Under heavy police protection, scholar of Islam shouts out for freedom while leftists hurl rocks and bottles:
Contrast the hundreds of radical counter-demonstrators…with the 5 or 6 people actually there to hear Robert speak. What does this tell you about Europe's prospects?
They don't like silly fear-mongering propagandists who call themselves scholars? In that regard, European prospects are great.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
I don't relish your rude awakening…because it'll probably never happen. You'll either embrace dhimmitude with a craven, servile enthusiasm…or you'll convert to Islam outright.
Europe was and remains antisemitic. Europe is not scare of the Jews. They would 'nt dare treat the Muslims the way they treat the Jews because they need the oil.
Just had another flashback to 1930's pre-war Germany.
Totally. Spencer's cherry-picking condemnation of a religion has that effect on me, too.
It's best to get islamic knowledge from muslims instead of Robert, that's for sure (altho' I do like reading his writings). From listening to authentic, pious, lifelong muslims as well as from reverts from other faiths, it's obvious that Robert tempers his arguments too much in favor of islam. Islam isn't nearly as rosy as Robert paints it.
Liberal Fascism ???
Why the question marks? Modern "liberalism' has always been fascistic.
For my sake, the whole EU can go to hell….
Unfortunately for them, there won't be another USA to come to their rescue, as it
will be in a similar situation as they will sooner than later be….
Herr Spencer! Danke fuer Ihren Mut und Sorge fuer Deutschland und den deutschen Buerger!
Try English stupid
He is simply thanking RS for his courage and concern for Germany and German citizens. Something all clear headed people will surely support
Try politeness, Arsloch.
I don't speak german Try English stupid .
Fun game, i want to play too. So Spencer says everywhere you find Muslims and non-Muslims you have conflict b/c Muslims seek to conquer non-Muslims. Ok, well since about the late 15th century everywhere white people/Europeans went and came into contact with non-whites there was conflict b/c whites sought to conquer them. They based this mission on their alleged superiority, divine right, the need to save heathen souls, etc. (e.g. Kipling's white man's burden). We see the remnants of this in today's "missionaries", be they from the Mormon church or the Peace Corps.
By that reasoning, there is good cause for non-Christians in non-European areas of the world of be suspicious of a Christian presence, as it is likely the vanguard for introducing Judeo-Christian law/culture and converting locals.
People who live in glass houses …
So then genius, your telling us that from about the late 15th century whites were the only ones who were seeking to conquer and everyone else was peacniks? The Ottomans werent trying to conquer anyone? The black african tribes were all at peace with one another? The Indian tribes of America were all peaceloving folk and never fought each other or killed innocent whites? Sorry the facts dont add up for your argument here & it appears you have a prejudice against a certain skin color. Cant you see how shallow your opinon is here?
"whites were the only ones"
Nice try, but I never said that, so the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
Try reading what he said maybe you'll understand. OK, for the sake of argument, let's grant your premise that white/christians sought to dominate the non-white world. Does that in any way invalidate the core of Spencer's assertion that Islam and Jihad mean to conquer and enslave the world? Besides, let's drop the smarmy hypocrisy. Who cares about who the whites were conquering, let's talk now, let's talk us, let's talk what's left of the Western world. Forget the derelict, degenerate cultures out there. We're being threatened. Send them back to the hellholes they escaped.
First of all, it's not a premise, it's called history. But if you or some other right wing nut bag wants to argue that Europeans did not try (and succeed) to conquer at least almost all of the world, go ahead. I could use the laugh.
Now, let me walk slowly so as not to lose you. My comment was not meant to invalidate Spencer's core assertion, it was meant to point out that a western supremacist is in no position to be outraged, on principle, by the alleged desire of others to conquer. To simplify- if person A uses terrorism and then criticizes person B for using terrorism, most of us would call person A a hypocrite and ignore that criticism. That is not condoning person B using terrorism, if in fact that is what they are doing. I was not challenging his assertion about Islam, I was calling him out for defending the alleged assault on a culture that has itself been involved with conquest, often very violent, for half a millennium.
Still with me? Good. As for his central assertion, it's bs. Islam is not a monolith that acts as one. Islam doesn't "mean" to do anything, because there is no such thing as a singular entity called Islam that is doing anything.
The rest of your comments don't make any sense, so I'm ignoring them.
In other words we should all shut up and listen to you. We are so soiled by our vicious history we should remain mute and submit to these barbarians. And yes, we conquered the world, or at least most it. Energetic, inventive secure civilizations do that and have done it for all time. It is how the ahistorical become historical. The weak, the dead, the impenetrably wasted parts of the world have always been conquered. If they were energetic and clever they would not have been. The original meaning of Santayana's statement that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it referred to primitive societies whose history is bound by itself, a circular trap in which nothing ever changes. Without the conquest of India by the British widows would still be flinging themselves on their dead husbands pyre, for one example. As for the rest of my comments the operative sense is Muslims should never have been allowed to enter Europe or the US. Send them back. They are a Fifth Column.
So in other words because westerners have done bad things in the past they do not have the right to defend themselves and deserve to be destroyed? That seems to be what you are saying. It's hypocritical to point out when Muslims murder and subjegate Christians in Egypt or point to supremist statements by Muslims, or the tenets of Muslims. We should just shut up because we did bad things in the past.
Perhaps you could name for me one sect of the four main branches of Islam that rejects Islamic supremiscism and the eventual goal of conqouring the world? No, Islam is not monolithic, but it follows the Koran which commands to subjugate, rape and kill, which it's followers are doing today, and is reason for concern.
(And before you whip out Tu Quo Que, Christians, Jews, Buddists today are not killing and subjugating people in any kind of large numbers while quoting verses from their scriptures as justification. Only Islam is the one doing that in any large quanity)
(To clearify: The last sentence in the first paragraph above should have been followed by "right?", as I'm summarizing what guest was saying above, not saying this is true. )
Is that still going on today? By "remnants", do you mean Christians missionaries building schools and providing medical care to impoverished areas. Instead of playing games, why don't you do a little compare and contrast between what Christians are doing in Africa, to what Muslims are doing, and have done for the last 1400 years in Africa, and everywhere else. Show your work, Mr. Smug.
Yes it is still going on today but the terrain has shifted in the last 25 years. From the end of the age of empire (WWII) to the end of the Cold War it was done via the fight against global communism and via the World Bank and IMF primarily.
What Christian missionaries do in the third world today is too big a topic to deal with here. Certainly some of it is good and comes from a sincere effort to help. Much of it also is about harvesting souls. You have Google, you can read about the controversies over aid being tied to conversion, or the threat of aid withheld without receptiveness to the ideology. But my point was largely historical and conversion was often directly forced by violence. Once conquered, however, less force was necessary as the battle was fought on the terrain of culture.
Errrm, we drove hideous barbarians like yourself from the walls of Vienna less than 330 years ago. Those Western vaccines were clearly wasted on you.
Why is introducing Judeo-Christian law/culture a bad thing?
Introducing it isn't a bad thing. Imposing isn't usually usually welcome, and these folks have long memories.
see above. a) they already had law and culture and weren't asking for a new one b) it was introduced through violence and conquest. c) because of (b)it was hypocritical. Introducing Jesus at the pointy end of a sword isn't very Christian, is it?
Exactly when and where was Jesus introduced at the pointy end of a sword? Christian missionaries didn't carry swords; they take the "turn the other cheek" ethos rather seriously. Which explains why a number of them have been martyred, often in particularly gruesome fashion. Funny how Muslim "missionaries" to non-Muslim lands never seem to get themselves flayed alive, roasted over coals or nailed to crosses and thrown over waterfalls. Probably because Muslim methods of "conversion" are a little more, um, persuasive…
And anyway, why are you b****ing about Christian missionaries? To create some kind of idiotic moral equivalance between that and the Islamic rape of Europe that is happening now? Nice try.
I'with you one hundred percent.
You are obviously IGNORANT of the teachings of Islam, the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That being the case, why do you even attempt to draw false analogies? Oh, I keep forgetting – you're an IGNORANT leftist troll.
I worked as a german missinonary in Africa. The people were very aware of the history. They could name the mistakes made by american missionarys – but the finished with the statement: But they brought us the gospel!
They honoured them for that, despite what they have done.
The evil came from the commercial 'missionaries' who want do make their deals. So the Congo of King Leopold lost millions of habitants by the cruelties and it was an american Mark Twain who made this public.
It is not the question christian or not but having a good heart or not. BUT with a bad ethic base, such as the actuel Islam, you cannot devellop a good heart.
Theire have been mouvements in islam towards a pro-human islam, but they have had no chance.
Bad behavior of the ancestres are not a reason to have bad behavior today.
Oh, one more thing, Christians choose to stop being Christians anytime. What would happen to someone who wants to leave the faith of Islam?
TRICKLY: "…no plausible scenario exits in which Islam can take hold of western law and culture"
RESPONSE: Your ignorance is palpable. There are innumerable examples of the Islamic ethos and law being imported into the West. The multiculturalists ruling Canada attempted to establish Sharia courts a couple of years ago…only to have the effort blocked by Muslim women who feared having their rights eroded (conversely, the opposition of native Canadians was immediately attacked as racist). A Florida judge recently used Islamic law to settle a case between Muslims. Britain has implemented Sharia courts to settle family law for Muslims (and is now having second thoughts). Several Western countries are currently trying their own citizens for expressing unflattering opinions of Islam, which conforms nicely with Islamic prohibitions on criticism of their sacred cows.
So when you're an old man and still living in a free country and Islam has not even remotely taken over either Europe or the US, what will you say, then? "Man, I had a weird hobby of freaking out about Islam for a while, there."
Jim, THIS century, America will have a Hispanic majority (no great problem, our cultures are sympatico)…and Europe will have a Muslim majority, save for a dramatic immigration reform policy. I probably won't be alive when the process is completed, but I'm sufficiently rational and observant enough to notice the incrementalism already under way…reflected in the very same examples that Tricky ignorantly rights off as irrelevant. You probably won't live to see the day either, but your children or grand-children will. Let's hope they are not European females.
"Your ignorance is palpable."
Ok, Darth Sidious. Please don't attack me with lightning from your fingers.
1) So, the Canadian attempt failed, and you offer it as proof to back your argument?
2) What's the case in Florida? Is the opinion published, does it contain a reference to Islamic Law, and if so, do you have a link to the opinion (not a hysterical blog — a court opinion referencing Islamic law as a major factor in the decision)? If you do have this, do you also have a copy of the judge's disbarment papers?
3) Great Britain also has Jewish family courts and has for decades. Does this mean the Jews are taking over?
4) Those laws you mention also prohibit "hate-speech" against Jews and other minorities. I don't agree with these laws, and in the US they are incompatible under the Constitution.
And therein, at least in the US, is the rub. Sharia is not compatible with the Constitution (the law of the land). They would need to overthrow it, and rest assured you'd hear about it. Then there'd be widespread condemnation from the 99 percent of us that are not Muslim. Use your head, Chez. Not going to happen.
Ah, I googled the Florida case. The judge was applying the same logic as he would for any other case involving an arbitration agreement as sole form of dispute resolution. The courts don't really have a say in the matter and the arbitration agreement is the "decider" (absent discriminatory or otherwise unlawful content that would negate it).
In other words, I can go through arbitration with a coworker and predetermine that, in case of dispute, if my dog wags his tail I win, and if he doesn't, my coworker wins. If it's binding, courts don't have a say, my dog is the ultimate authority.
This has nothing to do with "Islamic law" or Sharia, and everything to do with boring old arbitration law. Cases like this happen thousands of times a week involving non-Muslims. Of course, that doesn't stop FOX News from going all apoplectic on this arb agreement.
Ahhh yes, it's a legal ruling in an American court based on Sharia law ("no plausible scenario"), but since that is the agreed formula of arbitration for the principles, somehow it doesn't qualify as Sharia….???
You're very deep.
And you obviously have no clue as to how the legal system works. It's not "based on Shaira" it's "based on an arbitration agreement." Nothing deep about it, arb law is very, very boring. But conceptually, it's pretty straightforward.
No, there is no plausible scenario in which .5% of a nation's population, of which many of that 0.5% are not fundamentalist, can impose religious law on the remaining 99.5% of a liberal democratic republic. None. Zilch. Nada. (Aliens from outer space assisting them is not what I'd call plausible.)
No plausible scenario. Or are you now telling us that a hearing on an arbitration agreement somehow qualifies as "Islam can tak(ing) hold of western law and culture."
If so, wow.
I'm suggesting that creeping Sharia is a very real threat…and cases like the one cited are just the beginning, the foot-in-the-door, if you will. Other manifestations….
1) using public money to construct foot-baths at Minneapolis airport for Muslim cabbies to use in ablution ceremonies
2) laws at meat-packing plants in the mid-west giving Muslims time-specific break for prayer…a privilege denied non-Muslim workers
3) the Dearborn police dept's unlawfully prohibiting non-Muslims from exercising their first amendment rights during Muslim festivals
4) Muslim advocacy groups vetting middle and high school textbooks to sanitize how Islam is taught in our public schools
I could go on, but I sense you're willful blindness precludes any sort of potential enlightenment.
1) Yes, the Canadian ATTEMPT is noteworthy…next time it might succeed.
2) Florida: Read comment below your ancillary post
3) No, because a) Jews do not have the demographic hegemony that Muslims are gradually acquiring in Britain and b) "Jewish law" has been tempered and modified over thousands of years of learned discourse, whereas Islamic Law is fixed and immutable…(leave it to a liberal to warp his world-view through the prism of cultural relativism).
4) The "hate speech" laws you are referring to coincide with the Islamic war on free speech…and their institution coincided with the growing power of Muslim immigrant advocacy groups….(but establishing such obvious linkage runs against the grain of your existing narrative, so for you, it's better to pretend the linkkage doesn't exist).
PS – We haven't even touched on the explosion of honor killings, anti-Semetic violence and vandalism, terrorism and other pathologies that Muslims have imported into Europe. These are the non-legal facets of Islamization….but to you, they either don't exist, or can be rationalized away via the efforts of self-delusion.
The enslavement is already occuring – there isnt one Western country that is now not socialist. The rot started in the sixties and kept growing. You, like most everyone else, cant see the socialist takeover because it has occured by degreees – its hard to see when it occurs incrementally. Wake up.
To close with "Shame on you"……how history repeats itself, if there was ever a
people that brought shame on themselves it is those Germans, now leftist
mobsters just like back in the day of Hitler. Some people just never learn.
Unbelievable, only maybe the second generation since the Nazi hordes
brought hell down on Europe and themselves they are dancing to the
same devil's tune. Robert Spencer makes my all time hall of heros.
Oh really. I don't give a sweet s*&t what you think
Everyone thinks you are stupid Dan, no just Chiggles.
Robert Spencer is a GIANT in his field – the Truth about Islam is not pretty.
I just spent ten minutes on Edialogue on this page. The Muslim manning the chat isn't capable of dealing with anyone who has actually read the Koran, or knows the history of Islam. Pretty amusing. Go to http://www.www.idealogue.org and discuss Islam.. you'll enjoy the nonsense coming from the Muslim/s manning the chat.
I'm German and I have real problems to understand, whats going on in these people. But they have not the majority, but they act as! They are supported by Journalists who think the same way. Critical voices are eleminated from publicity by accusing them with Nazi conspiratory.
Even in churches bishops supports pro-Hamas activity and with it neo antisemitic actions. (sorry in German: http://blog.jrsch.de/2011/04/23/wieder-modern-ant… )
"Islam is peaceful, we believe in the same god, our islamic brethren, Israel must give the palestinians what they want and so on"
Even police entered an appartment to take off an israel flag: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,…
September 3rd, 2014
Los Angeles, CA
September 11th, 2014
Los Angeles, CA
November 13th-16th, 2014
Palm Beach, FL
Racist-in-chief: Barack Obama's tribal approach to politics. frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfie…
How our anti-American president has stripped us naked before our enemies: freebeacon.com/columns/remili…
1 in 6 Frenchmen support ISIS: frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfie…
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2014 · FRONTPAGEMAG.COM