for too long, if Kohn has his way!

    https://redice.tv/news/norway-is-too-white-according-to-the-president-of-the-jewish-community-in-oslo
     
    Bottom Line: no need to go wiping out young self hating Norwegian liberals. What is needed is a concerted effort to alert the youth of all European and European-derived nations to stay away from the Kosher Kool-Aid - i.e., diversity is not our strength... it is our demise!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anonymous
    Do you look like a Jew or Muslim like Robert Spencer does? Is that what you mean by "Heinz 57 Caucasian"?

    No, and Robert Spencer does not look Jewish or Muslim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah, he does, and apparently so do you.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @geokat62

    Mr. Spencer: First, I am a big fan of yours. Your work on Islam is the best out there...

    Mr. Spencer,... I must admit I’m not much of a fan of yours, but then I’m not much of a detractor either.
     

    As is my wont, I did a little background search on Mr. Spencer to learn more about him. It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.

    Here's an excerpt from William Saletan's article Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?


    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose "sharia laws" and that "there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called 'peaceful' or 'moderate' Muslims." He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by "Fjordman"—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller's site—which argued that "radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies" and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html
     

    And here is what that Islamic Radical, Abe Foxman, had to say about Spencer's and Geller's work:

    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."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
     

    Suddenly you’re taking Foxman of the ADL seriously? Is this the geokat we know and love, or some sort of false flag? Will we hear more Foxman citations in future?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Is this the geokat we know and love, or some sort of false flag?
     
    I think my comments make it abundantly clear how I view the work of the ADL and its former director, Abe Foxman. I cited him this time because even he is not willing to endorse Geller's and Spencer's writings. I have no issues with talking truth to power. I just don't think Geller and Spencer are doing that. I think their work is aimed at fomenting conflict between Christians and Muslims, for the benefit of the Jewish state. They would like to see the Crusaders once again cleanse the holy land of these infidels so that Israel is made Greater Again. I just don't buy into that line.

    My views are pretty straightforward:

    1) the Diversity is Our Strength meme pushed by the ADL and Abe Foxman is a crock of sh*t. It was mfged to make the diaspora feel less threatened by a society that was too homogeneous for their liking. They could almost hear the hoofs of Cossacks on horseback crossing the American plains to commit more pogroms. The sooner European and European-derived countries realize this policy is designed to hasten their undoing, the better - i.e., the US and other Western countries need to repeal asap the non-restrictionist Immigration Acts that The Lobby helped to put in place.

    2) The Lobby's argument that there is a natural alliance between Jews and Christians (hence the widespread use of term Judeo-Christian) against the Muslims is also a crock of sh*t. This was all mfged to get The Dumb Goyim to support the phony GWOT and take out 7 Muslim countries in 5 years to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle, period.

    That said, you can rest assured that I will never deviate from pointing out the devious intent underpinning these two policy prescriptions. That you can take to the bank.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jonathan Revusky

    if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false.
     
    It would probably be a greater challenge to find anything truthful in anything this assclown writes.

    Ditto.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anon
    Mr. Spencer,

    Thanks for responding here. I must admit I'm not much of a fan of yours, but then I'm not much of a detractor either. But as long as you're here, you could gratify me immensely if you so desired by answering the original question: Do you speak Arabic?

    I understand you're in no way accountable for Mr. Derbyshire's beliefs, but thought I might as well go straight to the horse's mouth, since the horse has condescended so much as to show up here anyway.

    RSDB

    Mr. Spencer does not have to speak or read Arabic to pass judgment on the Koran. As a Catholic, I did not need to read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to read the Bible. I relied on a good translation.

    I have read the Koran. It is a farrago, dog’s breakfast of pasted together items from the Old and New Testaments and Arabic pagan beliefs. What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.

    I saw your comment no. 67, about how Christians and Muslims can live together? Where do you live? I’ve seen your name but I don’t remember commenting to you. Are you Jewish, Christian, involved with Asians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.
     
    Well, yes, but based on your stated belief that IQism trumps revelation I would hardly have expected you of all people to make this (accurate) argument.

    Honestly I don't care if Mr. Spencer has read the Koran in Klingon-- I was interested in a simple statement of fact controverted between our author and a commenter of his.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hmmm - the silence in response to a simple yes/no question (asked three times now) is...deafening.

    Arabic is not a language somebody simply trips into. And the classical form requires a special effort to learn because, though it is like modern standard Arabic, people simply don't talk and write like that any more except for people in circles of religious knowledge*. On top of that there are terms that are jargon and nomenclature of that field. For instance, a "pointer" or "class" mean something different in the mind of a programmer than for the masses.

    I consider myself only a student of the language, even after 10 years of study; I'm constantly looking up new words (it's why I've got three Arabic lexicons on my smart phone). But then again, I'm not touting myself around the country as a "scholar of Islam".

    Peace.

    *My sister-in-law went to Egypt to study the language after she converted and came back after like 8 years of study and now teaches at the university level. However, there are terms I've casually asked her about and she has never come across them.

    Yeah…

    No argument with the above.

    Personally, from what I’ve heard of the guy I wouldn’t call him a hack exactly, and along with more unsavory company like Pamela Geller (sorry, if you’re reading this, ma’am) he seems to interact with genuinely sincere people like Peter Kreeft (there’s a debate between them I found when casually googling Spencer, didn’t watch) or the late Larry Auster.

    But “scholar of Islam” … no.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    I wouldn’t call him a hack exactly
     
    No, not exactly.

    Depends on one's definition of a "hack". I gave him props for one of his blog posts; I thought it was probably 90-95% accurate. Sure, I would have concentrated on other themes of the chapters like patience in adversity and not being niggardly with one's wealth - but hey, those aren't themes that he wants to concentrate on so that's fine. Still, on the stuff he does mention - it's fairly accurate - so kudos to him. It's interesting, he mentioned Shayk h Bulandshahri (ra) - I think one or two of my teachers may have studied under him or under one of his direct students. I was a bit shocked though, because I thought his tafsir was only printed in Urdu (I'm thinking, I know he doesn't know Urdu??!!), but lo and behold, there is an English translation (pretty cool):
    https://nmusba.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/illuminating-discourses-on-the-noble-quran-tafseer-anwarul-bayan-5-vols-set-by-shaykh-ashiq-ilahi-madni-r-a/

    So he is just a hack when he wants to be - he's quite capable of being more accurate, even with just English material at his disposal.

    Now as far as being a hack for Israeli and Neocon policies; 100% bought and paid for and fully certified.

    But again, as I mentioned in my earlier comment - I give him credit for never claiming to know Arabic. And give him credit again for (if anything) staying silent on the subject.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Talha
    Excellent find Geo - thanks!

    Just like we have our extremists blaming everything on and lying about non-Muslims (you should hear some of the conspiracies that come out of Muslim areas - whack!) in order to rile people up and recruit for their cause, there are extremists in the West too. Rallying their extremists - which is obvious just on this forum from which people seem to be uncritical "big fans" of their writings.

    As I have mentioned before - I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone.

    Then they could leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults.

    I might not agree with Mr. Derbyshire, but he is an intelligent man and is bringing up valid concerns that should be able to be discussed and debated publicly. I only wish that he would add the very important "invade" part of the equation into his analysis.

    Peace.

    “I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone…leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults.”

    Talha, you’re slipping down to Pakistan average IQ of 84. Caucasian, Christian Westerners should leave you the heck alone? How about if you leave the West alone and go back to Pakistan?

    “Discuss serious concerns.” I am discussing serious concerns. I am pointing out biological and theological facts, i.e., about Islam and Pakistan. I discuss the serious problems that arise from biological degeneracy, i.e., low IQs. I refuse to let you get away with your attempts to justify your heretical belief system, because I am a Christian.

    And you claim to be serious???

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yes-- Richard Spencer does not seem to be an extremist.
    , @Talha
    Hey Da Hen,

    No - I do not claim to be serious. I’m sorry that can’t help myself, I’m too stupid to realize I’m a heretic.

    It’s not our fault we were born this way, please have mercy on those of us that are genetically mentally challenged. It’s the Christian thing to do.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @KenH
    I don't think Robert Spencer has a bee in his bonnet nor do I think he hates Muslims. When I was only vaguely familiar with his work I thought he might overstate things a bit, but recently I bought several of his books and have almost completed one. He argues very dispassionately and persuasively about Islamic doctrine and the threat that it poses to the West and how damning information is being concealed about "moderate" Muslim organizations in America and other parts of the world. I haven't detected any malice in his work thus far.

    I'm not saying he has all the answers or that he's right in all of his claims, but people really shouldn't arrogantly dismiss him unless they've examined his body of work instead of relying on ad hominem laced press releases from CAIR, ADL and other groups who have their own political agendas. If someone can come up with a cogent point by point refutation of major claims made by Spencer then I might take them more seriously.

    The other thing is that Spencer has never shied away from debate with Muslims and Western liberals and seems to gave gotten the best of most of his adversaries judging by youtube videos I've viewed. Ironically, it was an Icelandic left winger in Iceland who poisoned Spencer when he was speaking in that country and not a Muslim.

    My only gripe is that Spencer points out the saltier verses in the Koran and Islam's other foundational texts but not the Jewish Talmud. Or that only Islam poses a threat to the West but not Jews and Judaism or that Jews do not mistreat Christians.
    https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

    You are right about Mr. Spencer not dealing with the Talmud. The best to deal with this is to deal with the Roman Catholic Church and Zioevangizers who give the Jews their “power” by defending them as the chosen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    Mr. Spencer does not have to speak or read Arabic to pass judgment on the Koran. As a Catholic, I did not need to read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to read the Bible. I relied on a good translation.

    I have read the Koran. It is a farrago, dog's breakfast of pasted together items from the Old and New Testaments and Arabic pagan beliefs. What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.

    I saw your comment no. 67, about how Christians and Muslims can live together? Where do you live? I've seen your name but I don't remember commenting to you. Are you Jewish, Christian, involved with Asians?

    What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.

    Well, yes, but based on your stated belief that IQism trumps revelation I would hardly have expected you of all people to make this (accurate) argument.

    Honestly I don’t care if Mr. Spencer has read the Koran in Klingon– I was interested in a simple statement of fact controverted between our author and a commenter of his.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    IQ does trump revelation. But you need a certain IQ to read the Scriptures. I am not an atheist. I believe in God because when I die I want answers. I am still am a Christian. I don't belong to a church right now, but I follow the precepts of Christianity. They are made for the Western soul. We need to study religious documents to make decisions about what belief systems are the best and which are not. Islam is definitely evil and degenerate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    "I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone...leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults."

    Talha, you're slipping down to Pakistan average IQ of 84. Caucasian, Christian Westerners should leave you the heck alone? How about if you leave the West alone and go back to Pakistan?

    "Discuss serious concerns." I am discussing serious concerns. I am pointing out biological and theological facts, i.e., about Islam and Pakistan. I discuss the serious problems that arise from biological degeneracy, i.e., low IQs. I refuse to let you get away with your attempts to justify your heretical belief system, because I am a Christian.

    And you claim to be serious???

    Yes– Richard Spencer does not seem to be an extremist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    D--n it! Robert!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Talha says:
    @attilathehen
    "I wish all these extremists could gather in the North Pole or something and duke it out. Have your Kaliyuga/Armageddon and leave us the hell alone...leave the rest of us alone to discuss matters and serious concerns like adults."

    Talha, you're slipping down to Pakistan average IQ of 84. Caucasian, Christian Westerners should leave you the heck alone? How about if you leave the West alone and go back to Pakistan?

    "Discuss serious concerns." I am discussing serious concerns. I am pointing out biological and theological facts, i.e., about Islam and Pakistan. I discuss the serious problems that arise from biological degeneracy, i.e., low IQs. I refuse to let you get away with your attempts to justify your heretical belief system, because I am a Christian.

    And you claim to be serious???

    Hey Da Hen,

    No – I do not claim to be serious. I’m sorry that can’t help myself, I’m too stupid to realize I’m a heretic.

    It’s not our fault we were born this way, please have mercy on those of us that are genetically mentally challenged. It’s the Christian thing to do.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • LOL: Truth
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH
    I don't think Robert Spencer has a bee in his bonnet nor do I think he hates Muslims. When I was only vaguely familiar with his work I thought he might overstate things a bit, but recently I bought several of his books and have almost completed one. He argues very dispassionately and persuasively about Islamic doctrine and the threat that it poses to the West and how damning information is being concealed about "moderate" Muslim organizations in America and other parts of the world. I haven't detected any malice in his work thus far.

    I'm not saying he has all the answers or that he's right in all of his claims, but people really shouldn't arrogantly dismiss him unless they've examined his body of work instead of relying on ad hominem laced press releases from CAIR, ADL and other groups who have their own political agendas. If someone can come up with a cogent point by point refutation of major claims made by Spencer then I might take them more seriously.

    The other thing is that Spencer has never shied away from debate with Muslims and Western liberals and seems to gave gotten the best of most of his adversaries judging by youtube videos I've viewed. Ironically, it was an Icelandic left winger in Iceland who poisoned Spencer when he was speaking in that country and not a Muslim.

    My only gripe is that Spencer points out the saltier verses in the Koran and Islam's other foundational texts but not the Jewish Talmud. Or that only Islam poses a threat to the West but not Jews and Judaism or that Jews do not mistreat Christians.
    https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

    The Talmud is just a collection of personal opinions. It’s not divine law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well I sure hope not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Jim Christian
    Nice work, Derbs. But my impression has been, for twenty years now, since Ok City, that no matter how you slice it, from now on, every now and then, we're gonna have to take a beatin'. They're here now. Catch the ones you can and accept that once in awhile, NYC happens. Paris happens, Las Vegas happens. With that knowledge in hand, get out of the M.East, let China handle the Norks, express deterrence toward Russia, China and Iran for the behavior of their client-Norks and leave the Pacific.

    Every other path, doom.

    Hell no, I will NOT accept that. Muslims already here need to be lawfully removed, under new laws enacted for that purpose. Peacefully and through financial incentives if possible.

    Demolish every mosque in this country.
    And stop allowing “imams” to proselytize and recruit in our prisons and our military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    Demolish every mosque in this country. And stop allowing “imams” to proselytize and recruit in our prisons and our military.
     
    I'm with ya, but the PTB simply won't do it. Even under Trump, 15K of them a month are settled here. And then of course, some psycho White guys would just HAVE to pull the stunts THEY pulled. And so my notions remain that we're going to take the occasional whacking once in awhile. For the average citizen, however, what are the odds you'll be there when one of these bullshit stunts gets pulled off? Your odds are better of getting hit by lightning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.
     
    Don't forget that for all the supposed anti Muslim hate Brevik imbibed he targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals and not Muslims. As I recall this was because Brevik judged them guilty of high treason to Norway and the West for bringing Muslims into Norway and I found it hard to disagree with his reasoning.

    He could have exacted a very bloody toll on Norwegian Muslims if he chose to do so.

    The bubble people. They do not practice what they preach. Diversity-mayhem for you; gated communities and security details for me. He punctured their bubble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. geokat62 says:
    @Anon
    Suddenly you're taking Foxman of the ADL seriously? Is this the geokat we know and love, or some sort of false flag? Will we hear more Foxman citations in future?

    Is this the geokat we know and love, or some sort of false flag?

    I think my comments make it abundantly clear how I view the work of the ADL and its former director, Abe Foxman. I cited him this time because even he is not willing to endorse Geller’s and Spencer’s writings. I have no issues with talking truth to power. I just don’t think Geller and Spencer are doing that. I think their work is aimed at fomenting conflict between Christians and Muslims, for the benefit of the Jewish state. They would like to see the Crusaders once again cleanse the holy land of these infidels so that Israel is made Greater Again. I just don’t buy into that line.

    My views are pretty straightforward:

    1) the Diversity is Our Strength meme pushed by the ADL and Abe Foxman is a crock of sh*t. It was mfged to make the diaspora feel less threatened by a society that was too homogeneous for their liking. They could almost hear the hoofs of Cossacks on horseback crossing the American plains to commit more pogroms. The sooner European and European-derived countries realize this policy is designed to hasten their undoing, the better – i.e., the US and other Western countries need to repeal asap the non-restrictionist Immigration Acts that The Lobby helped to put in place.

    2) The Lobby’s argument that there is a natural alliance between Jews and Christians (hence the widespread use of term Judeo-Christian) against the Muslims is also a crock of sh*t. This was all mfged to get The Dumb Goyim to support the phony GWOT and take out 7 Muslim countries in 5 years to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle, period.

    That said, you can rest assured that I will never deviate from pointing out the devious intent underpinning these two policy prescriptions. That you can take to the bank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.
     
    I'm looking at the very source - that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy's tafsir - it's all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator - I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I'm glad you cited her - I would recommend her work to everyone. I'm not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that "it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted". So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion - and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir - he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn't report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) - the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza'ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi'i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) - it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of "takhsees" or "tarjeeh" from the various schools - like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi'i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law - Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi'i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want - but where the rubber meets the road, it's the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it's not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) - but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    "but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers"

    Congratulations - that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen - as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):
    https://youtu.be/2VQ9AvJB_k4?t=38m32s

    So why don't you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn't become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When's the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    "The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law."
    https://youtu.be/5Otch3BKp5Q?t=33s

    Saying "Allahu Akbar" before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yYIFdzLPVc

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn't refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists - I can't think of a single scholar that believes that - where did you get that quote from?:
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley's is an English translation (and apparently summary) - you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh's "Reliance" and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us - have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it - I have no problems with this, but let's get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    I'm sure you do - you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that's not to say you don't get it right once in a while - you do. You usually just never present the whole picture - which is how people who don't know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me
     
    I'd think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir - I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods - I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material - let's just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the "Palestinians" (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site - no thanks - that's your home court advantage. I've seen what happens to Muslims who post there - they get drowned out by tsunamis of "taqiyyah".

    I'm here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though - bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    Oh, just directing the murder of polytheists and not all nonMuslims! Alright then! Great clarification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey RC,

    Yeah - that's the Shafi'i school's traditional opinion; polytheists have two choices - convert or fight. Thank God they never got a chance to enforce it since the Muslim sovereigns elected to rule according to the Maliki or Hanafi schools*.

    The Shafi'i school did come into power for a while in parts of the Levant and Egypt (Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc.) - but no polytheists around that area, so the rule pretty much simply stayed on the books.

    Peace.

