Facts Don’t Matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer

Everyone keeps claiming that Robert Spencer is this big time “scholar.” Yet, it seems that he could care less when it comes to the facts. In a recent rant about the Chicago man who was arrested after planting what he thought was a real bomb in a dumpster outside of Wrigley Field, Spencer penned this:

Got to watch out for those “Chicago men,” especially during yet another long summer of frustration at Wrigley, as Sweet Lou Piniella has ridden off into the sunset with no end in sight for the Cub Fan’s frustration. It would drive anyone to plant a bomb, now, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?

He seems to lament the fact that the media, quite responsibly, called the suspect, Sami Hassoun, as a “Chicago man,” rather than identifying him by his religion. Presumably, looking at his Facebook page, he is Muslim since he did have a status saying “eid mubarak.” Still, Spencer seemed to not like the fact that the news reported him as he is: a Chicago man.

Once again, however, Robert Spencer’s “scholarship” shows in his total disregard for the facts. Had he bothered to even do a simple Google search, rather than just post the headline and move on, he would have found that this “Chicago man,” Sami Hassoun, had absolutely no religious motivation for his alleged attack:

Authorities said Hassoun wasn’t motivated by religious or political views but rather by a bizarre desire to undermine the mayor’s political support and allow an associate to take control of the city. He also hoped to profit from the scheme by being paid for his terrorism work by supporters, the charges alleged.

In fact, according to the authorities, Hassoun had even suggested that they blame the attacks on Muslim extremists:

Hassoun suggested the plotters attempt to put blame for the attack on Muslim extremists.

When undercover agents told Hassoun their group wanted to change how the U.S. treated people “back home,” Hassoun seemed uninterested in ideology.

“Mine is a different kind of concept than this,” Hassoun said. “We’re floating same boat, you know. … We’re doing the same thing, but everybody has their own interest. … The results of this is a benefit to everybody.”

So, this man had absolutely no religious motivation behind his plot to bomb Wrigleyville. He never mentioned Islam or “jihad,” or the Qur’an as his motivation. No “taqiyya,” or “kitman,” or any other term that Spencer uses to mislead the public. He told his informants why he wanted to commit terrorism:

Hassoun was critical of Daley, telling the informant that the mayor’s policies had weakened security in the city and once saying he wanted to foment a “revolution” in the city, according to the charges.

But, that doesn’t matter to Robert Spencer. It seems that if any criminal commits a crime and happens to be a Muslim, then “poof” he becomes a “Islamic Jihadist” bent upon destroying the West. Facts just don’t matter to the “scholar” Robert Spencer.

76 thoughts on “Facts Don’t Matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer

  1. As I’ve said before, just because a Muslim does something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s because of Islam. Unfortunately for Spencer, such a fact cannot help him “feather his nest”, and since he prioritizes his hatred (and the money he’s making from it) more than the truth, he cannot be considered reliable, but can only be seen as dishonest.

  2. I bet Sheikh Spencer just read that guys name, thought he was too brown to not be a terrorist, and went crazy like he usually does. I’ve seen him do this all the time on his hate site. He hides information by using (…) and his readers don’t click the link as they trust Spencer.

  3. You’re right, the fact that this man was reportedly intent on waging ‘jihad’ on American streets apparently doesn’t matter.

    HASSOUN, according to a law enforcement source close to this author, is a “devout Muslim and permanent legal resident from Lebanon.” He appeared on the radar screen of federal authorities in early June, when he solicited assistance and advice from associates to “wage jihad on the streets of America.”

    According to this law enforcement source, HASSOUN discussed plans that included, among other things, to use chemical or biological agents in populated areas of Chicago, poison Lake Michigan, detonate a bomb at Willis Tower (formerly named the Sears Tower), assassinate public officials including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and kill a large contingent of police officers and first responders. In June, HASSOUN was directed to an undercover FBI agent whom he believed was a “jihadist contact.” HASSOUN “worked” with the undercover agent through August, at which point he decided to plant a powerful “anti-personnel” bomb in a crowded area near Wrigley Field last Saturday night. While under direct FBI surveillance, HASSOUN was provided with a realistic looking but inert bomb and given instructions on how to use it. Agents arrested HASSOUN as he placed the inert bomb inside of a trash container in an area filled with people and popular night spots near the corner of Eddy and Clark Street, about one block south of Wrigley Field.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27889

    • You’re right, Bob. It doesn’t matter, since, even if we are to believe CFP’s nonsense, the incident in question has nothing to do with it, since the objectives of the incident in question have nothing to do with any “waging ‘jihad’ on American streets”, or religion.

    • Trusty news site there, JihadBob!

      They have a countdown until Obama leaves office. Let’s take a look at what really happened. The FBI caught him in a sting operation and he has a problem with the mayor.

