Spencer Uses Supposed “anti-Semitic” stance amongst Copts to support anti-Muslim rhetoric

From Dorado, our newest reporter on Spencer

On  January 9th 2011 in the Duomo Square, Milano, Italy, a rally was held by the Copts of Milano along with some supporting Italian organizations, when members of a Jewish group, ADI (Amici di Israele – Friends of Israel),  put the Israeli flag on their shoulders, many Copts reacted by refusing the presence of the Israeli flags.

Robert Spencer, the so-called scholar of Islam has used this event to suggest to his readers at Jihadwatch that the Copts are victims of a divide and conquer strategy by Muslims, designed to keep what he refers to as “dhimmi communities” at odds with one another. This conspiracy he says has historical roots and global implications. He says all of this of course without supporting evidence being cited in his article.

It is apparent that this new variation of the tu quoque (the anti-conspiracy theory theory) argument is being used to combat another conspiracy theory, namely that somehow the Israelis were responsible for the suicide bombing in an Egyptian Church in Alexandria that occurred during Christmas Eve Mass, killing 21 people. The implication is clear, the Copts are selling themselves short by not accepting support from Israeli groups. It is being suggested, although not in a vocal, explicit manner a la Debbie Schlussel, but with clever word play, that religious persecution of Copts in Egypt is the result of their succumbing to this divide and conquer strategy. He plays the blame game when he states,

“And while some Middle Eastern Christian leaders remain mired in anti-Semitism and dhimmi attitudes of intellectual and political subservience, others are breaking out of it.”

In short, it is all the Copts fault for their supposed “anti-Semitism.” Combat one conspiracy theory by introducing “reasonable doubt” through the method of introducing another conspiracy theory.

There is, of course, no mention of the widespread support of Copts by their Muslim brethren in Egypt. This is just another instance of Spencer using tragedy in the Muslim world to vilify all of Islam and demonize the world’s Muslims by cataloging these events police-blotter style. Spencer’s entire call for an alliance of non Muslim groups against Islam is obviously based on his theory that Muslims or “adherents of Sharia” seek the conversion, subjugation, or death of all non-Muslims. We will assume that he has provided “evidence” for this claim elsewhere in his writings, because he provides none here.

We will also later address this unsupported assertion from Spencer:

“Indeed. Historically, Islamic supremacist masters did their best to sow discord among different dhimmi communities, keeping them apart and at odds with one another, but those communities today only work against their own best interests by refusing to ally together.”

One has to wonder why groups such as Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors(CJHS) continue to invite the likes of Spencer to their events when he isn’t averse to using bigotry to advance his agenda, especially when we consider that Spencer is both a Genocide denier and a Genocide Supporter.

Jewish groups such as this should be wary of a non-Jew who uses bigotry in this way, as it is very possible he could easily turn on his supporters if he accomplishes his goals against Muslims.

His bigotry and opportunism is evident. He is obviously projecting his own anti-Muslim bigotry when he suggests that those who do not take a Pro-Israel stance are somehow against justice and truth and that Copts who refuse alliance with Jewish groups are aligning with “Islamic Supremacists”.

Although not explicitly mentioning the massive amount of support that the Copts are receiving from their Muslim compatriots, Spencer’s suggestion that they should ally with Israeli Groups and extreme Zionists instead of Muslims suggests that he is aware of that support and it bothers him. Egyptian Muslim support for the Coptic Community provides an alternative to his “all Muslims are evil” agenda. Why else would he elliptically use phrases such as “divide and conquer” or Arabic terms such as dhimmi. The Copts are being covertly called dhimmis for not supporting Israel?

And why call the Copts anti-Semitic? After all didn’t they invite the Jewish groups to the rally? It also seems that the word dhimmi is being used to imply some far fetched form of Stockholm syndrome among non Muslims or a caste system in Islam, instead of the traditional Islamic meaning of “protected religious minority”. This seems to be yet another instance of Robert Spencer, the “scholar of Islam”, imposing his understanding of Islamic concepts on the rest of us.

This brings us now to address this idea that Islamic communities historically used a strategy of divide and conquer to control the religious minorities under their political dominion. Spencer seems to wish for his readers to remain oblivious to the scholarship on the matter. Numerous Quranic verses and Hadith when read in their proper context deal with the just treatment of Non Muslims that Islam mandates. The Muslim support of the Copts in Egypt exemplifies this Islamic principle. A twisting of the meaning of this word implies a nefarious agenda. In addition, numerous scholars , both Muslim and non Muslim have concluded that Jews and other religious minorities fared relatively well under Muslim rule in general. Loonwatch has articles directly refuting Spencer’s ideas about dhimmitude in general and specifically treatment of Jews under Muslim rule.

This idea that  Copts and Jews have  more in common than Copts and Muslims, or the Jews and Muslims even, smacks of the very thing Spencer is decrying: “the divide and conquer tactics of Islamic Supremacists”. He is trying to separate the Egyptian Coptic community from compatriots on the basis of religious difference. The irony should not be lost on anyone.

224 thoughts on “Spencer Uses Supposed “anti-Semitic” stance amongst Copts to support anti-Muslim rhetoric

  1. Good Article.

    Leave it to Spencer to conclude how the supposed “anti-Semitism” of another group is the fault of Muslims.

  2. So they refused to be part of the Israel thingy makes them anti-Semites? It’s that thing again… can’t defend the actions of Israel so thus anyone dare criticize it get’s labeled an anti-Semite and is thus a Nazi. It even happens to Jews. I find it pathetic really.

  3. Welcome Dorado! Nice to see another liar trying to keep the world blind to the jihadist agenda.

    There is, of course, no mention of the widespread support of Copts by their Muslim brethren in Egypt

    lol. The only widespread support that Muslims give Copts is the support to leave the dar al Islam in body bags or in planes. Funny how this “widespread” support claim is only ever backed up by the “human shield” story. Who were those Muslims protecting the Copts from, by the way? Buddhists? Mormons?

    especially when we consider that Spencer is both a Genocide denier and a Genocide Supporter.

    This is rich, coming from someone who likely denies the Armenian genocide. For someone who is criticizing someone for not backing up their claims, you might want to start here.

    Jewish groups such as this should be wary of a non-Jew who uses bigotry in this way, as it is very possible he could easily turn on his supporters if he accomplishes his goals against Muslims.

    The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him’; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.’ (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).

    Numerous Quranic verses and Hadith when read in their proper context deal with the just treatment of Non Muslims that Islam mandates. The Muslim support of the Copts in Egypt exemplifies this Islamic principle. A twisting of the meaning of this word implies a nefarious agenda. In addition, numerous scholars , both Muslim and non Muslim have concluded that Jews and other religious minorities fared relatively well under Muslim rule in general. Loonwatch has articles directly refuting Spencer’s ideas about dhimmitude in general and specifically treatment of Jews under Muslim rule.

    So, not being able to build new houses of worship, repair existing ones, having to pay a “protection tax”, obeying draconian societal rules, and becoming submissive 2nd class citizens is faring “relatively well under Muslim rule.” I guess that just depends on whose point of view it is, right? Anything less than torture and death would be “relatively” better, especially in the eyes of those Muslims doling out the punishments.

    Read the works of Bat Ye’or for in-depth, historical knowledge about just how great non-Muslims had it under Sharia. Of course, I have no doubt you’re already aware of the brutal treatment these groups received at the hands of your fellow Muslims. You’re just putting a smiley face over a history of injustice, which is typical, whenever Muslims are at fault. Downplay the offenses, exaggerate/fabricate the grievances. Typical.

    This idea that Copts and Jews have more in common than Copts and Muslims,

    They definitely have more in common. Both are routinely targeted throughout the Muslim world. Most Jews have left the Islamic world long ago, while Copts are suffering right now. If you want Copts on your side, maybe you should stop killing them and driving them out in droves? Just a thought.

    • “The only widespread support that Muslims give Copts is the support to leave the dar al Islam in body bags or in planes. Funny how this “widespread” support claim is only ever backed up by the “human shield” story.”

      What about the widespread condemnation of the atrocity by numerous public figures including the Grand Mufti. What about the numerous Egyptian singers who made songs to express their solidarity with the Copts. What about the Egyptians who changed their Facebook pictures to a poster proclaiming “I am an Egyptian against terrorism”. What about the Coptic Catholic Bishop of Luxor, Egypt who says Muslims sent him messages of support and expressed sympathy after the attack and declared “They (Muslims) don’t accept this violence. They are very upset about this,”.

      “This is rich, coming from someone who likely denies the Armenian genocide.”

      Any proof? No? I thought not. I think you’re back to making wild baseless accusations again. No one is denying the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Darfur conflict, the Rwandan genocide etc. but Spencer is denying or at least ‘expressing severe doubt’ over the Bosnian genocide. An appropriate discussion then since this Thursday 27th January is Holocaust Memorial Day.

      “For someone who is criticizing someone for not backing up their claims, you might want to start here.”

      Since no one denied the Armenian genocide, no one has anything to “back up”. However, you have claimed that Dorado denies the Armenian genocide hence you should back up this claim with some evidence, which will be difficult since this is his first article. But anyway, good luck!

      “becoming submissive 2nd class citizens is faring “relatively well under Muslim rule.”

      “Relatively well” means in comparison to the treatment in other parts of the world. Loonwatch’s article (that we all know you haven’t read) discusses this in detail. If only you could get past the title, sacrifice some time for the sake of saving Western civilisation and read it.

      “They definitely have more in common.”

      Tell that to Debbie Shlussel, who was called a “freedom fighter” by Spencer. This “freedom fighter” was seen recently declaring the bombing was karma for what she thinks are anti-Semitic comments from Coptic leaders. She doesn’t care what suffering people have to go through, as long as they don’t support Israel, she doesn’t care. Remember — “freedom fighter”

      http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/

      Don’t make assumptions about the article based on its title. Read it.

      • Another dishonest Loonwatch article. You can’t defeat Yeor’s arguments, so you try and discredit her personally by calling into question her education and insisting that “she is crazy.” You find some like-minded people who also don’t like her, and use their comments as evidence of why nobody should listen to her. You do the same thing with Robert Spencer.

        Yeor’s argument is sound, and your very presence in Europe acts as support. Muslims are in Europe to take over and Islamicize the continent. They are not there to assimilate into Western society. As one recent Jihadwatch troll put it, “Immigration, procreation, conversion. The three ways Islam will dominate.” He is telling the truth, unlike all of you. Taking a look at any birth rate projection shows that several Western European countries will be majority Muslim by 2050. That’s the goal you are working towards. Being honest about that is counterproductive for you, at this point, since you are relying on native Europeans to stay asleep and let their culture and land be snuffed out from right under their noses. If you were too vocal about what you were doing, it might arouse unnecessary suspicion and resistance.

        • “Another dishonest Loonwatch article. You can’t defeat Yeor’s arguments, so you try and discredit her personally by calling into question her education and insisting that “she is crazy.””

          Actually, as Mossizle already mentioned, Loonwatch did refute Bat Yeor’s (not her real name) arguments, albeit indirectly. Note that on the bottom of the article Mossizle linked to is a complete, point by point, refutation of Islamophobes’ fallacious view of “Dhimmitude” (a fake term just like the pseudonym “Bat Yeor”). Here are some of her other conspiracy theories: 1) Palestinians don’t Exist; Europeans created them, 2) Europe will Become a Vassal State to the Arab World, 3) the Churches of Europe are colluding with Muslims, and 4) Eurabia.