    *Incidentally, this was also the position of some (now extinct) schools like those of Imam Awza'i (ra) and Imam Sufyan Thawri (ra).
    , @Corvinus
    "Muslims already here need to be lawfully removed, under new laws enacted for that purpose. Peacefully and through financial incentives if possible."

    And you assume that those laws, if passed, will even meet Constitutional scrutiny? How do you propose to enact legislation, for example, that strips Muslim Americans essentially of their citizenship?

    "Demolish every mosque in this country.

    So how is this action "peaceful"? Regardless, your proposal is going nowhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Yeah...

    No argument with the above.

    Personally, from what I've heard of the guy I wouldn't call him a hack exactly, and along with more unsavory company like Pamela Geller (sorry, if you're reading this, ma'am) he seems to interact with genuinely sincere people like Peter Kreeft (there's a debate between them I found when casually googling Spencer, didn't watch) or the late Larry Auster.

    But “scholar of Islam” ... no.

    I wouldn’t call him a hack exactly

    No, not exactly.

    Depends on one’s definition of a “hack”. I gave him props for one of his blog posts; I thought it was probably 90-95% accurate. Sure, I would have concentrated on other themes of the chapters like patience in adversity and not being niggardly with one’s wealth – but hey, those aren’t themes that he wants to concentrate on so that’s fine. Still, on the stuff he does mention – it’s fairly accurate – so kudos to him. It’s interesting, he mentioned Shayk h Bulandshahri (ra) – I think one or two of my teachers may have studied under him or under one of his direct students. I was a bit shocked though, because I thought his tafsir was only printed in Urdu (I’m thinking, I know he doesn’t know Urdu??!!), but lo and behold, there is an English translation (pretty cool):

    https://nmusba.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/illuminating-discourses-on-the-noble-quran-tafseer-anwarul-bayan-5-vols-set-by-shaykh-ashiq-ilahi-madni-r-a/

    So he is just a hack when he wants to be – he’s quite capable of being more accurate, even with just English material at his disposal.

    Now as far as being a hack for Israeli and Neocon policies; 100% bought and paid for and fully certified.

    But again, as I mentioned in my earlier comment – I give him credit for never claiming to know Arabic. And give him credit again for (if anything) staying silent on the subject.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. geokat62 says:
    @KenH

    It appears he and his partner in crime, Pamela Geller, so inspired Anders Breivik with their writings that Breivik quoted them over 250 times in his online compendium.
     
    Don't forget that for all the supposed anti Muslim hate Brevik imbibed he targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals and not Muslims. As I recall this was because Brevik judged them guilty of high treason to Norway and the West for bringing Muslims into Norway and I found it hard to disagree with his reasoning.

    He could have exacted a very bloody toll on Norwegian Muslims if he chose to do so.

    Brevik… targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals…

    Hey, KenH. Think about how these young Norwegians became self hating liberals. Where did the “Diversity is Our Strength” meme come from?

    While The Lobby “Norweigian Style” may not be as effective as its “Swedish Style” counterpart, I do know they are active in Norway (see the Norwegian Centre Against Racism).

    Take a look at this 5 min. video:

    Or just read this article, Norway is TOO WHITE! According to the President of the Jewish Community in Oslo:

    “The Norwegian people have very little experience dealing with minorities” So we have a BIG “job to do” in bringing minorities to them, according to Ervin Kohn (Twitter).

    Kohn is the President of The Jewish Community in Oslo and the Deputy Director at the Norwegian Center Against Racism.

    The question is, since when did Norwegians decide they needed an organization to solve the “problem” of racism in their country? After all, isn’t Norway a homogenous country?

    Not for too long, if Kohn has his way!

    https://redice.tv/news/norway-is-too-white-according-to-the-president-of-the-jewish-community-in-oslo

    Bottom Line: no need to go wiping out young self hating Norwegian liberals. What is needed is a concerted effort to alert the youth of all European and European-derived nations to stay away from the Kosher Kool-Aid – i.e., diversity is not our strength… it is our demise!

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @KenH
    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society. And now that some things are coming back to me I don't think Brevik was critical of Jews or their role in destroying the European civilization he saw himself defending and avenging in his massive tome. That was most disappointing.

    I'm going strictly by memory so I might not be totally correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Oh, just directing the murder of polytheists and not all nonMuslims! Alright then! Great clarification.

    Hey RC,

    Yeah – that’s the Shafi’i school’s traditional opinion; polytheists have two choices – convert or fight. Thank God they never got a chance to enforce it since the Muslim sovereigns elected to rule according to the Maliki or Hanafi schools*.

    The Shafi’i school did come into power for a while in parts of the Levant and Egypt (Ayyubids, Mamluks, etc.) – but no polytheists around that area, so the rule pretty much simply stayed on the books.

    Peace.

    *Incidentally, this was also the position of some (now extinct) schools like those of Imam Awza’i (ra) and Imam Sufyan Thawri (ra).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Cato says:
    @attilathehen
    Cato, you are an enemy. Takfiris are nothing more than Christian heretics. I've been to the Middle East and have seen Islam up close. Where I live I've had Muslims try and convert me. I tell them Islam is a Christian heresy and they walk away.

    You used the word "diversity." Diversity has to be defined. There is a difference between biology and beliefs. Christianity and Islam are belief systems - there is nothing biological about them.

    But the believers, adherents of these belief systems can be seen objectively to differ in physical appearance. Most Muslims are blacks/Asians. There is diversity among blacks/Asians but one thing is for sure, they are not Caucasians and thus, not Western.

    IQ is a clear, biological empirical truth that can be measured. Caucasians have the highest IQs, then Asians, blacks are last.

    In what do you really believe? Or maybe takfiris are really Jews and you believe they are behind all the problems in the world?

    Caucasians have the highest IQs, then Asians, blacks are last.

    Huh? You are commenting here, as if your opinions are valuable, and you believe this?

    I’ve had Muslims try and convert me

    Well, I’ve been a missionary and tried to bring souls to Christ, and see absolutely nothing wrong with what I did. In my experience, we Christians do much more proselytizing than do Muslims.

    In addition: many Muslims are whites. Go to Athens, then go to Istanbul, and tell me where you see more blue-eyed people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Cato, do you not know about IQ?

    I went to school in Vienna and met Turks from the western side of Istanbul. They are Caucasians. I have not been to Greece yet, but I would assume the Muslims there are from Kosovo or Albania. The horrible thing is that these Caucasians/Europeans are Muslims.

    The majority, over 95% of Muslims in the world are black/Asian. Asians are second in IQ (after Caucasians) and blacks are last.

    If you live in the USA, do you live a mostly white area? I live in an area "vibrating with diversity" and can make very good judgments about races.

    Here are a couple of things to think about:

    Which country is better: Shinto/Buddhist Japan (avg. IQ 100) or RCC Philippines (avg. IQ 86)?

    Which country is better: Protestant Iceland (avg. IQ 101) or RCC Haiti (avg. IQ 67)?

    Which country is better: WASP USA or RCC El Salvador?

    You're going to learn not to conflate biology with beliefs. In order to have good beliefs, you need a good biological being to work with.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Black Pigeon on Saudis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. LauraMR says:
    @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Come on, admit it. You wrote this on the side and waited until a quasi-relevant generic article popped up to post it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. WHAT says:
    @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    >black dongs
    >black muscle
    >white wimminz

    Hey there Chechenova!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @RadicalCenter
    Hell no, I will NOT accept that. Muslims already here need to be lawfully removed, under new laws enacted for that purpose. Peacefully and through financial incentives if possible.

    Demolish every mosque in this country.
    And stop allowing “imams” to proselytize and recruit in our prisons and our military.

    Demolish every mosque in this country. And stop allowing “imams” to proselytize and recruit in our prisons and our military.

    I’m with ya, but the PTB simply won’t do it. Even under Trump, 15K of them a month are settled here. And then of course, some psycho White guys would just HAVE to pull the stunts THEY pulled. And so my notions remain that we’re going to take the occasional whacking once in awhile. For the average citizen, however, what are the odds you’ll be there when one of these bullshit stunts gets pulled off? Your odds are better of getting hit by lightning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. John Derbyshire – you should, before anything, educate yourself about Islam and I suggest that you turn to those who have really made an effort to understand it. Particularly impressive is a series called Understanding Islam by Chris Hewer – a Christian – on Ahl al-Bayt or read the transcripts of his talks. You could benefit from reading the studies of the late Professor Annemarie Schimmel. You may also read those whose very belief informs them of its beautiful reality, following the advice of Saint Ambrose – credo ut intelligam – believe so that you may understand. In that category I suggest you read first of all “The Vision of Islam” by Sachiko Murata and William Chittick, both professors, as well as the writings of Professors Syed Hossein Nasr and Hamid Algar. This is sufficient to truly understand the Reality that the religion of Islam reveals.
    Enjoy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. @silviosilver

    but I don’t mind Muslims or Islam.
     
    Well, it's easy not to mind it when it's thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it's all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    But when you find yourself surrounded by these culturally hostile bastards, it's rather difficult to not mind it.

    Personally, I don't mind confessing that I hate Islam, the religion. I can see nothing admirable or worth emulating in it. It's a scourge on humanity. I don't think you can find a more oppressive social force on the planet today. I'd certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day.

    Hating Muslims themselves is more difficult. There are certainly times when I do hate them, but it's not a constant feeling. And then I feel somewhat guilty when I calm down and remind myself that they're people too, and it's not really their fault for being raised in that faith, and most of the time they're not that bad, and the ones who are racially closer to home - Bosnians, Albanians, even Turks - I often tend to like rather than dislike. (It's mostly the accursed Arabs who tick me off, the way they congregate in large numbers in nightspots I like to frequent, looking for the slightest excuse to provoke a fight. But perhaps even this is only a temporary phase. From my own experience, they're not as bad as they were twenty years ago.)


    I decline to have an opinion about Islam. A thoughtful, responsible citizen is not obliged to have an opinion about everything. To have a properly informed opinion about Islam I’d have to read the Koran. I refuse to do so.
     
    Come off it. You surely know enough to justify having an opinion.

    Also, this sort of thinking provides an opening for multiculturalists to claim that anyone with a negative opinion about Islam doesn't yet know enough about it to have an opinion. Then no matter how much you study it, as long as your opinion remains negative, they'll always respond that you still have more to learn; that when you "truly" understand it, you'll come to appreciate it. That's a mug's game.

    All this said, I'm not sure Robert Spencer's relentless attacks are the way to go. I think that just causes Muslims to dig their heels in even more. It's better to criticize them, but also leave them a dignified way out.

    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense. Clearly that deity didn’t care enough about his creatures to make sure they were all instructed in the unique truth. If you do exert yourself enough to grasp that near truism you not only have an opinion about Islam but you would probably want to put some effort into developing a universal secular morality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense.
     
    One can conclude this if one can also conclude, or at least strongly suspect, that "one" is an arrogant fool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Clyde says:
    @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    So in your very lengthy reply, you grant that my citation was accurate, but claim that it was inaccurately accurate, or some such. Your claim that my quotation was partial is refuted by the fact that I discuss 47:4 at length here (and elsewhere) in all its particulars:

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/blogging-the-quran-suras-47-muhammad-and-48-victory

    I'm quite familiar with altafsir.com and used its material extensively in compiling my "Blogging the Qur'an" series as well as my book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as even a cursory look at either or both of them will attest. I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.

    Your claim that I have ever represented Ibn Juzayy's statement or anything else as what all Muslims believe is false. I have never made any such claim, and I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that I have.

    In any case, you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material, and when you were exposed as making a false claim, you grant that what I wrote was accurate, and then batter us with windy off-point material and videos of Bernard Lewis. That's all very well, but I must confess I'm rather busy.

    Again: I stand by the accuracy of my work. And again, despite your false claims that I will not do so, if you can point out anything false in anything I have written, I will examine it, and retract it if it is shown to be false. The falsity of your previous claim about my citation, however, does not exactly inspire confidence that you know the first foggiest thing about my work.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    Thank you RS!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. It’s OKAY to hate and despise . There might be some people who are good, but the religion should be in the dumpster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Yes-- Richard Spencer does not seem to be an extremist.

    D–n it! Robert!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense. Clearly that deity didn't care enough about his creatures to make sure they were all instructed in the unique truth. If you do exert yourself enough to grasp that near truism you not only have an opinion about Islam but you would probably want to put some effort into developing a universal secular morality.

    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense.

    One can conclude this if one can also conclude, or at least strongly suspect, that “one” is an arrogant fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As you have the confidence to pronounce someone an arrogant fool on reading his admittedly rather short form logical argument perhaps you would care to explain where WoZ is wrong and how there can be a caring god that has failed to sort out the intellectual errors and other religious difficulties of at least 99 per cent of mankind. Yes there does appear to be a "problem of evil" does there not? Maybe you are one of the superbright lawyers, physicists and mathematicians who manage ti be theists. Do let us in on the secret.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Well, not sure who the Derb hates or not, but we know who he loves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. wow says:
    @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Great synopsis…especially that Muslims view the West (whites) as weak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. KenH says:
    @geokat62

    Brevik... targeted a summer camp for young self hating Norwegian liberals...
     
    Hey, KenH. Think about how these young Norwegians became self hating liberals. Where did the "Diversity is Our Strength" meme come from?

    While The Lobby "Norweigian Style" may not be as effective as its "Swedish Style" counterpart, I do know they are active in Norway (see the Norwegian Centre Against Racism).

    Take a look at this 5 min. video:

    https://youtu.be/iYqiv4GJKUs

    Or just read this article, Norway is TOO WHITE! According to the President of the Jewish Community in Oslo:

    "The Norwegian people have very little experience dealing with minorities" So we have a BIG "job to do" in bringing minorities to them, according to Ervin Kohn (Twitter).

    Kohn is the President of The Jewish Community in Oslo and the Deputy Director at the Norwegian Center Against Racism.

    The question is, since when did Norwegians decide they needed an organization to solve the "problem" of racism in their country? After all, isn't Norway a homogenous country?

    Not for too long, if Kohn has his way!

    https://redice.tv/news/norway-is-too-white-according-to-the-president-of-the-jewish-community-in-oslo
     
    Bottom Line: no need to go wiping out young self hating Norwegian liberals. What is needed is a concerted effort to alert the youth of all European and European-derived nations to stay away from the Kosher Kool-Aid - i.e., diversity is not our strength... it is our demise!

    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society. And now that some things are coming back to me I don’t think Brevik was critical of Jews or their role in destroying the European civilization he saw himself defending and avenging in his massive tome. That was most disappointing.

    I’m going strictly by memory so I might not be totally correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society.

    IOW, you elected to believe in magic Jews when you stopped believing your john was occupied by man-eating bananas. There are 1,300 Jews in Norway out of a population of 5.2 million.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon

    Surely one can conclude that Islam in common with the other Abrahamic religions which enjoin faith in a creator god who cares about and instructs us from time to time is at its heart obvious nonsense.
     
    One can conclude this if one can also conclude, or at least strongly suspect, that "one" is an arrogant fool.

    As you have the confidence to pronounce someone an arrogant fool on reading his admittedly rather short form logical argument perhaps you would care to explain where WoZ is wrong and how there can be a caring god that has failed to sort out the intellectual errors and other religious difficulties of at least 99 per cent of mankind. Yes there does appear to be a “problem of evil” does there not? Maybe you are one of the superbright lawyers, physicists and mathematicians who manage ti be theists. Do let us in on the secret.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I cite Benson:

    "My dear father," said Percy, motionless in his chair, "I know it is your fault. Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—-"
     
    Admittedly "arrogant fool" is strong phrasing, but a deliverer of insults veiled or not has little to complain about if they are returned upon him, especially conditionally as mine was.

    By the way, you sound remarkably like "WoZ" yourself. Coincidence, or do all Aussies talk that way?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. I Don’t HATE Muslims—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference.

    I think it prudent to ignore scribbling with a title like that which is what I’m doing. Yawn!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Joe Hide says:

    Mr. Derbinshire,
    Excellent article
    I would say more good about it but I have to get to work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @geokat62
    Do you think we'll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don't HATE Jews—I'm PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    Well, no need to speculate about the answer, as he recently freely provided it to us.

    Here's an excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?

    That’d be one I’d read.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    No. Derbyshire is a semitophile. I read articles he wrote putting the Jews on a pedestal. He also wrote an article about parents giving children the "talk," i.e., not to befriend blacks. This from a man with a Chinese wife and offspring. His writing keeps getting wackier. I would not be surprised if his Chinese offspring are dating black/Jews. Jews have high intermarriage rates with blacks/Asians. If they are dating black/Jews he should be happy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Jim Christian

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    Good catch, appropriate. Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did. Meh, as the spread of racist, feminist liberalism spreads like a shit-stain across the land, campus and governments, I'm almost to a point where I don't argue against how Muslims handle THEIR women to liberals anymore. Jews and Muslims are here, protect yourself best you can, forget ever catching them before they pull a bullshit stunt.. Mostly, you have to worry most about, apparently, the Jewish men and Muslims (and the Hollywood celebrities who defend them) raping your daughters and sons. Other than that, Jews and Muslims are just swell, the more the merrier..

    Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.

    True. And the Zionists have been even worse.

    Muslims have been the scapegoats du jour for more than a few “jours.” Isn’t it high time the Doobs and their ilk give it up already?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    This is all fine. Look - we are presenting our sides for the audience at large here. You are not going to find succor in an ignorant audience of Evangelicals that clap for your claims here.


    I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.
     
    I haven't - I avoid propaganda. I also haven't read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or... I like to stick to academic works like those of men like Rudolph Peters, Olivier Roy, Majid Khadduri, Robert Hoyland, etc. People who get published at Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Not "Bombadier Books" who publish the likes of frauds like Kamal Saleem:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia/

    Seriously, you must have been a bit embarrassed to publish a book questioning the historic figure of the Prophet (pbuh) right? Please at least admit that. I mean, if I even wrote an article about Elvis being alive, I'd hang my head in shame if someone brought it up.'


    I have never made any such claim
     
    OK - I'll take your word for that - and will retract this assertion. So we both agree that Islam can hardly be pinned to minority opinions as being the Islamic stance on something, right? Will you admit that for something to be claimed as "Islam" it should at least have a consensus opinion or a super majority behind it? If so, then you already know that the killing of women and children (even on the battlefield) has been prohibited by consensus - it is backed by hadith that reach a tawatur status. You know this, right? And you know that no school says it's OK to be treacherous to a security agreement once a Muslim enters or resides in non-Muslim lands and harm them.

    So if people like Daesh want to break with 14 centuries of consensus, how is that any more legitimate than Muslims breaking from 14 centuries of consensus on drinking wine? It's a simple question.