      “The agents paid him $2,700 so Hassoun could quit his job and focus on planning attacks. He scouted out potential bomb sites with an FBI-owned camera. When one of the undercover agents said Hassoun’s attack would send a message about how America treats Arab people, Hassoun said he didn’t agree, that he just wanted to wrest political power from Daley through attacks that would terrify Chicagoans. He said he didn’t know how exactly the attacks would translate into political power.”

      Who do you trust some dodgy Canadian site or reputable news agencies such as Reuters.

      • So I guess ChicagoTribune is a legitimate source because it agrees with your position, and CanadaFreePress is not a legitimate source because it doesn’t agree with your position.

        Look up “confirmation bias.”

        • Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the CanadaFreePress contradict every news source that isn’t tailored for right wing conspiracy theorists.

          > “HASSOUN, according to a law enforcement source close to this author, is a “devout Muslim and permanent legal resident from Lebanon.”

          A “law enforcement officer close to this author”?

          Yep, a guy whose existence isn’t even confirmable knows what a “devout Muslim” is.

          It sounds like world class BS.

  4. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/7213400.html

    [i]His version of the American dream, Abraham said, was “to make fast money” — and fast fame.

    “The guy was starving for attention — any way he can get attention,” said Abraham, who recalled first meeting Hassoun when Hassoun worked at a nearby bakery and delivered baklava to Abraham’s Lebanese restaurant in Chicago.

    Abraham said Hassoun did not appear to have any affiliation with extremists. Although Hassoun came from a region in Lebanon where most people are Shia Muslims, Abraham said, he wasn’t religious himself — drinking and often going to nightclubs.

    “He thought of himself as a ladies man,” Abraham said. “He was from one girl to another — breaking up with people really fast. He was having problems.” [/i]

    Of course, spencer and his cronies like jihadbob will scream out ‘tiqaya!’. Yep, years of tiqaya finally leading up to the mission of dropping off a small bomb into a garbage bin.

  5. Sami Hassoun, as a “Chicago man,” rather than identifying him by his religion.

    Funny, ya’ll don’t seem to be lamenting articles that do mention an individual’s ethnicity or religion, such as the street vendor who happened to be a Muslim who helped to alert authorities when an Islamist tried to blow up Times Square or this article highlighting an informant’s Arab ethnicity:

    http://newamericamedia.org/2010/09/would-be-chicago-bomber-captured-with-arab-americans-help-1.php

      • That the objection to what Spencer said about mentioning the religion/ethnicity of individuals who make the news isn’t based on principal, it’s pure PR .

        • Well, given that the article mentioned the ethnicity of the suspect, it is only fair to also mention the ethnicity of the one who reported him, especially since the article is calling him a “hero”.

          If it were PR, then it shouldn’t have mentioned the ethnicity of the suspect at all.

        • This is pretty much the same nonsensical arguments you keep finding yourself in, because it’s hard to intellectually defend your generalizations and hateful bigtory. After you’re shown that you’re wrong, again, you try to squirm your way around with specious reasoning this time asking why people here aren’t upset at articles using ‘muslim’ when a muslim does something good..which is actually a blow to the islamaphobes.

          But continue to keep making a fool of yourself.

  6. “Abraham said, he wasn’t religious himself — drinking and often going to nightclubs”

    Yep, like the Canadafreepress said
    HASSOUN, according to a law enforcement source close to this author, is a “devout Muslim and permanent legal resident from Lebanon.”

    Wait, what? WTF is going on here?
    Devout Muslims don’t drink and party or go “from one girl to another “: unless of course they are using taqiyya and plotting to take over America and install Sharia law by planting fake bombs in garbage bins.

  7. Here’s a gem of a comment on this JW article. I can’t believe how people can be so narrow-minded, and so ardent in their bigotry.

    JJ, I know exactly what you mean. One of the problems is that non-Muslims go to Muslim sources for explanations of the Islam. They don’t see any bias, they see it as consulting “authorities” who have inside information.

    As long as people have this kind of mentality, they’ll never be able to see why normal people think they’re so stupid.

    • Uhm, when was the last time you needed to consult ‘Christian’ sources to understand ‘True’ Christianity?

      It is only for Islam that one must consult the ‘proper’ sources.

      • I can cherry-pick too.

        “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Number 31:17)

        “You shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.” (Deuteronomy 17:5)

        “Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women.” (Ezekiel 9:6)

        “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

        No need for scholarly interpretation or historical context to understand these self-explanatory verses. Judaism and Christianity must be “all about” killing women and children. (sarcasm intended)

      • I wouldn’t go to Richard Dawkins for info on religion.

        And common sense tells me not to go Robet “Reconquest of Anatolia” Spencer for info on Islam (or anything for that matter).

      • Yeah, why consult people who have dedicated their life to studying and understanding Islam, or just about any other field. Just listen to spencer and jihadbob, they got all the BS you need.

