PBS Doc on Mohammed Features Muslim who was for Stoning Adulterers, Subjugating Christians and Jews


Weed man, it was weed

Weed man, it was weed

Naturally he doesn’t call for those things in the actual documentary on the Life of Mohammed. But PBS continues to mainstream Muslim bigots by airing Islamist propaganda.

One anti-Semite to appear on the show was Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. According to the New York Sun, Sabri is a fan of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-known forgery that portrays the Jews as the enemies of humanity.

Also he’s a Holocaust denier.

And then there’s Abdur Raheem Green who has an upbeat set of views on everything. Like interfaith relations.

For example, open Bukhari you will find the hadith that if you find the Jew or a Christian walking down the street, push them to the side.

It is well-known from what Umar ibn al-Khattab and the khulafa ar rashidin used to implement, that the Jew and Christian was not allowed to ride on a horse when the Muslim is riding on a horse. They would have to walk.

Allah he said in the Quran about the jizya that you, that fight the people of the book, Allah said, it’s in the Quran, fight the people of the book and those who do not believe that what Allah has made lawful as lawful and what Allah has made unlawful as lawful, until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued.

The purpose of the jizya is to make the Jew and the Christian know that they are inferior and subjugated to Islam.

That is actually very true of Mohammed. But don’t look for that in the Life of Mohammed. And stoning adulterers to death

Adultery is punishable by death, and a slow and painful death by stoning. It is indicative of just how harmful this crime is to society.

I would love to see that in a PBS documentary, but this is more fraud from Unity Productions, a dishonest company whose earlier fraudulent documentary “A Prince Among Slaves” meant to sell Islam to African-Americans, I exposed as a dishonest distortion of history.

There’s just one problem with trying to present Prince Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori as a victim of slavery and a role model for African-Americans. The Prince was actually a vicious racist who was a mass murderer of Africans and a brutal plantation overseer.

In Rahman’s own account, he describes going to war against an African tribe and razing their towns. After the natives fought back, Rahman boasts that he proclaimed, “I will not run for an African.” This assertion of racial superiority proved to be a poor choice. The Africans caught Rahman, tied him up and sold him to some slave traders.

But Unity’s Prince of Slaves is still around. The same people are telling the same lies.

  • pupsncats

    PBS, the taxpayer funded broadcast system, has simply become another propaganda and indoctrination center of the left. It wouldn’t exist if so many leftwing foundations didn’t fund it.

    • defcon 4

      I don’t want my tax dollars supporting the islam0nazi propaganda that is regularly broadcast on NPR or PBS.

      No one should support National Geographic either — they’ve been whitewashing islam0nazism at least since the formation of the state of Israel.

    • laura rubin

      i had supported PBS in 1980. then i viewed offensive proganda, in the later 80s. also they are funded by major corps, there is no reason to support them, even if you want too. there are some good programs unrelated to politics, i restrict myself to those.

  • De Doc

    That documentary was pretty much as I expected it to be. I was shocked to see that they actually included commentary from Robert Spencer and Tom Holland, both of whom released recent works giving a more skeptical eye on Islam’s origins. The host of the series even included a bonified historian of early Islam, Robert Hoyland, though his contributions were minimal to the whole series.

    The opinions of Muslim apologists on Muhammad were no surprise, but I was disappointed that they used Green as one of the spokesman. I presume they wanted to give a token ‘white face’ to the religion and he was only too happy to oblige even with his outrageous radicalism.

    The worst part about this series was its reliance on mealy-mouthed, foo-foo ‘religion scholar’ Karen Armstrong, who apparently is unable to distinguish between what constitutes real history vs. hagiography. That she actually believes all the silly details about Muhammad’s biography is astonishing, but I guess selling myths and legends is one of her strong suits.

    • defcon 4

      Did the “documentary” use any of Michael Moore’s typical stunts to make Spencer’s words fit their narrative of a peaceful, tolerant islam?

      • De Doc

        To their credit the few comments they allowed seemed to have been genuine critiques allowed to stand on their own. I follow Spencer’s website closely and never recalled his mention of the interview for the series, but I may have overlooked it. As with any documentary, I’m sure they recorded much more extensive comments from Spencer, Holland and Hoyland, but edited out most because they weren’t the sexy sell of Muhammad that Karen Armstrong advocated.

        • defcon 4

          I watched the “documentary” up until they began lying about when muhahahahamad consummated his marriage w/Aisha (as to her age). At that point I needed a barf bag.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I presume they wanted to give a token ‘white face’ to the religion and he was only too happy to oblige even with his outrageous radicalism.

      If you naively believe that only radicals as opposed to all mainstream orthodox Muslims, which, by the way, also all totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to the “will of Allah”, which is Sharia or Islamic totalitarian law, under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy as the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam, are the only Muslims that believe in stoning for adultery and subjugating Christians and Jews, then you are a very gullible useful idiot infidel indeed.

      • De Doc

        My! Such a long sentence. Thanks for the admonishing statement though. It’s great to know that I’m yet another shill for the left/libertarians/Islamic apologists. You must have a great time in your clubhouse with its grand membership of one. *face palm*

        • ObamaYoMoma

          It’s great to know that I’m yet another shill for the left/libertarians/Islamic apologists. You must have a great time in your clubhouse with its grand membership of one. *face palm*

          Dude…what are you smoking? I pointed out to you that if anyone is a Muslim apologist and also a gullible useful idiot infidel that it was obviously you for the reason that I cited. Further, I can assure you that I’m not a leftwing or a libertarian loon, as I don’t blame America’s “greedy” foreign policy, in the case of Leftists, or America’s “interventionist” foreign policy, in the case of Ron Paul libertarian anarcho-kooks, for generating terrorism, as Muslims aren’t terrorists. Instead, they are jihadists, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, per the infamous sword verses of the Koran and the universally accepted in Islam doctrine of abrogation, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

          • Northstar

            If anyone is a Muslim apologist it’s the Obama troll who keeps saying Muslims aren’t terrorists.

          • defcon 4

            I believe OYM’s viewpoint is that terrorism is just ONE aspect of Jihad.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I believe OYM’s viewpoint is that terrorism is just ONE aspect of Jihad.

            I don’t want to be deliberately ambiguous like some writers over here at FPM, but my viewpoint is that terrorism is not even an Islamic manifestation, as terrorism, in stark contrast to jihad, is perpetrated for a myriad of political reasons and causes, is perpetrated by people from all societies and cultures, with Islamic culture being the only exception, and is always and only violent, while jihad, on the other hand, is specifically and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, is always and only waged by Muslims alone, and is both violent and non-violent, but overall astronomically far more non-violent relative to violent.

            While the extreme brutality of violent jihad equals that and even surpasses terrorism in some extreme cases, the purpose and motivation behind the violent act sets it apart from terrorism. Furthermore, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism that is always and only violent, manifests both violently and non-violently, but again overall astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently. Indeed, mass Muslim immigration to the West in reality is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the nefarious purpose of demographic conquest and is far more ubiquitous relative to violent jihad. It also is used to facilitate violent jihad attacks as well. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly how the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were facilitated.

            Hence, while the writer of this article believes that the majority of Muslims are moderates that also make good immigrants, I believe that mass Muslim immigration, on the other hand, must be banned and reversed ASAP before it’s too late, because it is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad. Now I may be swayed to change my mind on that particular issue if someone somewhere can demonstrate to me unequivocally just one group of Muslim immigrants anywhere actually assimilating and integrating and eventually matriculating into contributing and productive members of their new host infidel society, but I won’t hold my breath.

            Moreover, terrorism is always and only perpetrated by non-Muslim infidels, while jihad, on the other hand, is always and only waged by Muslims alone in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam. Indeed, can someone somewhere cite an act of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim that wasn’t in the cause of Allah, because if they can then they would prove me wrong, but alas, I also won’t hold my breath.

            Indeed, the war that Islam is waging against us is very similar to the Cold War, in that Communism and Islam are both extreme forms of totalitarianism, and the war being waged against us primarily happens clandestinely behind the scenes non-violently via propaganda and misinformation, as opposed to violently. Indeed, it’s very similar to what we experienced in the Cold War. But because the prevailing narrative as characterized ad nauseum over here by this writer conflates what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism, which is always and only violent, the astronomically far more ubiquitous forms of stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration for the nefarious purpose of demographic conquest, unfortunately is able to manifests today throughout the West totally unopposed.

            Thus, unless the West finally wakes up from its long and bewildering slumber and learns to differentiate what is actually jihad from terrorism, in the long term it will be doomed.

          • defcon 4

            Your POV is very reminiscent of Rabbi Meir Kahane, another brave man whose theories about “Arabs” in Israel have only been borne out not only by his assassination at the hands of Arab muslimes (along w/the assassinations of his son and daughter-in-law), but by the never-ending islamic jihad being carried out against Israel (in all its forms).

          • ziggy zoggy

            Islamopithecines don’t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn’t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.

          • Moa

            Ziggy zoggy, I think ObamaYoMoma is trying to distinguish between terrorism and jihad. His main point, and this is very important, is that jihad doesn’t only come in the form of terror attacks.

            Furthermore, calling “jihad” the broader term of “terrorism” is slightly misleading. While some could argue this was overly pedantic he does make good points (even if his/her sentences run on a bit).

            If I have his thesis right then we could summarize as:

            1) Calling “jihad” by the term terrorism is a mistake because terrorism refers to violence and the threat of violence. Jihad is far more insidious than mere violence, as the ongoing cultural change of the “stealth jihad” (backed by Marxist Political Correctness from the Left) is far far more damaging than a few thousand deaths.

            2) Calling “jihad” by the term terrorism is a mistake because some of those called “terrorists” may actually be freedom fighters opposing real oppression. Therefore, calling Islamic violence “terrorism” can give it a little bit of the cloak of some of those legitimately fighting tyranny. Islam never fights for liberty – it is evil and only fights to impose the oppression of Sharia.

            ObamaYoMoma, please correct me if I have got your intent wrong. [hint: bullet points and paragraphs will help people read your interesting ideas :) ]

          • defcon 4

            Sometimes it seems that OYM is arguing semantics. It’s like tilting at windmills. I call it violent jihad, you call it terrorism… I say pota-toe you say potato.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Islamopithecines don’t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn’t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.

            Don’t make it any harder than it has to be dude: Terrorism can be for any number of political causes, while jihad, on the other hand, is always and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam.

            Terrorism is always and only extremely violent, and while jihad can also be extremely violent and virtually identical to terrorism, it can also be very non-violent as well. As a matter of fact, overall jihad is astronomically far more non-violent relative to violent. For instance, mass Muslim immigration to the West is a non-violent stealth and deceptive form of jihad for the nefarious purpose of stealth demographic conquest and it is far more ubiquitous relative to violent jihad attacks. Not to mention that non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is also used to facilitate violent jihad attacks. Indeed, that is exactly how the infamous 9/11 violent jihad attacks were facilitated.

            In addition, people from all societies and cultures perpetrate terrorism, with the only exception being Islamic culture, which is a very totalitarian culture that forbids the freedom of conscious. Indeed, if you are a Muslim, then in effect you are a slave of Allah. In stark contrast to terrorism, jihad is waged always and only by Muslims and always and only in the cause of Allah.

            Now, if a Muslim perpetrated a terrorist attack in a political cause other than in the cause of Allah, then that, of course, would be terrorism. No argument there. However, such a person would not technically be a Muslim in reality. Instead, such a person would be an ex-Muslim apostate that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed. Again, Islamic society is totalitarian to the max and there is no freedom of conscious allowed, as the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah.

            As a matter of fact, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and the Unabomber are all good examples of infamous terrorists. However, none of them did their dastardly acts in the cause of Allah. Instead, they did what they did because they were unhinged leftwing loons. OBL, Nidal Hasan, and Faisal Shahzad, on the other hand, perpetrated violent jihad attacks in the cause of Allah. Thus, they were/are jihadists.

            Now, because jihad ubiquitously throughout the West is always conflated as being terrorism, which is always and only violent, the many forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration for the nefarious purpose of demographic conquest, which is astronomically far more ubiquitous relative to violent jihad, is able to manifest today throughout the West totally without opposition because it is non-violent and thus it isn’t construed as being terrorism.

            Nevertheless, take a look at Europe: through demographic collapse and Islamic stealth demographic conquest, many European countries will be turning into Islamic totalitarian hellholes in the next 30 to 40 years. Why? It’s because jihad and terrorism, which are two very distinct and different manifestations altogether, is always conflated as being only terrorism, which again is always and only violent. Therefore, because non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad isn’t violent, it isn’t construed as being terrorism, and thus is allowed to manifest completely unopposed. Indeed, this is one of my biggest problems with the writings of Daniel Greenfield, since to him everything is always and only terrorism, as he is totally obsessed and consumed primarily by violence. Indeed, read the blog he posted a link to on Islam.

            Much more emphasis must be put also on the fact that according to the infamous sword verses of the Koran and the universally accepted in Islam doctrine of abrogation, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, how many times do you hear the word totalitarian associated with Sharia? Unfortunately, the answer is never.

            Why? It’s because Islam alone and in stark contrast to all other religions in the world makes the claim that its holy texts are the direct verbatim testimony of Allah (God) as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Thus, the texts and tenets of Islam, which commands all Muslims to wage jihad to make Islam supreme throughout the world, can never be undone, because to do so would be to put the word of very fallible man above that of the word of very infallible Allah (God). Hence, Islam deems itself the one true religion, and because Islam is the one true religion, then all other religions and their infidels must be made to bow down to Islam in total and complete submission.

            Finally, classifying Muslims into so-called moderates and so-called radicals is a political correct exercise to make the actions of Muslims comply with the current political correct narrative, which is that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace” and that the vast overwhelming preponderance of Muslims in the world are so-called moderates. Thus, when Muslims perpetrate violent jihad attacks, they are labeled extremists, radicals, Islamists, or whatever and said not to be true Muslims, since true Muslims would never perpetrate such heinous violence because Islam is a so-called “religion of peace”. Hence, these extremists, radicals, and Islamists are operating outside the political correct purview of Islam.

            However, the existence of so-called “moderate Muslims” is an impossibility, as a cursory review of Islam reveals that the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy of all Muslims. And what is this “will of Allah” that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence it’s Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

            Hence, for a person of Islamic persuasion to be considered a true moderate in the Western sense of the word, that person would necessarily have to consciously disavow Sharia. However, such a conscious act would make that person a blasphemous apostate the instant of their disavowal, while also gaining them a death sentence at the same time. Indeed, per the texts and tenets of Islam, blasphemers and apostates must be executed. By the way, it would also make such a person an ex-Muslim apostate rather than a so-called “moderate Muslim” as well. Hence, the existence of so-called moderate Muslims is an impossibility!

            Thus, the West must wake up from its long and bewildering slumber and somehow rise above political correctness to learn to differentiate between what is jihad and what is terrorism, because if it doesn’t, then the West will inevitably be doomed.

          • De Doc

            I don’t appreciate you slinging accusations at others and getting all up into our faces because we don’t agree with you exactly on every point. North Star is right – you are a troll. And like most trolls you look for fights, even when there are none to be had.

            There are civil ways to debate. Name calling and tossing about wild accusations are not among them. Its also helpful to stay to the topic of the article. And get used to the idea that not everyone will agree with you 100% of the time.

    • laura rubin

      even if the bio of mohamad is true, what difference does it make? spencer said they re wrote the quran 2 hundred yrs after he died. most muslims follow the violent version. actions speak for themselves. the re write may explain the auguments between academics.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    PBS Doc on Mohammed Features Muslim who was for Stoning Adulterers, Subjugating Christians and Jews

    I know that as a neo-con you ignorantly believe that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace” that is somehow being hijacked by radical Muslims, as that is the ludicrous narrative you religiously always adhere to, and that the problem is never with Islam itself, but instead always the result of radical Muslims, i.e., Islamists, that are trying to hijack the beautiful “religion of peace.” As a matter of fact, that is also the reason why you always cite ad nauseum the re-establishment of the Caliphate as being the reason why Muslims are fighting us, since they allegedly want to kick us out of the Islamic world. That false narrative fits nicely with the neo-con’s worldview and the view of self-hating leftists and moronic libertarian kooks who stupidly blame America’s foreign policy for generating terrorism. Nevertheless, per the infamous sword verses of the Koran and the universally accepted in Islam doctrine of abrogation, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law.

    In fact, the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy of all Muslims. Thus, what is the “will of Allah” that all Muslims must submit totally, completely, and unconditionally to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence the “will of Allah” is Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, as the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah. Not to also mention that no other true religions, as opposed to Islam, compels belief via the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Islam is very alone in that regard.

    Furthermore, the “will of Allah” is derived directly from the texts and tenets of Islam, which are alleged by all mainstream orthodox Muslims to be the direct divine testimony of Allah, i.e., God, as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Hence, since it is divine because it is the direct testimony of Allah, i.e., God, as delivered to the Muslims through Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, it must always strictly be adhered to only in the most literal sense, as it is after all perfect and perfectly just in every sense since again it emanates divinely, i.e., directly from God, who is almighty and who is always and only perfect.

    Thus, Islam’s holy text can’t ever be questioned, reformed, or changed in any way, shape, or form ever. Indeed, I hate to rain on everyone’s parade that naively calls for an Islamic reformation, as the texts and tenets of Islam are immutable, since to change them would be to put the word of all fallible man above that of the divine infallible word of Allah, i.e., God.

    Now contrast that Islamic reality with the Christian and Jew’s holy books, which are known to emanate from man in contrast and are also known to be very allegorical in nature. Muslims, in stark contrast, always adhere to their texts and tenets in the most literal sense and can’t ever question or change them in comparison since to do so would be extremely blasphemous, which in Islam is a capital offense. Thus, to Muslims, Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, must always be the supreme law of the land and above that of any and all manmade fallible laws since it is divine and perfectly just because it emanates directly from Allah, i.e., God. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to put the word of very fallible man above that of the very infallible almighty God.

    Hence, of course, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, per their total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy, believe in stoning adulterers and subjugating Christians and Jews, since to believe otherwise would be to reject the direct testimony and divine words of Allah, i.e., God almighty. Indeed, Islam’s holy texts are unlike all others, as allegedly they emanate divinely from God and are thus immutable. Hence, all laws that emanate from very fallible man as opposed to very infallible Allah are unjust abominations that must be obliterated.

    Now for the purposes of stealth jihad for demographic conquest, most Muslim jihadists will outwardly pretend to be hardworking and law abiding to get their foot in the door. The reality is, however, it’s all taqiyya, i.e., dissimulation. Indeed, take a look around the world wherever mass Muslim immigration is occurring today in the West, and just like clockwork you will see that Muslims never ever assimilate and integrate. Instead, they first form Muslim enclaves that in time inevitably morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets within the larger host infidel states. As a matter of fact, the government of France a few years ago counted in excess of 700 Muslim no-go zones in France alone.

    Hence, since as a neo-con you believe that only radical Muslims believe in stoning adulterers and subjugating Christians and Jews, the reality, however, is all mainstream orthodox Muslims throughout the world also believe in stoning adulterers and subjugating Christians and Jews. Otherwise, according to the divine texts and tenets of Islam, as opposed to your neo-con gut feelings, they are blasphemous apostates that must be executed.

    • defcon 4

      I’ve never noted Daniel Greenfield taking the POV that islam is a religion of peace, neither here nor on his own blog: Sultan Knish.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Then why does he imply that normal everyday Muslims are moderates? Indeed, can moderates practice a religion with the sole fundamental purpose of subjugating into Islamic totalitarianism all religions and all infidels through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, and that at the same time also sentences them to death for blasphemy and apostasy? I don’t believe. Hence, if he isn’t implying that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace” being hijacked by radicals, as first proclaimed by the head neo-con, GWB, himself, then what exactly is he implying when he mislabels mainstream orthodox Muslims as being radicals and Islamists, while at the same time never ever impugning mainstream orthodox Islam itself as being the source of the problem? Indeed, in his world it is always radicals and Islamists, i.e., AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood, or hydra-headed terrorists, but never ever Islam itself.

        • defcon 4

          I don’t believe Mr. Greenfield has ever made the argument that islam is a religion of peace, ever. That’s all I was saying. For the record, I agree w/your evaluation of islam.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I don’t believe Mr. Greenfield has ever made the argument that islam is a religion of peace, ever.

            He doesn’t have to, as he constantly implies it through his writings.

          • Northstar

            So that’s a negative on actually offering proof.
            Just like a troll.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The man has a point.

            Here is a place I strongly implied that Islam is a religion of peace

            Islam Religion of War

            http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-drives-islam-to-be-religion-of-war.html

            “Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, one must feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether it is by providing money and resources to the Jihadists or to be a Jihadist yourself. Because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion.”

          • defcon 4

            Thank you Mr. Greenfield.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Wonderful! So way back in 2010 you wrote a blog on Islam claiming that ” to believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world.” But what happened between way back then in 2010 and today, as now you always use political correct terms such as “radicals” and Islamists” to describe mainstream orthodox Muslims, which simultaneously also implies that unidentified “non-radicals” and “non-Islamists” must be so-called moderates? I mean, per your article way back in 2010, all mainstream orthodox Muslims believed in conquering the world to make Islam supreme if they had faith in Islam. Hence, why the ambiguity today?

            Not to mention also, that today you are totally obsessed with radicals and Islamists, i.e., AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood, which you stupidly misidentify as being terrorists, while at the same time you totally ignore the fact that Islam is not only what drives them but also that Islam more than anything else is the root of the problem, and this obsession, by the way, also implies that to you Islam is being hijacked by so-called radicals. In addition, not only do you idiotically conflate what is jihad as somehow being terrorism, you also ignore mass Muslim immigration to the West, which in reality is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the nefarious purpose of demographic conquest, which is a demonstrable reality. Hence, what gives?

            I also disagree with a lot of what you wrote way back in 2010. For instance:

            You said, “because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. And anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic insecurities as blasphemy.”

            I disagree here. The subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia is the essence of Islam. Indeed, jihad by deception, which isn’t violent, is astronomically far more ubiquitous relative to violence. Muslims primarily use violence as a distraction and also as a means in which to create fear in order to make the infidel feel that the Muslims are much stronger and superiour than they actually are. Indeed, it’s to compel the infidels to feel hopeless in order to make them surrender and resign themselves to their fate. In fact, it’s more bluff than blunder.

            You said, “because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs.”

            Although Islam is a religion to 1.6 billion Muslims, to infidels Islam is a cult, as unlike all other legitimate religions of the world, Islam alone compels belief via the total, compete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Indeed, what true faiths compel belief via the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? The answer, of course, is none of them, and that is what defines Islam as a cult since it forbids the freedom of conscious. Indeed, Islam is a very totalitarian cult.

            Islam is also unique from all other religions as well in that it alone claims that its holy texts is the direct verbatim testimony of Allah (God) as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Hence, to Muslims, Islam is the one true religion, and all other religions and all infidels must be made to bow down to it in total and complete submission.

            You said, “therefore by waging war on the infidels, by planting a minaret in one of their cities, by forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position– to the Muslim this is an act that affirms the truth and power of Islam.?

            No…not really. Islam alone among all religions is divine because it emanates directly from Allah. Thus, all other religions and their infidels must be made to bow down to Islam, the one true religion, because all other religions are false.

            In any event, your text puts far too much emphasis on physical violence to say the least, and that sort of also explains your unhealthy obsession with violence. You also go way too overboard in many other areas as well, but that is neither here or there. Nevertheless, thanks for the response.

          • Moa

            Some very good points made there. Especially that the “stealth jihad” and jihad by immigration and birthrate (“hijra” jihad, IIRC) is very good.

            A couple of other things can also be said:

            1) Islam is unique in asserting jurisdiction over non-believers as well as believers. This is unique among the major superstitions and IMHO is the most signifiant characteristic of Islam, and what makes it uniquely evil. Don’t forget to mention this.

            2) Islam does *not* require others to bow to Islam in terms of forcing conversion. Conversion to Islam by force is explicitly prohibited by Islamic doctrine – even if this rule is widely ignored in practice. What is required is that non-Muslims are subjugated and submit to the Islamic *political order*. This distinction is significant because:

            a) otherwise Muslims try to get away by pointing out how Christians and Jews live in Muslim societies and still practice their ancient faiths. They never mention that it is political dominance that is far more important to Muslims than conversion. This is a subtle thing that you probably need to point out. The easy way to make the point is to show that because Islam cares less about your faith than you submit and pay jizya it is pretty close to the Mafia in terms of application.

            b) It shows that Islam doesn’t really care about religion as much as they hypocritically say they do. It’s all about the earthly money and power and women – just as Mohammed.

            3) While Islam claims to worship “The God of Abraham” a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur’an shows this claim is false because the attributes of Allah are *opposite* to those of Yahweh. eg. see http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

            4) The term “Islamist” is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike “radical” etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves “Islamist”. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn’t really beat people up so much for using that term.

            Finally, please read my post again. See how it is possible to make points, recognize your good points, yet provide suggestions (hopefully helpful) while still respecting the intelligence of the reader? You would convince more people if you adopted a less strident and offensive tone. Reasonable people will respond to your ideas better if you are a little kinder to them in writing.

            You have good ideas and would be great if you adopted as style that convinced more people (so they didn’t stop reading before discovering the gems you’re putting out ) :)

          • defcon 4

            Um, if muslimes are only interested in jizya perhaps you can explain away the genocides committed by muslimes in:
            1. the Indian sub-continent, upwards of 80 million dead Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists (the latest addition being some 2 million Hindus slaughtered in the 1970′s, ongoing)

            2. E. Timor (ten thousand kufars murdered by Indonesian islam0nazis, most of them Catholic), once again in the 1970′s

            3. Sudan/Darfur two million (?) assorted kufars murdered by muslimes in the name of islam (late 20th early 21st century, ongoing)

            4. Turkey: 2.5 million Armenian and Assyrian Christians murdered by muslimes in the name of islam

            I can hardly wait to see how you whitewash all that blood away.

          • Moa

            No whitewashing amigo, I agree with you. Total body count for Islam is 270 million and rising daily (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com).

            Islam is like the Mafia. They “break a few legs” to get everyone else to comply. They kill lots of people and terrorise the rest. That way they get to extract jizya for their next conquest.

            They don’t kill everyone because Muslims are fantastically non-productive. Without dhimmis their cult would have died out long ago. That’s why you hear of “ancient communities of Jews and Christians in Muslims lands”. The Muslims know that if they brutally slaughter people early on they can extract jizya – and the latter is a higher priority than the former. That’s why I call them “Mafia”.

            I hope that clarifies what I wrote to your satisfaction. It is important to understand why the Muslims don’t always kill everyone (something pointed out by the real apologists). It’s because they are using dhimmis as semi-slaves.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            1) Islam is unique in asserting jurisdiction over non-believers as well as believers. This is unique among the major superstitions and IMHO is the most signifiant characteristic of Islam, and what makes it uniquely evil. Don’t forget to mention this.

            I do right here and also explain why: Why is Islam waging perpetual jihad? It’s because Islam alone and in stark contrast to all other religions in the world makes the claim that its holy texts are the direct verbatim testimony of Allah (God) as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Thus, the texts and tenets of Islam, which commands all Muslims to wage jihad to make Islam supreme throughout the world, can never be undone, because to do so would be to put the word of very fallible man above that of the word of very infallible Allah (God). Hence, Islam deems itself the one true religion, and because Islam is the one true religion, then all other religions are false. Thus all other religions and their infidels and must be made to bow down to Islam in total and complete submission.

            2) Islam does *not* require others to bow to Islam in terms of forcing conversion. Conversion to Islam by force is explicitly prohibited by Islamic doctrine – even if this rule is widely ignored in practice. What is required is that non-Muslims are subjugated and submit to the Islamic *political order*. This distinction is significant because:

            a) otherwise Muslims try to get away by pointing out how Christians and Jews live in Muslim societies and still practice their ancient faiths. They never mention that it is political dominance that is far more important to Muslims than conversion. This is a subtle thing that you probably need to point out. The easy way to make the point is to show that because Islam cares less about your faith than you submit and pay jizya it is pretty close to the Mafia in terms of application.

            It is also a very convenient way for Islamic society to raise revenues as well.

            Indeed, since Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, emanates directly from Allah, it is absolutely perfectly just since Allah (God) is absolutely perfect. Thus, infallible Sharia must always take precedence over all fallible manmade laws.

            I fully agree with you here as well.

            3) While Islam claims to worship “The God of Abraham” a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur’an shows this claim is false because the attributes of Allah are *opposite* to those of Yahweh. eg. see http://www.answering-islam.org

            Agree here again, but I don’t have the time or the inclination to hit all adversarial points. As I am swiftly composing responsive posts as opposed to writing blogs or articles.

            4) The term “Islamist” is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike “radical” etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves “Islamist”. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn’t really beat people up so much for using that term.

            Actually he has written for and against on that one and has indicated that he prefers the term “Islamic supremacist” instead. I don’t know if I agree with him on that one, however. Regardless, the term “Islamist” is just another very political correct way to classify Muslims as being radicals that according to the very false and political correct narrative we unfortunately have going today are not true Muslims.

            You have good ideas and would be great if you adopted as style that convinced more people (so they didn’t stop reading before discovering the gems you’re putting out ) :)

            Well…I must admit that I have a lot of fun jerking people’s chains and getting under their skin. Oh well, what can I say. I confess.

          • Moa

            Ha ha, nice one.

            I think perhaps ObamaYoMoma is confusing you with Daniel Pipes?

            You’re a much better writer and have a much more realistic appraisal of Islam, IMHO.

            Please keep up the great work.

          • Moa

            Perhaps ObamaYoMoma is confusing Daniel Greenfield with Daniel Pipes? the latter definitely thinks that Islam has elements that could used to promote peace (personally I think this is delusional).

            IMHO, Daniel Greenfield has a much much more realistic assessment of Islam than Daniel Pipes. So perhaps that’s why ObamaYoMoma falsely accuses Greenfield.

    • Northstar

      Troll somewhere else

      • Moa

        Actually I suggest you get past ObamaYoMoma’s brusque writing style and listen to what he is trying to say (albeit rather clumsily).

        If you strip away the silly confrontational stuff OYM actually has some interesting ideas – even if he couches them in trollish terms (although perhaps OYM is somewhat frustrated, so comes off wrong).

        We should judge the idea on their merits, and their correlation and explanation of observed reality, not on who says them.

  • cathy

    Allen West: The world is starting to recognize that the problem isn’t ‘radical’
    Islam. The problem is Islam!

  • WinmeonE

    If this saying is from hadiths then you must understand that the hadiths were commentary that was written down hundreds of years after Muhammad died. If all Muslims were terrorist then there would be hate crimes 24/7 here in the U.S. caused by all Muslims. Alot of saying are very harmful in the hadiths, but these are all sayings that were written down from oral tradition. Not all oral tradition came down with positivity. There was no one writing down what he did or what he said while he was alive. Qur’an was written down on different things after his death and then later was compiled into the Qur’an, Qur’an came first and then hadiths three hundred or more years later. So, the sayings of Muhammad may or may not have been his. It is a shame that many Muslims believe that Allah revealed the hadiths too. This is false, I believe it was written and or compiled during the reign of the Ottoman empire. This is what happen when Muslims are told something by a “scholar” and they believe it is absolutely true. I have spent quite sometime studying Islam and I have to say that most Muslims do not follow it they way I have come to understand it. From what I have learned it has the antidote to the “new world order.” From a Metaphysical stand point. It maybe why the media and the Government are always targeting it as a need for democracy. Democracy = Banks, and if you are too blind to see the very country you live in don’t have secrets that would turn you face inside out, you are wrong. You think the Muslims you see on CNN and FOX are violent, you should do a little research of your own on whistle blowers and the U.S. Which in most cases is why you see Muslims that violent because the Qu’ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I’m learning the U.S is the oppressor. Do I agree that Muslims should pose violent? Absolutely not. What CNN and FOX will not show you are peaceful Muslims making Salat (prayer) during a protest. They will only show you the violent stuff, of course. Am I making excuses for Islam? No. Just want people to get the real facts and not the handed down deluded version of the facts. And remember, the best way to hide a lie is in between two truths.

    • defcon 4

      More islam0nazi Al Taqiyya. No musliem anywhere has denounced/repudiated the authoritative hadith that call for the extermination of the najjis kaffir or the Jews. BTW, shitheel, some of the most violent hadith have been authenticated because there is more than once source saying almost exactly the same thing.

      • WinmeonE

        There is were you are wrong sir/ma’am. Most of the Shia sect of Islam reject many hadith including the most violent one’s and let us not forget about the Quranist movement that totally reject all hadiths. But I just realized something about this site/blog post – Wow, defcon 4 you are full of hatred about alot of topics and your are spreading your fear and hatred to others. Bravo! and from the comments that I have read you are doing a great job. You come off as this level headed person full of knowledge but in reality this is why there will be never be peace on earth. Why can’t it start with you? Stirring hatred against Islam is not going deradicalize Islam – you are making things worst actually. I see you are trying to come from a place of “truth” but it should not come from your anger. Seems like you are in the business of selling anger instead of reason. A famous philosopher once said, “it is impossible to win an argument against an ignorant man.”

    • ObamaYoMoma

      If all Muslims were terrorist then there would be hate crimes 24/7 here in the U.S. caused by all Muslims.

      Agree with you 100 percent on that one! However, Muslims aren’t terrorists, as that is a very false mischaracterization of them. Instead, they are jihadists, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, and unlike terrorism, which is always and only violent, jihad, on the other hand, is both violent and non-violent, but overall astronomically far more non-violent relative to violent. Indeed, mass Muslim immigration to the West in reality is non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purpose of demographic conquest and it is also far more ubiquitous relative to violent jihad. It is furthermore used to facilitate violent jihad attacks as well. In fact, that is exactly how the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were facilitated.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Which in most cases is why you see Muslims that violent because the Qu’ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I’m learning the U.S is the oppressor.

      However, I disagree with you very much on this one. So according to you the US is the oppressor, and that generates terrorism. Thus, Muslims resort to terrorism only in response to US oppression.

      However, once again terrorism isn’t even a manifestation of Islam, as Muslims don’t perpetrate terrorism in response to the US’s oppression. Not to mention that the US, which always upholds freedom and liberty, doesn’t oppress anyone as that goes against the founding of the country.

      Again, Muslims are not terrorists, as that is a gross misrepresentation of what they are. Muslims instead are jihadists, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, and manifests both violently and non-violently, but overall far more non-violently relative to violently, while terrorism, on the other hand, is always and only violent.

      If you can’t even distinguish between what is terrorism and what is jihad, then how do you expect any right thinking person to take any of your silly garbage seriously?

  • Febreezy

    You got to admit that Jews have done the worst crime in humanity by manipulating a governor to nail a man to a cross and leave him to die a slow painful death. If Jesus of Nazareth was given a choice, he’d probably choose to be stoned over crucification. Just saying… If you want to talk history, be fair. Orherwise, I find no interest in your opinion.