    Now, if you want to make the case that Muslim extremist groups can legitimately break with consensus and still be considered normative, then I suggest you hold a joint conference with them in what's left of Mosul or Raqqa.

    Oh - oops! Looks like they're killing their own "scholars" that disagree with them:
    "The dispute concerns the group’s position on takfir, or excommunication—namely, the excommunication of fellow Muslims—and al-Bin‘ali was on the losing side. On May 17, 2017, the Islamic State’s Delegated Committee, its executive council, issued a memorandum setting out the official stance on takfir, and for al-Bin‘ali it was too extreme. Two days later, he refuted the memorandum in a letter to the Delegated Committee, and twelve days after that, he was killed. More such refutations by Islamic State scholars followed, and in at least one other case the result—death by airstrike—was the same...The latter was waging war on “the scholars,” which was to say al-Bin‘ali and his allies. Al-Bin‘ali’s death, he muses, was no accident: al-Bin‘ali and the other scholars who opposed the memorandum were arranged to die in airstrikes, their coordinates being leaked to “the crusaders.”"
    http://www.jihadica.com/caliphate-in-disarray/

    Better hurry! Man, this really sucks for your narrative though, right? I mean, once Daesh is gone (fought and defeated by other Muslims), there goes a massive part of your story. And sucks for Israel too:
    "Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/


    you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material
     
    You completely misrepresented it - and I showed everyone that you did not mention the second important portion of what Ms. Bewley wrote. The record is here for everyone to see. And again, where did you get that quotation from Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) using the word "unbelievers" instead of "polytheists/pagans"? I'll retract this assertion too if you provide proof. Either way, if you use altafsir.com than you have the source text - there is no excuse:
    وقوله { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ } أي من الأرض، وهذا عام
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    He leaves the term as is; "mushrikeen" and proceeds to mention (since he is a Shafi'i) "meaning; in/from the world, and this is general (ie. not restricted)". He never turns around and replaces the word with "kafireen".

    So will you make a change to your article? Will you stop telling people it says "unbelievers"? Thought so.


    I must confess I’m rather busy.
     
    Same here - I've got four kids to raise for the demographic jihad. Takes time and patience to practice my mad taqiyyah skillz. That's why I stick to academic works that have been peer reviewed.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    That's cool - I like my dad better than your dad. How exactly am I supposed to respond to this?

    You still have not stated clearly, do you or do you not understand and read Arabic at a fluent level - have you ever taken a formal class on it? This should take ten seconds to answer.

    Peace.

    Talha, you miss the larger point. We in the West don’t care about your sectarian disputes. We don’t care and we don’t want to be made to care. We don’t care how you support your argument with which chapter and verse, which alleged expert of your funky religion.

    The point is, we don’t want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse. We have finally purged Christian sectarian disputes from the forefront of our consciousness and now you Muzzies force us to bear with you while you hash out yours.

    As scientists, we of the West want to know more about ourselves and the universe we find ourselves in. Whether God or Allah or Jahweh loves one of us more than He does his neighbor or vice versa is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth.

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors. We of the West have developed beyond that stage of human consciousness. Squabbling over religious canon lies behind us. Persons like you spend all your life’s energy trying to drag it in front of us.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vinteuil
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The point is, we don’t want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse.
     
    Sweet! So I'm cool with not talking about Islam and its doctrines if everyone else is - doesn't that sound reasonable? After all - this was an article about Muslims, what is and is not Islamic doctrine, and people claiming to write about it.

    is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth
     
    Sure - I get it, it's taken the West a lot of effort to get where it is; patriarchy is almost on its last legs, getting laid is pretty easy to come by, "muh blasphemy" is recognized as a human right, gay pride parades are ubiquitous in practically all major cities. It's actually pretty impressive - I don't believe any other people have progressed this far on so many issues. And a large Muslim population is likely going to throw a monkey wrench in all that - I feel your pain.

    Excuse me for a moment as I make a quick PSA...
    "Truth" you hearing this! You better run, bro - this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo' Black *ss! And they ain't interested in religion stopping them neither!


    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors.
     
    Look this isn't the schoolyard OK. If I told you - "You better stop eating pork, kafir!" - would you do it? Like I have told others - if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up - there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West - forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed - you will likely have a good amount of overlap:
    https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

    When I receive my official Federal notice in the mail that I am no longer considered a citizen and have a certain number of days to leave; I will start getting my finances in gear, sell my property, etc. because I am obligated by the sacred law to obey the legal canon of my host country.

    Here is a refresher on how this all works:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpdxEMelR0

    Peace.

    , @KenH
    I agree that we don't want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our discourse, but it's already cluttered up with ideological garbage. We in the West fight over all the "isms" along the ideological spectrum and are willing to murder each other over any one or a combination of them.

    So squabbling over religious canon lies behind us, thankfully, but squabbling over ideological canon does not, unfortunately.
    , @Druid
    Actually, you haven't purged sectarian disputes. You now have zioevangelofascists to contend with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Jim Christian
    My thinking is my thinking. But they've gone far too many bridges too far in ways they never did. I don't think of Israel the same the last couple of years that I used to, but the Jewish domestic product in media, government and academia was always bent out of shape here. The two of them hand-in-hand recently however aren't to skew Israel's survival but rather to tip the scale in terms of greed and corruption of contractors and their many members on boards and stockholders. And we know who THOSE folks are now, don't we? Their meddling in Syria likewise, including the insistence the past year that we involve ourselves in the mess in Syria to begin with are another tell..

    Harvey and all his domestic partners in the Democrat Party, plus the Israeli influence on an allegedly American citizen such as Harvey don't help. Plus, with perverts like Woody, Weiner, EpStein, there are lots and lots of them out of the woodwork now, it's clearly a depraved and indifferent crowd. Their behavior has certainly "evolved" the past umpteen months, and hence, my opinions. They don't help themselves when they scurry to their rat holes while their religious brethren rape and pillage their waya through our institutions. Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.

    Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.

    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well, and we’re not even supposed to know about the likes of Teddy Kolleck and Henry Crown for instance.

    Two minute article that offers a glimpse of the US mobsters who supported the criminal state of Israel in the beginning. The Aspen Institute vid is worth viewing too if only for a glimpse of the smug smirking asses.

    It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little they got– well Most of what they got were smuggled in. Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That’s what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]

    -Philip Weiss, Was it ‘jihad’ when Henry Crown smuggled plane parts to Israel?,July 29, 2013 27

    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/was-it-jihad-when-henry-crown-smuggled-plane-parts-to-israel-and-when-jeffrey-goldberg-moved-there.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well,

    Because that's the only explanation that makes any sense. However, people with an intense animus toward Jews fancy they kill people just because. The source of your misunderstandings you can find in the mirror.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    As you have the confidence to pronounce someone an arrogant fool on reading his admittedly rather short form logical argument perhaps you would care to explain where WoZ is wrong and how there can be a caring god that has failed to sort out the intellectual errors and other religious difficulties of at least 99 per cent of mankind. Yes there does appear to be a "problem of evil" does there not? Maybe you are one of the superbright lawyers, physicists and mathematicians who manage ti be theists. Do let us in on the secret.

    I cite Benson:

    “My dear father,” said Percy, motionless in his chair, “I know it is your fault. Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—-”

    Admittedly “arrogant fool” is strong phrasing, but a deliverer of insults veiled or not has little to complain about if they are returned upon him, especially conditionally as mine was.

    By the way, you sound remarkably like “WoZ” yourself. Coincidence, or do all Aussies talk that way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What makes you think I am Australian? True I know enough to know that Australians do NOT conform to a stereotype as many English (in particular) and you seem to suppose. But perhaps I should take it as a compliment since I agree (?) that WoZ takes some care which you might say doesn't always stop short of pedantry. Anyway, thank you for the Benson quote which took me back to the more familiar Newman and Knox - not to mention the non convert Chesterton. But you appear to fall into that class of people who are clever and agile enough to remain Catholic as well as sophisticated and civilised but still don't explain the logical possibility of an Abrahamic god who actually cares about his creatures doing the right thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Truth says:
    @Anonymous
    The Talmud is just a collection of personal opinions. It's not divine law.

    Well I sure hope not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. SMK says: • Website
    @Talha
    Wow - pretty balanced article on the whole.

    "It’s all wrong, wrong, wrong! Grrrrr!!!" That’s the Islam we’re up against.
     
    Bingo! That is the version Islam that is causing the problem. The one that is too spiritually immature to recognize that God grants worldly success to various people at various times throughout history, the one that doesn't recognize that sometimes poverty is better than wealth, that being oppressed is always, always preferable to being on top if you're just going to become the oppressor, that it might actually be a good thing to be left in the dust by post-modernity as it speeds along the tracks not thinking the bridge is out ahead*.

    That’s the Islam we’re up against (including Muslims actually, they're butchering us left and right as well since we won't get with their program). Missing one thing though that Mr. Dersbyshire always seems to suffer from which his lack of acknowledgment of the massive part played by foreign policies that have laid to waste a good amount of the ME and caused such tremendous population movement.


    Is that hateful? I don’t see it.
     
    Neither do I.

    He’s read the Koran, in the original classical Arabic.
     
    Mr. Spencer can neither read nor speak Arabic - to his credit, he has never claimed to be able to.

    I decline to have an opinion about Islam.
     
    OK - that seems a bit weird, but OK. One doesn't have to read Spencer's works - plenty of stuff out there from academic sources.

    we shouldn’t give visas to any but a tiny number of Muslims
     
    Seems reasonable; after all every country has a right to set policies who gains entry. Plenty would discriminate against letting in people of 70+ years to permanently settle since they are a drain on financial and medical resources. That doesn't mean they hate the elderly (I mean, maybe they do, but it doesn't necessarily mean that).

    A thought occurred to me; this seems like a reasonable approach to the subject and has potential to gain wider audience. The Spencer approach (which is tied to Israeli-firster organizations) tends to push the discussion into the unreasonable camp that can distract from the serious discussion about immigration. People in the center may not want to be associated with more extreme views. If it is the case that this is one of the intents behind the work that Mr. Spencer is doing - then it is an impressive feat of the Israeli-firster crowd to control and distract the windows of discussion on the parameters of both invade and invite. All your base is belong to them.

    Peace.

    *It is amazing to me how many people have never pondered why the story of the Tortoise and the Hare appears across the world in various folk traditions; the details differ, but the essence of the story is the same.

    “I decline to have an opinion about Islam.” What does that even mean? That’s like saying I decline to have an opinion about blacks, black criminality, black-on-white violence, BLM, the NFL protests, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, feminism, communism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, North Korea, massive nonwhite immigration, and on and on and on. 9-11 and dozens of other terrorist mass murders in the U.S. and France, Germany, the UK, the epidemic of Muslim rapes in Sweden, the sexual assaults of hundreds of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities; the abduction, enslavement, rape, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham; the transformation of France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, ect., into Muslim-majority countries; Sharia Law; the history and legacy of Muhammad, ad nauseam -and he declines to have an opinion about Islam! What does that even mean. It’s like saying I decline to have an opinion about anything of great significance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Exactly!!! I don't get why a man of such obvious intelligence wouldn't want to at least spend a few days at the library exploring the subject from academic sources, look at statistics, etc.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Elias says:

    I don’t hate Christians, but I’m prudent about them.

    I grew up in the South, and the town I lived in was home to the sort of crazy christians who believe in snake handling and speaking in tongues. Learned quickly that the week when they held their worldwide conventions was a great week to leave town to go see some Braves’ games.

    Every ‘terrorist’ attack that has been close to me has been conducting by a crazy, fundamentalist radical CHRISTIAN. I lived in Atlanta when Eric Rudolph, the crazy, Christian, radical fundamentalist who bombed the Atlanta Olympics was conducting his bombing spree. Everytime one went off, I realized that I’d walked or stood in that spot at sometime previous. The bomb in the Atlanta Olympics went off in the nighttime music venue in the exact spot where I’d been standing 24 hours before.

    Then, after I left the South, another crazy, radical, fundamentalist Christian stages a murderous terrorist attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic just down the highway from me in Colorado Springs.

    I don’t think a Muslim has conducted a terrorist attack within 1000 miles of me. I might be wrong about that, I haven’t plotted every attack on google earth to make sure of it. But, still, in my life, its been a lot more likely that a crazy, radicalized Christian will decide to kill a bunch of people near me.

    I don’t hate Christians, but I’m prudent about them. They seem to keep trying to kill me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    [Endlessly repeating very short and totally vacuous comments isn't good behavior. If you want your comments published, start providing some serious thought and content to them, or else go off to some other website.]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Talha says:
    @SMK
    "I decline to have an opinion about Islam." What does that even mean? That's like saying I decline to have an opinion about blacks, black criminality, black-on-white violence, BLM, the NFL protests, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, feminism, communism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, North Korea, massive nonwhite immigration, and on and on and on. 9-11 and dozens of other terrorist mass murders in the U.S. and France, Germany, the UK, the epidemic of Muslim rapes in Sweden, the sexual assaults of hundreds of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities; the abduction, enslavement, rape, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham; the transformation of France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, ect., into Muslim-majority countries; Sharia Law; the history and legacy of Muhammad, ad nauseam -and he declines to have an opinion about Islam! What does that even mean. It's like saying I decline to have an opinion about anything of great significance.

    Exactly!!! I don’t get why a man of such obvious intelligence wouldn’t want to at least spend a few days at the library exploring the subject from academic sources, look at statistics, etc.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Zionists don’t really hate Muslims, in so far as they are not in the way. Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them. Saudis, who are as Moslem and Moslem gets, are not in the way, so they are not hated. All in all, Zionists don’t bear any particular animus against the religion of Islam itself, certainly not to the degree they do Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    You can break it down even further but it won't get through. Some people are unable to comprehend anything beyond roughly drawn patterns... patterns that, in any case, may only exist in their imagination.
    , @Art Deco
    Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them.

    No, Iranians are building nuclear weapons in order to use them on Israel and subsidizing a hostile paramilitary organization on Israel's borders. The Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza are incompetent and uncreative and turn what little ingenuity they have into attempting to defeat Israel's border security arrangements (and embezzle foreign donor money).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Talha, you miss the larger point. We in the West don't care about your sectarian disputes. We don't care and we don't want to be made to care. We don't care how you support your argument with which chapter and verse, which alleged expert of your funky religion.

    The point is, we don't want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse. We have finally purged Christian sectarian disputes from the forefront of our consciousness and now you Muzzies force us to bear with you while you hash out yours.

    As scientists, we of the West want to know more about ourselves and the universe we find ourselves in. Whether God or Allah or Jahweh loves one of us more than He does his neighbor or vice versa is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth.

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors. We of the West have developed beyond that stage of human consciousness. Squabbling over religious canon lies behind us. Persons like you spend all your life's energy trying to drag it in front of us.

    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The point is, we don’t want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse.

    Sweet! So I’m cool with not talking about Islam and its doctrines if everyone else is – doesn’t that sound reasonable? After all – this was an article about Muslims, what is and is not Islamic doctrine, and people claiming to write about it.

    is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth

    Sure – I get it, it’s taken the West a lot of effort to get where it is; patriarchy is almost on its last legs, getting laid is pretty easy to come by, “muh blasphemy” is recognized as a human right, gay pride parades are ubiquitous in practically all major cities. It’s actually pretty impressive – I don’t believe any other people have progressed this far on so many issues. And a large Muslim population is likely going to throw a monkey wrench in all that – I feel your pain.

    Excuse me for a moment as I make a quick PSA…
    “Truth” you hearing this! You better run, bro – this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo’ Black *ss! And they ain’t interested in religion stopping them neither!

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors.

    Look this isn’t the schoolyard OK. If I told you – “You better stop eating pork, kafir!” – would you do it? Like I have told others – if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up – there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West – forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed – you will likely have a good amount of overlap:

    https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

    When I receive my official Federal notice in the mail that I am no longer considered a citizen and have a certain number of days to leave; I will start getting my finances in gear, sell my property, etc. because I am obligated by the sacred law to obey the legal canon of my host country.

    Here is a refresher on how this all works:

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    “Truth” you hearing this! You better run, bro – this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo’ Black *ss! And they ain’t interested in religion stopping them neither!
     
    Now I'm scared.


    Look this isn’t the schoolyard OK. If I told you – “You better stop eating pork, kafir!” – would you do it? Like I have told others – if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up – there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West – forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed – you will likely have a good amount of overlap:
     
    This is EXACTLY what I keep saying. If you don't like it, do something about it. It's YOUR country, not mine, not Talha's you keep saying this. It's your government. The representatives look like you not me.

    But for all that is well and good, stop whining about these things on a @#$%^&* website in-between games of Grand Theft Auto.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Fun fact: The Manhattan killer’s name (Sayfullo) translates to “Sword of Allah”. He was also allowed to bring in 23 “cousins” after settling in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. jake987 says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. AaronB says:
    @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Would you consider, Priss, that what you call racism – belief in one’s people – is a byproduct?

    It is sort of like self-esteem – one cannot pluck it out of thin air.

    Jews, Muslims, even Chinese – all ground their self-belief in seeing themselves as servants of a higher power, manifesters and vehicles of divine values.

    HBD, genes, survival of the fittest – only white people have attempted to ground their self-belief in materialism.

    Ironicaly, racism may not be capable of being based on frank selfishness.

    What a delicious irony!

    A people may only be able to believe in itself when it sees itself as a vehicle of higher values!

    Racism may not be capable of a materialistic basis.

    Certainly, it is striking that white self-belief – white racism – began to decline when whites ceased seeing themselves as bearers of higher values, and became frankly materialistic.

    Your prophet Darwin has failed you, Priss, and has brought ruin upon your people.

    And yet whites cling loyally, with infinite stupidity, to the prophet that has brought them to ruin.

    The attempt now to erect white self-belief, white racism, on a Darwinism basis – with all its talk of genes, HBD, and evolution – what could be stupider?

    What could better evince a lack of insight and clarity?

    Have whites forever lost the ability to think idealistically? Are they condemned to a blind and stupid realism until they vanish from the earth, victims of their own stubbornness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. AaronB says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.
     