      • Why should I go to a Doctor for medicine when I can buy it from a dodgy Taiwanese website at half price!

        Why should I invest my money in a bank when a Nigerian prince is offering me a chance to double my money!

  8. Genius. That’s like saying;

    The problem is, most people go to doctors to get information on medicine.

    I mean, who the hell else are you supposed to go to? Wait I know this one. Bob Spencer right? Please as if he doesn’t have any bias. Your logic is disgusting.

      • No one’s siding with radical Muslims. You’re siding with Spencer wh has advocated reconquista of Turkey, the forced removal of it’s inhabitants, a new crusade, the wiping of Pakistan off the map, supported far right Islamophobes in Europe that have previously denied the holocaust and much more check out loon watch’s archive on Spencer.

      • That’s tantamount to saying,

        Yeah, and the radical doctors you side with don’t have any bias either

        People who want information on Islam don’t go to radicals dumbfuck. Is that even an argument? Just because somebody opposes Robert Spencer doesn’t mean they side with radicals. Ever heard of logic? Learn to develop it when you try to make an argument.

        • How are the radicals misinterpreting Islam? Seems to me, they are following the Qur’an very closely and trying to follow Muhammad’s example.

          • Then why are you calling them radicals? Why the distinction? And it’s funny how I never said anything about radicals misinterpreting Islam…but you somehow thought I did.

            But I love this little argument you people have put together. I mean, without it, Mr. Spencer wouldn’t have a six figure income now would he? Keep that crap at JihadWatch will ya?

    • That isn’t what the quote said, here it is again, for your convenience:

      JJ, I know exactly what you mean. One of the problems is that non-Muslims go to Muslim sources for explanations of the Islam. They don’t see any bias, they see it as consulting “authorities” who have inside information.

      Mentioning MD’s is just absurd.

      Since when did one who wanted to learn of Christianity need to consult Catholic theologians or Protestant historians to obtain ‘true’ knowledge of Christianity?

      Did Mosizzle, in a post below, contact the Vatican to fact check his screed before he clicked submit?

      Obviously not. So why should one be surprised at the reaction of the poster you quoted from JihadWatch when they marvel at this phenomenon regarding Islam?

      If Islam has official authorities one must consult, who are the officially approved Christian sources of information when it comes to Christianity?

      • Since when did one who wanted to learn of Christianity need to consult Catholic theologians or Protestant historians to obtain ‘true’ knowledge of Christianity?

        Since forever. Just because people don’t do it any more doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary. I’ve seen countless Muslims fail to disprove the Trinity properly because they didn’t consult a priest or someone knowledgeable. in Christianity. Then you have people like Ahmed Deedat who was always in contact with Christian missionaries and was able to stun them with his logic.

        As for “proper” sources of Christianity, I would say a Priest or Nun would be cool. I wouldn’t recommend the new Christian Churches because they’re nuts and too busy singing and dancing to focus on theology. Check out a few Catholic Priests, but make sure they’re not of the “Pedo” variety.

        By the way, why should I consult the Vatican about any of my posts on this page when none of them, apart from this one, references Catholicism. And that is a good question for the Vatican — Why the Pedophilia?

        All we sayin’ is if you could fact check your information from a few “respected” scholars of Islam or an Imam (not cave mullahs) then you might feel differently about Islam. Similarly, Muslims could benefit from talking to Priests or Rabbis. But you, being white and all, think you’re better than Muslims so you should make the first move.

      • Use your head dipshit. Would you go to a priest for information on Christianity, or would you go to a Muslim who happened to read the bible and christened himself a scholar of Christianity?…it’s common sense.

        They don’t see the bias

        The bias, if any, would come from non-Muslim sources. But that’s exactly what JW followers would want isn’t it? For people ignorant of Islam to get their information from biased (and incorrect sources, ie: Spencer). But to do that, you must first pronounce the Muslim sources as biased (remember, they all practice taqiyya!!!). It’s a little game you people play with the minds of the ignorant in order to sway their perception of Islam. It’s why Robert Spencer makes a six figure income from JW.

  9. And it’s funny how I never said anything about radicals misinterpreting Islam…but you somehow thought I did.

    So radicals are practicing Islam correctly, then? If not, how are they wrong?

    • Still irrelevant, and trying to put words in my mouth. You must think that argument is airtight or something. Well for starters genius, terrorism is explicitly forbidden in Islam.

      • It’s a simple question that you, for some reason, are dancing around. How would it be irrelevant if the radicals were correctly applying Islam? That would say a lot about the Qur’an and the religion itself.

        Why are so many terrorists misunderstanding Islam if terrorism was forbidden? I don’t know, Muhammad beheading between 600 and 900 people would probably be considered terrorism if it occurred today.
        And then, there’s the annoying little detail that the Qur’an supports terrorism.

