Robert Spencer
Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer issued an open challenge to debate numerous times on his vitriolic site. LoonWatch accepted his challenge. It has now been officially 155 days since Spencer has avoided the debate. By Spencer’s own logic (whereby anyone who dodges a debate is a chicken), this makes him a big fat chicken. This is why I recently published an article entitled JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch.
Instead of taking up his own challenge to debate, Robert Spencer now tries to take the chicken’s way out and has started throwing out wild Glenn Beck style accusations against LoonWatch. Of course, this is no different than his normal M.O., which involves saying absolutely outlandish things and then simply repeating them over and over. And so, Spencer now calls LoonWatch an “Islamic hate site.” Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will be an “Islamic supremacist” and “stealth jihadist” to JihadWatch!
To give “proof” that LoonWatch is an “Islamic hate site”, the best Spencer can do is reproduce a comment posted by a random reader of our site by the name of Mosizzle. Amazingly, Mosizzle (whoever he is) is not even a part of the LoonWatch team, nor has ever worked for us, nor has anything to do with us! He’s just one of the thousands of people who read our website and decided to post a comment under one of our articles.
Is Robert Spencer to be held accountable for what every commentator on his site posts underneath his articles? OK, let us apply this standard to him. Even in the blog post itself (the one in which he decries Mosizzle’s alleged “threat”), we see the crazy minions on his site saying completely absurd things, like this (posted by the always classy SaleemSmith):
Muhammad was an insane goat and camel f**ker.
Will Robert Spencer condemn SaleemSmith for saying this? And is it now fair to say that “JihadWatch calls Muhammad an Insane Goat and Camel F**ker”?
The sheer number of hate-filled comments on JihadWatch is in fact astounding. One does not need to dig far to find them. Simply clicking on the comments to any post will do. For example, just yesterday, we have one dedicated JihadWatch reader (by the user name of dumbledoresarmy) advocating ethnic cleansing of Germany:
evict from Germany, back to various parts of dar al Islam, all known Muslims (including native German converts to Islam; converts have shown a distressing tendency to involve themselves in Jihad plots).
How to reduce the danger of raids carried out from outside?
Don’t let any more Muslims into Germany. Not students, not tourists, not businesspeople, not diplomats, no nothing.
No Muslims allowed on German soil, would make life much more difficult for planners of jihad raids.
Another JihadWatch reader takes offense at this comment, arguing that it should be extended to all countries, not just Germany:
Could we not amend that fine premise to ‘No molsems allowed on non-moslem soil.’?
The next commentator (by the name of TJ) weighs in with a possible solution, arguing that Mecca should be nuked:
I believe a decent leader should prevent an attack by issuing threats that islams capital would be nuked (mecca) is theres a single attack in the country.
Another JihadWatch reader cheers on, likening Muslims to animals:
Do NOT surrender to these animals.
One has to scroll halfway down to find anyone who criticizes the “nuke Mecca” option offered by TJ. In this case, it is a user by the name of Roland, who takes issue with nuking Mecca…Except only because it would mean destroying the oil that America so desperately needs:
TJ please do not spread such vile mischief. Believe it or not, America cannot use nukes against any land that is filled with oil, it will be slow suicide.
Ronald could care less that millions of civilians would be killed. He cares about the oil over civilians, like all good neocons do.
The next commentator after Roland (by the name of El Cid) voices his support for ethnic cleansing, arguing for a policy involving “throwing them all out.” The next commentator after him decides to go back to the “nuke Mecca” option, and prays for an earthquake to destroy Mecca. (Why nuke when you can pray for an earthquake to do the same thing?)
Then R.K. MacUalraig decides to give his two thumbs up to the idea of ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Germany, saying:
Yes! Staright talk, straight solutions.
The poster after him also extends his support to the “throwing the Muslims out of Germany” solution (remember how the “throwing the Jews out of Germany” thing worked out?). Then, he says:
Fortunately, slowly but surely, we are getting to that stage.
“That stage” refers to the Final Solution, i.e. ridding Germany of Muslims.
Then finally, we have someone who opposes this Final Solution to Rid Germany of Muslims idea. Ahh, the voice of reason on JihadWatch. Of course, the same poster offers his own solution which involves “dropping a load of old shoes over the grand mosque and kaaba stone of mecca”. He argues that this is a “perfect solution” because it would “be pure insult and humiliation.” He also notes that he has many other such ideas which are even more insulting than this, and then encourages the other readers to come up with “their own creative suggestions.” So, this is the voice of reason on JihadWatch, the only user who actually opposed the Final Solution idea in the entire thread.