    I'm looking at the very source - that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy's tafsir - it's all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator - I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I'm glad you cited her - I would recommend her work to everyone. I'm not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that "it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted". So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion - and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir - he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn't report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) - the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza'ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi'i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) - it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of "takhsees" or "tarjeeh" from the various schools - like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi'i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law - Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi'i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want - but where the rubber meets the road, it's the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it's not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) - but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    "but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers"

    Congratulations - that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen - as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):
    https://youtu.be/2VQ9AvJB_k4?t=38m32s

    So why don't you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn't become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When's the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    "The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law."
    https://youtu.be/5Otch3BKp5Q?t=33s

    Saying "Allahu Akbar" before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yYIFdzLPVc

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn't refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists - I can't think of a single scholar that believes that - where did you get that quote from?:
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley's is an English translation (and apparently summary) - you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh's "Reliance" and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us - have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it - I have no problems with this, but let's get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    I'm sure you do - you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that's not to say you don't get it right once in a while - you do. You usually just never present the whole picture - which is how people who don't know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me
     
    I'd think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir - I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods - I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material - let's just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the "Palestinians" (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site - no thanks - that's your home court advantage. I've seen what happens to Muslims who post there - they get drowned out by tsunamis of "taqiyyah".

    I'm here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though - bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    Thank you for this very intelligent comment, Talha.

    I have never engaged much with Spencer, nor had any real opinion about him, but from his response to this comment it is clear he is a thoroughly dishonest man who argues rhetorically.

    One can honestly engage with the faults of Islam in a serious way, but Spencer clearly has an agenda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    My good friend, AaronB! It's been a while - missed you bro.

    One can honestly engage with the faults of Islam in a serious way, but Spencer clearly has an agenda.
     
    Exactly! I don't claim there aren't valid criticisms that a person from the West perspective can bring to bear against Islamic doctrine; just do so honestly and don't make stuff up about it. We're all adults, we should be able to engage is reasonable debate in good faith. I even pointed out to Mr. Spencer what I found good about his other article he linked to and that he should keep that kind of writing up. My guess is that it's to academic and honest and not "juicy" enough to sell books and likely, the people who pay his wages will look for someone else that is more in line with their purpose.

    Take a look at the "one hit wonder" comment at #122. Cites an article by an expert on Islam from a university in Israel...uh...OK. So I follow the link, guy says a whole bunch of stuff - some true, some not - then ends with the kicker:
    "I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation."

    How many times are people going to put up with this PT Barnum nonsense?


    Your prophet Darwin has failed you, Priss, and has brought ruin upon your people.
     
    This brought tears to my eyes. May God have mercy on the people of the West and safeguard their children from ruin.

    Peace - may God always elevate your rank with each passing moment. Do not forget me in your prayers when you entreat with God.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    Thank you for this very intelligent comment, Talha.

    I have never engaged much with Spencer, nor had any real opinion about him, but from his response to this comment it is clear he is a thoroughly dishonest man who argues rhetorically.

    One can honestly engage with the faults of Islam in a serious way, but Spencer clearly has an agenda.

    My good friend, AaronB! It’s been a while – missed you bro.

    One can honestly engage with the faults of Islam in a serious way, but Spencer clearly has an agenda.

    Exactly! I don’t claim there aren’t valid criticisms that a person from the West perspective can bring to bear against Islamic doctrine; just do so honestly and don’t make stuff up about it. We’re all adults, we should be able to engage is reasonable debate in good faith. I even pointed out to Mr. Spencer what I found good about his other article he linked to and that he should keep that kind of writing up. My guess is that it’s to academic and honest and not “juicy” enough to sell books and likely, the people who pay his wages will look for someone else that is more in line with their purpose.

    Take a look at the “one hit wonder” comment at #122. Cites an article by an expert on Islam from a university in Israel…uh…OK. So I follow the link, guy says a whole bunch of stuff – some true, some not – then ends with the kicker:
    “I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.”

    How many times are people going to put up with this PT Barnum nonsense?

    Your prophet Darwin has failed you, Priss, and has brought ruin upon your people.

    This brought tears to my eyes. May God have mercy on the people of the West and safeguard their children from ruin.

    Peace – may God always elevate your rank with each passing moment. Do not forget me in your prayers when you entreat with God.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. jake987 says:

    [Choose a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. If you switch Handles to try to hide your identity, all your future comments may get trashed.]

    If you would like to learn about Islam this book is a must read.

    “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom”

    https://www.amazon.com/Third-Choice-Islam-Dhimmitude-Freedom/dp/0980722306/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1510163779&sr=8-2&keywords=mark+durie

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. Inside every Muslim today there is a voice whispering: [psychological warfare garbage deleted]

    What absolute rubbish.

    It may interest the forum to know that for “every Muslim” “the whisperer” is none other than “the father of lies [John 8.44]“. There is even an entire Sura in the Quran about the “whisperer”.

    Which is interesting, as the author of that quaint wishful thinking apparently has inside info as to what the devil is whispering. Must be a minion of the said father of lies. Which reminds me of that guy who yesterday published the “leaked” directive from the entity’s government to its embassies …

    So don’t worry cupcake: if a Muslim notes any “whispering” “inside”, that Muslim will immediately recite the noted Sura. And guess what? It works!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. Art says:

    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.

    After all, blowback, revenge, payback, and what goes around comes around – are forces of nature – with us from the beginning of time.

    Maybe on the other hand, it would be good if we just stopped killing their relatives.

    Someone once said, “that it is the responsibility of the strong to stop the carnage and cycle of violence.”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. Our government now says that “collateral damage” is OK. That we can kill our way to peace.

    p.s. “Collateral damage” — what a nice way to say – murder!

    p.s. 1 million down – 299 million to go.

    p.s. They die – we die – the Jews are happy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.
     
    I would think you mean 'culturally Muslim'. An actual Muslim who enters into our country via any legal means has entered into a binding covenant. Even if they are filled to the brim with anger because their homeland has been subjected to the ravages of the truly insatiable lust and greed of the exploiting tribes (note plural) of this planet, if they are Muslims their actions are informed by God and God's Messenger, and not their anger.

    > Jews are happy

    Enough of this Jew business. Of course the stupidity of certain members of that tribe never ceases to amaze me as they (again and again) play the role of the Judas Goat for the actual stakeholders. They are mostly in 'administrative' roles, center stage. Give them enough rope. (So much for "Jewish" intellect!)

    Do you not see how this "Jew" business is the perfect foil from making you look at the actual source of your miseries?

    Here is a little thought exercise: If we are to believe the story of how the Jewish banking families got the various sovereigns of Europe under their control via debt, then how come none of these kings ever marched their armies to these banks and simply take their gold and throw the Jew to the mob? They kept invading and killing to get their hands on the treasures of their royal peers, so why not the Jewish bankers? Some kind of voodoo magic?

    Think: https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Jews-Massacre-Medieval-England/dp/1847251862
    , @Art
    (Sarcasm on)

    Is it true that ISIS’s ace recruiters - Lindsey Graham and Joh McCain - have proposed to deport every Muslim male with a driver’s license?

    Is Mr. Radicalize himself - Rep. Steven King - going to introduce the same law in the house of representatives.

    p.s. Oh’ - they have to take their sons with them.

    p.s. Those sons of the coerced get mad and are dangerous.

    p.s. The Jews always say, “just pass a law – problem over!”

    (Sarcasm off)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Zogby says:

    Most mass murders committed in the US are not committed by Muslims. I don’t see John Derbyshire calling for collective punishment in those other cases unrelated to Muslims. For Muslims – he calls for collective punishment. I suppose you could argue that in other cases committed by native-born Americans, there is no obvious collective to blame and call for the collective punishment of. However, the left’s call to abolish gun rights for everyone are a form of call for collective punishment. John Derbyshire doesn’t call for that kind of collective punishment either, and I don’t think he supports it. So what are the criteria for when to apply collective punishment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    For Muslims – he calls for collective punishment.
     
    No, he doesn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Of course it’s the gentiles

    It may interest you to know Priss that in the Quran Muhammad (SAWS) is called “The Gentile Prophet”. The specific term used is ‘ummi’ which typically is translated to as “unlettered”. (The Israelites — not to be confused with the tribe of Judah or the Khazarian horde — were given “holy letters” via Moses (SA)).

    I also disagree regarding those who hate Muslims. It is not Muslims per se but rather The Quran that infuriates the demons. So any who adheres to falsehood hates that book, and none more than “the enemy” of mankind.

    We hurl the True against the false, and it breaks its head and behold! it vanishes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Zogby
    Most mass murders committed in the US are not committed by Muslims. I don't see John Derbyshire calling for collective punishment in those other cases unrelated to Muslims. For Muslims - he calls for collective punishment. I suppose you could argue that in other cases committed by native-born Americans, there is no obvious collective to blame and call for the collective punishment of. However, the left's call to abolish gun rights for everyone are a form of call for collective punishment. John Derbyshire doesn't call for that kind of collective punishment either, and I don't think he supports it. So what are the criteria for when to apply collective punishment?

    For Muslims – he calls for collective punishment.

    No, he doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zogby
    No, he doesn’t.
    It is not a call to have Muslims all jailed or executed, but it's a call to have them all banned from the US. That's a form of collective punishment - just not capital collective punishment. Just like the left's call to ban arms (or arms of certain kinds) to everyone is a form of collective punishment, but not the most severe of punishment. Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Clyde says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    This is all fine. Look - we are presenting our sides for the audience at large here. You are not going to find succor in an ignorant audience of Evangelicals that clap for your claims here.


    I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.
     
    I haven't - I avoid propaganda. I also haven't read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or... I like to stick to academic works like those of men like Rudolph Peters, Olivier Roy, Majid Khadduri, Robert Hoyland, etc. People who get published at Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Not "Bombadier Books" who publish the likes of frauds like Kamal Saleem:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia/

    Seriously, you must have been a bit embarrassed to publish a book questioning the historic figure of the Prophet (pbuh) right? Please at least admit that. I mean, if I even wrote an article about Elvis being alive, I'd hang my head in shame if someone brought it up.'


    I have never made any such claim
     
    OK - I'll take your word for that - and will retract this assertion. So we both agree that Islam can hardly be pinned to minority opinions as being the Islamic stance on something, right? Will you admit that for something to be claimed as "Islam" it should at least have a consensus opinion or a super majority behind it? If so, then you already know that the killing of women and children (even on the battlefield) has been prohibited by consensus - it is backed by hadith that reach a tawatur status. You know this, right? And you know that no school says it's OK to be treacherous to a security agreement once a Muslim enters or resides in non-Muslim lands and harm them.

    So if people like Daesh want to break with 14 centuries of consensus, how is that any more legitimate than Muslims breaking from 14 centuries of consensus on drinking wine? It's a simple question.

    Now, if you want to make the case that Muslim extremist groups can legitimately break with consensus and still be considered normative, then I suggest you hold a joint conference with them in what's left of Mosul or Raqqa.

    Oh - oops! Looks like they're killing their own "scholars" that disagree with them:
    "The dispute concerns the group’s position on takfir, or excommunication—namely, the excommunication of fellow Muslims—and al-Bin‘ali was on the losing side. On May 17, 2017, the Islamic State’s Delegated Committee, its executive council, issued a memorandum setting out the official stance on takfir, and for al-Bin‘ali it was too extreme. Two days later, he refuted the memorandum in a letter to the Delegated Committee, and twelve days after that, he was killed. More such refutations by Islamic State scholars followed, and in at least one other case the result—death by airstrike—was the same...The latter was waging war on “the scholars,” which was to say al-Bin‘ali and his allies. Al-Bin‘ali’s death, he muses, was no accident: al-Bin‘ali and the other scholars who opposed the memorandum were arranged to die in airstrikes, their coordinates being leaked to “the crusaders.”"
    http://www.jihadica.com/caliphate-in-disarray/

    Better hurry! Man, this really sucks for your narrative though, right? I mean, once Daesh is gone (fought and defeated by other Muslims), there goes a massive part of your story. And sucks for Israel too:
    "Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/


    you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material
     
    You completely misrepresented it - and I showed everyone that you did not mention the second important portion of what Ms. Bewley wrote. The record is here for everyone to see. And again, where did you get that quotation from Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) using the word "unbelievers" instead of "polytheists/pagans"? I'll retract this assertion too if you provide proof. Either way, if you use altafsir.com than you have the source text - there is no excuse:
    وقوله { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ } أي من الأرض، وهذا عام
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    He leaves the term as is; "mushrikeen" and proceeds to mention (since he is a Shafi'i) "meaning; in/from the world, and this is general (ie. not restricted)". He never turns around and replaces the word with "kafireen".

    So will you make a change to your article? Will you stop telling people it says "unbelievers"? Thought so.


    I must confess I’m rather busy.
     
    Same here - I've got four kids to raise for the demographic jihad. Takes time and patience to practice my mad taqiyyah skillz. That's why I stick to academic works that have been peer reviewed.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    That's cool - I like my dad better than your dad. How exactly am I supposed to respond to this?

    You still have not stated clearly, do you or do you not understand and read Arabic at a fluent level - have you ever taken a formal class on it? This should take ten seconds to answer.

    Peace.

    Mr Spencer punked you good. Go back to wacky Paki land and preach your Koran scientist knowledge over there. Your fellow Muslims need you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mawlana Clyde - I know, I was sodomized pretty thoroughly - and it's really depressing because it's all on public record so everyone can see how badly I got it. Won't be able to sit down for a week.

    So I'll have to just console myself...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOk6-qg9hGg

    In victory, I think you should celebrate by buying at least five more of his books:
    https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Spencer/e/B001JPACI0/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1510172781&sr=8-1

    Especially this one:
    https://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/1610171330/ref=la_B001JPACI0_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510172813&sr=1-8

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Talha says:
    @Clyde
    Mr Spencer punked you good. Go back to wacky Paki land and preach your Koran scientist knowledge over there. Your fellow Muslims need you.

    Hey Mawlana Clyde – I know, I was sodomized pretty thoroughly – and it’s really depressing because it’s all on public record so everyone can see how badly I got it. Won’t be able to sit down for a week.

    So I’ll have to just console myself…

    In victory, I think you should celebrate by buying at least five more of his books:

    https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Spencer/e/B001JPACI0/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1510172781&sr=8-1

    Especially this one:

    https://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/1610171330/ref=la_B001JPACI0_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510172813&sr=1-8

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Zogby says:
    @Anon

    For Muslims – he calls for collective punishment.
     
    No, he doesn't.

    No, he doesn’t.
    It is not a call to have Muslims all jailed or executed, but it’s a call to have them all banned from the US. That’s a form of collective punishment – just not capital collective punishment. Just like the left’s call to ban arms (or arms of certain kinds) to everyone is a form of collective punishment, but not the most severe of punishment. Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {..... but it’s a call to have them all banned from the US.}

    Yes.

    { Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.}

    Crime ? What crime?
    Every country has the right to say "NO" to someone, anyone, who wants to immigrate to that country.
    Muslims, or anybody else, who is not allowed into US is no worse off staying in their own country.
    They are (potentially) not better off not being in the US, but they are no worse off.
    So what so-called 'punishment' are you talking about?
    Not being rewarded is being 'punished' under Islamologic?

    If you have a Muslim prayer gathering and discussion of Quran in your house, and some Christian proselytizers find out about it and decide to show up uninvited, and you don't let them in, are you quote 'punishing' them? Of course not: your house, your rules.

    Same with US.
    Is not allowing Muslims as a group into US discriminatory? Sure is.
    Unfair to Muslims? Most likely.
    So?
    No foreigner has an inherent right to immigrate to US.
    Nevertheless, the 1965 Immigration Law prohibits immigration discrimination based on religion.
    If US can't find loopholes to ban most Muslim immigration, then maybe _all_ immigration ought to be stopped until further notice.
    To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Art
    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.

    After all, blowback, revenge, payback, and what goes around comes around – are forces of nature - with us from the beginning of time.

    Maybe on the other hand, it would be good if we just stopped killing their relatives.

    Someone once said, “that it is the responsibility of the strong to stop the carnage and cycle of violence.”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace --- Art

    p.s. Our government now says that “collateral damage” is OK. That we can kill our way to peace.

    p.s. “Collateral damage” --- what a nice way to say – murder!

    p.s. 1 million down – 299 million to go.

    p.s. They die - we die - the Jews are happy.

    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.

    I would think you mean ‘culturally Muslim’. An actual Muslim who enters into our country via any legal means has entered into a binding covenant. Even if they are filled to the brim with anger because their homeland has been subjected to the ravages of the truly insatiable lust and greed of the exploiting tribes (note plural) of this planet, if they are Muslims their actions are informed by God and God’s Messenger, and not their anger.

    > Jews are happy

    Enough of this Jew business. Of course the stupidity of certain members of that tribe never ceases to amaze me as they (again and again) play the role of the Judas Goat for the actual stakeholders. They are mostly in ‘administrative’ roles, center stage. Give them enough rope. (So much for “Jewish” intellect!)

    Do you not see how this “Jew” business is the perfect foil from making you look at the actual source of your miseries?

    Here is a little thought exercise: If we are to believe the story of how the Jewish banking families got the various sovereigns of Europe under their control via debt, then how come none of these kings ever marched their armies to these banks and simply take their gold and throw the Jew to the mob? They kept invading and killing to get their hands on the treasures of their royal peers, so why not the Jewish bankers? Some kind of voodoo magic?

    Think: https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Jews-Massacre-Medieval-England/dp/1847251862

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Pretty sure the knights templar tried to wrestle power away and we all know how that turned out.

    Make a big enough example, and everyone follows suit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. LauraMR says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    Zionists don’t really hate Muslims, in so far as they are not in the way. Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them. Saudis, who are as Moslem and Moslem gets, are not in the way, so they are not hated. All in all, Zionists don’t bear any particular animus against the religion of Islam itself, certainly not to the degree they do Christianity.

    You can break it down even further but it won’t get through. Some people are unable to comprehend anything beyond roughly drawn patterns… patterns that, in any case, may only exist in their imagination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Art says:
    @Art
    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.

    After all, blowback, revenge, payback, and what goes around comes around – are forces of nature - with us from the beginning of time.

    Maybe on the other hand, it would be good if we just stopped killing their relatives.

    Someone once said, “that it is the responsibility of the strong to stop the carnage and cycle of violence.”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace --- Art

    p.s. Our government now says that “collateral damage” is OK. That we can kill our way to peace.

    p.s. “Collateral damage” --- what a nice way to say – murder!

    p.s. 1 million down – 299 million to go.

    p.s. They die - we die - the Jews are happy.

    (Sarcasm on)

    Is it true that ISIS’s ace recruiters – Lindsey Graham and Joh McCain – have proposed to deport every Muslim male with a driver’s license?