        “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
        –Qur’an:8:59

        “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
        –Qur’an:8:12

        And more.

        • “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”

          Countless Muslim scholars have condemned terrorism. Muslims, not “Judeo-Christians”, have the most to gain from an world without terrorism.

          Perhaps you could be part of the solution, instead of taking verses out of context–any idiot on a computer can copy and paste from hate sites.

          “Now David and his men went up and made raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. 9And David would strike the land and would leave neither man nor woman alive, but would take away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels, and the garments, and come back to Achish.”

          • Because your mind is incapable of inference (as obvious by your reponse to Cynic), I’ll tell you that the first qoute is from a Hadith and the second qoute is from the Bible.

          • Muslims denounce cartoons of Muhammad. That much is obvious. However, when a terror attack happens, what do you see? Muslims claiming they are in constant fear of “anti Muslim backlash” (which has been faked by CAIR and other groups). You don’t see a large scale condemnation of terrorism by regular, “moderate” Muslims. They sit in silence… some tacitly supporting the acts perpetrated by their extremist coreligionists, while others do nothing.

            And nobody is debating that there are indeed “radical” verses in the Bible… yet you don’t see Jews and Christians taking these scriptures and acting upon them like Muslims do.

        • It’s a simple question that you, for some reason, are dancing around.

          Sorry, but it wasn’t a question. It was something that you put in my mouth that had nothing to do with what I originally posted. Which was lol’ing at the fact that some people actually think that people shouldn’t go to Muslim scholars for information on Islam, because they have some sort of bias. What radical interpretations of Islam have to do with this is beyond me.

          Why are so many terrorists misunderstanding Islam if terrorism was forbidden?

          That’s like saying, why do so many alcoholics misunderstand Islam if alcohol is forbidden? In case you don’t know, not every Muslim follows Islam 100%.

          In any case, regarding your quotation of the Qur’an, how about we start with noting that those verses are from a Chapter called “The Spoils of War”.

          Why don’t we also note that you deliberately merging verse 59 and 60, all the while misquoting it. Your dishonesty is not surprising.

          Let not those who disbelieve think that they can escape the punishment (in the Hereafter) (8:59).

          You haven’t disproved that terrorism is forbidden in Islam. All you’ve done is show what you perceive as sanctioning of terrorism.

          If I’m not mistaken, terrorism includes the murder of innocent people, which according to the Qur’an is tantamount to killing all of mankind (5:32). Oh, and ever heard of Hirabah? Modern day terrorism is considered a subset….and Hirabah is tantamount to waging war against Allah and His Messenger. (5:33). So keep your poorly thought-out drivel over at JW.

          You don’t see a large scale condemnation of terrorism by regular, “moderate” Muslims.

          Bullshit. Man, that statement is getting old.

          http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

          http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

          • Posting my comment again, this time without links…since it hasn’t been moderated.

            —>It’s a simple question that you, for some reason, are dancing around.

            Sorry, but it wasn’t a question. It was something that you put in my mouth that had nothing to do with what I originally posted. Which was lol’ing at the fact that some people actually think that people shouldn’t go to Muslim scholars for information on Islam, because they have some sort of bias. What radical interpretations of Islam has to do with any of this is beyond me.

            Why are so many terrorists misunderstanding Islam if terrorism was forbidden?

            That’s like saying, why do so many alcoholics misunderstand Islam if alcohol is forbidden? In case you didn’t know, not every Muslim follows Islam 100%.

            In any case, regarding your quotation of the Qur’an, how about we start with noting that those verses are from a Chapter called “The Spoils of War”.

            Why don’t we also note that you deliberately merged verse 59 and 60, all the while misquoting it, and distorting its meaning. Your dishonesty is not surprising.

            Let not those who disbelieve think that they can escape the punishment of Allah (in the Hereafter) (8:59).

            Is what 8:59 should read.

            You haven’t disproved that terrorism is forbidden in Islam. All you’ve done is show what you perceive as sanctioning of terrorism.

            If I’m not mistaken, terrorism includes the murder of innocent people, which according to the Qur’an is tantamount to killing all of mankind (5:32). Oh, and ever heard of Hirabah? Modern day terrorism is considered a subset according to modern (real) Islamic scholars….and Hirabah is tantamount to waging war against Allah and His Messenger. (5:33). So keep your poorly thought-out drivel over at JW.

        • It’s also interesting that you quoted verses 59 & 60 (however poorly you did), but somehow failed to quote verse 61 which reads:

          But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and put your trust in Allah. Verily He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower..

          Dishonest islamophobe is dishonest.

          • Ahni is either dishonest or ignorant, 0r both, in his approach to the issue. At best, he’s an honest ignoramous who’s been psyched by disinfo, and at worst, he’s a charlatan with unjust motives for his attempts to demonize Muslims and Islam.