          I don’t understand how you could someone as blatantly crazy as Yeor seriously. Oh, and it’s quite obvious you didn’t read the article because some of her numerous factual errors were highlighted.

          “You find some like-minded people who also don’t like her, and use their comments as evidence of why nobody should listen to her. You do the same thing with Robert Spencer.”

          Note that the “like-minded people” consist of numerous mainstream professors, journalists, etc from reputable universities and new sources. The people who support Batshit-crazy Yeor are Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and other anti-Muslim loons. The Feds labeled Daniel Pipes an “extremist source” after he and other Islamophobes waged a campaign to ruin the career of an [insert xenophobic ad hominen here] Muslim woman. Spencer is also an extremist, and quite a bit more radical than Pipes. Spencer’s list of false claims and outright bigotry is even longer than Pipes’ and include joining a genocidal Facebook group and posting the propaganda video of a radical Hindu group (that has been responsible for killing thousands of Muslims) on JihadWatch. Geller’s list is longer than both Spencer’s and Pipes’ combined, and she also hosted the video of the radical Hindu group. Here’s Professor Cooper’s mention of massacres in India orchestrated by the aforementioned Hindu nationalists.

          “A Hindu mob stormed the Muslim area of Naroda Patia in Ahmedabad…killing at least 65 people…More attacks on Muslims in Gujarat state followed that killed about 2,500, destroyed thousands of homes, and resulted in the gang rapes of hundreds of Muslim women and girls.”

        • Yeor’s argument is sound, and your very presence in Europe acts as support.

          Muslims have been in Europe continuously for over a thousand years. They used to make up the majority in Spain, Sicily and Crimea before they were ethnically cleansed. They’re still the majority in Bosnia, Albania, and parts of Russia like the Caucasus and Tartarstan. There are also indigenous Muslims communities in other parts of Europe, including Bulgaria (12%) and Macedonia (25%).

          Muslims are in Europe to take over and Islamicize the continent. They are not there to assimilate into Western society. As one recent Jihadwatch troll put it, “Immigration, procreation, conversion. The three ways Islam will dominate.” He is telling the truth, unlike all of you.

          Note how Spencer allows Muslims who buttress the preconceived notions of JihadWatch’s bigots to comment but bans informed posters. Some folks who were banned from JihadWatch, like MP11, comment on Loonwatch. Loonwatch fans—Jack Cope and Dawood—shut down the comments section of “Translating Jihad” after they posted a devastating rebuttal. Spencer et al. make good use of the ad populum fallacy by allowing the troll you mentioned to comment on JihadWatch.

        • Muslims are in Europe to take over and Islamicize the continent.

          This sentence alone shows you up for the conspiracy theorist that you are. Either you’re really stupid, or you’re really scared…that’s the only way you could believe something as crazy as that. It’s no wonder why JW’ers are nothing more than pot-bellied middle-aged losers who have nothing better to do with their time than shit their pants about imagined conspiracies.

          Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg

          And you wonder why Muslims are so opposed to Islamophobia. What do you expect when the motives of their parents and ancestors are written off as ‘trying to take over the world’…when in reality they sacrificed everything by coming to Europe to provide a better life for their children.

          • For someone who objects as often as you do to pictures of people holding signs, it doesn’t seem to hinder you from doing the same thing.

            I’m probably half that guy’s age, but feel free to characterize me however you wish to fit your narrative.

            And you wonder why Muslims are so opposed to Islamophobia

            No, I don’t wonder. They are upset about the cat being let out of the bag about Islam while we in the West still have the numbers to do something about it.

            when in reality they sacrificed everything by coming to Europe to provide a better life for their children.

            Judging by the astronomical amount of Muslims in the prison system in Europe, it sure doesn’t seem like they are coming here for a better life.

          • For someone who objects as often as you do to pictures of people holding signs, it doesn’t seem to hinder you from doing the same thing.

            You’re setting up a strawman here. Notice how I never said anything about his signs? Also notice how I didn’t say anything about you in relation to that dude? I said it’s no wonder why the average JW’er is an overweight middle-aged man with nothing better to do with his time than cook up conspiracy theories about Muslims. Heck, that includes Robert Spencer himself.

            No, I don’t wonder. They are upset about the cat being let out of the bag about Islam while we in the West still have the numbers to do something about it.

            Right, right. And we should believe you over actual Muslims themselves right? Oh, that’s right…there’s that taqiyya thing those Muslims love to spray.

            Judging by the astronomical amount of Muslims in the prison system in Europe, it sure doesn’t seem like they are coming here for a better life.

            That’s another textbook display of the strawman fallacy, and a complete lack of analytical skills. Looking at the number of Muslims in prison, regardless of how many there are is irrelevant; as it has nothing to do with their ancestors’ motives of coming to Europe in the first place. And the fact that you would do so really buttresses my assertion that you sir, are an idiot.

        • Oh, about that, anyone else read the report from France about how Muslim birth rates are dropping? It had a couple of column inches in my free local newspaper (in Malaysia) either yesterday or the day before. A quick google bought up this, so maybe it is worth looking into by someone who’s internet is faster than mine… I certainly believe it:

          http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hdWn_NAQYnalUogpSijb2fy7wNTw?docId=CNG.7bfcfd891f40aa72354703f627bc22bc.ba1

          Further goggling bought up stories from 2009, so I suspect this incontinent truth is being ignored by many.

          Best not look Ahni!!

          • Are they down to 6 children per couple now? Oh no, it make take an extra 5 years to reach a majority!

          • You didn’t look did you? Thought not, the truth hurts doesn’t it? Read on:

            “The researchers also dismissed fears Europe would become an Islam-dominated “Eurabia,” as Muslims will only grow to eight percent of the continent’s population in 2030, up from just six percent last year.”

            And:

            “In fact, said Mehtab Karim, a Pakistani visiting senior research fellow at the Pew Forum, the fertility rate of Muslim women who migrate to Europe will drop within a generation as they spend longer in school and their standards of living improve.”

            Read it? Two percentage points in 20 years with fertility rates dropping further as time goes on. So, let’s see….. erm, we only have to wait until about the year 3000… I await your silence on the matter. And 6 people per couple? Crap, I’d better get to work…

            Granted, the report says:

            “The world’s Muslim population will grow twice as fast as non-Muslims over the next 20 years and will account for a quarter of people on the planet, a study forecast Thursday.

            But the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life also predicted the growth spurt would level off as living standards improve, more people move to cities and women get better access to education and jobs, which results in a drop in fertility rates.”

            You’re theory is sinking rather fast…

      • “UPDATE: A related article on dhimmitude can be found here.”

        Lol. Looks like Ahni didn’t have the strength to scroll his mouse far enough to reach the final sentence. The article looks at Bat Ye’or as a “scholar” and numerous people disagree that she is a scholar. When Danios was able to finish his epic piece on Dhimmitude, a link to it was attached to the article. That article analyses and blows away Ye’or’s arguments. Like I said, it’s a shame you can’t be bothered to read any of the articles. And considering you missed out the last sentence, I imagine that you didn’t even manage to skim-read the article on Bat Ye’or to the bottom. Oh well, better luck next time, Ahni.

        “You do the same thing with Robert Spencer.”

        Are you kidding me? The numerous times we have posted links from Loonwatch in which his arguments are obliterated, yet you don’t read them and shout “circular logic”.

        “As one recent Jihadwatch troll put it, “Immigration, procreation, conversion. The three ways Islam will dominate.” He is telling the truth, unlike all of you.”

        I was waiting for you to say something like that. Here’s the dumb thing about taqiyya. If you think that guy is the true representative of Islam (because he’s taking over the world and that is apparently Islamic), and that taqiyya is an essential part of Islam, then why the hell is he not doing it? Why is he doing it openly, isn’t that in contradiction to taqiyya? The fatal flaw in your logic.

        Why is it that you only trust the opinions of Muslim who say stuff that agrees with your views yet reject the opinions of Muslims who disagree with you as “taqiyya”. ESPECIALLY, since taqiyya has been refuted thoroughly by Loonwatch:

        http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/

        Again, read the whole thing and don’t make assumptions from the title.

        “since you are relying on native Europeans to stay asleep and let their culture and land be snuffed out from right under their noses.”

        We learnt from the best 😉
        Thank you America, you have given us the tactics on how to take over someone’s land using a stealth crusade.

        No, seriously. How can you say the Muslim extremists are being quiet about it when there are people like Anjem Choudary who are not afraid to openly declare their plans. JihadWatch calls him an honest jihadi. Yet if Taqiyya is part of Jihad, then why is this jihadi not doing it, hmm? Why is Osama not doing taqiyya? Why does he send out fatwas and tape after tape explaining his “war against the West” when, according to your flawed understanding of taqiyya, it is recommended in Islam to lie about it and attack secretly.

        ” If you were too vocal about what you were doing, it might arouse unnecessary suspicion and resistance.”

        The “jihadis” don’t even have control of their own countries, what makes you think they can control Europe? Take Switzerland for example, Muslims have numerous legal challenges when building mosques, they can’t build minarets at all, they can’t even have halal food (it’s been banned since 1893). What kind of stealth jihad is this??? Can’t even get my Halal KFC!

        So you say that groups such as Islam4UK and other Muslim extremist hate groups are not being vocal enough to prevent suspicions and resistance. Ahni, are you stupid? The group was very very vocal, and decided to mock the dead British soldiers for which a lot of suspicion was aroused and there was heavy resistance to the extent that the whole group was banned. “Erm..Erm..But they’ve learnt their lesson now! They’re going to do it all quietly now”. No. They have changed names and continue their nonsense openly.

        The facts deny your garbage about taqiyya.

        • We learnt from the best 😉
          Thank you America, you have given us the tactics on how to take over someone’s land using a stealth crusade.

          Yeah. Take a look at any Islamic country. By 2050 Americans will be the majority and the land will be ours. Wait… what?

          Yet if Taqiyya is part of Jihad, then why is this jihadi not doing it, hmm? Why is Osama not doing taqiyya? Why does he send out fatwas and tape after tape explaining his “war against the West” when, according to your flawed understanding of taqiyya, it is recommended in Islam to lie about it and attack secretly.

          Two strategies, same goal. It’s no different than military strategy. One team attacks from the North while the other circles around and comes from the West. I’m sure that Choudary and his cohorts are infuriating to a lot of smarter stealth jihadists in Europe, who realize that the campaign of deception is far more effective than in-your-face radicalism.

          • Choudary?! With his 50 loons that no one likes? Bloody hell, no wonder you’re scared! If 50 unliked, no make that *hated*, loons can take down a whole government and take over a country……. sheesh!

          • Yeah. Take a look at any Islamic country. By 2050 Americans will be the majority and the land will be ours. Wait… what?

            You really have poor comprehension skills don’t you buddy? By the year that you’re using, I’m assuming that you’re referring to the latest Pew study. The study that completely shatters the Eurabia myth entirely. It actually shows that the projected rate of growth of the Muslim population will increasing at a rate of 1.5% compared to the 2.2% over the period of 1990-2010…and will still continue to decrease. So much for a concerted effort to “Islamicize”.

            But it’s cool. We’ll let demagogues like Batshit Ye’or and Bob Spencer scare us shitless into thinking that ZOMFG THE MOOSLIMZ R TAKIN OVERZZ!!!!