    Is Mr. Radicalize himself – Rep. Steven King – going to introduce the same law in the house of representatives.

    p.s. Oh’ – they have to take their sons with them.

    p.s. Those sons of the coerced get mad and are dangerous.

    p.s. The Jews always say, “just pass a law – problem over!”

    (Sarcasm off)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. KenH says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Talha, you miss the larger point. We in the West don't care about your sectarian disputes. We don't care and we don't want to be made to care. We don't care how you support your argument with which chapter and verse, which alleged expert of your funky religion.

    The point is, we don't want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse. We have finally purged Christian sectarian disputes from the forefront of our consciousness and now you Muzzies force us to bear with you while you hash out yours.

    As scientists, we of the West want to know more about ourselves and the universe we find ourselves in. Whether God or Allah or Jahweh loves one of us more than He does his neighbor or vice versa is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth.

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors. We of the West have developed beyond that stage of human consciousness. Squabbling over religious canon lies behind us. Persons like you spend all your life's energy trying to drag it in front of us.

    I agree that we don’t want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our discourse, but it’s already cluttered up with ideological garbage. We in the West fight over all the “isms” along the ideological spectrum and are willing to murder each other over any one or a combination of them.

    So squabbling over religious canon lies behind us, thankfully, but squabbling over ideological canon does not, unfortunately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. TG says:

    Nazis: Feel free to enslave or slaughter Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs.

    Muslims: Feel free to enslave or slaughter Jews, Homosexuals, Women, Children, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, and the adherents of other sects of Islam. And the trains don’t run on time.

    The absolute worst thing you can do to a muslim, is to force them to live in an orthodox muslim country. I’ll give up my ‘islamophobia’ when the muslims do.

    All we are saying, is give hate a chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Art Deco says:
    @KenH
    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society. And now that some things are coming back to me I don't think Brevik was critical of Jews or their role in destroying the European civilization he saw himself defending and avenging in his massive tome. That was most disappointing.

    I'm going strictly by memory so I might not be totally correct.

    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society.

    IOW, you elected to believe in magic Jews when you stopped believing your john was occupied by man-eating bananas. There are 1,300 Jews in Norway out of a population of 5.2 million.

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @geokat62

    IOW, you elected to believe in magic Jews... There are 1,300 Jews in Norway out of a population of 5.2 million.
     
    There are 20,000 Jews in Sweden out of a population of 10 million.

    Excerpt from How Sweden Became Multicultural:

    To gain a better understanding of the fundamental change Swedish politics and society has undergone we must acquaint ourselves with the newspaper debates that began in 1964. It’s also important that we understand the man who was at the centre of the process that transformed Sweden. His name was David Schwarz*, the father of Swedish multiculturalism.

    * David Schwarz came from a Jewish family and was born in Poland in 1928. During the Second World War he was interned in four different concentration camps: Buchenwald, Nordhausen, Dora, and Bergen-Belsen. Like many other concentration camp interns he suffered from typhus and tuberculosis but Schwarz was luckier than many others and was placed in a sanatorium in Germany and later Italy where he resided until 1950. When the Italian sanatorium closed Schwarz was sent to Sweden where he was treated at various facilities until 1954.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    This is all fine. Look - we are presenting our sides for the audience at large here. You are not going to find succor in an ignorant audience of Evangelicals that clap for your claims here.


    I highly doubt you have read even a page of either one, or of any of my other books.
     
    I haven't - I avoid propaganda. I also haven't read Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or... I like to stick to academic works like those of men like Rudolph Peters, Olivier Roy, Majid Khadduri, Robert Hoyland, etc. People who get published at Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Not "Bombadier Books" who publish the likes of frauds like Kamal Saleem:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia/

    Seriously, you must have been a bit embarrassed to publish a book questioning the historic figure of the Prophet (pbuh) right? Please at least admit that. I mean, if I even wrote an article about Elvis being alive, I'd hang my head in shame if someone brought it up.'


    I have never made any such claim
     
    OK - I'll take your word for that - and will retract this assertion. So we both agree that Islam can hardly be pinned to minority opinions as being the Islamic stance on something, right? Will you admit that for something to be claimed as "Islam" it should at least have a consensus opinion or a super majority behind it? If so, then you already know that the killing of women and children (even on the battlefield) has been prohibited by consensus - it is backed by hadith that reach a tawatur status. You know this, right? And you know that no school says it's OK to be treacherous to a security agreement once a Muslim enters or resides in non-Muslim lands and harm them.

    So if people like Daesh want to break with 14 centuries of consensus, how is that any more legitimate than Muslims breaking from 14 centuries of consensus on drinking wine? It's a simple question.

    Now, if you want to make the case that Muslim extremist groups can legitimately break with consensus and still be considered normative, then I suggest you hold a joint conference with them in what's left of Mosul or Raqqa.

    Oh - oops! Looks like they're killing their own "scholars" that disagree with them:
    "The dispute concerns the group’s position on takfir, or excommunication—namely, the excommunication of fellow Muslims—and al-Bin‘ali was on the losing side. On May 17, 2017, the Islamic State’s Delegated Committee, its executive council, issued a memorandum setting out the official stance on takfir, and for al-Bin‘ali it was too extreme. Two days later, he refuted the memorandum in a letter to the Delegated Committee, and twelve days after that, he was killed. More such refutations by Islamic State scholars followed, and in at least one other case the result—death by airstrike—was the same...The latter was waging war on “the scholars,” which was to say al-Bin‘ali and his allies. Al-Bin‘ali’s death, he muses, was no accident: al-Bin‘ali and the other scholars who opposed the memorandum were arranged to die in airstrikes, their coordinates being leaked to “the crusaders.”"
    http://www.jihadica.com/caliphate-in-disarray/

    Better hurry! Man, this really sucks for your narrative though, right? I mean, once Daesh is gone (fought and defeated by other Muslims), there goes a massive part of your story. And sucks for Israel too:
    "Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria"
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/


    you falsely accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting material
     
    You completely misrepresented it - and I showed everyone that you did not mention the second important portion of what Ms. Bewley wrote. The record is here for everyone to see. And again, where did you get that quotation from Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) using the word "unbelievers" instead of "polytheists/pagans"? I'll retract this assertion too if you provide proof. Either way, if you use altafsir.com than you have the source text - there is no excuse:
    وقوله { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ } أي من الأرض، وهذا عام
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=5&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    He leaves the term as is; "mushrikeen" and proceeds to mention (since he is a Shafi'i) "meaning; in/from the world, and this is general (ie. not restricted)". He never turns around and replaces the word with "kafireen".

    So will you make a change to your article? Will you stop telling people it says "unbelievers"? Thought so.


    I must confess I’m rather busy.
     
    Same here - I've got four kids to raise for the demographic jihad. Takes time and patience to practice my mad taqiyyah skillz. That's why I stick to academic works that have been peer reviewed.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    That's cool - I like my dad better than your dad. How exactly am I supposed to respond to this?

    You still have not stated clearly, do you or do you not understand and read Arabic at a fluent level - have you ever taken a formal class on it? This should take ten seconds to answer.

    Peace.

    If all muslims were like you, there would be no problems. Your comments are always a pleasure to read. Thank you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey D Snail,

    My sincere thanks for taking the time to read them; my apologies that I can be quite long-winded at times. If there is anything good I bring, then it is due to God's acceptance of the prayers of my parents and the efforts of my teachers. Anything bad is solely my own fault.

    May God grant you honor in this life and the next.
    , @Parbes
    Look up the meaning and significance of the word "taqiyyah" some time, you walking embodiment of naivete, will you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Art Deco says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    Zionists don’t really hate Muslims, in so far as they are not in the way. Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them. Saudis, who are as Moslem and Moslem gets, are not in the way, so they are not hated. All in all, Zionists don’t bear any particular animus against the religion of Islam itself, certainly not to the degree they do Christianity.

    Palestinians and Iranians are in the way, so they hate them.

    No, Iranians are building nuclear weapons in order to use them on Israel and subsidizing a hostile paramilitary organization on Israel’s borders. The Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza are incompetent and uncreative and turn what little ingenuity they have into attempting to defeat Israel’s border security arrangements (and embezzle foreign donor money).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @survey-of-disinfo

    Wouldn’t it be smart of us to not allow any Muslim men under the age of 30 into the country?

    After all, it is young men who seek revenge when their relatives are attacked and murdered by a foreign power.
     
    I would think you mean 'culturally Muslim'. An actual Muslim who enters into our country via any legal means has entered into a binding covenant. Even if they are filled to the brim with anger because their homeland has been subjected to the ravages of the truly insatiable lust and greed of the exploiting tribes (note plural) of this planet, if they are Muslims their actions are informed by God and God's Messenger, and not their anger.

    > Jews are happy

    Enough of this Jew business. Of course the stupidity of certain members of that tribe never ceases to amaze me as they (again and again) play the role of the Judas Goat for the actual stakeholders. They are mostly in 'administrative' roles, center stage. Give them enough rope. (So much for "Jewish" intellect!)

    Do you not see how this "Jew" business is the perfect foil from making you look at the actual source of your miseries?

    Here is a little thought exercise: If we are to believe the story of how the Jewish banking families got the various sovereigns of Europe under their control via debt, then how come none of these kings ever marched their armies to these banks and simply take their gold and throw the Jew to the mob? They kept invading and killing to get their hands on the treasures of their royal peers, so why not the Jewish bankers? Some kind of voodoo magic?

    Think: https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Jews-Massacre-Medieval-England/dp/1847251862

    Pretty sure the knights templar tried to wrestle power away and we all know how that turned out.

    Make a big enough example, and everyone follows suit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    Pretty sure the knights templar tried to wrestle power away and we all know how that turned out.
     
    Bingo.

    The one known documented case of a martial/financial state within a state that challenged the authority of a sovereign in Europe ended with the challengers very dead indeed, with extreme prejudice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralis_Praeeminentiae

    The Rothschild family would have shared the fate of the Templars -- substitute allegations of worshiping devil with drinking Christian blood -- if they were in anyway challenging the established powers in Europe. They are the bankers of the powerful, with the Naple's branch known as Vatican's bankers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Naples_branch

    Why do the powerful in Christian realm use Jews?

    For one, Jews have an exceptional ability to make themselves useful to the powerful. If the Gypsies had the same qualities, we would be talking about the Gypsy conspiracy, but alas, they rather work at the margins and specialize in petty crimes.

    Second, to affect changes in Christian realms that would encounter resistance from the Church or population, it was and remains convenient to have Jews as the front. A: The Jews were not hobbled with constraints of the established dogma. B: They are competent and get things done. C: If shit hits the fan, its the Jew that takes the blame, and not their Lord.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafirov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Priss Factor
    People who hate Muslims are the Zionists who use the US and EU to wage all these Wars for Israel and globalist hegemony. But Zionists shroud their hatred for Muslims by pretending to care for 'refugees' and 'immigrants'. Of course it's the gentiles who are burdened with having to take in all these arrivals.

    Zionists hate Muslims and destroy the Muslim world but then accuse white gentiles of anti-Muslim hatred because increasing numbers of whites are saying ENOUGH with all these Muslim 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. What a dirty game.

    A nation will fall without race-ism. (Race-ism meaning Belief in race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one's own race, one's own people, and one's own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. If not, others will take over, gradually if not rapidly. And the people of the nation will turn traitor(even as a sign of virtue) since anti-race-ism instilled them with a notion that they would be evil to be mindful of their own identity and interests on their own territory.

    When white nations were race-ist, whites looked out for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain and heritage. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they fear to assert their own identity and interests. Even the notion that "It's Okay to be White" is denounced by white cuck elites and white progs. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cuck since they can no longer serve themselves. They must serve OTHERS. Those who keep their identity eventually win out over those who don't. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims keep their own identity, they will gain over whites in Europe and Canada.. and US.

    Also, race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people are respected by others. Why? Because they are feared. A people who are not feared are not respected. At most, they are pitied.
    White people were once feared and respected. But now that they are no longer feared, they are reviled. Why? Because all their past glory and all their wealth are denounced as ill-gotten, and white cucks nod along with apology.

    Because whites are denied pride, purpose(except to cuck), and unity, their power keeps fading with each passing year. Also, it is race-ism that prevents giving into temptations as all individuals are wont to do. Every individual is tempted with betrayal IF there is something for him or her. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for 'me'. It's like Fredo betraying the family in THE GODFATHER II to have something for himself. Without a strong sense of race-ism, so many people will betray their own people or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, pleasure, thrills, or 'narcissism of small differences'.
    Why did Jews remain Jewish even though they were tempted by betrayal all through the ages. The Covenant was race-ist in reminding Jews over and over that they must stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for self-gain, enough of them didn't because Jewish race-ism emphasized group identity, unity, and purpose. Without such race-ist pressures, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity.

    Patriarchy is also necessary for preservation of identity. Women are likely to just run off with OTHER groups that are more powerful. And young ones are restless and wanna try something 'new'. This makes them more likely to go over to the other side, if only for excitement.
    Patriarchy imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker group vis-a-vis other groups, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this, and so, Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers made their Jewish sons stick to Jewish identity.
    Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy may prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slut, crazy, or jungle fever. So many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With crazy Jewesses like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow gene and lack chutzpah. Also, without patriarchal power over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal House and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, they marry shikses who either turn out to be bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.
    In PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, we are told of a cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles or something. And then the father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin just took it and didn't fight back even though he was much stronger than his pa. Patriarchy was still operative. Ultimately, the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

    But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish kids grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and they ended up ridiculous. Israel still has patriarchy, and thank heaven for that. With so many Israeli Jews being decadent, the society will go nuts if there isn't some kind of patriarchy to keep things under wraps. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for 'gay marriage', but it is banned by the patriarchy.

    In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect, and so, non-whites berate and demean them. Also, so many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies of whites(esp blacks). This means white people will become weaker every year in demographic, political, social, and economic terms.

    It is no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of Jungle and Jihad.
    Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren't allowed to unite to defend white manhood and white pride. In the past, white men did just that. When faced with Zulu savages, white men all worked together to fight them like in the Michael Caine movie. And in the American South, white men united against black crime. Since a Negro could whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to work together to catch the black thug rapist and hang him from a tree to send a message to other would-be-Negro thugs. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under control. Since white men worked together to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, as any white woman who went with a Negro was castigated or even criminalized, white womenfolk weren't likely to betray their own race.

    But no more white race-ism means that white men must NEVER work together against blacks. But without group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt. Also, without white male pride and power over their women, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. So, with each passing year, many more white women give their wombs over to Negroes to be colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes such Jungle Fever among white women and cuck behavior among white men. Notice that there is no cultural condemnation of cuck behavior. It's just reported as some new social trend, like it's cool or something.
    Blacks now sense white wussy and white pu**y. They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power. Without white race-ism, white civilization loses out to the animal aggression and lust of Negro culture that offers thrills of domination, thug power, and funkiness.

    With the rise of such savagery, one would think there would be a moral and spiritual backlash. But due to demise of white race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and Jesus and social responsibility to denounce black savagery. If anything, even Christianity has cucked out to homos. A truly sad state of affairs.

    However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the reaction must come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites, it is coming from the Muslims who are filling up parts of Europe and even Canada and the US. Since Christianity cannot do anything other than shill for Israel and worship homos and since white morality can only be about 'white guilt', the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is Islam.

    So, it is Islam that is stepping in to denounce and destroy the debauchery. So, while Ariana Grande sings about how her mudshark white pooter is stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist blows up her concert as an act of war against modern decadence and degeneracy. Barbarism of Islamic Morality wages war on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims fighting Africans, both wage war on weak white decadence. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys who turn white-uncle-tom and cuck out. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.

    As white nations become culturally junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the 'sick west'. Muslims find the modern West to be utterly vile and debauched, but they fail to realize that black influence(as esp enabled by Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has impacted all the West. So many white elites listen to reggae as their main music, and so many 'white trash' masses(and white middle class) are into rap thug music.

    So, blacks junglize whites, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world.

    Now, if whites had race-ism, they would have united to keep blacks in their world. And as they would be a powerful and proud people, Muslims would respect them and think twice about waging terror attacks on them. But whites seem weak to both groups.

    Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of 'injustice', what they really mean is 'you weak'. Blacks don't get morality. Blacks only understand power. They fear and respect Power. When they see weakness(no matter how good-willed and redemptive), they see it as pu**y. It's like hyenas respect powerful lions. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say 'you weak' and tear him limb from limb. This is why 'white guilt' won't work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the old KKK more than today's goody whites. KKK was fearsome. Blacks hated it but feared it and with fear came respeck, shoo. But no matter how nice whites today try to be, blacks just see weakness. When blacks scream and shout slogans about civil rights, they really mean 'you weak!'
    And Muslims, despite their spirituality, are also into power. Islam is about justice and POWER. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness. They feel that such wussy pu**y people don't deserve to rule or own anything.

    Unless whites being back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more.

    Priss’ observations are always insightful and often abound with extraordinary insight. This rejoinder is no exception.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    No, and Robert Spencer does not look Jewish or Muslim.

    Yeah, he does, and apparently so do you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    He looks southern Italian, Sicilian, Greek. He is respected among the alt right. You must be one dark Asiatic Turk. I went to school in Vienna and there were 2 kinds of Turks. The light-skinned Caucasian ones from the western, European side of Istanbul and the dark ones from the Asia Minor. Of course, the Austrians hated the dark ones, and light ones could be accepted if they converted to Christianity.

    Also, if there is a woman in your life is she Asian? Particularly Chinese? Involvement with Asian women, mostly Chinese ones, produces alot degeneracies. Again, Derbyshire is a perfect example of this.
    , @Druid
    He looks jewish
    , @Truth
    Atilla, I'm sorry Babe, but if that Kat put on a yamaka and walked through Tel Aviv, nobody would speak to him in English
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Art Deco says:
    @jacques sheete

    Ah yes, but I am to apologize for the likes of a Pollard.
     
    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well, and we're not even supposed to know about the likes of Teddy Kolleck and Henry Crown for instance.

    Two minute article that offers a glimpse of the US mobsters who supported the criminal state of Israel in the beginning. The Aspen Institute vid is worth viewing too if only for a glimpse of the smug smirking asses.


    It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little they got– well Most of what they got were smuggled in. Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That’s what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]

    -Philip Weiss, Was it ‘jihad’ when Henry Crown smuggled plane parts to Israel?,July 29, 2013 27
    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/was-it-jihad-when-henry-crown-smuggled-plane-parts-to-israel-and-when-jeffrey-goldberg-moved-there.html
     

    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well,

    Because that’s the only explanation that makes any sense. However, people with an intense animus toward Jews fancy they kill people just because. The source of your misunderstandings you can find in the mirror.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    Because that’s the only explanation that makes any sense.
     