  10. Terrorism in context

    The reality today, is that people use words that they have been influenced to adopt. The main reason terms like “Islamic fundamentalism” or “extremism” are thrown out to the public from all angles is quite simply to demonize a faith and its adherents. It is also to justify an enemy so that the media-reliant world will support the illegal wars and occupations that the imperial west is embarking on. If terrorism did not exist, then what justification would there be for targeting the Muslim countries today!? We all know that the Iraq invasion was illegal (in fact with no terrorism link whatsoever, despite the American public belief that there was, and you wonder why). The Afghanistan conflict was based on a colossal false flag attack and recently the bizarre event of the Xmas day bomber, who was planning on detonating a device hidden in his underwear and now without any hesitation, was trained and funded in Yemen, is yet perhaps another spectacular work of fiction directing people’s minds to yet another Muslim country. The fact that 9/11 has been debunked to its minutest detail and has not reached the mainstream media is quite staggering and eloquently displays the level of control and compromise that has taken place. Unfortunately, most within the media circle are too afraid for themselves and more specifically for their careers. If all these media tentacles walked away and simply did not want to participate in the deception that is going on, the protagonists of the system would be left exposed and having to do it all themselves, which they avoid as much as possible.

    It is highly interesting to note that after the 11th Sept attack took place and immediately within the same day, the case was made and finalized that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen were responsible. America demanded he be handed over. The Taliban said in reply to America’s growing hostile rhetoric, “America, if Osama who is currently in our land is responsible for this attack then please provide us with the evidence and we will hand him over to you. Let a case for this act of terrorism be made in a neutral country and we will certainly abide by the principles of a judicial inquiry regarding responsibility” This stance was made, but fell on the deaf ears of America, who had decided it was going to invade. By any standard of law and justice, any accused should be entitled to a defense and to challenge an accusation. Put yourself in those shoes and how would you feel if you were denied that opportunity? I say to the reader, you be the judge, and like for others what you like for yourself! Can a single entity be Judge, Jury and Executioner? For the Muslim the Earth will one day reveal its secrets on a day of accountability, so it’s better to lament now then later when it will be of no use. The question therefore is one of conscience too. It’s better to abide by the principles laid in stone now than to realize we were wrong later. Each human being needs to be on his guard and not get washed into the tide of disinformation. That is our responsibility.

    However, the result of this vast global crusade against the poor, religious and specifically the Muslim countries are going to have repercussions that are extreme and radical. The colossal scale of murder and mayhem being committed by the war is going to cause incredible anger and trauma. They know it and you know it.

    If such a war was being perpetrated by the Muslims against the west and with the impunity that is being displayed today, then many would resort to acts, which are founded on anger, hate and extreme trauma. This is why some Muslims may become radical or extreme in a sense of retribution. What is surely interesting about any radicalism today is that it is a reactionary condition and most certainly not inherent in any way. This hypothesis is not allowed to enter the discussion today, so let’s try and put things in context regarding terrorism.

    Muslims are generally fighting for their land and faith in their respective countries. It has certainly made the situation worse in that most Muslim country governments have allied themselves with the global onslaught. This makes the Muslim freedom fighters look even worse and rebellious whereas in truth their governments have been compromised too and are heavily indebted and are thus forced to dance to the global tune. Then, there is the funding of different groups within this Muslim/national resistance causing even greater dissension and divide within the Muslim ranks.

    Certainly, Muslims have lost focus and perhaps are, to some extent, in disarray. But the many angles they are facing attacks, be they physical or ideological, will be a difficult burden to bear and as a result irrational and emotional behavior ensues. It would take an exceptionally brave person to declare that prior to western imperialism and the creation of Israel in the Middle East, Muslims carried within their ideology an extreme hatred of the west. In truth, Muslims were quite comfortable in their own way of life and certainly did not harbor any deep hatred of the western world. The fact that false flag terrorism has had to be perpetrated is indicative that Muslims do not react inherently themselves to provide the justification for a war on terror. The Quran has admonished Muslims for any indiscriminate attacking of innocent civilians and instills in its adherents the concept that God has made the human being sacred (Quranic text analyzed below). Therefore, historically (which the west will never teach) the Muslims have had exemplary episodes, which other civilizations would be envious to claim.

    If we take a few examples:

    During the periods of inquisition in the Christian lands, these terrorized people took refuge in Muslim lands. The Jewish people were particularly discriminated against viciously and systematically, but found refuge in the Muslim lands and even attained positions of note. Much has been written about the Golden age of Jewry in Muslim Spain (Andalusia). Indeed, when Muslim rule came to an end and the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492 during the Inquisition, they were welcomed into the Ottoman Islamic Empire. The anti-Semitism that plagued medieval Christian Europe was not to be found in the Islamic world.