The next poster isn’t having any of it, and says:
I think it is time for a mass roundup and deportation, There is plenty of room in the sands of Arabia for all of them.
The commentator after that decides to give his own “creative solution”, arguing:
Pig parts, pig blood and perhaps waste towels from the bath houses of the lower east side (Village) NYC could be dropped on the holy land.
Then we have the last commentator on the page, the same one who came up with the idea to ethnically cleanse Germany of Muslims, chastise Ronald for being against the “nuke Mecca” idea. In Ronald’s defense, however, it should be noted that he never claimed we shouldn’t nuke Mecca because it would kill filthy Muslim civilians, but because of the oil. So c’mon crazy JihadWatch readers, cut him some slack!
Dumbledoresarmy addresses the crazed JihadWatch crew with the words “ladies and gentlemen” and then explains why nuking Mecca is a good idea.
And that’s the last post in the article. Thirty-five comments by JihadWatch readers, and not a single one who opposed the idea of ethnic cleansing of Germany (or the entire non-Muslim world) and the nuking of Mecca on ethical grounds (with the notable exception of Ronald who thought that it would mean losing the oil reserves and another user who thought there are more creative ways to deliver “pure insult and humiliation” upon Muslims). Not a single commentator on the thread opposed either of these two ideas on moral grounds.
Not a single peep from the ever vigilant Robert Spencer or any of the other moderators on the website either.
If Robert Spencer is claiming that LoonWatch must be held responsible for the solitary comment by Mosizzle, then by this logic, Spencer and JihadWatch are to be held accountable for the above comments advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide of Muslims. Notice that JihadWatch has a disclaimer at the bottom saying:
The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
If Spencer can use this defense of his site, then why does not the same apply to LoonWatch? Therefore, even if–hypothetically speaking–an “Islamic supremacist” were to post a threat against Spencer on our site, it would not be (by Spencer’s own logic) attributable in any way to LoonWatch. After all, JihadWatch commentators had threats against not just one person but against an entire religious group!
Having argued that point from a hypothetical standpoint, the reality is that no threat towards Robert Spencer was ever posted on LoonWatch. Mosizzle’s comment was simply:
Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads.
Anyone who has ever spent more than three minutes of their lives on the internet well knows that people are “proverbially speaking” when they say such things. For example, when the Huffington Post says “Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News…” or Fox News says that “O’Reilly Destroys Eminem and Media Matters”, nobody actually seriously thinks that Fox News has actually literally been destroyed or that Eminem or Media Matters are actually dead. Or when someone says “Stewart Rips Maddow”, nobody actually thinks that Maddow has been literally ripped into little pieces. Or when someone online says “Maddow eviscerated [someone]“, nobody actually thinks that the person has been literally eviscerated.
Mosizzle’s comment, in the context of epic blog language, is the most normal thing in the world. In fact, the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase has been used only just a million times on the internet, never once being interpreted as an actual death threat. For example, this neocon clown asks “Is Progressivism a ‘cancer’ that must be cut out of the American system?” I am a progressive in the American system; should I claim that I have been threatened? Glenn Beck also uses the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase. Maybe Glenn Beck is not a good example (because he is nuts), but the point is that most people would not think that Beck is actually advocating physical violence by such a phrase. Interestingly, the “Islam is a cancer in America that must be cut out” is very familiar and Spencer never seems to object to it.
In any case, Mosizzle himself clarified his statement, by saying that he was “just implying that we must refute Spencer’s lies now before he become more influential…” So, it is exactly as I initially thought it was: it was not a threat of physical violence at all. Instead, it was a call to refute his lies before his influence spreads. The phrase was used in the same way “destroys”, “eviscerated”, etc. is used in blog talk.
Robert Spencer, on the other hand, physically threatened me (Danios), calling for me to be lashed 100 and 101 times on two different occasions respectively, saying about me (“the slick liar”):
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes
And:
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes
Calling for someone to get lashed 100 or 101 times cannot really be understood as “proverbially speaking” nor is it a common saying. (Admittedly, I think it was nothing more than him just losing his temper…) So basically on the one hand we have on LoonWatch a comment using a phrase most commonly used in the proverbial sense by a random reader of our site who is not even a part of the LoonWatch team…(Nowhere in the quote by Mosizzle is violent action called for.) And on the other hand we have a threat that explicitly says I should be lashed, a threat issued not by some random reader of JW, but by the main man himself!