    If the attack on the Liberty was an accident, then so were airliners crashing into WTC.

    A moment of inattention, and it's all over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. El Dato says:

    RT is at it again, telling lies:

    Arab ‘mafia’ infiltrates German police, state services – German police union official

    https://www.rt.com/news/409276-arab-mafia-german-police/

    This is being promptly denied and looking askance at unusual police officers will not be tolerated;

    Berlin’s Interior Minister has meanwhile warned against the rise of xenophobia and prejudice against police officers of migrant descent. “That is something I would not tolerate,” Andreas Geisel said as Germany records a growing number of complaints against immigrant recruits within the police.

    Looking forward to demonstrative diversity teams in “Tatort” and similar TV crime drama that the Germans are so fond of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    I cite Benson:

    "My dear father," said Percy, motionless in his chair, "I know it is your fault. Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—-"
     
    Admittedly "arrogant fool" is strong phrasing, but a deliverer of insults veiled or not has little to complain about if they are returned upon him, especially conditionally as mine was.

    By the way, you sound remarkably like "WoZ" yourself. Coincidence, or do all Aussies talk that way?

    What makes you think I am Australian? True I know enough to know that Australians do NOT conform to a stereotype as many English (in particular) and you seem to suppose. But perhaps I should take it as a compliment since I agree (?) that WoZ takes some care which you might say doesn’t always stop short of pedantry. Anyway, thank you for the Benson quote which took me back to the more familiar Newman and Knox – not to mention the non convert Chesterton. But you appear to fall into that class of people who are clever and agile enough to remain Catholic as well as sophisticated and civilised but still don’t explain the logical possibility of an Abrahamic god who actually cares about his creatures doing the right thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Vinteuil says:
    @Jim Christian

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    Good catch, appropriate. Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did. Meh, as the spread of racist, feminist liberalism spreads like a shit-stain across the land, campus and governments, I'm almost to a point where I don't argue against how Muslims handle THEIR women to liberals anymore. Jews and Muslims are here, protect yourself best you can, forget ever catching them before they pull a bullshit stunt.. Mostly, you have to worry most about, apparently, the Jewish men and Muslims (and the Hollywood celebrities who defend them) raping your daughters and sons. Other than that, Jews and Muslims are just swell, the more the merrier..

    “Tally it all up, the Jews have done thousands of times more damage here in the States than Muslims ever did.”

    Really? “Thousands of times?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mr. Spencer,

    You’re looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite.
     
    I'm looking at the very source - that is the source text for Ibn Juzayy's tafsir - it's all there in the original Arabic.

    Ms. Bewley is an absolute master translator - I have her translation of the Shifaa of Qadi Iyad (ra). I'm glad you cited her - I would recommend her work to everyone. I'm not sure what she is doing on this particular passage, but it is obvious she is not doing a word-for-word translation; she seems to be summarizing.

    So for instance, you left out the crucial part Ms. Bewley adds, which is that "it is also said that it (9:5) is abrogated by it (47:4) and so setting them free and ransom are permitted". So why are you telling only part of the story? I mean, I gave a translation of all three viewpoints Ibn Juzayy (ra) outlines and I admitted that you accurately depicted the second opinion - and only that one. Why are you only partially quoting your own source? Furthermore, look at the third point Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) points out in his tafsir - he makes it plain what the majority of the scholars have decided on.

    I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Ms. Bewley didn't report the whole text. But in essence, I agree with her and this is the opinion of the majority of the Maliki school that these verses refer to the pagan Quraysh and the treaties with them are done with (after a certain time) - the differences on which tribes it is talking about are also outlined by Imam Ibn Juzayy (ra) right here:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=7&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

    Bani Damrah or Quraysh or Khuza'ah

    The Hanafi opinion is that these only refer to the pagans of the Arabian peninsula from the original Arab tribes.

    The Shafi'i opinion is well known and is as you stated from Imam Suyuti (ra) - it refers to polytheists everywhere.

    All of these can be referenced by either the works of "takhsees" or "tarjeeh" from the various schools - like commentaries by Imams Sarakhsi, Nawawi, Ibn Ishaq al-Jundi (ra).

    What you want to do is make it look like to people that the Shafi'i opinion is the opinion of Islam instead of the fact that it is a minority opinion and that historically the majority of Muslim sovereigns have run their lands (and foreign policies) by the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law - Abbasid, Ummayyad, Ottoman, Mughal, even lesser known ones like Sokoto). Furthermore, name me a single living Shafi'i scholar in our time that says we should run things like this. Because, at the end of the day, you can write as many books as you want - but where the rubber meets the road, it's the men with the beards and turbans that have studied this tradition for well over 5 decades that the Muslims listen to.

    What you want to do is cite our scholars when it agrees with what you want (you have to of course, it's not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) - but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind and have to hope your audience is too ignorant to be able to discern.

    Now you made an excellent point in the article, which was:
    "but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers"

    Congratulations - that is the problem right there. Both you and the foolish young men of Daesh think they can simply bypass our scholars and derive rules all by themselves by looking at the source texts. As long as this mentality exists among our youth, this will continue to happen - as Prof. David Cook (who does know and translates Arabic texts) explained (listen for 5 minutes):
    https://youtu.be/2VQ9AvJB_k4?t=38m32s

    So why don't you advise, like Prof. Cook does, that the best way to make sure someone doesn't become a radical is by learning traditional Islam at the feet of traditional scholars? When's the last time, say, a young student of the Maliki school and adherent of the Shadili Order blew himself up on a bus or plane or subway? Thought so.

    And as did Prof. Bernard Lewis:
    "The various types of action which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are expressly forbidden by Shariah, by the Muslim holy law."
    https://youtu.be/5Otch3BKp5Q?t=33s

    Saying "Allahu Akbar" before running over grandmothers is as valid as saying it before downing some vodka.

    Who can remain objective about the tradition, even though he considers too much Muslim immigration to be an existential crisis for the West:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yYIFdzLPVc

    And then you state in your article that Imam Ibn Kathir (ra) says "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", but it is obvious from the Arabic and even and English translation that this doesn't refer to unbelievers in general, but polytheists - I can't think of a single scholar that believes that - where did you get that quote from?:
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64

    One thing, again, Ms. Bewley's is an English translation (and apparently summary) - you seem to be stuck in sourcing translated works like Shaykh Nuh's "Reliance" and such. The site I have made reference to has nearly a hundred various tafsirs in their original Arabic and include some of the most reliable ones from men like Imams Bazdawi, Qurtubi (ra), etc.

    So tell us - have you ever passed a formal class in classical Arabic? Just so we can put this all to rest. Again, you can criticize Islam without it - I have no problems with this, but let's get this out on the table.

    I stand by the accuracy of my work.
     
    I'm sure you do - you get paid well by Israeli-firster organizations. Now, that's not to say you don't get it right once in a while - you do. You usually just never present the whole picture - which is how people who don't know better buy your stuff.

    kindly post them here or email me
     
    I'd think of emailing you if I thought it would make a difference. This is your bread and butter, sir - I hardly think you are going to change your tune. Your livelihood depends on you churning out the goods - I do this in my spare time since I manage an IT team.

    Look, both of us are biased when it comes to this material - let's just be out and open about it. I am a traditional practicing Sunni Muslim that has studied with multiple Hanafi muftis and you are a researcher that gets paid (well, I might add*) by Israeli-firster organizations to run character assassinations on a religion so that they can get the upper hand over the "Palestinians" (as you like to call them) and help turn US policy into a platform for Neocon interests.

    As far as posting on your site - no thanks - that's your home court advantage. I've seen what happens to Muslims who post there - they get drowned out by tsunamis of "taqiyyah".

    I'm here posting at UNZ, you know where to find me. A word of caution though - bring up your love for Israel here at your own peril.

    Peace may God guide you and yours and keep you in safety in this life and the next.

    * http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    You touched on the main root problem:
    it’s not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) – but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind

    Abrogation means that pre-Medina doctrine is abrogated, it is “less” than post Medina. (When Mohammed was in Mecca, his teachings were the “peaceful phase.)

    Until Islam deals with Abrogation, then it cannot be taken seriously. Reform in Islam requires grappling with the problems inherent in Abrogation. In Christianity, a similar construct, called super-cession has new testament supersede old testament. The more violent and retrograde old testament, is put away and completed.

    Islam is thus opposite of Christianity, the more violent retrograde aspects of Islam are enshrined by abrogation. Takfiri behavior is is entirely in alignment with abrogations precepts.

    Imam’s then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.

    This coupling of Imam power, abrogation and political Islam i.e. Sharia – can be a deadly combination.

    Islam’s followers like Suffi’s CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam, but that is NOT DOCTRINE. Suffis keep the crazy aunt in the basement, but she may break out any time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Even Islam's magical peaceniks the Sufis, have engaged in slaughter and Jihad from time to time. You can look it up. But not as much as Sunnis and Shiites by a long shot.
    , @Talha
    Hey MEFOBILLS,

    I was going to respond to your points, but then I came across this silliness:

    Imam’s then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.
     
    Look, if you say we made it up, then start and finish with that. It is silly to hash over details. We made the whole thing up; there is no abrogation, there are no Madinan verses and Makkan verses, etc. It all came actually at Tabuk (assuming that occurred) and then we just did whatever we wanted with it. You can't trust what Muslim scholars write, they just lie about everything.

    Your argument is akin to calling your star witness to the stance (the Islamic tradition, as formulated by the Muslim scholars - unless you think Martians came up with these exegetical terms) to buttress your case and then, when the witness is cross examined and undermines your position - you turn to the jury and say, "Obviously, ladies and gentleman, the man is a liar."

    I suggest investing some time into Greek logic (I was fortunate enough to take a course during my computer science studies at UCLA) and then coming up with a cogent, epistemologically sound argument. Otherwise it is a waste of both our time. I don't feel like looking up medieval texts in Arabic so you can dismiss the arguments off hand as taqiyyah awesomeness.

    Islam’s followers like Suffi’s CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam
     
    Wow - I mean WOW! The name of Imam Suyuti (ra) has been referenced by both myself and Mr. Spencer (in his articles). You do know that he was a spiritual guide in the Shadhili Order, right?
    https://www.amazon.com/Sublime-Truths-Shadhili-Path/dp/1909460044

    Don't get me started on Shaykh Bulandshahri (ra) - my own spiritual teacher used to give monthly lessons based on his book "Provisions for the Seekers".

    It would help your position if you didn't embarrass yourself on basic level knowledge of Islamic doctrine and history before you propose to teach me what it is*.

    Peace.

    *I think I understand how Mr. Martyanov feels when people try to give him lessons regarding Russian military topics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Clyde says:
    @Talha
    As my brother in Bani Adam, I sincerely warn you about what you are doing. It will not end well in the next life.

    There is still time to change.

    "And we are not responsible except for clear notification." (36:17)

    https://youtu.be/IswAcuA83_Y?t=2m26s

    Peace.

    lol You are trying to put the whammy on Robert Spencer. Why don’t you summon up some wayward djinn to do it for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    No, no - I don't swing that way. I'm going to do my best to avoid Mr. Spencer; still quite sore from having the "whammy" put to me...quite traumatic. I think I'll have to beat the wife and kids to console myself.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. geokat62 says:
    @Art Deco
    Oh, I agree 100% that these Norwegian liberals are largely the creation of Jewish propaganda and influence in their society.

    IOW, you elected to believe in magic Jews when you stopped believing your john was occupied by man-eating bananas. There are 1,300 Jews in Norway out of a population of 5.2 million.

    IOW, you elected to believe in magic Jews… There are 1,300 Jews in Norway out of a population of 5.2 million.

    There are 20,000 Jews in Sweden out of a population of 10 million.

    Excerpt from How Sweden Became Multicultural:

    To gain a better understanding of the fundamental change Swedish politics and society has undergone we must acquaint ourselves with the newspaper debates that began in 1964. It’s also important that we understand the man who was at the centre of the process that transformed Sweden. His name was David Schwarz*, the father of Swedish multiculturalism.

    * David Schwarz came from a Jewish family and was born in Poland in 1928. During the Second World War he was interned in four different concentration camps: Buchenwald, Nordhausen, Dora, and Bergen-Belsen. Like many other concentration camp interns he suffered from typhus and tuberculosis but Schwarz was luckier than many others and was placed in a sanatorium in Germany and later Italy where he resided until 1950. When the Italian sanatorium closed Schwarz was sent to Sweden where he was treated at various facilities until 1954.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Clyde says:
    @MEFOBILLS
    You touched on the main root problem:
    it’s not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) – but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind

    Abrogation means that pre-Medina doctrine is abrogated, it is "less" than post Medina. (When Mohammed was in Mecca, his teachings were the "peaceful phase.)

    Until Islam deals with Abrogation, then it cannot be taken seriously. Reform in Islam requires grappling with the problems inherent in Abrogation. In Christianity, a similar construct, called super-cession has new testament supersede old testament. The more violent and retrograde old testament, is put away and completed.

    Islam is thus opposite of Christianity, the more violent retrograde aspects of Islam are enshrined by abrogation. Takfiri behavior is is entirely in alignment with abrogations precepts.

    Imam's then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.

    This coupling of Imam power, abrogation and political Islam i.e. Sharia - can be a deadly combination.

    Islam's followers like Suffi's CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam, but that is NOT DOCTRINE. Suffis keep the crazy aunt in the basement, but she may break out any time.

    Even Islam’s magical peaceniks the Sufis, have engaged in slaughter and Jihad from time to time. You can look it up. But not as much as Sunnis and Shiites by a long shot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anonymous
    Yeah, he does, and apparently so do you.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg

    He looks southern Italian, Sicilian, Greek. He is respected among the alt right. You must be one dark Asiatic Turk. I went to school in Vienna and there were 2 kinds of Turks. The light-skinned Caucasian ones from the western, European side of Istanbul and the dark ones from the Asia Minor. Of course, the Austrians hated the dark ones, and light ones could be accepted if they converted to Christianity.

    Also, if there is a woman in your life is she Asian? Particularly Chinese? Involvement with Asian women, mostly Chinese ones, produces alot degeneracies. Again, Derbyshire is a perfect example of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He looks like a Muslim, which is what you look like apparently. He's Middle Eastern and has a fake English surname. He's not Italian or Greek. Southern Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, etc. have Middle Eastern and Negro admixture.

    He's not respected by the alt right:

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/717074871893757956
    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/766339170117771264
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @jacques sheete

    Do you think we’ll ever see an article written by the courageous Derbyshire entitled I Don’t HATE Jews—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference?
     
    That'd be one I'd read.

    No. Derbyshire is a semitophile. I read articles he wrote putting the Jews on a pedestal. He also wrote an article about parents giving children the “talk,” i.e., not to befriend blacks. This from a man with a Chinese wife and offspring. His writing keeps getting wackier. I would not be surprised if his Chinese offspring are dating black/Jews. Jews have high intermarriage rates with blacks/Asians. If they are dating black/Jews he should be happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Delinquent Snail
    Pretty sure the knights templar tried to wrestle power away and we all know how that turned out.

    Make a big enough example, and everyone follows suit.

    Pretty sure the knights templar tried to wrestle power away and we all know how that turned out.

    Bingo.

    The one known documented case of a martial/financial state within a state that challenged the authority of a sovereign in Europe ended with the challengers very dead indeed, with extreme prejudice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralis_Praeeminentiae

    The Rothschild family would have shared the fate of the Templars — substitute allegations of worshiping devil with drinking Christian blood — if they were in anyway challenging the established powers in Europe. They are the bankers of the powerful, with the Naple’s branch known as Vatican’s bankers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Naples_branch

    Why do the powerful in Christian realm use Jews?

    For one, Jews have an exceptional ability to make themselves useful to the powerful. If the Gypsies had the same qualities, we would be talking about the Gypsy conspiracy, but alas, they rather work at the margins and specialize in petty crimes.

    Second, to affect changes in Christian realms that would encounter resistance from the Church or population, it was and remains convenient to have Jews as the front. A: The Jews were not hobbled with constraints of the established dogma. B: They are competent and get things done. C: If shit hits the fan, its the Jew that takes the blame, and not their Lord.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafirov

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Anon

    What the Koran says about Jesus is heretical, so it is easy to judge its contents just from this.
     
    Well, yes, but based on your stated belief that IQism trumps revelation I would hardly have expected you of all people to make this (accurate) argument.

    Honestly I don't care if Mr. Spencer has read the Koran in Klingon-- I was interested in a simple statement of fact controverted between our author and a commenter of his.

    IQ does trump revelation. But you need a certain IQ to read the Scriptures. I am not an atheist. I believe in God because when I die I want answers. I am still am a Christian. I don’t belong to a church right now, but I follow the precepts of Christianity. They are made for the Western soul. We need to study religious documents to make decisions about what belief systems are the best and which are not. Islam is definitely evil and degenerate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Elias
    I don't hate Christians, but I'm prudent about them.

    I grew up in the South, and the town I lived in was home to the sort of crazy christians who believe in snake handling and speaking in tongues. Learned quickly that the week when they held their worldwide conventions was a great week to leave town to go see some Braves' games.

    Every 'terrorist' attack that has been close to me has been conducting by a crazy, fundamentalist radical CHRISTIAN. I lived in Atlanta when Eric Rudolph, the crazy, Christian, radical fundamentalist who bombed the Atlanta Olympics was conducting his bombing spree. Everytime one went off, I realized that I'd walked or stood in that spot at sometime previous. The bomb in the Atlanta Olympics went off in the nighttime music venue in the exact spot where I'd been standing 24 hours before.

    Then, after I left the South, another crazy, radical, fundamentalist Christian stages a murderous terrorist attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic just down the highway from me in Colorado Springs.

    I don't think a Muslim has conducted a terrorist attack within 1000 miles of me. I might be wrong about that, I haven't plotted every attack on google earth to make sure of it. But, still, in my life, its been a lot more likely that a crazy, radicalized Christian will decide to kill a bunch of people near me.

    I don't hate Christians, but I'm prudent about them. They seem to keep trying to kill me.

    [Endlessly repeating very short and totally vacuous comments isn't good behavior. If you want your comments published, start providing some serious thought and content to them, or else go off to some other website.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Robert Spencer
    Talha:

    In reality, I do not fabricate quotes or references. You're looking at the wrong source, a source I did not cite. Here is the source for my quotation that Ibn Juzayy says that Qur'an 9:5 is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an":

    https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html

    Ibn Juzayy on 9:5: "(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) Abrogating every peace treaty in the QurÕan. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive."