          • Didn’t answer my question. Why is this man who you say is a true Muslim for what he is doing, not doing taqiyya. Why is he openly telling the journalists his secret plan. Your military analogy implies that somehow all Muslims are in communication with each other and try different tactics to rule the world. You want me to be honest, so I will be honest. Yes, I and all other Muslims have a secret “taqiyyafone” which no one else has that allows me to be in communication with every other Muslim. Every Friday we discuss plans to take over the world whilst sipping exotic tea and smoking the shisha. 😀

            You obviously didn’t understand my comparison with America. Demographic jihad was one of the ways in which European settlers have gained dominance in America, Canada and Australia. Although in their case it was more like a demographic crusade.

            By the way, Anjem Choudary was secretly filmed at one of his meetings in which he told his loyal followers that they could declare a jihad against Britain but that would be wrong as Muslims don’t betray. This was at his own meetings so his taqiyya spray was off. Hence, even extremist Muslim “jihadis” have standards. 🙂

        • I’d also recommend checking out the following article for those who have access to academic journals:

          Carr, Matt. “You Are Now Entering Eurabia.” Race & Class 48, no. 1 (2006): 1-22.

    • This is rich, coming from someone who likely denies the Armenian genocide. For someone who is criticizing someone for not backing up their claims, you might want to start here.

      Firstly, Robert Spencer’s genocide denial is blatantly obvious. He’s been open about his “skepticism” of the Bosnian genocide for quite some time now. Secondly, I highly doubt that any Loonwatch or Spencerwatch writer denies the Armenian genocide. Of course, you probably think that because many Turks deny it must mean that all Muslims do the same—typical loon logic. Dorado might not even be a big bad, perpetually evil Mooslim.

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3Bg3Faz0FjsJ:www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/julia-gorin-a-great-piece-but-still-equivocating.html+jihadwatch+%22more+culpable%22+serbians&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

      So, not being able to build new houses of worship, repair existing ones, having to pay a “protection tax”, obeying draconian societal rules, and becoming submissive 2nd class citizens…[rant continues]

      I do believe that we’ve already addressed everything you just posted in regards to “dhimmitude”. Again, read the Loonwatch article—it addresses every claim of Spencer point by point, consequently laying waste to a whole chapter of his book. You’ll be surprised at how many times Spencer lies.

  4. Anhi: “The only widespread support that Muslims give Copts is the support to leave the dar al Islam in body bags or in planes.”

    You do realize that there are “dars” other than the dar al-Islam and dar al-harb? Professor Hashmi Sohail writes in his book, Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict,

    “A few additional related concepts need to be defined here before we investigate the principles of jihad and siyar. Beyond the frontiers of dar al-Islam, medieval jurists conceived the existence of other territories or realms, including dar al-harb (world of war, i.e., non-Muslim territory hostile to Muslims); dar al-aman (non-Muslim territory which is at peace with Muslims); dar al-‘ahd, otherwise referred to as dar al’sulh (non-Muslim territory which pledges through treaty to acknowledge Muslim sovereignty, but maintains local autonomy be paying some land taxes in lieu of jizya, or poll tax).”

    But even that’s relatively irrelevant, because the ulema has revoked Ibn Taymiyya’s Mardin fatwa dividing the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-harb?

    “A conference in Mardin in southeastern Turkey declared the fatwa by 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyya rules out militant violence and the medieval Muslim division of the world into a “house of Islam” and “house of unbelief” no longer applies….

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U0VU20100331

    • And here’s a link to the relevant part of the book NassirH quoted, which is, overall, a very good read and well worth looking into for anyone interested in the relationship between Islam and politics.

  5. *But even that’s relatively irrelevant, because the ulema has revoked Ibn Taymiyya’s Mardin fatwa that divided the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-harb.

  6. This is rich, coming from someone who likely denies the Armenian genocide.

    Notice how you use the word likely. It sums you up to a tee. Allyou ever do is generalize and stereotype…based on conjecture and not fact. Which is kind of pathetic, because if your stereotyping was at least grounded in fact…then you wouldn’t look like such an idiot.

    Considering that you are such a Spencer groupie, it’s surprising that you’re not aware of his genocide denial. I’m pretty sure he referred to it as the “genocide that never was”. No denial there amirite?

  7. “The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him’; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.’ (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985). “

    – Finally! Ahninny actually cites something!

    Unfortunately, it’s a prophesy, and since prophesies are simply observations of the future, it has little to do with contemporary obligations, and standard protocol.

    See you in the next article, you Spencerbot.

      • Erm, no, because as a prophesy, it requires a number of things to be fulfilled before it works, almost none of which have. It includes the second coming which I’m damn sure hasn’t happened.

      • Assuming a little too much aren’t we? I never said it can’t. I simply said it has nothing to do with contemporary obligations or standard protocol, because it doesn’t.

        What people are supposed to do, isn’t necessarily related to future happenings. Prophesies generally aren’t about what people should be doing, but about future events that you can’t do anything about. You may as well quote the prophesies about Armageddon or the return of Jesus, and it would be just as relevant. Here, I’ll get you started on contemporary irrelevancy with regards to prophesies:

        Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم (while relating the story of the Dajjal) said: “At that time, suddenly Jesus son of Mary عليه السلام shall appear among the Muslims. Then, the people will stand up for the Prayer, and he (Jesus عليه السلام) will be asked, ‘Step forward, Oh Spirit of Allah (and lead us in the Prayer); but he (Jesus عليه السلام) will say, ‘No, your own leader should step forward and lead the Prayer.’ Then, after offering the Morning Prayer, the Muslims shall go forth to fight the Dajjal.’ He said, ‘When the Liar (Anti-Christ) sees Jesus عليه السلام, he will start dissolving like salt in water. Then, Jesus عليه السلام will advance towards him and will slay him; and it will so happen that the trees and the stones will cry out: ‘Oh Spirit of Allah, here is a Jew hiding behind me.’ None will be left from among the followers of the Dajjal, whom he (Jesus عليه السلام ) will not kill.” (Musnad Ahmad).

        Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Then in the morning, Jesus son of Mary عليه السلام will join the Muslims, and Allah will cause the Dajjal and his followers to be routed, until the walls and the roots of the trees will call out: “Oh believer, here is a disbeliever hidden behind me: come and kill him.” (Musnad Ahmad and Al-Hakim).

        Oh, and here’s something from the Bible:

        “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” (Revelation 19:19-21)

        Imagine that. Both the Bible and the hadith literature, have prophesies about the believers killing the disbelievers in a major war at the end of the world.

        I guess you might try and complain that the hadith prophesies talk about Jews being killed, but you seem to ignore (once again) some important important points:

        1 – It’s talking about a war, which means people are going to be killed anyway on both sides.

        2- Since it’s talking about a war, the people it talks about being killed are the ones engaged in it and not literally every single Jewish person. This is clearly evident in the rest of the hadith literature with regards to this.

        I know it’s not possible for you, but I suggest you try learning about Islam from actual Islamic sources. Spencer isn’t one, and trying to learn about Islam from his nonsense is as absurd as trying to learn about capitalism from China.

  8. It’s not commandment. Otherwise it would have said “Go kill Jews. Right now.”

    All it said is that towards the end of the world, there will be a big war. Which we will win. Muslims aren’t interpreting the Hadith to mean that they should start killing all the Jews.

    In response to the last point, you’re probably going to pull out another MEMRI video, a quotation from the Hamas Charter perhaps?, or that woman with the sign….that always works.

    • All it said is that towards the end of the world, there will be a big war. Which we will win. Muslims aren’t interpreting the Hadith to mean that they should start killing all the Jews.

      No, I think it’s enough that you agree that Muslims are gearing up for an all out war against everyone else. That it’s just a matter of time.

      • Meant to quote this part…

        In response to the last point, you’re probably going to pull out another MEMRI video, a quotation from the Hamas Charter perhaps?, or that woman with the sign….that always works.

      • “No, I think it’s enough that you agree that Muslims are gearing up for an all out war against everyone else. That it’s just a matter of time.”

        I never said Muslims are “gearing up for an all out war against everyone else”. Unless that was my “taqiyya slip”. I have to go apologise to master Osama for telling you my secret plan. Mwahaha. 🙂

        Like other religions, Islam predicts a massive war that will happen in the future before the end of the world. Followed by an era of peace. There are numerous Christians, including George Bush, who have used Biblical predictions such as “Gog and Magog” to justify current wars such as the one in Iraq.

        • Like other religions, Islam predicts a massive war that will happen in the future before the end of the world. Followed by an era of peace.

          Funny, I haven’t encountered too many Christians who believe that they will one day war against every non-Christian in order to usher in a period of peace. Usually they believe in spreading their message peacefully, which is something the Jesus of the Bible (not the Qur’an) taught.

          Sounds like a lot of your coreligionists believe that the war against the West is the war of the prophecy. That, after this war is over, the whole world will be part of the dar al Islam, and there should be peace at that point. Thing is, I highly doubt that would happen. Muslims kill each other far more than non-Muslims kill Muslims, or Muslims kill non-Muslims. You’ve got bloodlust permeating throughout your culture and religion. If non-Muslims didn’t exist, you’d just find ways of warring against each other some more. Sunni vs Shi’ite being just one example.

          • Funny, I haven’t encountered too many Christians who believe that they will one day war against every non-Christian in order to usher in a period of peace. Usually they believe in spreading their message peacefully, which is something the Jesus of the Bible (not the Qur’an) taught.

            You’re confusing prophesies with missionary work. Any Bible-believing Christian is going to believe that Jesus is going to kill the “Antichrist”, and his followers, and bring about a period where everyone follows his religion.

            Sounds like a lot of your coreligionists believe that the war against the West is the war of the prophecy. That, after this war is over, the whole world will be part of the dar al Islam, and there should be peace at that point.

            Except, in reality, their is no “war against the West”. The only ones who believe that their is, are the anti-Islam, anti-Muslim crowd.

            What some of our coreligionists actually believe, is that West is waging a war against Islam, and even those who believe that, don’t believe it to be that war in those prophesies.

            Furthermore, the beliefs about that prophesied war by both Muslims and Christians are almost the same: that the followers of the “antichrist” go to war against the “believers”, then Jesus returns, kills the “antichrist” and his followers, then the whole world follows his religion. The only disagreement is on who’s who.

            Thing is, I highly doubt that would happen. Muslims kill each other far more than non-Muslims kill Muslims, or Muslims kill non-Muslims. You’ve got bloodlust permeating throughout your culture and religion. If non-Muslims didn’t exist, you’d just find ways of warring against each other some more. Sunni vs Shi’ite being just one example.

            Except people have been killing each other for ages, regardless if they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Your singling out Muslims for this is completely unjustified.

          • “Funny, I haven’t encountered too many Christians who believe that they will one day war against every non-Christian in order to usher in a period of peace. Usually they believe in spreading their message peacefully, which is something the Jesus of the Bible (not the Qur’an) taught. ”

            I’ve met quite a few who believe that, ever heard of the ‘Left Behind’ series of Christian books and films? They are quite popular…

            As for your second bit, yeah, of course, now please show me this bit from the Qu’ran. And then we can have a little look at the history, maybe compare how Islam spread to how Christianity spread ya?

            “Sounds like a lot of your coreligionists believe that the war against the West is the war of the prophecy.”

            Of course some do, and so do plenty of Christians. One of the top selling books in certain circles is a book about how the ‘anti-christ’ will be a Muslim.

            “You’ve got bloodlust permeating throughout your culture and religion. ”

            Culture, yes, some of them. Arabs have it a bit. Religion? No, defiantly not. It’s why people like bin ladan find it hard to back up their actions with the Qu’ran.

          • The Medieval Christians thought the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the anti-Christ and that “his” religion will last only 666 years. 🙂 . The Crusades were thought by some to be the “big war” in which the followers of the anti-Christ will be defeated. Unfortunately for them, we won and are not going anywhere.

            However, in recent times, some Christians are repeating the Medieval lies and that the War on Terror is the 10th Crusade. They cite a whole load of Bible passages. Here’s one to apparently justify the war on Babylon (Iraq):

            “The Lord has opened his armory
            and brought out weapons to vent his fury.
            The terror that falls upon the Babylonians
            will be the work of the Sovereign Lord of Heaven’s Armies.” – Jeremiah 50:25 (NLT)

            Some are going so far as to say that Babylon is a codeword for all Muslim countries. Peaceful Christians! 😉

  9. As this article clearly demonstrates, Spencer is even willing to tell outright lies to create his sensationalism, such as this non-existent “divide and conquer” Muslim strategy. He’ll avoid admitting, of course, that “anti-semitism”, historically, was created by Christians. Ironically, if you were to gather together all the curses which the churches pronounced upon the Jews, the narratives about them in world literature such as Shakespeare and Dickens, and asked all the poets of the Arab world to put together a compendium of defamatory poetry against them, if we gathered all that together in one volume, it would not equal nor even come close to what is found in the Old Testament.

    • If Loonwatch has completely destroyed Robert’s arguments, like you claim, I wonder why Zayed didn’t go there prior to his debate with Spencer and use those arguments? If everything Robert says is untrue, and has been thoroughly debunked, I wonder how Spencer is still able to completely annihilate Muslims like Moustafa Zayed, who is hardly a nobody and is, like Danios, someone who claims to have refuted one of Spencer’s books.

      • “Moustafa Zayed, who is hardly a nobody ”

        No one knew him before his book came out.

        Danios, on the other hand, has won the “Best non-Muslim blogger” Brass Crescent Award from alt.Muslim. Loonwatch was also nominated for Best Blog, and Best Blogger.

        If Loonwatch wins an award from amongst the thousands of other Islam-related blogs in the world, as voted for by Muslim Internet users, then surely Loonwatch is pretty big. So why does Spencer go after some random man who isn’t very skilled in debating, who doesn’t have thousands of fans, doesn’t have much influence, is largely unheard of before his book and ignores one of the best Islam-related sites.

        http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/loonwatch-best-islam-releated-website-in-the-world/

      • “If everything Robert says is untrue, and has been thoroughly debunked, I wonder how Spencer is still able to completely annihilate Muslims like Moustafa Zayed, who is hardly a nobody and is, like Danios, someone who claims to have refuted one of Spencer’s books.”

        Loonwatch seems pretty popular amongst [Anhi inserts ad hominem here] Muslims and [Anhi inserts ad hominem here] Leftists considering that websites like MuslimMatters and the Daily Kos link to it. Ahmed Rehab, Reza Aslan, and other relatively well known American Muslims have also recognized the awesomeness of Loonwatch and Danios. Some universities and professors such as Juan Cole and Laith Saud (Leftist and Mooslim, respectively) consider Loonwatch a source—something Spencer has been vainly working towards for years. Loonwatch has been cited in mainstream news sources whilst Spencer is popular amongst right-wing extremists, white supremacist, and Serbian nationalists.

        Let’s face it, Mustapha Zayed isn’t the brightest guy around—even I could probably write better than him. So far, Spencer has run away from debate with Danios and Jalal al-Rub for reasons that Danios has explained…

        “He [Robert Spencer] will debate certain people, but he will avoid debates with those people whom he knows he doesn’t stand a chance against. I will be hammering him again and again in the coming months, and it will be interesting to see his reaction. I am interested to know how long it will take him to give up.

        Note that Spencer has given up responding to Loonwatch’s thorough rebuttals. I’ve read some of Spencer’s book (on Google books) and I didn’t find anything that was stumped me. I also noticed that he selectively quotes to the extreme. For example, he quotes the imminent Muslim Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri on jihad who has written the following…

        “We have shown how Abu Hanafi and his disciples, especially Shaybani, laid down the general rules and principles governing Islam’s external relations, based on the assumption that a normal state of war existed between Islamic and non-Islamic territories; but they made no explicit statements that the jihad was a war waged against unbelievers solely on the account of their disbelief (kufr). On the contrary, the early Hanafi jurists seem to have stressed that tolerance should be shown unbelievers, especially scripturaries, and advised the Imam to prosecute was only when the inhabitants of the dar al-Harb came into conflict with Islam.

        Loonwatch claims that it’ll soon release its rebuttal on jihad that will topple Islamophobia’s third pillar (the other two, Taqiyya and Dhimmitude have already been debunked). Looking at the facts, it’ll be more epic than Danios’ previous refutations.

      • . “…who claims to have refuted one of Spencer’s books.”

        If you refute one of Spencer’s books then you’ve basically refuted them all because they all contain the same material, i.e. they’re just rehashed in a different way. By the way, the articles refuting Spencer’s book are still coming through (there’s a lot of false claims that Spencer makes).

        By the way, I noticed you take issue with denial of the Armenian genocide but are perfectly okay with Spencer’s genocide denial. Oh, and your buddy JihadBob has expressed his desire to ethnically cleanse Turkey of its Muslims and replace them with Christians. I’m sure you’re just as incensed by his genocidal wishes as you are with Anjem Choudry and his forty followers.

    • No, he read Zayed’s book, which let’s face it, is not the really well written with a few grammatical errors here and there and gets too emotional when dealing with the subject. Spencer has read it, knows that Zayed is easy so he will take him.

      Spencer has confirmed that he has “received” Danios’ piece. Obviously the article shattered his claims so strongly that Spencer is doing all he can to avoid the debate. He has added two extra conditions for Danios to fulfil, just to buy time. The secret to success is that Danios is a “neutral outsider” whereas Zayed is one of those Muslims who gets too “emotional” when dealing with Islamophobes.

      It’s just hilarious when you think of it, Spencer has read both refutations, yet goes for the easy one. Lol. Thanks for bringing this up Ahni.

  10. Ahni: Moustafa Zayed, who is hardly a nobody

    How many Muslims and non-Muslims know Shabir Ally viz-a-viz Moustafa Zayed? How many people have Shabir Ally debated viz-a-viz Moustafa Zayed? Or for that matter, how well known is Zayed compared to Zakir Naik, Hamza Yusuf, Siraj Wahaj, etc.?

  11. Loonwatch claims that it’ll soon release its rebuttal on jihad that will topple Islamophobia’s third pillar

    Best to hurry before any more people are targeted in attacks by non-Muslims who kill in the name of Islam, no wait…..

    • I think Bob is trying to say that people should let Spencer lie about Islam and Muslims, i.e. Bob cares more about hate and less about the truth.

    • Well maybe if you made a point or at least acknowledge some of the stuff we say without resorting to unnecessary sarcasm and claims that you have been IP banned, then perhaps I could understand.

      Let’s try again. State your point.

      • It’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t being intentionally obtuse what his point was. If the ad wizards over at Loonwatch have proven that jihad is not an intrinsic part of the Muslim experience, then they should be out there trying to convince Muslims who are killing people that what they are doing is wrong. Yet, that’s not what Loonwatch’s purpose is. Loonwatch is only concerned with convincing non-Muslims that there is nothing wrong with Islam, and anyone who says so is acting out of irrational fear.

        Loonwatch is happy to see non-Muslims purged from Muslim lands, and is happy to see Muslims spreading into non-Muslim lands, just like any Islamic supremacist alive today. No matter what sad face it puts on when necessary, it’s a celebration whenever Islam is spread, regardless of the method. The only fly in the ointment are those non-Muslims who are aware of what is going on. Those are the ones who need to be silenced.

        • “It’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t being intentionally obtuse what his point was.”

          He was obviously saying that if Loonwatch says Jihad does not mean terrorism, it doesn’t change the fact there are people around the word who still engage in terrorism in the belief that it is Jihad.

          Similarly, by Obama saying the “US is not at war with Islam”, nothing changes. Its troops are still in Muslim lands, the Muslim people are denied democracy because America would rather have a friendly dictator, and the US is funding abuses of human rights in Pakistan (something even Spencer highlighted on JW). Obviously, I don’t think America is at war with Islam but a lot of people, both Christians and Muslims, do , and you can sort of understand why. (9/11 and War in Iraq).

          But JB thought I misunderstood his point, so I asked him to state it more clearly.

          “Loonwatch is happy to see non-Muslims purged from Muslim lands”

          I’m going to be expecting some evidence for that. Preferably some statement from Loonwatch that expressed happiness at the recent atrocities in Iraq and Egypt against Christians. While your at it, can you find a statement from Spencer distancing himself from the video he posted of the genocidal Hindu extremist group that seeks the elimination of Muslims and Christians from India. Thanks.

          http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/robert-spencer-and-pamela-geller-promote-video-by-militant-genocidal-group/

        • “then they should be out there trying to convince Muslims who are killing people that what they are doing is wrong.”

          When scholars do condemn terrorism, they are accused of taqiyya. Even when they use the Quran and Hadith to say to terrorists that terrorism is against Islam, for some stupid reason Spencer pops up and tries to say the opposite. How the hell does convincing Muslims that their religion requires them to be in constant state of warfare with non-Muslims reduce terrorism?

          Take me for example. I believe my religion does not condone terrorism. So why are you trying to convince me it does?

          http://spencerwatch.com/2011/01/11/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/

          And that just ‘happens’ to be yet another thread where you ran away from.

        • Sounds like Ahni is blowing a lot of hot air for me. He could never provide proof to support his statement, though never does for anything he’s stated on here anyway.

          Yet somehow he thinks he’s really sticking it to the “taqiyya-spraying” moozlims, although not everyone posting on LW or SW is even Muslim to begin with.

        • It’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t being intentionally obtuse what his point was. If the ad wizards over at Loonwatch have proven that jihad is not an intrinsic part of the Muslim experience, then they should be out there trying to convince Muslims who are killing people that what they are doing is wrong. Yet, that’s not what Loonwatch’s purpose is. Loonwatch is only concerned with convincing non-Muslims that there is nothing wrong with Islam, and anyone who says so is acting out of irrational fear.

          In reality, the purpose of loonwatch is simply to unspin the spin that loons like Spencer, Geller, etc. have done on Islam and Muslims, as well as expose the unjust actions that such loons take against Muslims and Islam. If everyone had enough sense to this on their own, loonwatch would become redundant.

          Loonwatch puts the wrong that Muslims do in the same perspective as the wrong that non-Muslims do, which is where it belongs.

          The need to address the wrongs done by some Muslims, is the same as the need to address the wrongs done by non-Muslims.

    • “Right, because your post understood the point I was making.”

      That was the sarcastic comment you made in response to my response to your comment. So obviously you thought I had misunderstood your point. No need to cry, Bob. Just because you are currently getting massacred on the other thread on Loonwatch as we speak.

      🙂

          • Too bad Ahninny can’t defend a single one of his arguments. He prefers to just post nonsensical rants to feel better about himself.

          • Scoreboard shows Christians and Atheists leading on the body county. Let’s not forget who has thousands of nuclear weapons.

          • Scoreboard shows Christians and Atheists leading on the body county. Let’s not forget who has thousands of nuclear weapons.

            Right, Hitler, Stalin, yet they didn’t kill for any religious reasons now did they? American kills are not done in the name of Christianity. Muslims want to blame a religion for every death caused by a non-Muslim because they are trying to justify their own religion.

            Don’t worry, though. As soon as a few more Muslim nations get the nukes, they scoreboard will likely change, as they try and nuke Israel and everyone else in the dar al harb.

          • It’s called Quraysh. It’s kind of like Age of Empires.

            So, it’s wrong for infidels to have a game that centers on killing Muslims, but it’s perfectly fine for Muslims to have a game where they kill Jews and Christians.

            Nice double standard.

          • So, it’s wrong for infidels to have a game that centers on killing Muslims, but it’s perfectly fine for Muslims to have a game where they kill Jews and Christians.

            Nice double standard.

            Actually the early Muslims were almost entirely on the defensive when they were fighting with the Quraysh. When Muhammad (PBUH) did finally capture Mecca, there was no fighting and the city was forgiven. Note that the game that centers on a non-Muslim killing Muslims has “genocide” in its title whilst the game called Quraysh is about a historical conflict. One would have to condemn a whole host of popular video games using your logic.

            Right, Hitler, Stalin, yet they didn’t kill for any religious reasons now did they?

            Yeah, because that changes everything. Just so you know, the conflicts in the Middle East are almost entirely rooted in geo-politics, not religion. Just read Bin Laden’s well-known fatwa.

            American kills are not done in the name of Christianity. Muslims want to blame a religion for every death caused by a non-Muslim because they are trying to justify their own religion.

            Firstly, I don’t see many Muslims saying that the Iraq war was motivated by the Bible. Most of them recognize other factors were involved, although it’s probably not spreading democracy because, as we’ve seen lately, most right wingers oppose democracy in Egypt and other Muslim countries. Secondly, in regards holy war, the Crusades alone killed more than twice as many people as the first 400 years of Islamic conquests. This is probably because Muslims were forbidden from killing civilians while conducting warfare. Also, contrary to the popular belief amongst Islamophobes, Christianity did have a holy war doctrine, as the Canadian historian Norman Cantor explains…

            “In the early fifth century, the most prominent of the Latin Church Fathers, St. Augustine of Hippo, justified the shedding of blood on the behalf of Christ, citing Christ’s words to his immediate disciples: “Compel them to come in.” In the early Middle Ages, the use of violence to protect the Cross and defeat, convert, or obliterate pagans and other non-Christians was commonly justified by bishops, leading to such incidents as Emperor Charlemagne’s massacre of the heathen Saxons at the end of the eight century. The Song of Roland, the French nobility’s favorite epic, written around 1100, accepts religious war against Muslims in Spain as an inevitable and righteous course of action. Fully half of the poem is devoted to detailed accounts of war to the death between Christian and Muslims, who are depicted as Satanic.”

          • The Crusades

            The Muslim Game:

            Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”

            The Truth:

            Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

            Here are some quick facts…

            The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

            By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

            Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

            In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.

            Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

            The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

            The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,384th year).

            Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

            The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

            For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

            Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

            Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to “drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out” (2:191), even though the aim wasn’t to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.

            The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

            What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

          • “So, it’s wrong for infidels to have a game that centers on killing Muslims, but it’s perfectly fine for Muslims to have a game where they kill Jews and Christians.

            Nice double standard.”

            Lol. Ahni just exposes himself here again. Do a quick Google search, you can play as the Romans and
            Persians and take on Arabs.

          • “Right, Hitler, Stalin, yet they didn’t kill for any religious reasons now did they? ”

            You truly are remarkable embacile. Did I even say religious reasons? Were the Nazis Christians or not? Did they go to Church? Did they read the Bible. Plenty of religious references in Hitler’s speeches.

            http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

            Regardless of whether they were declaring a holy war or not, they were still Christians, and they targeted JEWS just like the Christians before them. Keep denying it. Christian Europeans carrying out one of the most horrible atrocities in human history. The others being the slaughter of the Natives in America, Africas and Aborigines in Australia. Then we’ll go to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot whom persecuted religious people of all faiths. Just go look up biggest genocides in History.

            “Don’t worry, though. As soon as a few more Muslim nations get the nukes, they scoreboard will likely change, as they try and nuke Israel and everyone else in the dar al harb.”

            You sound like you’re hoping for it.

          • LOL. I’m pretty sure Norman Cantor doesn’t write for LoonWatch. Nice to see another source for your brainwashed rhetoric though.

          • Right…

            Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.

            Here’s what it actually says:

            And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts [so that] a party you killed, and you took captive a party.

            I don’t see that big of a difference, actually. “People of the Scripture” includes Jews. The whole killing and taking captive part is the same in both translations.

          • Also worth mentioning is the fact that TheReligionOfPeace is correct on the topic of the Crusades. Muslims love to bitch about the Crusades in their attempt at portraying themselves as victims, not aggressors, but the fact of the matter is, the Crusades are justified as far as the Qur’an is concerned. The Christians were just trying to take back land that was theirs for 1000’s of years before the Muslims forcefully took over. And, of course, the actual fighting by the Crusaders is dwarfed many times over by the amount of fighting done by Muslims in India, Italy, and elsewhere.

          • Looks to me like you’re the only one here bitching about centuries old Crusades…using hate sites to justify your opinions nonetheless.

          • Ahni, “1000’s of years”? Muhammad died in 632AD, about 600 years after Christ, with Jerusalem becoming under Muslim governance by 638. So I think you’re just a little mistaken in your assertion.

          • And Ahni, the Roman Empire (including the Levant) did not become a “Christian” Empire until 312 due to Constantine. So in actual fact, the Muslims have “ruled” there far greater and longer than Christianity ever did in the first place.

          • Yet, it was Christian land to begin with. Would the “drive them out from where you have been driven out” logic apply for the Christians? Or is only Muslims who are allowed to take back land that was theirs at some point?

          • And what does any of that have to do with anything? Since when did you become an apologist for the Crusades?

          • The reality:

            “Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland: Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, and Mongols, were historical ‘events’ whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes … Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture.” – Ali Qleibo, Palestinian anthropologist

            And thus, once again, Ahninny’s singling out of Muslims, is unjustified, because:

            1) Christians were there under Muslim rule

            2) Under its various occupations, the natives remained, regardless of their religious orientation

            3) A good deal of the natives converted to Islam.

            Since anyone can become a Muslim or a Christian, saying who it originally belonged to is utterly meaningless.

            Many empires ruled the land at one point. What distinguishes the Crusader Empires from the Muslim Empires, is their indiscriminate killing of civilians, which is something Muslims did not do, as it is forbidden in Islam.

          • Many empires ruled the land at one point. What distinguishes the Crusader Empires from the Muslim Empires, is their indiscriminate killing of civilians, which is something Muslims did not do, as it is forbidden in Islam.

            Hmm, that would come as a shock to the millions of Hindus, Armenians, and North Africans slaughtered by Muslims over the past 1400 years. Oh, and the ongoing genocide in Sudan at the hands of Muslims.

            I guess history is a crescent moon of happiness if you guys want it to be, am I right?

          • Ahni, the ongoing situation in the Sudan is Muslim versus Muslim… Muslims in the region have sided with their Christian neighbours and revolted against the government.

            Khalil Ibrahim is the founder of the “Justice and Equality Movement”, with Abdul Wahid Muhammad al-Nur being the founder of the “Sudan Liberation Movement”… both are Muslim.

            Also, read up on the Fur, Zaghawa and the Masalit peoples of Southern Sudan – all Muslim, and all opposed to the Sudanese government due to its corruption.

            Check out an old article by Prof Juan Cole – can you pick the “Sudanese Arab” from the “Black African”?

          • “I don’t see that big of a difference, actually. “People of the Scripture” includes Jews. The whole killing and taking captive part is the same in both translations.”

            Lol. After a silence of about 51 days you finally approach the subject. No apologies for using a false quote but instead you justify the blatant deception.

            The Prophet of Doom site had not only substituted Jews for People of the Scripture (they obviously did that to make the verse seem specifically anti-semitic, and that the condemnation they receive is for their ethnicity not their mistakes in following the scripture) but the source REWRITES the whole verse!

            Firstly, that is deception. For them to deliberately deceive their audience by twisting the Quran, knowing well that amateurs such as yourself would be unable to tell the authenticity of the verse, immediately destroys their credibility. The fake verse has been copied numerous times around the internet to “prove” that Islam is antisemitic whereas the real verse shows the punishment was for the people who, whilst living inside Medina, acted as a “fifth column” and helped the invasion by the Quraysh.

            We could argue for ages about the interpretation of the verse. But that is irrelevant to the discussion for the moment. The verse was entirely fabricated, the historical context was eliminated and it was published in that way to make it seem anti-semitic.

            But it is interesting to note, that you didn’t look at the other verses where the blatant deception is more visible:

            “Your website’s lie:
            The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.

            Reality:
            They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls. Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a people who do not reason.”

            Can you see what they did. Not only did they shorten the verse, they removed the context, and ADDED extra stuff that is nowhere to be seen and specified it was the Jews (hence implying it was their Jewishness to blame whereas it was their sin in that specific battle, not for eternity).

            Anyway, like I said this is not important. What is important is that your website lied and you have yet to acknowledge it was a bad source. Perhaps you should publicly “refudiate” the source.

          • Hmm, that would come as a shock to the millions of Hindus, Armenians, and North Africans slaughtered by Muslims over the past 1400 years. Oh, and the ongoing genocide in Sudan at the hands of Muslims.

            If they’re assuming that everything a Muslim does, has something to with Islam, then yes, it would be a major shock.

            The 1915-1917 “Armenian Genocide”, for example, was carried out by the Young Turk government, formed in 1908, which comprised secular-nationalist progressives and ideals, with little to no regard for Islam.

            With regards to the Darfur conflict in Sudan, that is about Arabs wanting to ethnically cleanse Sudan of non-Arabs, who are opposed to it. It is Arab racism at its worst, but again, it has nothing to do with Islam.

            Since no truly religious Muslim believes in the killing of civilians, then it therefore stands to reason, that those Muslims who do kill civilians aren’t all that religious.

            I guess history is a crescent moon of happiness if you guys want it to be, am I right?

            No, you’re not right, and as long as you’ve been posting here, you never have been.

  12. It is indeed strange that the criticism on the use of sword by Muslims emanates from those whose hands are soiled in the blood of countless innocent human beings, by those who exult in the techniques of homicide, who have depersonalised warfare to such an extent that millions of innocent men and women are put to death and numberless are thrown into concentration camps and flogged with steel rods and ox-hide whips, and all this is done without any qualm of conscience. As human beings. we hang our heads down in shame when we think of the horrifying atrocities which have been perpetrated by the modern civilised men. It is estimated that. in the First World War, ten million soldiers were killed and an equal number of civilians lost their lives, and twenty million died on account of widespread epidemics and famines throughout the world as an aftermath of this war. Economic costs are estimated at $ 338,000,000,000 of which $ 186,000,000,000 were direct costs.”

    http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html

  13. Has no one else noticed that according to Ahni’s little story, that is completely devoid of any historical fact, Saladin lived to be well over 200 years old:

    //…Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.//

    He was a right battler wasn’t he!

  14. Anhi, you’re genius. You’ve made so many factual errors that I don’t know where to start. First of all, Norman Cantor isn’t a writer for Loonwatch, he’s a historian. But that aside, citing Loonwatch would be more appropriate than citing anti-Muslim hate sites (that forges verses or makes false claims about the Crusades) because Loonwatch is accepted as a source in some universities. In fact, Pamela Geller was ranting about it a few days ago.

    The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred.

    There are at least two lies in this sentence alone. Firstly, the storming of Jerusalem during the First Crusade is hardly the Crusaders’ greatest crime. In the Rhineland alone, they killed about 100,000 Jews on their way to the Holy Land. As for the capture of Jerusalem about 40,000, not 3,000, Muslim and Jewish civilians were killed (some estimates put the number of civilians killed at about 70,000). In fact, as I’ve already mentioned, the Crusades alone killed about twice as many people than the medieval Muslims’ first 400 years of warfare.

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

    Crusades: 3,000,000

    Muslims first 400 years: 698, 200

    Congratulations, you win.

    • Like TROP site says, the way Muslims and leftist dhimmis tell the story, Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in Muslim lands when the big, bad, evil Christian army came storming through on a slaughtering rampage. How many untold millions of people were killed by Muslims long before the Crusades took place, as they conquered 2/3 of Christian Europe? How many of those “3,000,000” are you blaming on Christians? All of them? Is it like the Iraq war, where every death, no matter if it was caused by Muslim suicide bombers or American troops, is blamed on Christianity/America?

  15. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

    Crusades: 3,000,000

    Muslims first 400 years: 698, 200

    Congratulations, you win.

    Good source. I wonder if the same universities that accept ‘Loonwatch’ as a source would accept such dribble.

    In the Rhineland alone, they killed about 100,000 Jews on their way to the Holy Land

    Who is ‘they’? Crusaders? Riff-raff? Check a history book before making absurd claims.

    As for the capture of Jerusalem about 40,000

    Last I knew it stood at 25,000. Which is hardly any different from the number of Christians slaughtered by Baibars.

      • They minimize when it’s their fault, and exaggerate/fabricate when it’s not.

        Quite the contrary, I’ve shown that your website minimized the crimes of the Crusaders and fabricated a number.

          • The Byzantine Empire, which was in control of North Africa and Palestine at the time, were the ones who initiated hostilities against the Muslims, and were amassing themselves to get rid of the Muslims. In the age of Empires, that makes the Muslim conquest of Byzantine territories (i.e. North Africa and Palestine) justified.

            The Byzantine Empire’s religion was Eastern Christianity, while it was the Western, Roman Catholic Church who was behind the crusades and they never ruled those areas. Their crusade was nothing but an act of aggression, to claim something they never had.

    • Good source. I wonder if the same universities that accept ‘Loonwatch’ as a source would accept such dribble.

      Probably, since it cites all of its assertions unlike Islamophobic hate sites. It’s not my fault that mainstream research comes to conclusions contrary to yours.

      Who is ‘they’? Crusaders? Riff-raff? Check a history book before making absurd claims.

      Crusading counts and generals leading were the ones responsible for the violence.

      Last I knew it stood at 25,000. Which is hardly any different from the number of Christians slaughtered by Baibars.

      I checked and it was about 40,000 with some higher estimates. But good point, even an Islamophobe who desires to ethnically cleanse Turkey (such as yoursel)f wouldn’t make claims as absurd as the ones made on religionofpeace.

    • Coming from somebody who constantly revises history to fit his twisted narrative…I find that a tad ironic. I see you’re back to the whole “Derp, they weren’t Crusaders…they were ‘riff-raff'” argument. You just love to argue semantics don’t you?

  16. And Ahni, the Roman Empire (including the Levant) did not become a “Christian” Empire until 312 due to Constantine. So in actual fact, the Muslims have “ruled” there far greater and longer than Christianity ever did in the first place.

    Constantine legalized Christianity. Theodosius made the Roman empire Christian at the end of the fourth century.

    • Thank you JihadBob for that information. My point above to Ahni being that arguing over who has the right to “rule” that land is essentially moot. The ruling powers in the Levant were “Christian” for only around 350 years before Muslim governance came to the region, which existed for the next millennium or more.

      • So, it’s “moot” when Muslims take over Christian land, but it’s a Qur’anic obligation when non-Muslims take over Muslim land. Got it.

        • No, Ahni. I made no reference to the Crusades or anything else. Stop trying to obfuscate the fact that you stated a blatant falsity.

          You made the statement above that “The Christians were just trying to take back land that was theirs for 1000′s of years before the Muslims forcefully took over.”

          I was simply pointing out that it’s false and incorrect to state what you did. Christianity had existed – at most – for around 600 years only by the time Muslim governance came to the region (638CE). The land was not “theirs”, unless you mean that they lived in it for that entire period (along with everyone else) rather than “ruled” it. And if that’s the case, they continued to live in it after the Muslims came to the region anyway.

        • Can’t weasel himself out of this one. How can Christians have owned the land for “1000’s” of years when they had only been around for 638 years at the time of the conquest by Muslims?

          • Weaseling out is arguing semantics like you are. The fact of the matter is, it was Christian land that the Muslims took over, by force. By your own holy book, the Christians had every right to try and take back their land. So much for the “crimes of the Crusaders.” They weren’t doing anything that Muslims haven’t done before, or since.

          • Ahni, had they been fighting to take back their land from the pagan Roman Empire for the 300 or so years they ruled it before Christianity became the dominant religion of the state?

            And what of those living in the “Holy Land” who were Jewish, worshipped Roman dieties, and so forth? Is it not their land too?

          • If I’m not mistaken, you were the one who made a big deal out of the Crusades, when you decided to randomly quote an entire page from religionofpeace.com. Quit bitching about centuries old history dumbfuck.

          • Hey, if you make a false claim either admit it was false or back it up. In this case, it was blatantly false and a desperate attempt to bump up the number of years that Christians had owned the land to make the Muslims actions seem more horrific.

          • What point? That the massacres committed by the Crusaders were bad? I think they were.

            And before you start crying, I think the massacres committed by Muslims were also bad.

  17. “In the early fifth century, the most prominent of the Latin Church Fathers, St. Augustine of Hippo, justified the shedding of blood on the behalf of Christ

    The author exposes his bias by what he says and doesn’t say. Augustine became the first father (that I know of) to justify the use of violence for noble causes.

    Theologians before him were pacifists who opposed all forms of fighting carried out by Christians.

    the use of violence to protect the Cross and defeat, convert, or obliterate pagans and other non-Christians was commonly justified by bishops

    Commonly justified? Define commonly? Never mind that Augustine didn’t support forced conversions but said the Gospels were incompatible with forcing someone to convert to Christianity.

    Again, here the author misleads by what he chooses to say. And what not to say.

    But back to forced conversions, how many bishops advocating forced conversions would make it a common occurrence? How many conflicts actually involve forcing non-Christians to accept Christianity?

    Very few. The Baltic crusades would be the exception and that was carried out by local Christian kings and only some of the time during that conflict.

    By comparison, I would be willing to bet that for any examples of forced conversions to Christianity, one could find similar forced conversions to Islam during its history, and that doesn’t include the Muslim tactic of waging wars against unbelievers until they accept Islam or become subjects to a foreign religion and political power.

    The Song of Roland, the French nobility’s favorite epic, written around 1100, accepts religious war against Muslims in Spain as an inevitable and righteous course of action.

    And how many Muslim clerics consider fighting against Americans, Russians or Israelis as an inevitable and righteous course of action?

    Surely this belief isn’t a problem when it comes to Muslims fighting ‘defensive’ Jihad but becomes an issue for when Christians fight against invaders and aggressors.

    Fully half of the poem is devoted to detailed accounts of war to the death between Christian and Muslims, who are depicted as Satanic.”

    And eleventh century poem depicts Muslims as Satanic. Gee whiz. How many Muslims depict the Jews as Satanic today?

    Good grief.

        • Yet you regularly point and wag the finger at Muslim writings written 500, 600 or more years ago, highlighting them to show “Islamic supremacism” etc. etc.

          • It’s more relevant when those same beliefs are held by large percentages of Muslims today.

          • It’s as relevant as showing some people today also share the same beliefs regarding Muslims and Islam as your 800 year old song-writer.

  18. I checked and it was about 40,000 with some higher estimates.

    You checked…what? Wikipedia? Modern historical estimates place the death toll at 25,000. No different from the 40,000 killed at Istakhr, 17,000 at Antioch and numerous other sieges where defenders were slaughtered.

    Probably, since it cites all of its assertions unlike Islamophobic hate sites. It’s not my fault that mainstream research comes to conclusions contrary to yours.

    Yes, many of the citations in that source ultimately trace back to the 666 almanac. Just read this thread discussing the casualty counts from that page:

    http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=242

    I see you’re back to the whole “Derp, they weren’t Crusaders…they were ‘riff-raff’” argument.

    Yes, it’s that historical analysis thingy of leading Crusading historians, such as Thomas Madden and Jonathan Riley-Smith.

    • Sorry Bob, you’re not bringing up that inflated and exaggerated number again. As I showed extensively during our discussion previously at Loonwatch (beginning in the comments there), academia generally considers the number to be false and highly exaggerated, with little to no sources available to determine exactly what happened.

      • I guess you must have missed an underlying point in my post or something.

        (actually, I recall that the 100,000 figure was what was viewed as being exaggerated.)

        • No, Bob.

          The exact quote states that “The estimates, no doubt exaggerated, of the Arab authors speak sometimes of 40,000, sometimes of 100,000 of the enemy slain.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2:556-57

          It gives no indication that it refers to the latter only and not the former.

          Unless you’re now admitting that you were wrong to mention (and keep mentioning!) the exaggerated numbers of those killed at Istakhr, and prefer instead to agree with more recent academic research when it comes to such issues?

    • Yes, many of the citations in that source ultimately trace back to the 666 almanac. Just read this thread discussing the casualty counts from that page:

      This is a blatant lie. I checked the sources and there is no mention of the 666 almanac. Note the giant discrepencies between the numbers on your thread and the numbers on the site I linked to. In fact, your thread doesn’t even mention the site (which has been cited in 80 scholarly articles).

      Which citation traces back to the 666 almanac? None it seems.

  19. This is a blatant lie. I checked the sources and there is no mention of the 666 almanac.

    Fair enough, you believe 3 million died in the Crusades. I don’t.

    Unless you’re now admitting that you were wrong to mention (and keep mentioning!) the exaggerated numbers of those killed at Istakhr

    All casualty figures from the pre-modern era are subject to massive exaggeration. That’ s my point.

    Mentioning that 40,000 died at Istakhr to me is no different than when Nassir cited the same casualty figure at Jerusalem.

    At least in my case, a respected and modern historian did repeat the figure of 40,000 dead without any qualification that this may be an exaggeration. An exaggeration, fine. But a city was nonetheless razed to the ground and many (thousands) died. It’s difficult to split hairs with whether it’s 10,000 or 40,000 when my point stands that many thousands still died regardless.

    • Fair enough, you believe 3 million died in the Crusades. I don’t.

      That’s not the point. You blatantly lied when you claimed that the sources “traced back” to almanac 666.

  20. It’s difficult to split hairs with whether it’s 10,000 or 40,000 when my point stands that many thousands still died regardless.

    So why are you splitting hairs now regarding the Crusades? People died, the end… according to what you said above.

  21. Regardless of whether they were declaring a holy war or not, they were still Christians, and they targeted JEWS just like the Christians before them. Keep denying it.

    Stop blabbering.

    a) The Nazi leadership was hardly uniformly Christian (Himmler being the most prominent).

    b) Jews were targeted because of their blood, not because of their religion.

    c) Jehovah’s Witnesses were actually targeted because of their religious beliefs. Their religious pacifism made their beliefs unacceptable to the Nazis.

  22. Nice link, Rob. I can play that game too. Hitler clearly rejected Christianity, despite some of the speeches he gave.

    Hitler Quotes

    You’re just desperate to make excuses for your religion by painting everyone else as a bigger offender. How long do you suppose that game will last?

  23. Lie #1 a) The Nazi leadership was hardly uniformly Christian (Himmler being the most prominent).

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

    Sure they weren’t. lol

    like #2 b) Jews were targeted because of their blood, not because of their religion.

    Sure they weren’t. Just type in “Martin Luther Hitler” or “On the Jews and Their Lies”

    A long history of Jewish persecution by Christian Europeans, finally climaxing with the Nazis.

  24. “Nice link, Rob. I can play that game too. Hitler clearly rejected Christianity, despite some of the speeches he gave.

    You’re just desperate to make excuses for your religion by painting everyone else as a bigger offender. How long do you suppose that game will last?”

    lol@ahni

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

    • I respond to that link with a link of my own, and in response, you post the same link! Brilliant!

      Keep spamming that same site, it’ll make your argument stronger /sarc

      • Lol. It’s not the same link. The website is the same but you can’t be bothered to read beyond the “/” to see that the specific page being linked to is different.

  25. “You’re just desperate to make excuses for your religion by painting everyone else as a bigger offender.”

    Funny, that’s what you and Bob seem to do..but oh wait, you’re just an atheist, defending your Christian European brethren. That’s noble.

    Hey Ahni, you want to throw out those hypotheticals around again such as the terrible things Muslims will do to Jews or what they would do with nukes…you know, those things that Christians actually did.

    • Yep, I would side with Christians, since they aren’t the ones with a religious obligation to kill and/or subjugate. Call me crazy.

      • The longest peace treaty in history was between Muslims and Christians in NW Africa, but alas, I guess facts are irrelevant when you’re brainwashed by Robert Spencer.

        • There are no peace treaties in Islam. There is hoodna, a temporary lull in fighting in order to give Muslims time to gain the upper hand in battle.

          • Is that what Spencer has been telling you? He’s only giving you the view of *some* scholars of the Shafi’i school. In reality the two biggest schools, Hanafi and Maliki, as well as the smaller Hanbali school allowed for treaties to last indefinitely. In fact, Abu Hanafi and Ibn Rushd bith said that peace was better than war for Muslims (or something along those lines). The treaty I alluded to lasted about 600 hundred years. Here’s scholar Yaacoc Lev writing about the subject…

            “It was widely agreed that the Imam has the power to reach and renew hudna treaties, including those for ten years. It was considered as part of his discretionary powers (nazar). There is clear evidence that three of the four legal schools of Sunni Islam accepted the principle of hudna extending over ten years and even to an unlimited period (hudna abadiya or mutlaqa). Here are some examples to illustrate this point….”

            Here’s JihadBob getting humiliated on the subject of treaties in Islam. Note that he cites a book about jihad in Islam. In the book, you’ll notice that the laws related to war and peace have completely been revised now for about the past 150 years. Thus, even if classical Islamic scholars didn’t believe in the permissibilty of permanent peace treaties it would be irrelevant, because theologians have, again, completely revised the laws relating to war and peace in Islamic law.

            http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/seymour-hersh-military-branch-being-run-by-crusaders/

            PS: It’s usually spelled “hudna”, not “hoodna”

  26. Rob will be sorely upset when he learns Swastika inscribed Korans were issued to Muslim officers/soldiers in the Third Reich.

  27. “Rob will be sorely upset when he learns Swastika inscribed Korans were issued to Muslim officers/soldiers in the Third Reich.”

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

    Hmm..no mosques, no imams. Looks like the typical gathering of friendly Christian Europeans getting ready for what they’ve done best for 1700 years…kill jews and infidels…

    Did they give those qurans to the thousands of roma muslims they killed also? Or the muslims who fought against the Nazis? Denial is a powerful tool.

  28. http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/messianic_judaism/115985

    On a sign above the entrance gate to the infamous German Chelmno death camp located in Poland is written: “This is the Gate of God. The righteous shall enter therein” (Psalms 118:20). This was not meant to be a welcome sign to give courage or hope to the Jews who were goaded like cattle into the confines of Chelmno, but rather a mock designed to humiliate them on their first leg’s journey into an earthly hell. Between the gate sign and the ovens stood a ghostly spectator. Always the spectator.

    The specter was Martin Luther. This incorporeal being lent his phantasmic presence to Nazi Germany and was approvingly present at the Holocaust, as documented by numerous scholars. How could this be? Luther had been dead and buried for some 400 years.

    Professor Robert J. Wistrich, a top scholar on anti-Semitism, writes: “The seed of hatred sown by Luther would reach its horrible climax in the Third Reich when German Protestants showed themselves to be particularly receptive to Nazi anti-Semitism.”[1]

    Further, one Lutheran translator of Luther’s works states that “It is impossible to publish Luther’s treatise today without noting how similar his proposals were to the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s.”[2]

    What are some of the proposals alluded to above? There are seven proposal points known as Martin Luther’s Seven-Point Plan. Can you see the similarity with Hitler’s plans for the Jews and Luther’s seven plans for the Jews as listed below?

    * synagogues should be set on fire
    * Jewish homes should be burned to the ground, the people kept in stables like horses
    * they should be deprived of prayer books and Scriptures in which is found lies, curses and blasphemy
    * the rabbis must be forbidden under the threat of death to engage in teaching
    * Jews should be forbidden passports and not allowed to travel
    * all their money and valuables of silver and gold should be confiscated and kept by the government
    * let the young and strong, male and female alike, be given garden implements to work the land for food

    Hitler idolized Martin Luther. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, calls Luther one of the greatest heroes of Germany and the German people, while Professor Friedrich Heer, the greatest authority for authenticating Hitler, was determined in his belief that Luther had prepared the way for Hitler’s attack against the Jews. Heer also describes Hitler’s belief that Martin Luther saw the Jews of his time as Germany was seeing the Jews in Hitler’s day.

    What made Martin Luther such an acceptable person to the Nazis?

    “It was his treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he gave expression to his unbridled and utterly maniacal, detestation of Jews, and which contained more than a hint of genocidal intentions toward them. Luther’s vehement attacks on the Jews were frequently recalled and widely disseminated by the Nazis. The original edition of Luther’s loathsome treatise was exhibited in a special glass case at party rallies in Nuremberg.”[3]

    Michael Hakeem, Ph.D., expresses Luther’s hatred of the Jews in his article Holocaust as “No paraphrase of brief excerpts can give the full flavor of the seething hatred with which Luther assailed the Jews. It has to be read to be believed. He can hardly find words vile enough to describe who he apparently believes are creatures endowed with very little of human qualities. There is no malevolence, crime, immorality, and depravity he does not attribute to them.”[4]

    Hakeem further informs us that “In page after page of Hitler’s rantings against the Jews in Mein Kampf, one soon comes to realize the echoes of Martin Luther are being heard. Julius Streicher, the chief party ideologist of anti-Semitism, argued in his defense at the Nuremberg trials that he had never said anything about the Jews that Martin Luther had not said four hundred years earlier. . .in his seething hatred. . .nor is there any malevolence, crime, immorality, or depravity he does not attribute to the Jews.”[5]

    Luther was never satisfied. He constantly plotted evil against every Jew – man, woman, and child. “During the Reformation, there was a rising of nationhood, and as a German nationalist”[6], Luther implored civil government to begin cruel measures against the Jews. And so came into being Luther’s famous Seven-Point Plan.

    It has not been my pleasure to depict Martin Luther as the historical accounts have so vilified him. In spite of the good Luther accomplished during the Reformation, I have not shown him to be the wonderful Great Reformer that the world believes him to be, but rather a “despicable and non-tolerant hater”[7] of the Jewish people, whether Orthodox or Messianic. On the other hand, Luther was magnificent in bringing to light the error in Roman Catholic teachings of indulgences, purgagory, and other non-biblical beliefs which were the basis for false doctrine and dogma in that church system.

    The viewpoint given here of Martin Luther is based on historical data, which the busy Christian world does not normally hear.

    • After reading that it makes me wonder what it means when people call for a “Muslim Martin Luther”. I would say they already exist, and the “reformation” that took place was Wahhabism/Salafism. There are definite similarities to the points taken above from Luther’s works, if they are accurate.

      • From what I’ve learned in High School, Martin Luther was a reaction to the Catholic Church. There were other heretical Christian sects that appeared in Christendom before him for the same purpose, i.e. as an opposition to Papal authority. One such sect was the Cathars, which was destroyed by the Papacy after a long struggle that included the Albigensian Crusade. Curiously I have never heard Bob mention the Albigensian Crusade, probably because it involved inquisitions. For someone who dedicates so much time to bashing Muslims and Islam, he’s a bit touchy about Catholicism. In my opinion, the reason Bob posts on Loonwatch is because Loonwatch mentioned the doctrine of perpetual servitude.

        Of course, we shouldn’t pretend that modern day Christians believe in medieval doctrines like the Doctrine of Witness (i.e. the perpetual servitude). However, Islamophobes like Anhi shouldn’t pretend Muslims follow obscure medieval documents like the Pact of Umar, which isn’t even part of the Islamic Canon.

        A sincere question for Anhi: What exactly would you like Muslims to do?

      • First time i’ve heard of a Muslim Martin Luther. But I did a google search “Luther on Islam” and found his views. They sound like the ramblings of Halalpork.

    • You just made about five substance-less posts in a row and yet you have the gall to accuse others of “spamming”.

      Wow. Just wow.

      • Thank you for demonstrating the hatred that Muslims have for Jews and Christians. It really helps.

        Don’t you have a jihad to attend to?

        • “Thank you for demonstrating the hatred that Muslims have for Jews and Christians. ”

          lol @ Ahni? Psychotic much? Is it the same hatred that Hitler and Luther had for Jews, because I don’t see the parallels between any comments made here by me or anyone else on LW. Perhaps you should scroll up to those links I provided, and see what is real hate.

          “Don’t you have a jihad to attend to?”

          Nah, you’re not a raving bigot who has been spamming this site with generalizations and fallacies. But continue on Christian Crusader…

          • Psychotic, like blaming Christians for when non-Christians like me hurt your wittle religious feelings?

          • No, it’s the psychosis where one says “Thank you for demonstrating the hatred that Muslims have for Jews and Christians.” when there is no such demonstration. It’s basically an illusion, which is a part of psychosis, which you suffer from. You seem to have a problem with concepts like “circular logic”, “Occam’s razor” or psychosis.

      • Actually, eye for an eye is an Islamic concept and its not just figurative like in Christianity. But, of course, a devout (extremist?) Muslim like yourself probably knows that.

        • Actually, eye for an eye is really a human concept..found in the Tanakh (Old Testament), and before that in Babylon. Practiced by Christians and even modern civilized countries like the US when invading afghanistan…actually, that was more like foot, lung, kidney for an eye.

          • lol @ ahni. US invades two countries killing thousands, imprisoning and torturing..and you have a case someone throwing acid in eh 1 country.

          • “Oh, those poor terrorists in Afghanistan!”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Civilian_casualties_.282001-2003.29

            Right, those poor terrorists. According to Marc W. Herold’s extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only “impact deaths” – deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting – and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the U.S. airstrikes and invasion.