    We do not find episodes like forced slavery in the Islamic history like those that occurred in the west. Millions of Africans forced from their homes and transported like animals to be used as slave labor in the west (particularly the Americas). Can we imagine the trauma these human beings were put through? How many millions were cast out at sea? The incredible number of young people in this unspeakable campaign is particularly disturbing. I ask; whose ideology justifies the terrorizing of innocent people? Did the Muslims systematically murder and displace people to colonize their lands and plunder their resources for material gain? We do not really find these episodes on any valid or consistent basis, I ask again; whose ideology justifies the terrorizing of innocent people?

    When the authors of the American constitution desired that all people are equal, did they have in mind the murder and systematic displacement of the up to ten million Native Americans in mind? You be the Judge. If it was before the establishment of America, which isn’t really relevant, I ask, how many numerous decades did it take to recognize even remotely equal rights for the Black people and allow them dignity to live or even have a vote? You speak, not me. How recent is this in history? Have things changed? Let the sincere observer make his decision, for each person will be responsible for his/her own conscience.

    Most people think that the slavery of yesterday is no more and emancipation is the hallmark of the west. The truth is that mankind is now being forced into a different form of slavery. It is, of course, the economic slavery. In a world that is financed and now reliant on central banks, it has caused a great loss of true wealth and prosperity for nations. The indebtedness of nations to these central banks has squeezed the budget of governments, which are now unable to sufficiently provide for their people. At the heart of this exploitation is the fiat based monetary system (paper based money) that has been carefully and shrewdly fostered on governments over many, many decades now. The interest on this lending is so phenomenal that governments such as Brazil have had to increase their cutting down of trees in the Amazon just to simply try and keep up with the compounding effects of the interest alone. Never mind the original debt in the first place.

    On a global scale, many industries have been lost to the powerful elite who simply squeeze what they can out of the masses for vast profits in the hands of a few. Before this fractional interest-based system was fostered on mankind, money (usually in the form of Gold and Silver and valuable commodities) enjoyed a more level playing field. Wealth was more evenly distributed. Even during the Gold Standard (in America) where money was backed by Gold, people had a confidence in the wealth they possessed. It is no wonder that President Jackson fought courageously against the bankers to avoid giving them the power to control the supply of money. He, like many during his era and before him, realized the exploitation that was being desired. Why is it that the international financiers and banking families are exclusively Jewish? They went against the divine code and declared that interest was unlawful amongst themselves but lawful against the gentile world. Jesus (peace be upon him – pbuh) rebuked them for this deviation. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was ordained in the Quran to also keep away from interest and its derivations. Hence Muslims are not involved in this exploitation of the masses financially. So I ask again; whose ideology justifies the terrorizing/exploitation of innocent people?

    The most striking example is in relation to the Holy land of Jerusalem. In their 1400 year history an analysis needs to be made. The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem occurred without a single loss of life! The Christian patriarch handed the Muslim leader the keys himself. During its governance of that land Jews, Christian and Muslims lived in relative peace and security during that vast time. Most people believe that the crusades were Christian wars against the Muslims. However, the Christian world was divided between the eastern Byzantium Empire and the Western Roman Empire. It was only the western European element that embarked on the crusade. The eastern Christians never took part but in actuality were also terrorized and killed by this force. On their way to Jerusalem they attacked Muslims, Jews and Christians from these lands and committed great bloodshed in the Holy land, which is a great stain on European history. It is interesting to note that in the film, “Kingdom of Heaven”, the film starts when the European Christians are already in the Holy Land. They avoided the whole barbarous episode that they carried out in getting there! However, when the Muslims fought back and Salahuddin Ayyubi defeated the European conquest, he magnanimously forgave the invaders and allowed them to leave without any retribution. I ask again; whose ideology justifies the terrorizing of innocent people!

    We come to the noble text of the Quran. What is striking again when the media quotes passages from the Quran is that there is an intentional taking out-of-context what they quote. They spread a mere few words to mislead people at large. Why? Have they ever allowed a mutual discussion of the subject in the media? In truth, let each individual be the judge of sincerity. Let us quote a few relevant passages:

    “Kill them wherever you find them…” as it is mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah 2:191 and Surah al-Nisa’ 4:89.

    The answer is simple and that is: You should read these verses in their textual and historical context. You should read the whole verse and it is better that you read the few verses before and the few after. Read the full text and see what is said:

    “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (al-Baqarah 2:190-194)

    And another quotation wherein a few words are usually quoted by the media:

    “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them. (Al-Nisa’ 4:89-91)

    Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one any where? These verses were revealed by the Almighty to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say, using the contemporary jargon, that there were constant “terrorist attacks” on Madinah and in this situation, Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorists”. These verses are not permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.

    It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts, they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate these verses for their own goals. But this is not only with Islamic texts; it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible, which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently, Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.

    Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:

    “When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

    “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)

    Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known a man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

    Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:

    “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)

    Judge for yourselves the comparison between this Judeo-Christian literature and the Quran. There is an inherently vast difference. There is little or no caution or warning not to transgress the limits as you find in the Quran. Note, how Allah ends the first quotation, “For Allah is with those who restrain themselves” and in numerous verses extols the virtue of patience. Also, when you read the verses carefully they are heavily directed at fighting oppressive forces.

    It can even be seen why some European campaigns have been quite brutal and still are. There is an ideology within the Judeo-Christian literature that can be interpreted dangerously and perhaps still is.

    Nevertheless, Muslims do not attribute the said Judeo-Christian verses to Jesus (peace be upon him). He was a noble Prophet (peace be upon him) that spoke against deviation from the right path, particularly to the then “Children of Israel”. This distinction is very important to the Muslim and his lofty status is reiterated by Allah many times in the Quran.

    The Yemeni scholar Habib `Ali al-Jifri said concerning the true purpose of combative Jihad:

    ”The reality is in our religion that combative Jihad is not even one half of Jihad, it’s not even one third of a meaning of Jihad – it’s only one part of a principle of Jihad and it is for this reason in our tradition that we do not seek combative Jihad as an end in and of itself and it is only seen as a means – a means to stop belligerence and prevent harm from occurring. And if there is a path without combat necessary to prevent belligerence – Muslims are desirous of this path if they are following their tradition. Therefore the idea of aggression being in any way associating with Islam is in error. It is actually the removal of aggression that is at the root of combative Jihad.

    I ask God to make it easy for all of us, Muslim or non-Muslim, to strive against our lower selves and perform the greater Jihad of destroying the poisons of our egos and desires, for indeed, perhaps then the world will be a better place and peace will prevail.”

    Finally, for further reference regarding the killing of innocent people, the Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder,

    “…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (al-An’am 6:151)

    Allah says in the Qur’an,

    “Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)” (al-Isra’ 17:33)

    According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See al-Ma’idah 5:32)

    • Delicious copy pasta.

      I don’t have time right now to read the whole thing, but I’m willing to bet it is justifying Islamic terrorism and using tu quoque arguments with Christianity and Judaism. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • You’re wrong, as always. There is no “justification for Islamic terrorism”, since for starters, the term “Islamic terrorism” is an oxymoron. Also, “terrorism” and “radicalism” are reactionary conditions, and not inherent in any way. Furthermore, it is not a tu quoque argument to point out the hypocrisy of the other side. It is only a tu quoque argument to use it as an argumentative basis against the other side. You cannot call it a tu quoque argument, if one side attributes something exclusively to the other side, and is refuted by pointing out that it is not exclusive to them.

        • Terrorism, perpetrated by Muslims, and designed to spread Islam, is correctly categorized as “Islamic terrorism.”

          And tu quoque is relevant to the discussion because it is simply used as a red herring to distract people from the real issue. The fact is, Muslims are, on a daily basis “misunderstanding Islam” and committing terror attacks and other forms of violence. They routinely quote passages from the Qur’an as their motivation and justification. Pointing to the Bible and pointing out a few scriptures, when no Jews or Christians are acting upon them, is a pointless exercise.

          • Terrorism, perpetrated by Muslims, is neither designed to spread Islam, nor is it even intended to. Furthermore, it cannot “spread Islam” when it is, by its very nature, against what Islam stands for. That is why the term “Islamic terrorism” is an oxymoron, as the terms “Islamic” and “terrorism” are contradictory.

            Also, Jews and Christians DO quote those Biblical passages when committing acts of terrorism, so it is NOT a pointless exercise. This has been done historically, and is even done in contemporary times.

            In reality, most terrorists today are NOT Muslims. And for the terrorists that are Muslims, religion is hardly ever the motivating factor. Like I’ve said before, just because a Muslim does something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s because of Islam.

          • Terrorists don’t commit acts of terror because they want to “spread Islam”. They do it as what they perceive as a sort of retribution for what goes on in Muslim countries at the hands of “Western powers”. You need to get your facts straight. Using the Qur’an is just justification, and a means to recruit the ignorant for their goals. The fact that you think no Jews or Christians use their scriptures to a similar effect shows your excessive ignorance, and deliberate blindness. You just swallow whatever Robert Spencer vomits at you whole don’t you?

  11. Islamaphobia a psychological reaction to war and immigration, is something different than the organized hatred and pogroms of groups like the Center for Security Policy which advocate legal actions against pious Muslims for their religious belief in Shariah. The latter in Russia the czar or the oligarchy might fund or assist pogroms against peaceful Jewish minority villages, where here we have , mainly, Jewish financial elites , funding political pogroms against the Muslim minority.

    The funding sources of the anti-Shariah pogrom include Israeli defense contractors, foreign intelligence linked defense contractors, zionist billionaires like Hudson Institute-CSP Lawrence Kadish, casino money, and individuals apparently linked to organized crime (russian israeli mafia).