    I stand by the accuracy of my work. If you have more specific claims of my being dishonest or inaccurate, kindly post them here or email me at director@jihadwatch.org, and I will address them.

    Cordially,
    Robert Spencer

    Isn’t it amazing, dear forum, that both the sponsored head-choppers and their “watchers” in the West seem to agree on an extremist interpretation of Islam and should any Muslim raise objection to their extremist notions of Islam, then they are “bad” Muslims.

    Ibn Juzayy

    Let me get this straight. Because some guy in 14th century Andalusia has arrived at an understanding X (according to you) then we 21st century Muslims who have a different understanding Y are in error?

    Are you the same character that entertains the idea that you ‘know’ what is “whispered” in “every Muslim’s head”? Generally, that is a sign of a psychological problem. Normal, rational, people do not entertain the thought that they are privy to the mind of a billion people. It is crazy talk.

    Feel free to email me at administer@unrepentantHatemongerWatch.org. I’ll be happy to forward a list of mental health professionals in your area.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Druid says:
    @sansa
    I think you should get Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin's Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. They have arranged the Qur'an in chronological order, with the abrogated verses crossed out with a note as to which verse replaced it, and the most important texts in larger print. There is a long introduction which is one of the best explanations I've ever read of the problem facing us.

    This is an issue which everyone in the non-Muslim world needs to learn about and have an educated opinion on, based on well-documented facts.

    I admire Robert Spencer. He is possibly the best-informed person in the world on these issues. He is not hysterical or bigoted, but has a strong historical understanding of the foundations of our modern Islamic Resurgence.

    IN another words, a fake and adulterated Koran, as has been done by many in the west over the centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sansa
    Why don't you look at the book and see? Every verse has been translated by a venerable translator such as Pickthall, who converted to Islam. Its placement in the standard Qur'an is noted as well as the evidence supporting its placement in the chronological arrangement of this book in reverse order. In other words, the violent verses of the Medina years appearing before the earlier, abrogated, relatively peaceful verses of the Mecca years. And the abrogated verses are crossed out, with information given on the abrogating Islamic authorities. The normal order is the longest surat first, followed by the shorter and shorter ones, with no chronological or thematic connection, and the result of this is that it makes no sense to the casual reader.

    Muslims are not free to interpret it as they like. There are four accepted schools of Qur'anic interpretation and jurisprudence in the Sunni branch and another for the Shi'a. There are fourteen hundred years of Islamic jurisprudence, with meticulously reasoned justifications for every conclusion given. Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur'an and hadith. There are many mandates which a non-Muslim would find morally unacceptable, and there is no way to get past this. It is unfortunately the case that a billion and a half people have decided to support this ideology. There is no room for private interpretations which differ from the mainstream view.

    If you think it is fake or adulterated, then I ask you to look at it and put forward your specific grounds for maintaining this opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Druid says:
    @KenH
    I don't think Robert Spencer has a bee in his bonnet nor do I think he hates Muslims. When I was only vaguely familiar with his work I thought he might overstate things a bit, but recently I bought several of his books and have almost completed one. He argues very dispassionately and persuasively about Islamic doctrine and the threat that it poses to the West and how damning information is being concealed about "moderate" Muslim organizations in America and other parts of the world. I haven't detected any malice in his work thus far.

    I'm not saying he has all the answers or that he's right in all of his claims, but people really shouldn't arrogantly dismiss him unless they've examined his body of work instead of relying on ad hominem laced press releases from CAIR, ADL and other groups who have their own political agendas. If someone can come up with a cogent point by point refutation of major claims made by Spencer then I might take them more seriously.

    The other thing is that Spencer has never shied away from debate with Muslims and Western liberals and seems to gave gotten the best of most of his adversaries judging by youtube videos I've viewed. Ironically, it was an Icelandic left winger in Iceland who poisoned Spencer when he was speaking in that country and not a Muslim.

    My only gripe is that Spencer points out the saltier verses in the Koran and Islam's other foundational texts but not the Jewish Talmud. Or that only Islam poses a threat to the West but not Jews and Judaism or that Jews do not mistreat Christians.
    https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

    Of course he does!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Druid says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Talha, you miss the larger point. We in the West don't care about your sectarian disputes. We don't care and we don't want to be made to care. We don't care how you support your argument with which chapter and verse, which alleged expert of your funky religion.

    The point is, we don't want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse. We have finally purged Christian sectarian disputes from the forefront of our consciousness and now you Muzzies force us to bear with you while you hash out yours.

    As scientists, we of the West want to know more about ourselves and the universe we find ourselves in. Whether God or Allah or Jahweh loves one of us more than He does his neighbor or vice versa is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth.

    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors. We of the West have developed beyond that stage of human consciousness. Squabbling over religious canon lies behind us. Persons like you spend all your life's energy trying to drag it in front of us.

    Actually, you haven’t purged sectarian disputes. You now have zioevangelofascists to contend with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Druid says:
    @Anonymous
    Yeah, he does, and apparently so do you.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg

    He looks jewish

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. But try talking sense to whites who’ve been brain-cancered into thinking it is a GOOD THING that whites will be minorities in their own nations. It’s part of their mantra.

    It’s like all those idiot college students cheering Clinton’s speech that said whites will become a minority in the future.

    What morons. A few slogans repeated as nursery rhymes into their heads, and they really believe in that stuff. ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ are their charms of making.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo
    What we're going through is class warfare. Your inflamed ethnic sensibilities, per design, are preventing you from seeing what is happening. I assure you, on this planet, on the very tippy top of the pyramid, White European(-descent) men rule. And they intend to continue to rule.

    You belong to the no longer necessary middle class, so you have no invite and will not be getting the memo spelling things out.

    The very fact that a White politician is cheerleading the disempowerment of Whites should be your clue. Your second clue can be the fact that feminization of the male is directed at all men, not just White men.

    We are transitioning from a "geo-political world" order to "global socio-economic realms".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. sansa says:
    @Druid
    IN another words, a fake and adulterated Koran, as has been done by many in the west over the centuries.

    Why don’t you look at the book and see? Every verse has been translated by a venerable translator such as Pickthall, who converted to Islam. Its placement in the standard Qur’an is noted as well as the evidence supporting its placement in the chronological arrangement of this book in reverse order. In other words, the violent verses of the Medina years appearing before the earlier, abrogated, relatively peaceful verses of the Mecca years. And the abrogated verses are crossed out, with information given on the abrogating Islamic authorities. The normal order is the longest surat first, followed by the shorter and shorter ones, with no chronological or thematic connection, and the result of this is that it makes no sense to the casual reader.

    Muslims are not free to interpret it as they like. There are four accepted schools of Qur’anic interpretation and jurisprudence in the Sunni branch and another for the Shi’a. There are fourteen hundred years of Islamic jurisprudence, with meticulously reasoned justifications for every conclusion given. Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith. There are many mandates which a non-Muslim would find morally unacceptable, and there is no way to get past this. It is unfortunately the case that a billion and a half people have decided to support this ideology. There is no room for private interpretations which differ from the mainstream view.

    If you think it is fake or adulterated, then I ask you to look at it and put forward your specific grounds for maintaining this opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.
     
    So right on the proverbial tin (Sura al-Baqarah), the Quran states unequivicocally that it has no flaws but it will only benefit a specific set of people. The membership criteria for inclusion in this set is spelled out. There is no guess work, and very little room for "interpretation". You're either in this set (in which case it will be 'guidance') or you are not.

    Since it says, right there in the very beginning, that it is of benefit to a constrained set of "readers", you may wonder if its NOT-"benefitial" to those who do not meet the membership criteria.


    There is many a reciter of the Qur'an whom the Qur'an curses. -- Hadith
     
    Hah. So it turns out that reading the Qur'an may not be such a good idea -- curses -- for some people.

    Is it possible that these are those who do NOT meet the very clear and specific criteria spelled out in the 2nd Sura of this scripture?

    As for 'comprehending' the Qur'an, it also says:


    None may approach it but the Purified.
     
    Are you a "purified" one, sansa? Are the editors of the new-fangled arrangement "purified"? Do they even meet the criteria spelled out in Sura 2?

    Do you?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Talha says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    If all muslims were like you, there would be no problems. Your comments are always a pleasure to read. Thank you.

    Hey D Snail,

    My sincere thanks for taking the time to read them; my apologies that I can be quite long-winded at times. If there is anything good I bring, then it is due to God’s acceptance of the prayers of my parents and the efforts of my teachers. Anything bad is solely my own fault.

    May God grant you honor in this life and the next.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    He looks southern Italian, Sicilian, Greek. He is respected among the alt right. You must be one dark Asiatic Turk. I went to school in Vienna and there were 2 kinds of Turks. The light-skinned Caucasian ones from the western, European side of Istanbul and the dark ones from the Asia Minor. Of course, the Austrians hated the dark ones, and light ones could be accepted if they converted to Christianity.

    Also, if there is a woman in your life is she Asian? Particularly Chinese? Involvement with Asian women, mostly Chinese ones, produces alot degeneracies. Again, Derbyshire is a perfect example of this.

    He looks like a Muslim, which is what you look like apparently. He’s Middle Eastern and has a fake English surname. He’s not Italian or Greek. Southern Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, etc. have Middle Eastern and Negro admixture.

    He’s not respected by the alt right:

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Anonymous, again, you're a non-white Asiatic Turk. Robert Spencer has been quoted over at RadioAryan and the Daily Stormer. (((Laura Rubin)))??? You have this bizarre fixation on Italians, Greeks being black. You once commented that the Irish are black/Asian. They are not. You are projecting your own rejection in the West on a person who is accepted. Where I live there are many Italians and many look like Robert Spencer. They are Catholics. they sometimes get mistaken for Jews (they have told me this) but tell people they are Italian and Catholic. I mistook some for Jews and they said this. Robert Spencer is a deacon in his church. Besides your race issue, I'm sure you Muslim past is causing frustration. You claim to be an atheist but in a comment you sided with Talha and exposed yourself. Again, you are projecting your problems in the West on people who don't have problems in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Talha says:
    @Clyde
    lol You are trying to put the whammy on Robert Spencer. Why don't you summon up some wayward djinn to do it for you?

    No, no – I don’t swing that way. I’m going to do my best to avoid Mr. Spencer; still quite sore from having the “whammy” put to me…quite traumatic. I think I’ll have to beat the wife and kids to console myself.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Talha says:
    @MEFOBILLS
    You touched on the main root problem:
    it’s not like you can magically derive the rules or opinions of abrogation out of thin air) – but you want to ignore their writings when they disagree with you. Your are in an epistemological bind

    Abrogation means that pre-Medina doctrine is abrogated, it is "less" than post Medina. (When Mohammed was in Mecca, his teachings were the "peaceful phase.)

    Until Islam deals with Abrogation, then it cannot be taken seriously. Reform in Islam requires grappling with the problems inherent in Abrogation. In Christianity, a similar construct, called super-cession has new testament supersede old testament. The more violent and retrograde old testament, is put away and completed.

    Islam is thus opposite of Christianity, the more violent retrograde aspects of Islam are enshrined by abrogation. Takfiri behavior is is entirely in alignment with abrogations precepts.

    Imam's then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.

    This coupling of Imam power, abrogation and political Islam i.e. Sharia - can be a deadly combination.

    Islam's followers like Suffi's CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam, but that is NOT DOCTRINE. Suffis keep the crazy aunt in the basement, but she may break out any time.

    Hey MEFOBILLS,

    I was going to respond to your points, but then I came across this silliness:

    Imam’s then have enormous power to pick and choose passages, to then get the response they want. There is an element of deception also, since the Koran is not in chronological order.

    Look, if you say we made it up, then start and finish with that. It is silly to hash over details. We made the whole thing up; there is no abrogation, there are no Madinan verses and Makkan verses, etc. It all came actually at Tabuk (assuming that occurred) and then we just did whatever we wanted with it. You can’t trust what Muslim scholars write, they just lie about everything.

    Your argument is akin to calling your star witness to the stance (the Islamic tradition, as formulated by the Muslim scholars – unless you think Martians came up with these exegetical terms) to buttress your case and then, when the witness is cross examined and undermines your position – you turn to the jury and say, “Obviously, ladies and gentleman, the man is a liar.”

    I suggest investing some time into Greek logic (I was fortunate enough to take a course during my computer science studies at UCLA) and then coming up with a cogent, epistemologically sound argument. Otherwise it is a waste of both our time. I don’t feel like looking up medieval texts in Arabic so you can dismiss the arguments off hand as taqiyyah awesomeness.

    Islam’s followers like Suffi’s CHOOSE to ignore the more psychopathic/evil aspects of Islam

    Wow – I mean WOW! The name of Imam Suyuti (ra) has been referenced by both myself and Mr. Spencer (in his articles). You do know that he was a spiritual guide in the Shadhili Order, right?

    https://www.amazon.com/Sublime-Truths-Shadhili-Path/dp/1909460044

    Don’t get me started on Shaykh Bulandshahri (ra) – my own spiritual teacher used to give monthly lessons based on his book “Provisions for the Seekers”.

    It would help your position if you didn’t embarrass yourself on basic level knowledge of Islamic doctrine and history before you propose to teach me what it is*.

    Peace.

    *I think I understand how Mr. Martyanov feels when people try to give him lessons regarding Russian military topics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Are you seriously denying that Abrogation is not central to Islam? Are you denying that Abrogation is NOT operative.

    You have no argument, because the evidence is available for all to see. Imam's can issue fatwa's at any time, and their "Legal Argument" is bolstered by Abrogations tenents..

    These "scholars" know chronology of events, and which "ayats" they can conjure to get the effect they want. I am pushing right on the central nerve of Islam's defect, and you know it. This is why your response is mealy mouthed and does not address the problem.

    To abrogate means to abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority.

    This is a key term in studying the Quran. There are some peaceful, tolerant verses in the Quran. But the violent, intolerant ones have abrogated them. The Quran itself explains what to do with conflicting verses. If two passages conflict, it says, the one written later is better than the one written earlier. The earlier passage has been abrogated by the later one

    You and other Islamic scholars cannot answer these charges because they are demonstrably true. Islam requires reform, and it must begin with the abomination that is abrogation.

    http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/06/what-is-abrogation-in-islam.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @sansa
    Why don't you look at the book and see? Every verse has been translated by a venerable translator such as Pickthall, who converted to Islam. Its placement in the standard Qur'an is noted as well as the evidence supporting its placement in the chronological arrangement of this book in reverse order. In other words, the violent verses of the Medina years appearing before the earlier, abrogated, relatively peaceful verses of the Mecca years. And the abrogated verses are crossed out, with information given on the abrogating Islamic authorities. The normal order is the longest surat first, followed by the shorter and shorter ones, with no chronological or thematic connection, and the result of this is that it makes no sense to the casual reader.

    Muslims are not free to interpret it as they like. There are four accepted schools of Qur'anic interpretation and jurisprudence in the Sunni branch and another for the Shi'a. There are fourteen hundred years of Islamic jurisprudence, with meticulously reasoned justifications for every conclusion given. Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur'an and hadith. There are many mandates which a non-Muslim would find morally unacceptable, and there is no way to get past this. It is unfortunately the case that a billion and a half people have decided to support this ideology. There is no room for private interpretations which differ from the mainstream view.

    If you think it is fake or adulterated, then I ask you to look at it and put forward your specific grounds for maintaining this opinion.

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.

    So right on the proverbial tin (Sura al-Baqarah), the Quran states unequivicocally that it has no flaws but it will only benefit a specific set of people. The membership criteria for inclusion in this set is spelled out. There is no guess work, and very little room for “interpretation”. You’re either in this set (in which case it will be ‘guidance’) or you are not.

    Since it says, right there in the very beginning, that it is of benefit to a constrained set of “readers”, you may wonder if its NOT-”benefitial” to those who do not meet the membership criteria.

    There is many a reciter of the Qur’an whom the Qur’an curses. — Hadith

    Hah. So it turns out that reading the Qur’an may not be such a good idea — curses — for some people.

    Is it possible that these are those who do NOT meet the very clear and specific criteria spelled out in the 2nd Sura of this scripture?

    As for ‘comprehending’ the Qur’an, it also says:

    None may approach it but the Purified.

    Are you a “purified” one, sansa? Are the editors of the new-fangled arrangement “purified”? Do they even meet the criteria spelled out in Sura 2?

    Do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.
     
    Apparently homegirl has never heard about the concept of qiyas (analogical deduction) without which it would be totally halal for us to use crack cocaine.

    The Dhahiri school was literalist - but that school's been dead for centuries. He was a good man, but the school was an intellectual dinosaur; extinction was natural.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Truth says:
    @Talha
    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The point is, we don’t want religious doctrinal garbage cluttering up our social discourse.
     
    Sweet! So I'm cool with not talking about Islam and its doctrines if everyone else is - doesn't that sound reasonable? After all - this was an article about Muslims, what is and is not Islamic doctrine, and people claiming to write about it.

    is not of the slightest concern to the intelligent person pursuing Truth
     
    Sure - I get it, it's taken the West a lot of effort to get where it is; patriarchy is almost on its last legs, getting laid is pretty easy to come by, "muh blasphemy" is recognized as a human right, gay pride parades are ubiquitous in practically all major cities. It's actually pretty impressive - I don't believe any other people have progressed this far on so many issues. And a large Muslim population is likely going to throw a monkey wrench in all that - I feel your pain.

    Excuse me for a moment as I make a quick PSA...
    "Truth" you hearing this! You better run, bro - this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo' Black *ss! And they ain't interested in religion stopping them neither!


    Take your religion and your disputatious disposition back to your home and work it out with your enemies/friends/neighbors.
     
    Look this isn't the schoolyard OK. If I told you - "You better stop eating pork, kafir!" - would you do it? Like I have told others - if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up - there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West - forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed - you will likely have a good amount of overlap:
    https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

    When I receive my official Federal notice in the mail that I am no longer considered a citizen and have a certain number of days to leave; I will start getting my finances in gear, sell my property, etc. because I am obligated by the sacred law to obey the legal canon of my host country.

    Here is a refresher on how this all works:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpdxEMelR0

    Peace.

    “Truth” you hearing this! You better run, bro – this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo’ Black *ss! And they ain’t interested in religion stopping them neither!

    Now I’m scared.

    Look this isn’t the schoolyard OK. If I told you – “You better stop eating pork, kafir!” – would you do it? Like I have told others – if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up – there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West – forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed – you will likely have a good amount of overlap:

    This is EXACTLY what I keep saying. If you don’t like it, do something about it. It’s YOUR country, not mine, not Talha’s you keep saying this. It’s your government. The representatives look like you not me.

    But for all that is well and good, stop whining about these things on a @#$%^&* website in-between games of Grand Theft Auto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I literally gave people a viable game plan, it's up to them to follow it through - I can't hold their hands through the whole process. Start tomorrow; make the call to NRA, get their member lists, get the petitions going, get the email groups created, start getting the funds together, start designing a logo, etc. If you need help; another effective one-issue group to get tips from is AIPAC. Just make sure to get them to understand that you're only going to be targeting Muslims...first.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Truth says:
    @Anonymous
    Yeah, he does, and apparently so do you.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Robert_Spencer.jpg

    Atilla, I’m sorry Babe, but if that Kat put on a yamaka and walked through Tel Aviv, nobody would speak to him in English

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    True, but where I live there are many Italian Catholics who look like him. If these Italian Catholics also put on a kipah, one would assume they are Jewish. Read my comment to Anonymous once it's published.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Talha says:
    @survey-of-disinfo

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.
     
    So right on the proverbial tin (Sura al-Baqarah), the Quran states unequivicocally that it has no flaws but it will only benefit a specific set of people. The membership criteria for inclusion in this set is spelled out. There is no guess work, and very little room for "interpretation". You're either in this set (in which case it will be 'guidance') or you are not.

    Since it says, right there in the very beginning, that it is of benefit to a constrained set of "readers", you may wonder if its NOT-"benefitial" to those who do not meet the membership criteria.


    There is many a reciter of the Qur'an whom the Qur'an curses. -- Hadith
     
    Hah. So it turns out that reading the Qur'an may not be such a good idea -- curses -- for some people.

    Is it possible that these are those who do NOT meet the very clear and specific criteria spelled out in the 2nd Sura of this scripture?

    As for 'comprehending' the Qur'an, it also says:


    None may approach it but the Purified.
     
    Are you a "purified" one, sansa? Are the editors of the new-fangled arrangement "purified"? Do they even meet the criteria spelled out in Sura 2?

    Do you?

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.

    Apparently homegirl has never heard about the concept of qiyas (analogical deduction) without which it would be totally halal for us to use crack cocaine.

    The Dhahiri school was literalist – but that school’s been dead for centuries. He was a good man, but the school was an intellectual dinosaur; extinction was natural.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    Apparently homegirl has never heard about the concept of qiyas (analogical deduction) without which it would be totally halal for us to use crack cocaine.

     

    Indeed.

    Salaam!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Talha says:
    @Truth

    “Truth” you hearing this! You better run, bro – this guy says a bunch of intelligent people are after you! They gonna lynch yo’ Black *ss! And they ain’t interested in religion stopping them neither!
     
    Now I'm scared.


    Look this isn’t the schoolyard OK. If I told you – “You better stop eating pork, kafir!” – would you do it? Like I have told others – if you live in the West, there is no need to get riled up – there are legal means to deal with the situation. And these are not shouting at people over anonymous boards. You guys should spend your time doing the following:
    1) Contact your representatives and outline why Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and forcibly relocated to Muslim lands.
    2) Come up with a single-issue organization that votes as a bloc on only one thing; legal relocation of Muslims from the West – forget abortion, foreign policy, economic trade pacts, welfare, etc. Make every representative know they will be graded and publicly made known. I would suggest working with the NRA (the preeminent one-issue group) to get tips on how to proceed – you will likely have a good amount of overlap:
     
    This is EXACTLY what I keep saying. If you don't like it, do something about it. It's YOUR country, not mine, not Talha's you keep saying this. It's your government. The representatives look like you not me.

    But for all that is well and good, stop whining about these things on a @#$%^&* website in-between games of Grand Theft Auto.

    I literally gave people a viable game plan, it’s up to them to follow it through – I can’t hold their hands through the whole process. Start tomorrow; make the call to NRA, get their member lists, get the petitions going, get the email groups created, start getting the funds together, start designing a logo, etc. If you need help; another effective one-issue group to get tips from is AIPAC. Just make sure to get them to understand that you’re only going to be targeting Muslims…first.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Truth

    Well, it’s easy not to mind it when it’s thousands of miles away. Then you can pretend it’s all about romantic oases, genies in bottles and magic carpets.

    ... I’d certainly far prefer to live under a SJW tyranny than in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, any day
     
    .

    Well, you see; the genie answered your prayer.

    ROTFL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al60Jvi7mm0


    But try talking sense to whites who've been brain-cancered into thinking it is a GOOD THING that whites will be minorities in their own nations. It's part of their mantra.

    It's like all those idiot college students cheering Clinton's speech that said whites will become a minority in the future.

    What morons. A few slogans repeated as nursery rhymes into their heads, and they really believe in that stuff. 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' are their charms of making.

    What we’re going through is class warfare. Your inflamed ethnic sensibilities, per design, are preventing you from seeing what is happening. I assure you, on this planet, on the very tippy top of the pyramid, White European(-descent) men rule. And they intend to continue to rule.

    You belong to the no longer necessary middle class, so you have no invite and will not be getting the memo spelling things out.

    The very fact that a White politician is cheerleading the disempowerment of Whites should be your clue. Your second clue can be the fact that feminization of the male is directed at all men, not just White men.

    We are transitioning from a “geo-political world” order to “global socio-economic realms”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    So you're saying that our elites are really waging class warfare upon whites via mass third world immigration and other means of demographic displacement? Not only are we not being invited to the middle class, whites are being disinvited from existing, but thankfully we have eagle eyed observers such as yourself to assure us that its not really about race even though racial hatred of whites is a major component of the sweeping demographic changes that are in place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Talha

    Muslims must adhere to the letter of the Qur’an and hadith.
     
    Apparently homegirl has never heard about the concept of qiyas (analogical deduction) without which it would be totally halal for us to use crack cocaine.

    The Dhahiri school was literalist - but that school's been dead for centuries. He was a good man, but the school was an intellectual dinosaur; extinction was natural.

    Peace.

    Apparently homegirl has never heard about the concept of qiyas (analogical deduction) without which it would be totally halal for us to use crack cocaine.

    Indeed.

    Salaam!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Anonymous
    He looks like a Muslim, which is what you look like apparently. He's Middle Eastern and has a fake English surname. He's not Italian or Greek. Southern Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, etc. have Middle Eastern and Negro admixture.

    He's not respected by the alt right:

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/717074871893757956
    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/766339170117771264

    Anonymous, again, you’re a non-white Asiatic Turk. Robert Spencer has been quoted over at RadioAryan and the Daily Stormer. (((Laura Rubin)))??? You have this bizarre fixation on Italians, Greeks being black. You once commented that the Irish are black/Asian. They are not. You are projecting your own rejection in the West on a person who is accepted. Where I live there are many Italians and many look like Robert Spencer. They are Catholics. they sometimes get mistaken for Jews (they have told me this) but tell people they are Italian and Catholic. I mistook some for Jews and they said this. Robert Spencer is a deacon in his church. Besides your race issue, I’m sure you Muslim past is causing frustration. You claim to be an atheist but in a comment you sided with Talha and exposed yourself. Again, you are projecting your problems in the West on people who don’t have problems in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The tweet is from Richard Spencer, not Laura Rubin. Richard Spencer is English and has an English surname. Robert Spencer is not English. He is Middle Eastern and has a fake English name. Robert Spencer looks Middle Eastern, like you. Southern Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, etc. have Middle Eastern and Negro admixture. That's why they look like Muslim migrants:

    https://twitter.com/AutisticSaxon/status/926949689190223873
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Truth
    Atilla, I'm sorry Babe, but if that Kat put on a yamaka and walked through Tel Aviv, nobody would speak to him in English

    True, but where I live there are many Italian Catholics who look like him. If these Italian Catholics also put on a kipah, one would assume they are Jewish. Read my comment to Anonymous once it’s published.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. El Dato says:
    @Art Deco
    You and I are supposed to believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was just an accident as well,

    Because that's the only explanation that makes any sense. However, people with an intense animus toward Jews fancy they kill people just because. The source of your misunderstandings you can find in the mirror.

    Because that’s the only explanation that makes any sense.

    If the attack on the Liberty was an accident, then so were airliners crashing into WTC.

    A moment of inattention, and it’s all over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. KenH says:
    @survey-of-disinfo
    What we're going through is class warfare. Your inflamed ethnic sensibilities, per design, are preventing you from seeing what is happening. I assure you, on this planet, on the very tippy top of the pyramid, White European(-descent) men rule. And they intend to continue to rule.

    You belong to the no longer necessary middle class, so you have no invite and will not be getting the memo spelling things out.

    The very fact that a White politician is cheerleading the disempowerment of Whites should be your clue. Your second clue can be the fact that feminization of the male is directed at all men, not just White men.

    We are transitioning from a "geo-political world" order to "global socio-economic realms".

    So you’re saying that our elites are really waging class warfare upon whites via mass third world immigration and other means of demographic displacement? Not only are we not being invited to the middle class, whites are being disinvited from existing, but thankfully we have eagle eyed observers such as yourself to assure us that its not really about race even though racial hatred of whites is a major component of the sweeping demographic changes that are in place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Avery says:
    @Zogby
    No, he doesn’t.
    It is not a call to have Muslims all jailed or executed, but it's a call to have them all banned from the US. That's a form of collective punishment - just not capital collective punishment. Just like the left's call to ban arms (or arms of certain kinds) to everyone is a form of collective punishment, but not the most severe of punishment. Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.

    {….. but it’s a call to have them all banned from the US.}

    Yes.

    { Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.}

    Crime ? What crime?
    Every country has the right to say “NO” to someone, anyone, who wants to immigrate to that country.
    Muslims, or anybody else, who is not allowed into US is no worse off staying in their own country.
    They are (potentially) not better off not being in the US, but they are no worse off.
    So what so-called ‘punishment’ are you talking about?
    Not being rewarded is being ‘punished’ under Islamologic?

    If you have a Muslim prayer gathering and discussion of Quran in your house, and some Christian proselytizers find out about it and decide to show up uninvited, and you don’t let them in, are you quote ‘punishing’ them? Of course not: your house, your rules.

    Same with US.
    Is not allowing Muslims as a group into US discriminatory? Sure is.
    Unfair to Muslims? Most likely.
    So?
    No foreigner has an inherent right to immigrate to US.
    Nevertheless, the 1965 Immigration Law prohibits immigration discrimination based on religion.
    If US can’t find loopholes to ban most Muslim immigration, then maybe _all_ immigration ought to be stopped until further notice.
    To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.}

    Exhibit A:

    [Muslims in East London: Violence, Racism, Bigotry and Hooliganism]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZe5hXodQg



    Americans who oppose opening the floodgates to Muslim immigration into US are justifiably concerned that what has happened in Europe will be repeated here if things don't change.
    Is there any other group of immigrants - other than Muslims - that does this sort of thing in the (Christian) country they immigrate to?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. the attack on the Liberty was …

    very likely a joint false flag operation between US & Israeli military which would subsequently be blamed on Arabs to provide the excuse for US to insert itself into the conflict. It is not the ‘magical Jew voodoo’ that is keeping US Navy from addressing that event. It is a can of worms, that is all. This op. was either canceled (because no longer necessary), or the Israelis mucked it up so it had to be aborted.

    (Yes, I know, “unthinkable” that US brass would sacrifice their own soldiers …)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. 1) Good article, but I cant help but thinking that it’s well nigh past-time for apologizing for opposing Islam. What? Is the enemy going to let up on us because they see what decent, logically-consistent, chaps we are? So Derb, though interesting as always, may be doing the Cause no service here. Displaying weakness, right now, could get you killed.

    2) I am immediately going to violate my “Number One” above to High Signal a disambiguation about Islam. It is this: As a traditional Catholic, I would be more comfortable under Sharia Law (No usury, no faggotry, no abortion, no nudity) than the current SJW Reign of Terror. But I still want an anti-Muslim immigration policy. When it comes to SJW, it’s Ourselves Alone” (Sinn Fein): we’ll solve the shitlibbery problem as a family, somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Your no. 2 comment is a doozy. But here's a more important question for a trad RCCer: Do you accept black/Asian priests-popes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Reading Spencer’s Wiki biography two things pop out:

    1) That some dildo in the Patent office was able to stop Spencer’s trademark on ideological grounds is one of the scariest Big Brother things I’ve read. Of course it’s not so much a case of Big Brother as it is “the Hive”.

    2) This is indeed a bon mot: Spencer said, “There is one kind of diversity that is not valued generally in an academic setting and that is intellectual diversity.”[56]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  187. Avery says:
    @Avery
    {..... but it’s a call to have them all banned from the US.}

    Yes.

    { Collective punishment is a call to punish people who are not directly guilty of the crime and have not committed a crime.}

    Crime ? What crime?
    Every country has the right to say "NO" to someone, anyone, who wants to immigrate to that country.
    Muslims, or anybody else, who is not allowed into US is no worse off staying in their own country.
    They are (potentially) not better off not being in the US, but they are no worse off.
    So what so-called 'punishment' are you talking about?
    Not being rewarded is being 'punished' under Islamologic?

    If you have a Muslim prayer gathering and discussion of Quran in your house, and some Christian proselytizers find out about it and decide to show up uninvited, and you don't let them in, are you quote 'punishing' them? Of course not: your house, your rules.

    Same with US.
    Is not allowing Muslims as a group into US discriminatory? Sure is.
    Unfair to Muslims? Most likely.
    So?
    No foreigner has an inherent right to immigrate to US.
    Nevertheless, the 1965 Immigration Law prohibits immigration discrimination based on religion.
    If US can't find loopholes to ban most Muslim immigration, then maybe _all_ immigration ought to be stopped until further notice.
    To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.

    {To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.}

    Exhibit A:

    [Muslims in East London: Violence, Racism, Bigotry and Hooliganism]

    Americans who oppose opening the floodgates to Muslim immigration into US are justifiably concerned that what has happened in Europe will be repeated here if things don’t change.
    Is there any other group of immigrants – other than Muslims – that does this sort of thing in the (Christian) country they immigrate to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    While I certainly don't agree with the kind of behavior I saw on that video - especially the foul language and the threats of violence - I hardly see this as being a uniquely Muslim (or even immigrant) phenomenon.

    The people holding that march were being deliberately provocative and insulting in what looks to be a Muslim-majority neighborhood. How do you expect people to react? I mean seriously? The younger hot heads of that community (like other communities) will take the bait.

    Let's take East LA. If you had a group of Whites brandishing American flags with megaphones walking through the streets saying; "All you stinking, wet-back beaners ruined this neighborhood!" About how well do you think it would go?

    Take immigrants out of it. Have the same people go to a part of Detroit and say; "This used to be a nice respectable White area before you niggers and your whores moved in here!" Suspect they would be greeted with free baskets of fried chicken and bean pie?

    Or even go in an area with back to back trailer parks and start yelling; "You know, this place was a nice place to live until all you White trash started moving in!" Then see what happens.

    The only place I'm not sure about is China Town.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Talha says:
    @Avery
    {To prevent what has already happened in Europe from happening here in US.}

    Exhibit A:

    [Muslims in East London: Violence, Racism, Bigotry and Hooliganism]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZe5hXodQg



    Americans who oppose opening the floodgates to Muslim immigration into US are justifiably concerned that what has happened in Europe will be repeated here if things don't change.
    Is there any other group of immigrants - other than Muslims - that does this sort of thing in the (Christian) country they immigrate to?

    Yo Avery,

    While I certainly don’t agree with the kind of behavior I saw on that video – especially the foul language and the threats of violence – I hardly see this as being a uniquely Muslim (or even immigrant) phenomenon.

    The people holding that march were being deliberately provocative and insulting in what looks to be a Muslim-majority neighborhood. How do you expect people to react? I mean seriously? The younger hot heads of that community (like other communities) will take the bait.

    Let’s take East LA. If you had a group of Whites brandishing American flags with megaphones walking through the streets saying; “All you stinking, wet-back beaners ruined this neighborhood!” About how well do you think it would go?

    Take immigrants out of it. Have the same people go to a part of Detroit and say; “This used to be a nice respectable White area before you niggers and your whores moved in here!” Suspect they would be greeted with free baskets of fried chicken and bean pie?

    Or even go in an area with back to back trailer parks and start yelling; “You know, this place was a nice place to live until all you White trash started moving in!” Then see what happens.

    The only place I’m not sure about is China Town.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey Cato,

    My impression is that there is even more diversity among Muslims.
     
    To a certain degree yes, and to a certain degree no.

    The beliefs of Muslims (meaning creed) is actually amazingly uniform across the Sunnis and on core principles, we actually don't differ much from Shias. It is quite extraordinary since we've never held synods or councils or had the equivalent of the sanhedrin to figure out what is orthodox and heterodox. It kind of bubbled up by itself through (world wide) debates in the medieval period.

    As far as jurisprudence or praxis, then there has been wide leeway and there has been a general respect for difference of opinions on these matters. The only thing that mattered was; is the person making a juristic opinion qualified to do so. And that determination was made by his peer jurists (just as a board of doctors or lawyers confers a degree to people of their trade and how top surgeons are ranked by their own peers). For instance, in the class I currently take with a Hanafi mufti, we study the Hidayah of Imam Marghinani (ra). It is a comparative juristic work which shows the Hanafi schools ruling on matters and proofs for how they are derived. Almost every other page the text shows what the divergent opinion of Imam Shafi'i (ra) is on a matter and how he is mistaken, but always puts (رحمة الله عليه - May God have mercy on him) after his name.

    The takfiris break with all of this. For them, there is only one way to interpret Islam and it is theirs. Anyone else is not only wrong, but they are excommunicated. As you can see in the video by Prof. Cook, these people won't even recognize giants in our tradition like Imam Nawawi (ra) as baseline Muslims. In their eyes, there are practically about 20 million Muslims in the world maybe - max. The fact that they would pull off suicide bombings in the middle of Ramadan in the city of the Prophet (pbuh) shows the depth of their delusional thinking:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36706761

    And you can see how they even deal with their own scholars that they disagree with in that jihadica.com (an awesome resource by the way to find out exactly what these takfiri groups are up to and writing about) by setting them up for assassination.

    This kind of thinking goes all the way back to the first takfiris that arose at the time of the Companions (ra) - they were calling Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) - the fourth caliph, cousin of the Prophet (pbuh), and jurist of the highest rank