            In an opinion article published in August 2002 in the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute, a self-described neoconservative,[31] questioned Professor Herold’s study entirely on the basis of one single incident that involved 25-93 deaths. He did not provide any estimate his own.[32]

            In a pair of January 2002 studies, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that, at least 4,200-4,500 civilians were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes, both directly as casualties of the aerial bombing campaign, and indirectly in the humanitarian crisis that the war and airstrikes contributed to.

            Real shame isn’t it, you celebrating civilian deaths because theyre muslim..

          • Real shame isn’t it, you celebrating civilian deaths because theyre muslim..

            Well, if it makes you feel better (and I’m sure it does) there are thousands of dead US soldiers to go along with them.

            It’s war. Your Islamic brother bin Laden and the Al Qaeda team didn’t really give the US any other option than to go after them.

          • “Well, if it makes you feel better (and I’m sure it does) there are thousands of dead US soldiers to go along with them.”

            Nah, I really don’t like war or to see anyone killed. I know this view completely in opposition to the irrational narritave you’ve been trying so tirelessly to engrave here but that’s reality..the large majority of muslims, not fitting the islamophobe narrative: cognitive dissonance

            “It’s war. Your Islamic brother bin Laden and the Al Qaeda team didn’t really give the US any other option than to go after them.”

            Sure, “it’s war” when thousands of innocent muslims are killed and tortured, or nuclear bombs are dropped on civilian populations. I shed a tear for the people killed on 9/11 and the Afghanistan. You only shed a tear for one, atleast you pretend to.

          • I shed a tear for the people killed on 9/11 and the Afghanistan. You only shed a tear for one, atleast you pretend to.

            The 200 Muslims in the towers?

            Kitman.

          • “The 200 Muslims in the towers?”

            I understand you also have a problem with reading comprehension. “People” usually means all. Muslims would have been specifically addressed as muslims Since Afghans are pretty much all muslim, it’s pretty much default. Next topic, meaning of “circular fallices”

            Kitman? Are you trying to say Nicole Kidman? Yeah, shes ok but I don’t see how she is relevant here. Typical Ahni, always trying to move topics around after ignoring it because incapable of refuting.

          • Come on now, I know you know what kitman is. Half-truths. Like when you said you would shed a tear for 9/11, you could be telling the truth, in that you regret the loss of life among the 200 Muslims who died there. You could care less, or even celebrate, the fact that 2800 non-Muslims were killed. They were legitimate targets according to many of your coreligionists for the very same reasons you outlined earlier, i.e US military actions in Muslim lands.

          • “Come on now, I know you know what kitman is. Half-truths. Like when you said you would shed a tear for 9/11, you could be telling the truth, in that you regret the loss of life among the 200 Muslims who died there. ”

            lol@ ahni. Err…If the above irrationality helps you sleep at night so you can dream of battling little jihadis, sure thing Crusader.

            After you wake up, here’s some “circular logic” you should completely ignore:

            http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/

            “You could care less, or even celebrate, the fact that 2800 non-Muslims were killed. They were legitimate targets according to many of your coreligionists for the very same reasons you outlined earlier, i.e US military actions in Muslim lands.”

            LOL. Did I even mention US military action before the 9/11 attacks? I think what you’re using now is called idiot logic. Maybe that’s why you had to drag in “coreligionists” since your “arguments” are nothing more than generalizations and hollow accusations. Poor Ahni.

          • Why is it that when I google “Kitman”, it’s islamophobe sites which talk about stealth-jeehaad that come up first. We Muslims must have hid it so well that we don’t even know about it.

            “Paranoia is a thought process thought to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.”

  29. “Oh, those poor terrorists in Afghanistan!

    *sheds tear for terrorist members of the ummah*”

    You were talking about hatred earlier?

    In his companion study, “Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war”, released January 30, 2002, Conetta estimates that at least 3,200 more Afghans died by mid-January 2002, of “starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones”, as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes.

    In similar numbers, a Los Angeles Times review of U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services found that between 1,067 and 1,201 direct civilian deaths were reported by those news organizations during the five months from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002. This review excluded all civilian deaths in Afghanistan that did not get reported by U.S., British, or Pakistani news, excluded 497 deaths that did get reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani news but that were not specifically identified as civilian or military, and excluded 754 civilian deaths that were reported by the Taliban but not independently confirmed.[35]

    According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian, up to 20,000 Afghans may have died as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan.

  30. Anyways, back on topic:

    http://www.doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/30142v01.htm

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

  31. Wow, Spamni is still at it…he’s persistent I’ll give him that. Out of curiousity, why do you post here anyway? What’s your point. We get it, you hate Muslims, and you’re in denial about Robert Spencer’s douchebaggery. But trolling here doesn’t make the Muslims (or jihadists. I know the two are interchangable to you) go away…nor do you manage to make Spencer look like any less of a demagogue. Here’s a question, what exactly is your solution to your ‘Muslim problem’?

    • I don’t hate Muslims. It’s sad that such a poisonous ideology has to come between 1.6 billion people and the rest of the world. I feel sorry for you in the same way I feel sorry for the people in Fred Phelps’ whacko Christian church. Possibly good people in all other respects, but thanks to their beliefs, there’s no way to know for sure and they can not be trusted.

      • Wow Ahni, paranoid much?

        Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, so in reality you can’t trust anyone if you have such an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. You never know who might be one.

      • I don’t hate Muslims.

        The utter contempt you hold for Muslims as exemplified on a daily basis in your trolling suggests otherwise. And no, unlike decent, rational people…that contempt isn’t held solely for the extremists. You instead ascribe collective guilt to 1.6 billion people for the actions of said extremists. That is hate.

        Possibly good people in all other respects, but thanks to their beliefs,

        Considering the type of hate sites you frequent, there is now way for you to know what Muslims actually believe. You’ve been brainwashed by demagogues. Have you ever studied objective scholarship (and no Police-Blotter Bob doesn’t count) on said beliefs? My guess is no.

        there’s no way to know for sure and they can not be trusted

        That’s xenophobia buddy. *Pat on the back*

      • “there’s no way to know for sure and they can not be trusted.”

        Wow. Would you believe that’s exactly what the extremists you hate say about you.

        I think you and Osama should talk this through over a cup of tea.

        If you’re still pushing that taqiyya thing:

        http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/

        Read it and don’t dismiss it on the basis of the title as you did before.

      • I don’t hate Muslims. It’s sad that such a poisonous ideology has to come between 1.6 billion people and the rest of the world. I feel sorry for you in the same way I feel sorry for the people in Fred Phelps’ whacko Christian church. Possibly good people in all other respects, but thanks to their beliefs, there’s no way to know for sure and they can not be trusted.

        Thus Ahninny demonstrates once again, why he is indeed “a ninny”, as he talks about Islam and Muslims, when he doesn’t really know either, while trying to pretend like he does. On top of being a ninny, he is also a tool, because he willingly swallows and regurgitates the rhetoric that comes entirely from spin doctors, like Spencer, Geller, etc. with absolutely no independent knowledge of his own regarding what he says.

      • I don’t hate Muslims.

        No you don’t hate Muslims, just the thing which by their very designation as Muslim (according to you), is the very thing which animates their soul and being; what they live their life for.

      • “I don’t hate Muslims.”

        Yet you support a fake scholar who has supported the ethnic cleansing of 150 million Muslims from Turkey, has promoted a video from a militant Hindu group that wants to kill Muslims and Christians, and who has denied the Bosnian genocide and whose website includes the genocidal ramblings of Hugh Fitzgerald, including the advice to loyal JWers to be “secretly delighted” whenever they hear Muslims getting killed in Muslim countries.

        Many Islamophobes love to say that they “love Muslims” but only hate “Islam”. I stopped believing that crap the moment Geller and Spencer went berserk over Halal Campbell’s soup.

        • Indeed; going batshit crazy over a halal logo appearing on vegetarian soup chain to inform Muslims that it contains no gelatine or other products produced from pork was slightly overboard.

  32. Loons need to misread what Spencer actually writes. If they didn’t, they might have to actually address what he writes about:

    This story about Campbell’s Soups in Canada introducing a halal line has gone all over the place — mostly to hard-Left sites that, either out of ignorance or complicity, missed the main point. Many predictably cried “bigotry!,” pretending that I was objecting to the idea of a halal soup line in general. Actually, I couldn’t care less if Campbell’s Soup introduces a halal line: if there are Muslims in Canada who will buy the soup, then that’s the free market for you. Nor is it a sign of Sharia coming to America, unless Campbell’s is planning to make all of its products halal, which it is not.

    The real problem here is that Campbell’s is getting halal certification from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ….

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/leftist-journalist-sneers-at-story-of-campbells-soup-doing-business-with-hamas-linked-isna.html

    • Same Article:

      “Campbell’s Soup should know better, although it must also be noted at the same time that they’d be hard-pressed to find a halal authority that didn’t have some unsavory ties to an Islamic supremacist and/or jihadist group, whether it be the Brotherhood or one of its allied organizations. That is the chief viable argument against any introduction of halal food lines by any company.”

      Right. So all companies should deprive Muslims of halal food because of the small chance that the people doing the inspections might be “linked” to Hamas. What is this link? Is a small portion of every halal soup can going to help Hamas buy rockets? No. Is Hamas going to celebrate victory over Israel because an organisation that is supposedly linked to them far away has conquered the North American soup industry? No.

      It doesn’t even matter who is giving the certification. The soup just needs the word “Halal” on it and Muslims can enjoy the soup. No need to interrogate the person who gave the certification.

      In any case, this is typical Spencer. All Muslims in North America should not be allowed to enjoy the same products as anyone else because of the actions of some other Muslims.

      • Bob needs to hide what Spencer writes in order to do damage control for him. Heck, he doesn’t even defend what Spencer says half the time because he knows it’s mostly BS.

    • Tea Party Nation tweeted:

      “Campbell’s now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me.”

      Just remember. They love Muslims. They just hate absolutely everything they believe in, what they eat and how they dress.

    • “…far left loons.”

      That means very little coming from a jingoist loon who opposes democracy and wants to ethnically cleanse an entire nation. I could mention other things that highlight your extremism, such as your hatred of Lincoln and love of the Confederacy, but you get the point.

        • So you admit Spencer and Geller are against democracy and human rights because they oppose the democratic revolution in Egypt?

          Anyway why are you attacking the far-left? What about the Muslims whose religion you say is incompatible with democracy who participated in the Cedar Revolution? Was that all just a mass display of taqqiya designed to convince the Western Dhimmis that their religion is compatible with democracy?

          Seriously, get over the whole “Leftist-Mooslim Alliance” myth.

    • I don’t know about the cedar revolution, but during the Iran uprising there were these left-wing reactionaries who ridiculed the protesters and tried to justify the IRI’s brutality. These people are definitely loons. As are the far right wingers such as Geller, Spencer, Gaffney, Horowitz and of course, Glen Beck:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SYB8Lyi54

      I’m glad we agree here for once. Extremists are loons.

  33. These are facts cannot be disputed:
    1. Muslim jihadis kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam.
    2. Many Muslims countries officially persecute and subjugate people of other faiths.
    3. There are many passages of the Quran which seem promote these things. Many Muslim clerics unequivocally support these things.
    4. Neither Muslim clerics, nor Muslim political leadership, nor the supposedly “silent majority” of Muslims seem willing or able to stop these evil things that are done in the name of Islam.
    Clearly, there are fatal flaws, at the core of Islam, as reflected in the Quran, and as taught by Muslim leaders, that provide the justification for these evil things.

Leave a Reply

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