    Its as un-American, and anti-Jewish (in a religious values sense), as any virulent hate group in America, and its foreign links and funding suggest its part of an intelligence operation directed against the United States (illegal espionage activity)For part of the documentation on this see , and follow up articles here:

    http://shariahtheway.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/eastern-promises-zionist-casinos-frank-gaffney-and-the-russian-israeli-mafia/

  12. There are many non-religious reasons why Osama bin Laden wanted to attack Americans, but now his war has gotten out of hand and he can’t control what everyone is fighting for. Many of the terrorists have started fighting for an Islamic State, not an original aim of Al Qaeda, and for various political and nationalist causes but using religion as a powerful tool to recruit.

    The 3 reasons provided by Osama in his 1998 fatwa (Note: he isn’t a mufti and does not have an ijaza (or qualification) to issue a fatwa):

    First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
    If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

    Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
    So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

    Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

    See. It’s all about the Zionist-Crusaders (?) tearing up the Muslims World not some Dar ul Harb issue.

    • That doesn’t explain why there is 1400 years of bloody Jihad violence, waged by Muslims bent on world domination.

      I can see how sympathetic you are to Osama bin Laden. Another good reason why Muslims and their allies can’t be trusted.

      • 1400 years of Muslism waging “jihad” for world domination? That isn’t history, that’s junk history.

        In actual history, there were kingdoms and then there were empires, that – in the absence of a treaty or trade agreement of some sort – had hostility and war as the de facto. The Islamic state of that time was an empire. The empires surrounding it were openly hostile towards it, so it conquered them for that reason. The end.

        Furthermore, pointing out Osama bin Laden’s motives for doing what he does, is not an indication of sympathy. It is irrational and illogical to think so. I’m sure you know that, but I guess you’re too psyched by your own faulty opinion to consider anything that is contrary to it. Oh well.

      • Sympathetic!

        LOL. I’m just telling you what he believes and why. It’s the blatant ignorance of America that makes it unable to comprehend why anyone would want to take down its buildings. It is precisely that ignorance that leads it to invade other countries in response.

        If you just stopped for a while and thought “Why?” you might get somewhere. Until then keep blaming it on the Quran and realise the error of your ways when it is too late. Just whatever you do, don’t read any of Osama’s many interviews, fatwas and letters in which he underlines in English (yes, English) why he does what he does.

        Meanwhile, I’ll blame Hitler’s antisemitism on the Bible and not read Mein Kampf.

  13. In reality, most terrorists today are NOT Muslims. And for the terrorists that are Muslims, religion is hardly ever the motivating factor.

    Wow, good luck supporting that idea.

    So I guess most terrorists are Buddhists? Eskimos? Methodists?

    • Most terrorists aren’t Muslims, despite what the media and Bob Spencer would have you believe. You really don’t think for yourself do you? Again, you haven’t proved that most terrorists are in fact Muslims.

          • Haha, I was thinking the same thing. I posted two links in addition to the comment I reposted; debunking that silly myth that so-called moderate Muslims don’t condemn terrorist acts. You know, the myth that Ahni falls for hook, line and sinker.

          • @ Cynic,

            Yeah, I know that myth. They want Muslims to condemn it, and then when Muslims do condemn it, they either downplay it or ignore it.

            As for Ahni, he would probably fall for anything that’s anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. He’s such a chump, he’d probably believe that Muslims religiously eat babies if someone told him so.

          • Here are the links, written with dot instead of . and slash instead of /. Hopefully it works XD.

            wwwdotmuhajabahdotcomslashotherscondemndotphp

            and

            wwwdotuncdoteduslash~kurzmanslashterrordothtm

  14. Pingback: An "American Dirty Bomber," Yet Spencer Stays Silent | Spencer Watch

  15. he’s a charlatan with unjust motives for his attempts to demonize Muslims and Islam.

    Uhh, no. Muslims are doing that by themselves. Why aren’t you worrying about those Muslims who are demonizing Muslims and Islam? No amount of words from me can top the beheading of bound captives in front of the video camera while “Allahu Akbar!” is chanted over and over.

    • Uhh, yes, since you take incidents such as those and sensationalize them. In fact, that’s how you try to demonize Muslims and Islam; by nitpicking actions and quotes associated with Muslims and Islam, then sensationalizing them by spinning them into something they are not.

      It’s dishonest and you know it.

      Anyone with the integrity to be fair and objective, would admit that terrorism, kidnapping, murder, and religious extremism aren’t exclusive to Muslims, and that Muslims are a minority in them.

      You don’t admit that, even though it’s supported by all the actual data. Therefore, you are unjust in your approach.

  16. Pingback: Robert Spencer's "Police Blotter" Scholarship | Spencer Watch

  17. Pingback: Spencer Proven Wrong (Again) About Muslim Organizations | Spencer Watch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *