Slapping, Stabbing, and Slaying for Sharia


Pages: 1 2

Originally published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Prior to Egypt’s presidential elections, Islamists made clear that the electoral process was an obligatory form of “holy war.”  Then, any number of Islamic clerics, including influential ones, declared that it was mandatory for Muslims to cheat during elections—if so doing would help Islamist candidates win; that the elections were a form of jihad, and those who die are “martyrs” who will attain the highest levels of paradise.  Top Islamic institutions and influential clerics, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, issued fatwas decreeing that all Muslims were “obligated” to go and vote for those candidates most likely to implement Sharia law, with threats of hellfire for those failing to do so.

The point was simple: democracy, elections, voting, even the individual candidates, were all means to an end—the establishment of Sharia law.  Cheat, fight, and kill during elections, as long as doing so enables Sharia; vote only for whoever will enable Sharia; avoid hell by enabling Sharia.  (It is precisely for this reason that the very first demand made by Islamic leaders is that President Morsi implement the totality of Sharia law in Egypt.  That is, after all, why so many voted for him.)

That many Egyptian Muslims heeded these commands to lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to empower Sharia, there is no doubt.  Story after story appeared in the Egyptian media—much of it missed in the West—demonstrating as much.

Those dealing with brutal violence speak for themselves.  For example, a Muslim man “beat his pregnant wife to death upon learning that she had not voted for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi.”  According to police reports, “despite her pleas,” the husband “battered and bruised” her after discovering she had voted for the secularist candidate, Ahmed Shafiq.  She died later in the hospital “from injuries sustained.”

Pages: 1 2

  • oldtimer

    There is election fraud here in the US, that is why ID needs to be shown when we vote, but than the powers that be here will do anything to keep that power and we are suprised to find that it would happen in muslim countries, when they will do anything including murder to get their evil lifestyle/religion in power. WAKE up people.

  • Schlomotion

    At this point, I don't see how I can believe a word Raymond Ibrahim says. His last two articles, the one about Muslims seeking to destroy the Great Pyramid and Muslims wanting to have interc.ourse with the dead were both HOAXES. Mr. Ibrahim is becoming the new Amir Taheri, writing or transmitting abjectly false information in order to put people on a war footing. Frontpage is just merrily placing these fake stories in the center column, never addressing the issue when the stories are exposed as fake. Now when I read this stuff I have to take it with the same massive grain of salt as when I read stories on Russia Today. A large portion of the main headlines are unabashedly bogus.

    If you put Raymond Ibrahim in the search engine with Amir Taheri, it takes you to the Gatestone Institute, which is a Hasbara administrated by Nina Rosenwald (AIPAC). Gatestone's senior membership is Jewish but has an advisory front group made of Arabs. Soren Kern, darling of FPM is also on the senior editors list.

    • aspacia

      You are correct, both are hoaxes.
      http://www.rt.com/news/egypt-destroy-pyramids-isl

    • Touchstone

      "unabashedly bogus"

      You mean like your claim that only Jews are legally permitted to prepare bug-out bags, whereas every other American is legally forbidden to do so? The TV show "Doomsday Preppers" features various Americans who not only prepare for disaster scenarios, but who consent to broadcast themselves doing so. Would they do that if their activities were illegal? I've checked out a few episodes and so far I haven't seen one prepper who's Jewish. According to your own "unabashedly bogus" claim, these non-Jewish preppers must surely be headed for prison, because, as you say, only Jews are granted the privilege to stock up on supplies.

      This is just one example of your "unabashedly bogus" claims. Who are you to criticize anyone else for "unabashedly bogus" claims when you stridently make your own?

      • Schlomotion

        Yes. Right now we are discussing how Gatestone Institute seeds the press with fake news stories like Mr. Ibrahim's using Nina Rosenwald's money and the nonprofit status to racketeer the media. We are not discussing backpacks and funny TV shows.

        • Touchstone

          Don't tell me what I can or can't discuss. What's truly under discussion here is something very specific: how inconsistent, hypocritical, and full of BS you are. In that context, this is the PERFECT time to provide an example of your "unabashedly bogus" claims because it's right here and now that you're taking others to task for making "unabashedly bogus" claims. It's right here and now that it's MOST appropriate to remind anyone reading that you're no stranger to making "unabashedly bogus" claims of your own. I know you WANT to keep the focus on Ibrahim, but some attention should be paid to the proven fact that you have no credibility to say what you're saying. That makes my citation relevant.

          After all, nobody shoots the messenger more often than you do. Whether it's Shapiro, or Dershowitz, or Horowitz, or Ibrahim, or Greenfield, or any other columnist here: you routinely try to discredit the messenger. How can you object if I use your very own tactic against you? You've led by example. I've learned from you that, as a messenger, you are to be utterly discredited. This is right out of the Schlomotion playbook. ;-)

          But hey, nice attempt at dodging a bullet anyway.

          • Schlomotion

            Of course I shoot the messenger when the messenger himself is delivering a bag of poison or a dirty bomb of misinformation. One of the big jokes here is that those in charge would like to have everyone only speak to the point that the messenger is making. The reason for this is that it leaves the credentials and the authority of the messenger unchallenged and accepted. It is beyond the pale to question the messenger himself for serving his crafty hidden Caesar of fake information, in this case, Nina Rosenwald. What a boon to the collectivists who run the Hasbara to accept the bona fides of their writers by default. Question only the cow farts but let the bull rampage in the china shop.

          • aspacia

            Schlock, shooting the messenger is indeed a fallacious ad hom attack. Stick with Ibrahim's claim and refute it with valid links.

          • Schlomotion

            No. That would be to grant Mr. Ibrahim a wholly undeserved benefit of the doubt. Consider when Alan Dershowitz tries to disenfranchise Gilad Atzmon. He begins by saying he is for free speech. Then he says his opponent crossed the imaginary line of free speech. Then he goes after the man, first and foremost as being morally repugnant for transgressing public values. Then, he goes on to attack anyone giving venue to the opponent.

            I am not straining credibility nearly as far as Mr. Dershowitz. I simply point out when the author has serially plagiarized, or has serially published hoaxes. This organization might hand out Shillman Fellowships like they are bottle caps, but to me, it is still important that the writers of news stories publish factual information on a regular basis and hoaxes are infrequent and embarrassing accidents as a rule. This particular author has a horrible track record. If someone quotes David Duke, or Louis Farrakhan, the members of this agency will quickly note that said person is not a credible source of information based on decades of examples.

          • aspacia

            Schlock,

            Regardless, you did commit an ad hom fallacy. Just because a person is disreputable does not mean all her/his claims are invalid. If Hitler were to point to a window and claim it is a window this claim would be valid regardless of his numerous lies.

            Read some logic, and how to argue. Rottenberg is a good starting poing.

            The problem I have with much of you commentary is you do not support your claims with valid links or any links. I have zero idea what you are commenting on regarding Dershewitz

          • Schlomotion

            What makes you think everything that happens has an internet link associated with it?

          • Foolster41

            it doesn't have to be an internet link, it can be any sort of credible source.

            It's called providing evidence for what you say. If you don't have any, then there's no reason to just assume what you're saying is true.

    • Ghostwriter

      Schlomotion,have you ever read your comments? You sound like the reincarnation of Joesph Goebbels.

  • WTE

    Figures

  • Myron

    What lame ad hominem attacks! And who says those stories are hoaxes — the Islamists? Ibrahim always links to Arab sources including the articles you complain about , which is where he gets these stories that don't appear elsewhere in English. Naturally Muslim apologists like yourself prefer that these stories stay buried, so you do what you do best – lie and distort. Pathetic.

    • Schlomotion

      They are hoaxes. Hoa. Xes. Hoaxes. Lies. It is not an ad hominem attack to say that the article is false, and that the author wrote a false article and that his financier financed a false article. An ad hominem attack would be to say that the author has an oversized nose and therefore his article is false. To note that the author frequently publishes fake news stories is an attack on his credibility, not on his person. Mr. Ibrahim demonstrably and repeatedly publishes false information. That is aggravated hucksterism.

      • Touchstone

        "To note that the author frequently publishes fake news stories is an attack on his credibility, not on his person."

        Thank you for stating that. If you can "note" such things about authors, so can I.

        In much the same vein, then:

        "To note that Schlomotion frequently publishes complete and utter horse manure (e.g. the outrageous claim that non-Jews are legally forbidden to prepare for disasters) is an attack on his credibility, not on his person."

        So glad we cleared that up.

        • Schlomotion

          The fact is, some of these writers are sacred cows no matter how unscrupulous and criminally unprofessional they are. You are just trying to T-bone my car because there is one such writer frozen in my headlights. You know the man serially publishes hoaxes, but it is more important to you to defend one of your own than to see truthful and fact-checked stories in the press.

          • Touchstone

            Sure, it's appropriate to point out the lapses of any writer. But you still fail to see my point: YOU aren't the one to be making the charge! YOU have been discredited, too. It doesn't matter whether you grant yourself the title of "journalist" or not. It's ludicrous to pretend that you don't need "integrity" (as you did in the post below). You obviously want your points considered seriously, especially when you're skewering the columnists you despise and against whom you crusade. So don't give me this crap about not needing "integrity". You and everyone else need integrity, otherwise why the hell should anyone take your bleatings seriously? After all your ludicrous, outrageous, mendacious slanders, why should you be taken seriously on this or any topic? You've earned a mountain of opprobrium and that's what you'll find at every turn.

            Criticize all the columnists you want. There won't be any escaping your own track record, which is that of an integrity-challenged publisher of false information. Not to mention a glib, callous, inconsistent hypocrite warped by prejudice and arrogant hubris.

          • Schlomotion

            Tu quoque.

      • Touchstone

        The man who falsely claimed that only Jews are allowed to prepare for disasters (whereas non-Jews are legally forbidden to do so) said:

        "Mr. Ibrahim demonstrably and repeatedly publishes false information."

        Don't look now, but:

        "Schlomotion demonstrably and repeatedly publishes false information."

        If only you had the credibility to impugn the credibility of others!

        Will your own utter lack of credibility prevent you from shooting the messenger from now on?

        I might as well ask if the sun will stop rising.

        • Schlomotion

          Schlomotion is not in this thread as a journalist expected to have journalistic integrity and not publish false information as news. You are also being mendacious to say I published false information. I published opinions you vehemently disagree with, and facts whose import you vehemently disagree with. Mr. Ibrahim, on the other hand willfully concocts and rebroadcasts patently false stories.

          • Touchstone

            "You are also being mendacious to say I published false information."

            How many times do I need to repeat it before you understand? You wrote that only Jews are allowed to stock up supplies in preparation for disasters, while non-Jews are legally forbidden to do so. From all the evidence I've seen to the contrary, that does indeed qualify as "false information".

            So I say again: YOU PUBLISHED FALSE INFORMATION. And you did it to demonize Jews.

            Shall I have to explain it yet again?

          • Schlomotion

            My point and my wording was that Jews are allowed to pack bug-out bags, e.g. make like apocalypse is always around the corner, while Americans are now disloyal lunatics for doing so and all bags are suspicious. The Israel Lobby has succeeded in infecting America with the terrorist fever. The Left-Wing of it led by Rick Ross and Morris Dees led the first paranoid assault on the Patriot Movement in Newsweek Magazine. Now the Neo-conservative wing is following up with the idea that any caucasian might be a Baader-Meinhoff supporter of the PLO and Hamas. Good job!

          • Touchstone

            The stuff you lay at the feet of Jews is outrageous.

          • Schlomotion

            Attribute it to my monomania. I read Abe Foxman through the 1980s. I read Rick Ross, Morris Dees and Mark Potok in the 1990s. I read David Horowitz, Meyrav Wurmser, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Haim Saban in the 2000s. I am reading Michael Widlanski and company now. I have an excellent mental picture of how the American Jewish diaspora were having psychotic freakouts about the Patriot Movement, about "gun-nuts and nativists," antisemites, Identity movements, the Branch Davidians, Black Hebrews and Millennialists. As the diaspora swung from liberal to conservative they began calling everyone who disagreed with them a "liberal" and continued their psychotic freakout into Muslims, antisemites, Catholic Traditionalists, Isolationists, people critical of the Federal Government, and then suddenly, everybody with a backpack, anyone in a car, and anyone who talks about the Constitution. The only thing that stayed the same through all this was that everybody is supposed to support Israel and want a war every time Wolf Blitzer dances his fanny across the War Room.

          • Touchstone

            "As the diaspora swung from liberal to conservative"

            Comments like this show you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Jews are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal and Democrat. The Jewish vote is usually around 75-80% or more for the Democrats, as it was for Obama, who was suspected of being anti-Israel (and even antisemitic) from the outset. That percentage might come down in the next election, but not to the point where your outrageous claim would be true. So there you go again, publishing FALSE INFORMATION. Your theory is bunk.

            If there's any truth to what you've ranted here, it's that the handful of writers you've read are the ones you should be opposing, and not every random Jew that happens to care if Israel survives or not. You've wrongly concluded that a few ideologues stand for the whole tribe, and whenever you see or read evidence of that, you probably disregard all evidence to the contrary (such as the glaring fact that some 80% of Jews are liberal and not neoconservative, and that they've counter-intuitively supported a President widely considered hostile to Israel) because it doesn't jive with the BS theory that animates you.

            So now I have the solid impression that I'm talking to a person whose "excellent mental picture" is more akin to a paranoid delusion ("monomania" doesn't quite cover how profound your pathology is). I guess the internet is a magnet for crackpots who think they know what they're talking about, until such time as they open their mouths and the embarrassing truth is exposed for all to see.

          • Schlomotion

            This is silliness. If the Jewish vote is 80% Democrat then these people plugging Romney, and before that, that buffoon Rick Perry for their promise of war with Iran and support for Israel are some real heavy duty loudmouths. If Obama was attainted with the accusation of antisemitism, then it stands to reason that 80% of voting Jews don't care about antisemitism. Hmmmm that can't be right. Are you going to convince me that they were over a barrel and chose the lesser of two evils? Or is it some other story where they are Bundists at heart who want social welfare and unfortunately the only candidate pushing social welfare was also the evil black muslim candidate? Neither of those add up. It was a pragmatic decision? It was a philanthropic decision? They were swayed by Obama's promise of sacrosanctness? Does the President of the United States even have to pass a pro-Israel litmus test? The RJC seems to think so. The Democrats sort of do. In any event the sob story now is that Obama didn't betray the 99% by wrecking the jobs market and the economy, he helped them by "giving them what the left wants e.g. soc.ial collapse." The other part of the sob story is that Obama allegedly betrayed the Jews. Except for the part where he will get a lot of Jewish votes and gave Rahm Emmanuel the dirty seat in Chicago in exchange for Daley. I think I have stated many of the contradictions about politics employed on this site.

  • BS77

    take your wares and peddle them elsewhere

  • Ronald Johnston

    osama obama, the evil muslim terrorist planted here by our enemies!!!! There is a reason genocide has been used on muslims for 700 years!!!!

  • Schlomotion

    I didn't accuse you of the same accusation that you leveled against me. I accused you of mirroring me with the same accusation that I leveled at Mr. Ibrahim. That's the tu quoque. The false information you posted was to accuse me of posting false information. We differ, apparently in our perceptions of Jewish exceptionalism. They appear to be allowed to hit the panic button all the time, while claiming minority status. Is Americans do it, they are reminded that they are predominantly white, safe in their trailers, and somehow uneducated fodder for television shows.

    As to my glibness: If you said "black people are disproportionately incarcerated" and I said "well, maybe they should not disproportionately carjack people and shoot one another over the drug trade" you would call that glib. Yes. How thoughtless of me, to easily, and fluently respond without bothering myself with the intricate details of social struggle and economic hardship. Regardless, my answer is correct, just scathingly unsympathetic. The truth is, I am sympathetic, but not to my own demise. The same goes for Jews harping on the Holocaust as raison d'etre and harping on Palestinian rock throwing children as casus belli. I sympathize, but not to the tune of internal checkpoints, ubiquitous surveillance and the surrender of Alice Walker, and other great American authors to the angry Zionist furies. You are warped if you think I should give so much and not have such a quick draw and such a bottom deck card for that.

  • Schlomotion

    I didn't accuse you of the same accusation that you leveled against me. I accused you of mirroring me with the same accusation that I leveled at Mr. Ibrahim. That's the tu quoque. The false information you posted was to accuse me of posting false information. We differ, apparently in our perceptions of Jewish exceptionalism. They appear to be allowed to hit the panic button all the time, while claiming minority status. If Americans do it, they are reminded that they are predominantly white, safe in their trailers, and somehow uneducated fodder for television shows.

    As to my glibness: If you said "black people are disproportionately incarcerated" and I said "well, maybe they should not disproportionately carjack people and shoot one another over the drug trade" you would call that glib. Yes. How thoughtless of me, to easily, and fluently respond without bothering myself with the intricate details of social struggle and economic hardship. Regardless, my answer is correct, just scathingly unsympathetic. The truth is, I am sympathetic, but not to my own demise. The same goes for Jews harping on the Holocaust as raison d'etre and harping on Palestinian rock throwing children as casus belli. I sympathize, but not to the tune of internal checkpoints, ubiquitous surveillance and the surrender of Alice Walker and other great American authors to the angry Zionist furies. You are warped if you think I should give so much and not have such a quick draw and such a bottom deck card for that. I don't think you are warped though. If I were this same way but in favor of the Israelis at all costs, I think you would pat me on the back.

    • Touchstone

      No, I accused you of a good deal more than what you accused Ibrahim of.

      "They appear to be allowed to hit the panic button all the time, while claiming minority status. If Americans do it, they are reminded that they are predominantly white, safe in their trailers, and somehow uneducated fodder for television shows."

      I read this thinking that the poster who advised you to back up your claims with links was spot on. You hurl one baseless accusation after another and expect each one to form the premise of a serious debate. These comments are unworthy of debate because you're pulling them out of your posterior. As I wrote below, you sound like you're operating with paranoid delusions. Humoring such ludicrous beliefs is on the plate of mental health professionals, not on mine.

      "I sympathize, but not to the tune of internal checkpoints, ubiquitous surveillance…"

      So what you're really saying is that you don't sympathize at all. Talk is cheap, oh fellow Zionist. Like Netanyahu once said, the international community SAYS that Israel has a right to defend itself, but it takes Israel to task whenever it tries to EXERCISE that right. You're the international community in microcosm. You CLAIM you support Israel's right to take self-protective measures, but when any such measures are taken, you start howling like a baboon, revealing yourself to be the phoniest of fairweather friends and the most despicable of hypocrites.

      • Schlomotion

        I was driving today. On one side of the highway was an internal checkpoint. I have to prove my citizenship now because "I might be a terrorist" in my own country. Detaining people and then accusing them of trespassing where they already are. Pretending not to know the difference between an ululating Muslim in a bomb belt and a Caucasian driving a Dodge Ram and listening to Led Zeppelin. All this started when post-9/11 security became a means to shake down the American citizen. 9/11 happened because Bin Laden wanted to kick us into a death spiral of bank-breaking wars because the US backed the House of Saud and Israel. It is Bin Laden's fault. It is also Saudi Arabia and Israel's fault. Damn right I blame them.

        • Touchstone

          "Pretending not to know the difference between an ululating Muslim in a bomb belt and a Caucasian"

          Of course one can sympathize with you getting inconvenienced like that. But even the defenders of anti-terrorist measures advocate SMARTER measures like targeting people who are more likely to be terrorists, not abandoning every possible measure altogether. And yet, when such measures are advocated, it's folks of your own political persuasion who start howling in protest of "racial profiling".

          Blaming who you blame, rather than your very own leaders who make the decisions that affect you, is so childish and myopic (and bigoted) it's not even worth commenting on. Israel didn't force you to pull over. That's how you WANT to connect the dots. There's a vast network of complex geopolitical forces that led up to the moment you were detained. Out of that network you select a certain tribe and hold them accountable for all the ills that befall you. You practice scapegoating.

          • Schlomotion

            I would consider having the bank open at 9:05 when it is supposed to open at 9 AM an inconvenience. Personally, getting detained twice in eight months in an ostensibly free republic and one of those times resulting in jailing, is not an inconvenience, to me. It is an offense and it is a war. For all I know, I can expect as an American citizen (with no criminal record) to be detained every four months over some nonsense because everyone is now a suspect and I still haven't sucked my balls up my rear end yet, so I am still the same person. This doesn't bode well at all. As you conjecture, I do not support racial profiling. I was pulled over in a classified nationwide racial profiling operation before too in 1999. But I also do not support the alternative which is that the state has simply reclassified all American citizens as n***ers, and the Black Codes are in full effect. Perversely, and pathetically it is the more worthless and spineless lowbrow caucasians and the more giddy and abusive black and hispanic people that have floated into these petit tyrannical jobs of harassing everyone and waving weapons that are designed for herding animals. Complex geopolitical forces? There are complex geopolitical forces that I do not understand with my degree in political science that warrant internal checkpoints staffed by a domestic Stasi of C-students? There is some major political force being mounted by the Quebecois that could destabilize all of New Hampshire?

            Occam's razor: Muslims attacked America for supporting Israel in a colonial fashion, and then the US moved to become a police state. Pro-Israeli neocons were awarded top positions in the "Federal Emergency Management" infrastructure which is really just corporatism running wild. America started calling itself a "Homeland" in mimicry of Israel and Nazi Germany and then began acting out the part of a Nazi country whose prime enemy was Muslims.

            Look, man. When I was detained in November, I fought it, and the first people to intervene in the fight and run interference were Hasbara people. There's no doubt about it. When you fight against the TSA, and ICE, and against ubiquitous surveillance, the Israel Lobby sends in its minions.

        • Touchstone

          It's also possible that you might have been stopped for reasons that have less to do with preventing Islamic terrorism than with a hidden agenda of some kind. Don't be so quick to connect the dots, or so sure of your hasty conclusions.

          • Schlomotion

            The agenda that comes to mind is simply to push the envelope further and start searching people all the time for "contraband" and figure out who is left who objects to this kind of stuff.