Furthermore, this entire idea of “the commentators on my site don’t reflect on me at all” is a bunch of baloney. The fact that JihadWatch attracts so many crazy bigots speaks volumes about what JihadWatch is all about. It’s food that fuels the bigots, and that’s why so many of them are there. We at LoonWatch have some crazies who roam our site (which website on earth doesn’t!?) but unlike JihadWatch, they are just a tiny percentage. Not only that, but someone will challenge a person if he says something crazy like that. As for Mosizzle’s comment, I am sure that most loyal readers thought like me that his comment was proverbial in nature. And Robert Spencer knows that. The fact that he’s forced to use the words of random visitors to our site–and superimposing it upon us–tells us very clearly that he knows he has got nothing on us, so he must rely on indirect means. How desperate is Spencer to get at us, and how truly far he has to go to find something against us!
Remember I told you that Robert Spencer is a liar? He feels no compunction in misleadingly titling his article: “Islamic hate site says Spencer is like a ‘cancer’ that must be ‘cut out.’” Yet, our website never said that. It’s not just poor form to write like this; it’s outright lying and libel. This from the man who keeps crying about people supposedly doing that to him. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
The way Robert Spencer tries to superimpose a “threat” on the words posted by Mosizzle show how truly desperate Spencer is to get a death threat. In the deranged world of Islamophobia, the more death threats and fatwas you have against your head, the more cred you have and the more books you can sell. No wonder the cover of Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is emblazoned with a death threat against Spencer made by some crazy internet Islamic extremist, and no wonder it boasts “[Robert Spencer] lives in a Secure, Undisclosed Location.” And yet in an interview available to the whole wide world to see, Spencer reveals his “undisclosed location” as “New England.” If his life is really in such great peril from the Bad Guys (which no jail but Gitmo can stop apparently), why is he revealing his location? And then why is he simultaneously printing books claiming that his location is “Undisclosed”? All of this shows his sheer fraudulence. It’s all histrionic theatrics and sensationalism designed to sell books. The whole “I-have-death-threats-against-me-for-this-book” thing is as trite as the “Warning: Images too graphic for some”…These are just gimmicks designed to entice the viewer. Oh, you’re getting death threats? Then I must read your book to find out what you say!
Again, if Spencer wants to attribute one singular comment (that too which is simply proverbial in nature) to LoonWatch, then all those ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide quotes are attributed to JihadWatch. Having said that, it is not right to strike some sort of equivalency here. LoonWatch has never advocated physical violence against Robert Spencer or the people who run his site. On the other hand, Robert Spencer has himself advocated the same things that dumbledoresarmy and TJ did. Dumbledoresarmy called for a ban on all Muslim immigration, which Spencer himself advocates:
Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny.
Reduce all this to its essence and you have exactly as dumbledoresarmy said: “No Muslims allowed on German soil.”
As for dumbledoresarmy’s support for ethnic cleansing, Robert Spencer was caught joining a white nationalist genocidal facebook group that advocated the same exact thing that dumbledoresarmy did on JihadWatch: ethnically cleansing a country (Turkey in this case) of all Muslims.
As for nuclear annihilation of Muslim lands, Robert Spencer posted a video advocating the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan.
So there can be no equivalence between the singular comment found on LoonWatch and the countless comments on JihadWatch. Had anyone actually threatened Spencer, we would have called him out as a loon. Will Robert Spencer strongly condemn as loons those people who post on his site calling for ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide against Muslims? We’re not asking just to reject what they are saying, but to clearly say that any who say such things are nutjobs.
The truth is, however, that such people characterize the vast majority of JihadWatch’s loyal readers.
Anyways, it is amazing how Robert Spencer chooses to focus on one teeny-tiny comment from someone who is not even a LoonWatch writer, instead of tackling the hefty arguments I have thrown his way. Quite telling. Also interesting is the fact that Robert Spencer and his minions mine our site looking for stuff to use against us even reading our comments section (whereas I would blow an aneurysm were I to read the comments section of JihadWatch for longer than a few minutes!), and yet Spencer still can’t get himself to say the name of our website. How truly juvenile. In that regard, I dedicate this song to him.
In the above article, I eviscerated Robert Spencer–proverbially speaking I assure you.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Like I always say–Robert Spencer displays a disturbing amount of projection.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Agree 100%.
That’s why JihadBob hangs around here, to find material which he can twist to use against the site. There is plenty of material from Halal Pork he can use, or Eternal or Cheryl or Miss Manners, but no, of course, he won’t find anything they say offensive.
In any case, Spencer is a hypocrite of the highest kind, he only lets a certain type of bigot post at Jihadwatch
By the way Danios, i left a comment in Brass Crescent thread. Loon Watch won an award
CONGRATULATIONS
November 20th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Another “proverbial” smackdown on the charlatan. It’s pretty interesting that neither he or the any of the posters even link or mention the website names. It’s almost as if they’re afraid of what some random jihadwatch visitor may find here.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
In the above article, I eviscerated Robert Spencer–proverbially speaking I assure you.
LOL…Great article as always.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I’m still lol’ing at the fact that Spencer reads these sites so closely, and yet is too scared to mention them by name.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
We know whats on Spencers Site and the others ,nothing but hate .
November 20th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Well done, LW.
November 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Thanks, guys. I just saw many of your guys’ comments on Spencerwatch. Seems like you guys found this way before I did. I edited my article just now and added some of your points in it. Thank you and hat tip to the relevant people.
November 20th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Oh wow, Robert Spencer taking something out of context and making sweeping generalizations based on his misconstrued interpretation? Wake me up when this one-trick pony learns something new.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The few crazies on LoonWatch are JihadBob (Spencer) and halal pork. Both of them are pro-Loons just like all the crazies on JihadWatch. I’m not a crazy for thinking Robert Spencer is a piece of shit.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
After close analysis of this site isthat the best spencer can come with?
November 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Desperate desperate Robby. The only hateful comments you’ll find on this site are from Jihadboob and HalalDork. Yet his site is riddeled with hateful comments. He puts up a lame disclaimer, trying to absolve himself from the comments his users make, but we all know he perfectly well tolerates them.
He is a lowlife and so are the people who visit his site. They would be the 1st people to send muslims to the gas chambers, if a final solution was ever implemented.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
JihadWatchers and Loons such as the zombies Halal Pork, Eternal and Cheryl just prove that the brain-dead are driven by hatred and racism. I know majority of the posters to LW are good decent people.
I can’t imagine a Muslim who would defame any of the prophets in the Bible yet you have nutters who hate our prophet so much that they have to resort to name calling. Do they know him?No!Do they want to know him? No!
How can you hate a person without knowing his true character?
Muslims love all the prophets, we love Jesus, Moses and Muhammad.
Danios, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but are you a Muslim. I appreciate your great works that you have done Mashallah.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
This is a great article: it perfectly highlights the fact that the vast majority of Jihadwatch fans are genocidal bigots, and even the ones that are relatively tame by Jihadwatch’s dismally low standards are extremist nut-jobs when compared to ordinary people. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any Jihadwatch fan that wasn’t a nut (it’s probably impossible). Conversely, Loonwatch readers are overwhelmingly rational and tolerant. Heck, most bigoted comments on Loonwatch come from Islamophobes, not Loonwatch fans—even today, one Islamophobe attempted to say “Mecca must be destroyed” (albeit only in Latin).
Anyways, good job completely turning the tables on Spencer. What was he thinking bringing up comments on threads? Apart from the fact Mossizle’s comment was perfectly ordinary, there is no comparison between Loonwatch’s and Jihadwatch’s threads.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
When I saw my comment on JihadWatch, I was kinda regretting posting it. But now I feel better as the whole incident exposed Spencer’s hypocrisy and lies. It also brings to mind how Spencer was outraged that CAIR quoted comments from JihadWatch in a newspaper article.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/09/cairs-hooper-defames-jihad-watch-in-the-chicago-sun-times.html
November 20th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
This is an excellent article! It’s been a long time coming that someone should point out the hate stream in Jihadwatch’s comments. Great job, Danios!
November 20th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Boob Spencer alawys cries defamation everytime CAIR call him or his buddies out. They then start screaming about Unidicted co-conspirtors ( which we now know is total BS) and Islamo surpremacists in a desperate attempt to discredit them.
Spencer is a total lowlife scumbag. You have to be, if you can actually attempt to defend that shrieking Harpy Pam Geller, as she gets exposed for her racist hateful and bigotted content she posts and says about muslims.
These lowlives need to be taken down a peg or 2. They are getting desperate. Loonwatch is taking them down, 1 article at a time. They get desperate and resort to cheap smear tactics to discredit this great site.
In a few decades, these losers will be long but forgotten, the masses will not have bought into their bigotry about Muslims & Islam, the world will move on.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I think we need someone with a strong stomach to gather hateful comments by the lowlives that visit J-watch and atlas shrieks and make a nice big file of them, which we can have a dedicated page to or something. They can try all they want to distance themselves from the comments, but all know they agree with what has been said.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Spencer!have you finished listening to the song?
November 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
In memory of Abdulmajid (he was my rant-’n-rave kind of loon poster):
What a half-idiot this jihadbooby is! of course Sefardi Jews fled Spain from the Inquisition! The Catholic Kings made a decree right after the conquest of Granada forcing Spanish Jews to convert to Christianity, or pack up and leave; they had signed a treaty that they would respect the Muslims’ rights. Of course they never had the intention to keep it and they started forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity right away. And they set the inquisition against those who continued to parctice their ancestral religion in secret. “Marranos” = Swine, they called the forcefully converted Jews “Followers of the evil Mahometan sect they called the Muslims: they forced them into Christianity and then accused them of being sacrileges so they could burn them at the stake and confiscate their land, their houses, their money and their belongings. They brought them to their knees, robbed them of their identity, their culture, their faith, their belongings, their homeland and even their children. And yet you have the NERVE to DENY it!!! Those xenophobic bastards! And jihadooby here is no different, he is only a xenophobic so-and-so. Right there with the inquisitors of 500 years ago. Anybody who professes xenophobia has resigned from the human race. That dim-witted condescending xenophobic FOOL if only somebody would finally stuff his mouth so that decent non-xenophobic folks won’t have to continue being disgusted by his half-witted xenophobic babble. Next he will say the Serbs did the right thing in Bosnia. Come and say that to Bosniaks, jihadbooby, I hope you will be ripped to bits, you disgusting fascist xenophobic half-witted half-idiotic MORON! But killing you would be too good for you, there must be no undeserved martyrdom for the cause of half-witted xenophobic bastards, and it is a pity that the unwitting, uneducated and willfully ignorant masses of simpletons follow them so readily. I read their venomous half-witted ignorant comments every day. And I feel disgusted and threatened by such people. Jihadbooby, if God has chosen to harden your heart as he did with Pharaoh, then may He have mercy on your soul, I for one would like to give you a foretaste of what awaits you in the hereafter: I would love to dunk you in cat shit. My oh my, if I had the misfortune of knowing someone who shares your stupid evil views in person – you know how to get a mule to pay attention? By hitting his head with a two-by-four, and then I’d do that until my arms fall off.
You, fellow, do not deserve to walk this earth. But even Satan himself would not admit you in HEll. May your name cease to exist. May your hands perish! May you be cursed with impotence, and if you already have descendants I hope they will repudiate your views or else may God curse them for the next coming thousand generations. The only person more disgusting than you are all those who thought up and participated in the anti-Bosniaks genocidal crusade starting form the first movement for Serb independence in 1804, and of whom Radovan Karadzic and his willing executioners are but the last exponents in a long, long line. Should they persist in their evil ways may their nation perish, and if you are for nuking Mecca then know that the only reason why I am not in favor of plastering Serbia until it is all radiocative crater glass is because the neighboring countries would get the fallout too, and that is not on. If God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrha if only one righteous man were there, well I know that there are very decent Serbs around, and that the majority of Serbs, if they weren’t so willfully ignorant would feel sorry and ashamed for the genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade which has gotten them nowhere. I haven’t yet lost my faith that human beings are born good and are actually kind-hearted from nature. Except of course for fellows like you. Some of them call us snakes. You are the devil, you are the snake.
ANd I would rather make fun at your incoherent childish immature babble were it not that you spit in the faces of survivors of genocide, that you spit on the graves of victims of genocide, that you stand for genocide, that you are a xenophobic wingnut, and I would dismiss you as such and leave it at that, but you are much more dangerous than a madman. You are the new fascist. And as for your scornful condescending hateful words towards me, I can only say: my parents taught me that with a gentleman, one should always behave like a gentleman, and with a scoundrel like a scoundrel and everything else is bunk. I see no reason why I should treat you like a gentleman, for you are so obviously not one. I see on the contrary that your parents did a lousy job of child-rising. Were my own child like you (God forbid!) I’d disown and disinherit him and throw him out on the street, fortwith. Luckily this is not the case and will never be. And now go on and try some more mendacious (do you know what that means, mendacious) and ridiculous fantastic untrue empty hollow worthless anti-Muslim statements on me, do you know what I wipe off with them?
None more blind than those who don’t want to see. ANd you are one. Were your inflammatory rhetoric not potentially murderous I would just try to ridicule you, but your venomous talk can cost lives, so if one hate crime like the stabbing of Ahmad Sharif or Marwa Sherbiny can be traced back to you, then may you suffer the same, only worse. Much worse. I do not wish you death, as I have explained but I can think of something much worse, like knecapping. Or better yet, may your own anger come back to you, and make you burst a blood vessel. Suffer a stroke. Go insane.
And it is only too good that all the people I know here, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or whatever respect my views and my person, and are no primitive dimwitted anti-Muslim xenophobic ignoramuses. They know I erspect them exactly rhe same as well, what do you want? Do you dismiss that as taqiya too? Even some SERB guys with whom I talked, and who expressed their regret and shame over the anti-Bosniak genocidal crusade. And I told them, “If you never did anything wrong or evil there is no need for you to be ashamed.” THOSE are my real friends, because my skin is as valuable to them as their own, even if I am of a religion they don’t always agree with. But we can discuss on civilized terms. They see my standpoint, then I see theirs as well. With such friends I’d travel to Hell and back.
But YOU, fellow, are not going to bury us Mooslims. Didja hear me, no matter how hard you try, you are NOT going to bury us. You are not going to bury us! You are not going to bury us!!! AND neither is Geert Wilders, Radovan Karadzic and all their willing executioners!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/m-cherif-bassiouni-islamophobia-and-the-mosque-controversy/#comment-28736
November 20th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
You’ll notice that fellow loon posters on that thread, and others, only fed Abdul compliments for his sick and twisted views.
And not loon poster came out to condemn Abdul on that thread, even after I repeatedly asked other members to join me in condemning Abdul.
Islamic supremacist site, indeed.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Another great thread and Abdul rant-’n-rave followed up with other posters who express their support for him:
Dear Robert Spencer, I have a better idea. Let’s rather build a new mosque in Belgrade first. In fact the Serbs HAVE built a new Orthodox church on expoliated Muslim land near Srebrenica and the priest there defends and justifies not only the Srebrenica genocide but the whole genocidal serbofascist crusade. I hope someday the serbofascists will ber forced to tear it down – with their bare hands. They should not even be given a chisel but consume their fingernails. They should be paid back with the same degree of inhumanity as they dealt out in 1992-95 and with interests too. For generally Non-Muslims have always been more cruel to Muslims than vice versa. History is full of examples, like the crusades, the ethnic cleansing of Sicily’s Muslims, the reconquista in Spain, the Palestinian conflict, the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans from 1878 on, Palestine, the INdo-Pakistani and Kashmir conflicts, and of course Bosnia and Kosovo. What was the crime of Muslims? that they were there, and for teh Christians they are undesirables. That is their only guilt. Who smears them as criminals is as much of a fascist and a Nazi as those who smeared the Europeam Jews in teh 1930s and finished by exterminating them. And since you too seem to defend this genocidal crusade then I see you as guilty of it as Milosevic, as Ratko Mladic, as any Serb soldier who pulled the trigger, wielded a knife or raped Little girls young as eleven just because they were Muslims. And all and any such people are as medieval as the Spanish Christians, their kings and their church of the 16th and 17th centuries – barbarians, murderers and robbers. For what reason you have a hatred of Muslims I do not know nor do I care, but your talk is potentially murderous so I hope for your own good that we never meet in person but should you feel the need to come to Bosnia as a volunteer in the next round of genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade then I hope you will meet a very sticky end.
I am just reading a book on how the Habsburgs and the Catholic church committed ethnic cleansing in Spain in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, with what unremitting hate and scorn even the populace looked down on people whose only crime it was to be born of Muslim parents; and no, it was not written by some resentful Arab, but by a renowned Spanish author who researched it very carefully and used sources from contemporary Spanish chronists. it was the same the Serbs did to Bosniaks and Kosovo Albanians. The same medieval and 19th century ideas all anti-Muslims share caused this genocide, and I find it execrable that somebody would actually defend it! I would like to spit in the faces of such people weren’t it that I would then soil my spittle. I want to give them back soem of tehir hatresd, I have never believed in turning teh other cheek. And I hope their hideous unremitting monstrous hatred of people they don’t know anything about will come down over their own heads and consume them. Of such people it is written, and not only in the Muslim revelations, that their abode will be the Fire and they will be consumed in a searing flame.
As for the Bosnian Serbs my message to them is simple: learn to live with the Bosniaks ! Accord them the same respect that you claim for yourselves, then you will be accorded the same respect. For it is nothing but a dirty propaganda lie that we would want to force you to become Muslims. But like in 16th century Spain you would force us into Christianity or exile or death. You don’t want to accord us that respect, then go to Serbia and never come back! And likewise I say to you Americans, do not treat Muslims as second-class human beings! Don’t hold them hostages to what happens in other countries!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/islamophobia-what-islamophobia/
November 20th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
the funniest part is that he pretends not to be aware that loonwatch has responded to his challenge for a debate, or that loonwatch is anything of significance, yet spends so much time finding readers’ posts on the comments pages to twist.
THAT IN ITSELF SPEAKS VOLUMES.
pleas click on my name for more info,
peace
November 20th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Ban JihadBob from this forum. He can feel free to hate on Jihad Watch.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Thanks for taking the time to highlight your hypocrisy Bob. Now let’s take a gander at your own comments on that same thread, shall we?
We’re not a sharia run state yet.
And
“But more importantly, American Muslims would never burn Jewish sacred texts because they’re regarded as sacred.”
Well, actually I don’t see Christians burning the Torah either. I doubt you would mention that for some reason.
“It’s perfectly proper for them to expect the same respect towards their own religous books.”
Too bad. Free speech doesn’t work on reciprocity.
“If i had writtent he above i would added, that the US govt, should support the OIC resolution against the defamation of religon.”
That’s because you, like most Muslims, are supporters of Islamo-fascism.
“If you were not such a media whore you would see that extremists who burn Bibles and Churches would not be able to get away it.”
Hold on, are you comparing the burning of privately own Bibles to burning down churches ?
Seriously?
There is no freedom of speech as it stands, you may think there is but there isn’t.
You may not think so, but there is freedom of speech in the United States.
America is probably the freest nation in the world when it comes to free speech.
It will continue to be a free nation until Islamo-fascists take over and have their way.
You’re more welcome to move somewhere else if you don’t like our freedoms and want to take them away from us.
Seriously.
And just to show examples of the Christian love you always claim to show…
I was kind of half expecting for Zakariya to submerge from the cesspool he resides in and respond to my comments directed to him.
Actually, you did, dipstick.
I can bring up many more examples of your bigotry if you’d like. Seriously, just ask.
Oh, and I noticed you slipped in another lie.
And not loon poster came out to condemn Abdul on that thread, even after I repeatedly asked other members to join me in condemning Abdul.
Dawood: And as for the threats you’ve quoted, they are as disgusting to me as your opinions are regarding the Islamic juristic tradition and your frequent inability to decry any violence perpetrated upon Muslims due to them believing in Islam. In other words, I refudiate them just as I refudiate your opinions.
Yours Truly: Dawood is right—those quotes are disgusting.
Cynic: Those threats are rather sick tbh. And you haven’t linked to their source btw (a problem Dawood is also having with you atm).
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/muslims-and-christians-condemn-baghdad-church-massacre/
Apart from that, let’s see what you have not condemned:
The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. And the showdown in Iraq, that is surely coming, between Sunni Arabs (who will never accept their new, inferior status) and the Shi’a Arabs (who will never yield any of the power they have now acquired thanks to the deposing of Saddam Hussein by the Americans) is likely only to exacerbate Shi’a-Sunni tensions and war in the Yemen.
Not only have you not condemned this hate, you have explicitly condoned it.
It could also be mentioned that you have no qualms with the Bosnian genocide, or any violence against Muslims for that matter. In fact, every time a Muslims dies at the hands of a non-Muslim, you excuse it in various ways.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
JihadBob, you are doing exactly what this post is showing. That people like you are using one example of bad comment to make it seem like this is a hate site. But I agree, what AbdulMajid said isn’t kind. But it never was a death threat or even compares to the crap that comes from the majority of JihadWatch commenter. Let’s break down AbdulMajid’s supposedly threatening comments.
“I hope someday the serbofascists will ber forced to tear it down – with their bare hands. They should not even be given a chisel but consume their fingernails. ”
No death threat. Just his fantasy that he wants to see Serbians who built Churches on Muslim land have to tear it down with their fingernails.
“I hope for your own good that we never meet in person but should you feel the need to come to Bosnia as a volunteer in the next round of genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade then I hope you will meet a very sticky end.”
