<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PBS Doc on Mohammed Features Muslim who was for Stoning Adulterers, Subjugating Christians and Jews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:34:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: laura rubin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5270224</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[laura rubin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5270224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laura rubin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5270221</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[laura rubin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5270221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Febreezy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268750</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Febreezy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;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. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;d probably choose to be stoned over crucification. Just saying&#8230; If you want to talk history, be fair. Orherwise, I find no interest in your opinion. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268740</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Which in most cases is why you see Muslims that violent because the Qu&#039;ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I&#039;m learning the U.S is the oppressor.&lt;/i&gt;

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&#039;t even a manifestation of Islam, as Muslims don&#039;t perpetrate terrorism in response to the US&#039;s oppression. Not to mention that the US, which always upholds freedom and liberty, doesn&#039;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&#039;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?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Which in most cases is why you see Muslims that violent because the Qu&#8217;ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I&#8217;m learning the U.S is the oppressor.</i></p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>However, once again terrorism isn&#8217;t even a manifestation of Islam, as Muslims don&#8217;t perpetrate terrorism in response to the US&#8217;s oppression. Not to mention that the US, which always upholds freedom and liberty, doesn&#8217;t oppress anyone as that goes against the founding of the country. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>If you can&#8217;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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268733</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;If all Muslims were terrorist then there would be hate crimes 24/7 here in the U.S. caused by all Muslims.&lt;/i&gt;

Agree with you 100 percent on that one! However, Muslims aren&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>If all Muslims were terrorist then there would be hate crimes 24/7 here in the U.S. caused by all Muslims.</i></p>
<p>Agree with you 100 percent on that one! However, Muslims aren&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268724</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;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&#039;t forget to mention this.&lt;/i&gt;

I do right here and also explain why: Why is Islam waging perpetual jihad? It&#039;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, &lt;b&gt;because to do so would be to put the word of very fallible man above that of the word of very infallible Allah (God).&lt;/b&gt; 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.

&lt;i&gt;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. &lt;/i&gt;

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.

&lt;i&gt;3) While Islam claims to worship &quot;The God of Abraham&quot; a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur&#039;an shows this claim is false because the attributes of Allah are *opposite* to those of Yahweh. eg. see http://www.answering-islam.org... &lt;/i&gt;

Agree here again, but I don&#039;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.

&lt;i&gt;4) The term &quot;Islamist&quot; is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike &quot;radical&quot; etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves &quot;Islamist&quot;. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn&#039;t really beat people up so much for using that term. &lt;i&gt;

Actually he has written for and against on that one and has indicated that he prefers the term &quot;Islamic supremacist&quot; instead. I don&#039;t know if I agree with him on that one, however. Regardless, the term &quot;Islamist&quot; 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. 

&lt;i&gt;You have good ideas and would be great if you adopted as style that convinced more people (so they didn&#039;t stop reading before discovering the gems you&#039;re putting out ) :)&lt;/i&gt;

Well...I must admit that I have a lot of fun jerking people&#039;s chains and getting under their skin. Oh well, what can I say. I confess.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>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&#8217;t forget to mention this.</i></p>
<p>I do right here and also explain why: Why is Islam waging perpetual jihad? It&#8217;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, <b>because to do so would be to put the word of very fallible man above that of the word of very infallible Allah (God).</b> 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.</p>
<p><i>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 &#8211; 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:</p>
<p>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. </i></p>
<p>It is also a very convenient way for Islamic society to raise revenues as well.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I fully agree with you here as well.</p>
<p><i>3) While Islam claims to worship &#8220;The God of Abraham&#8221; a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur&#8217;an shows this claim is false because the attributes of Allah are *opposite* to those of Yahweh. eg. see <a href="http://www.answering-islam.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.answering-islam.org</a>&#8230; </i></p>
<p>Agree here again, but I don&#8217;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.</p>
<p><i>4) The term &#8220;Islamist&#8221; is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike &#8220;radical&#8221; etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves &#8220;Islamist&#8221;. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn&#8217;t really beat people up so much for using that term. </i><i></p>
<p>Actually he has written for and against on that one and has indicated that he prefers the term &#8220;Islamic supremacist&#8221; instead. I don&#8217;t know if I agree with him on that one, however. Regardless, the term &#8220;Islamist&#8221; 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. </p>
<p></i><i>You have good ideas and would be great if you adopted as style that convinced more people (so they didn&#8217;t stop reading before discovering the gems you&#8217;re putting out ) <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /> </i></p>
<p>Well&#8230;I must admit that I have a lot of fun jerking people&#8217;s chains and getting under their skin. Oh well, what can I say. I confess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268701</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Islamopithecines don&#039;t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn&#039;t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.&lt;/i&gt;

Don&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t violent, it isn&#039;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&#039;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 &quot;religion of peace&quot; 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 &quot;religion of peace&quot;. Hence, these extremists, radicals, and Islamists are operating outside the political correct purview of Islam. 

However, the existence of so-called &quot;moderate Muslims&quot; 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 &quot;will of Allah&quot; under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy of all Muslims. And what is this &quot;will of Allah&quot; that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence it&#039;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 &quot;moderate Muslim&quot; 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&#039;t, then the West will inevitably be doomed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Islamopithecines don&#8217;t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn&#8217;t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.</i></p>
<p>Don&#8217;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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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&#8217;t construed as being terrorism. </p>
<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;t violent, it isn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Why? It&#8217;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. </p>
<p>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 &#8220;religion of peace&#8221; 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 &#8220;religion of peace&#8221;. Hence, these extremists, radicals, and Islamists are operating outside the political correct purview of Islam. </p>
<p>However, the existence of so-called &#8220;moderate Muslims&#8221; 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 &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy of all Muslims. And what is this &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence it&#8217;s Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. </p>
<p>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 &#8220;moderate Muslim&#8221; as well. Hence, the existence of so-called moderate Muslims is an impossibility!</p>
<p>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&#8217;t, then the West will inevitably be doomed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WinmeonE</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268644</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WinmeonE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is were you are wrong sir/ma&#039;am. Most of the Shia sect of Islam reject many hadith including the most violent one&#039;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&#039;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 &quot;truth&quot; 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, &quot;it is impossible to win an argument against an ignorant man.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is were you are wrong sir/ma&#8217;am. Most of the Shia sect of Islam reject many hadith including the most violent one&#8217;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 &#8211; 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&#8217;t it start with you? Stirring hatred against Islam is not going deradicalize Islam &#8211; you are making things worst actually. I see you are trying to come from a place of &#8220;truth&#8221; 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, &#8220;it is impossible to win an argument against an ignorant man.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268594</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &quot;break a few legs&quot; 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&#039;t kill everyone because Muslims are fantastically non-productive. Without dhimmis their cult would have died out long ago. That&#039;s why you hear of &quot;ancient communities of Jews and Christians in Muslims lands&quot;. 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&#039;s why I call them &quot;Mafia&quot;.


I hope that clarifies what I wrote to your satisfaction. It is important to understand why the Muslims don&#039;t always kill everyone (something pointed out by the real apologists). It&#039;s because they are using dhimmis as semi-slaves.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No whitewashing amigo, I agree with you. Total body count for Islam is 270 million and rising daily (see <a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thereligionofpeace.com</a>).</p>
<p>Islam is like the Mafia. They &#8220;break a few legs&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>They don&#8217;t kill everyone because Muslims are fantastically non-productive. Without dhimmis their cult would have died out long ago. That&#8217;s why you hear of &#8220;ancient communities of Jews and Christians in Muslims lands&#8221;. The Muslims know that if they brutally slaughter people early on they can extract jizya &#8211; and the latter is a higher priority than the former. That&#8217;s why I call them &#8220;Mafia&#8221;.</p>
<p>I hope that clarifies what I wrote to your satisfaction. It is important to understand why the Muslims don&#8217;t always kill everyone (something pointed out by the real apologists). It&#8217;s because they are using dhimmis as semi-slaves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: defcon 4</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268576</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[defcon 4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: defcon 4</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268574</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[defcon 4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268574</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;s, ongoing)

2. E. Timor (ten thousand kufars murdered by Indonesian islam0nazis, most of them Catholic), once again in the 1970&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, if muslimes are only interested in jizya perhaps you can explain away the genocides committed by muslimes in:<br />
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&#8242;s, ongoing)</p>
<p>2. E. Timor (ten thousand kufars murdered by Indonesian islam0nazis, most of them Catholic), once again in the 1970&#8242;s</p>
<p>3. Sudan/Darfur two million (?) assorted kufars murdered by muslimes in the name of islam (late 20th early 21st century, ongoing)</p>
<p>4. Turkey: 2.5 million Armenian and Assyrian Christians murdered by muslimes in the name of islam</p>
<p>I can hardly wait to see how you whitewash all that blood away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: defcon 4</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268572</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[defcon 4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sometimes it seems that OYM is arguing semantics. It&#039;s like tilting at windmills. I call it violent jihad, you call it terrorism... I say pota-toe you say potato.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sometimes it seems that OYM is arguing semantics. It&#8217;s like tilting at windmills. I call it violent jihad, you call it terrorism&#8230; I say pota-toe you say potato.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268553</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some very good points made there. Especially that the &quot;stealth jihad&quot; and jihad by immigration and birthrate (&quot;hijra&quot; 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&#039;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&#039;t really care about religion as much as they hypocritically say they do. It&#039;s all about the earthly money and power and women - just as Mohammed.

3) While Islam claims to worship &quot;The God of Abraham&quot; a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur&#039;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 &quot;Islamist&quot; is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike &quot;radical&quot; etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves &quot;Islamist&quot;. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn&#039;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&#039;t stop reading before discovering the gems you&#039;re putting out ) :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some very good points made there. Especially that the &#8220;stealth jihad&#8221; and jihad by immigration and birthrate (&#8220;hijra&#8221; jihad, IIRC) is very good.</p>
<p>A couple of other things can also be said:</p>
<p>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&#8217;t forget to mention this.</p>
<p>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 &#8211; 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:</p>
<p>  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.</p>
<p>  b) It shows that Islam doesn&#8217;t really care about religion as much as they hypocritically say they do. It&#8217;s all about the earthly money and power and women &#8211; just as Mohammed.</p>
<p>3) While Islam claims to worship &#8220;The God of Abraham&#8221; a scriptural analysis between the Bible/Torah and Qur&#8217;an shows this claim is false because the attributes of Allah are *opposite* to those of Yahweh. eg. see <a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm</a></p>
<p>4) The term &#8220;Islamist&#8221; is legitimate. Robert Spencer himself says the term is fine (unlike &#8220;radical&#8221; etc, as you point out), the only problem being that no Islamist group ever calls themselves &#8220;Islamist&#8221;. This means the term is accurate but a little abstract for many. You shouldn&#8217;t really beat people up so much for using that term.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>You have good ideas and would be great if you adopted as style that convinced more people (so they didn&#8217;t stop reading before discovering the gems you&#8217;re putting out ) <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WinmeonE</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268551</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WinmeonE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;an was written down on different things after his death and then later was compiled into the Qur&#039;an, Qur&#039;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 &quot;scholar&quot; 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 &quot;new world order.&quot; 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&#039;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&#039;ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;an was written down on different things after his death and then later was compiled into the Qur&#8217;an, Qur&#8217;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 &#8220;scholar&#8221; 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 &#8220;new world order.&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;ran says to fight those who try to oppress and from what I&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268548</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually I suggest you get past ObamaYoMoma&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I suggest you get past ObamaYoMoma&#8217;s brusque writing style and listen to what he is trying to say (albeit rather clumsily).</p>
<p>If you strip away the silly confrontational stuff OYM actually has some interesting ideas &#8211; even if he couches them in trollish terms (although perhaps OYM is somewhat frustrated, so comes off wrong). </p>
<p>We should judge the idea on their merits, and their correlation and explanation of observed reality, not on who says them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268547</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ha ha, nice one.


I think perhaps ObamaYoMoma is confusing you with Daniel Pipes?


You&#039;re a much better writer and have a much more realistic appraisal of Islam, IMHO.


Please keep up the great work.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha ha, nice one.</p>
<p>I think perhaps ObamaYoMoma is confusing you with Daniel Pipes?</p>
<p>You&#8217;re a much better writer and have a much more realistic appraisal of Islam, IMHO.</p>
<p>Please keep up the great work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268545</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;s why ObamaYoMoma falsely accuses Greenfield.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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).</p>
<p>IMHO, Daniel Greenfield has a much much more realistic assessment of Islam than Daniel Pipes.  So perhaps that&#8217;s why ObamaYoMoma falsely accuses Greenfield.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moa</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268544</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 06:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268544</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;t only come in the form of terror attacks.


Furthermore, calling &quot;jihad&quot; the broader term of &quot;terrorism&quot; 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 &quot;jihad&quot; 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 &quot;stealth jihad&quot; (backed by Marxist Political Correctness from the Left) is far far more damaging than a few thousand deaths.


2) Calling &quot;jihad&quot; by the term terrorism is a mistake because some of those called &quot;terrorists&quot; may actually be freedom fighters opposing real oppression. Therefore, calling Islamic violence &quot;terrorism&quot; 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 :) ]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;t only come in the form of terror attacks.</p>
<p>Furthermore, calling &#8220;jihad&#8221; the broader term of &#8220;terrorism&#8221; 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).</p>
<p>If I have his thesis right then we could summarize as:</p>
<p>1) Calling &#8220;jihad&#8221; 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 &#8220;stealth jihad&#8221; (backed by Marxist Political Correctness from the Left) is far far more damaging than a few thousand deaths.</p>
<p>2) Calling &#8220;jihad&#8221; by the term terrorism is a mistake because some of those called &#8220;terrorists&#8221; may actually be freedom fighters opposing real oppression. Therefore, calling Islamic violence &#8220;terrorism&#8221; can give it a little bit of the cloak of some of those legitimately fighting tyranny. Islam never fights for liberty &#8211; it is evil and only fights to impose the oppression of Sharia.</p>
<p>ObamaYoMoma, please correct me if I have got your intent wrong. [hint: bullet points and paragraphs will help people read your interesting ideas <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" />  ]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ziggy zoggy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268535</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ziggy zoggy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 05:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Islamopithecines don&#039;t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn&#039;t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Islamopithecines don&#8217;t practice terrorism? WTF? You make some good points about Islam but that isn&#8217;t one of them. Terrorism is a tactic that islamopithecines practice far more than all other groups combined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/pbs-doc-on-mohammed-features-muslim-who-was-for-stoning-adulterers-subjugating-christians-and-jews/comment-page-1/#comment-5268496</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202724#comment-5268496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wonderful! So way back in 2010 you wrote a blog on Islam claiming that &lt;i&gt;&quot; to believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world.&quot;&lt;/i&gt; But what happened between way back then in 2010 and today, as now you always use political correct terms such as &quot;radicals&quot; and Islamists&quot; to describe mainstream orthodox Muslims, which simultaneously also implies that unidentified &quot;non-radicals&quot; and &quot;non-Islamists&quot; 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:

&lt;i&gt;You said, &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

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&#039;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&#039;s to compel the infidels to feel hopeless in order to make them surrender and resign themselves to their fate. In fact, it&#039;s more bluff than blunder. 

&lt;i&gt;You said, &quot;because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

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 &quot;will of Allah&quot; 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. 

&lt;i&gt;You said, &quot;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.?&lt;/i&gt;

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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderful! So way back in 2010 you wrote a blog on Islam claiming that <i>&#8221; to believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world.&#8221;</i> But what happened between way back then in 2010 and today, as now you always use political correct terms such as &#8220;radicals&#8221; and Islamists&#8221; to describe mainstream orthodox Muslims, which simultaneously also implies that unidentified &#8220;non-radicals&#8221; and &#8220;non-Islamists&#8221; 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? </p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>I also disagree with a lot of what you wrote way back in 2010. For instance:</p>
<p><i>You said, &#8220;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.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;s to compel the infidels to feel hopeless in order to make them surrender and resign themselves to their fate. In fact, it&#8217;s more bluff than blunder. </p>
<p><i>You said, &#8220;because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>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 &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; 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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><i>You said, &#8220;therefore by waging war on the infidels, by planting a minaret in one of their cities, by forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position&#8211; to the Muslim this is an act that affirms the truth and power of Islam.?</i></p>
<p>No&#8230;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 769/814 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 14:38:19 by W3 Total Cache -->