That’s fact. If anyone tried anything like the Bosnian Genocide again, you won’t leave the conflict alive. Muslims will hunt you down in the same way that Jews are still hunting Nazis down. But of course you wouldn’t try anything like that, because you “love Muslims”.
“I do not wish you death, as I have explained but I can think of something much worse, like knecapping. Or better yet, may your own anger come back to you, and make you burst a blood vessel. Suffer a stroke. Go insane.”
No death threat. See he explicitly said he does not wish you death. But again hopes that you “burst a blood vessel” or get “kneecapped”. That doesn’t compare to what’s found on JihadWatch threads. I would rather burst a blood vessel than be incinerated by the nuclear bombs that JihadWatch readers want to send my way.
“If God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrha if only one righteous man were there, well I know that there are very decent Serbs around, and that the majority of Serbs, if they weren’t so willfully ignorant would feel sorry and ashamed for the genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade which has gotten them nowhere. ”
See, now AbdulMajid is refraining from destroying Serbia because the majority of them are good. Compare that to JihadWatch, where commenters want the destruction of all Muslims, good and bad.
“May your name cease to exist. May your hands perish! May you be cursed with impotence”
Meh.
“I would love to dunk you in cat shit”
No problem here. I would happily dunk you in “cat shit”. Seriously.
Note to AbdulMajid: Take a deep breath and read your comments before you post them.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
LoL.
No loon poster on the two threads I took the quotes from expressed disgust towards Abdul and several posters, including Zakariya, actually sided with what Abdul said.
Most of those ‘quotes’ don’t even need refuting or explaining. One that is ‘borderline’ is where I said most Muslims support Islamo-fascism, but I defined Islamo-fascism as a religious theocracy that takes away or curbs free speech.
So, either you’re arguing with me that most Muslims don’t support a suppression of free speech based on Muslim religious sensibilities or you’re taking issue with the term ‘Islamo-fascism’, which begs the question, where were you to denounce members here for using ‘Judeo-fascism’ and ‘Serbo-fascism’?
Bookmarking my old comments, perhaps?
November 20th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
But it never was a death threat or even compares to the crap that comes from the majority of JihadWatch commenter. Let’s break down AbdulMajid’s supposedly threatening comments.
That’s because loonwatch deletes comments that are too racy:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/anne-coulter-tells-muslim-student-to-take-a-camel/
And that includes death threats against members here and against Robert Spencer in another thread that were subsequently deleted after I (unfortunately) highlighted that part from Abdul’s post.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
My oh my, if I had the misfortune of knowing someone who shares your stupid evil views in person – you know how to get a mule to pay attention? By hitting his head with a two-by-four, and then I’d do that until my arms fall off.
Cynic approves this message….
November 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Oops. Looks like Stephen G.Parker told AbdulMajid to not answer evil with evil in response to his “racy” comment which had been deleted. Do note, Jihadbob, that the “racy” comments are still available at JihadWatch.
“Abdulmajid – Don’t answer evil with evil; answer evil with good. If you respond with hatred to those who hate you, you just show that you are no better than they are. The teaching of Jesus (PBUH) and of Muhammad (PBUH) both was to that effect. Answer a fool in such a way as to expose his folly, but don’t answer in an equally foolish way. If you wish others to respect Islam and Muslims, then act in a way worthy of respect; don’t give them any legitimate reason to attack you. Leave judgment to God; He knows best, and also knows well how to make justice and mercy ‘kiss each other’. He is well able to show even people like Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer the error of their ways, and bring about a genuine change of mind and heart. That one who now preaches hatred for Islam, may yet become one of its outspoken proponents! If not, God is well able to judge all by Himself, without our assistance.”
Guess that messes up your argument that no posters condemned AbdulMajid.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
JihadBob: I brought up the fact that every time violence against Muslims occurs, you condoned it. Curiously, you have no response to this point.
LoL.
That’s pretty sick of you. You seem to think Hugh Fitzgerald genocidal leanings are funny. Although…I can’t say I’m surprised.
No loon poster on the two threads I took the quotes from expressed disgust towards Abdul and several posters, including Zakariya, actually sided with what Abdul said.
Oh yes, we all know how much you hate Zakariya. I don’t read what Abdulmajid posts, but weren’t they talking about talking about genetics? That really seemed to piss you off and consequently you interjected the thread with some of you trademark bigotry.
Also, there have been plenty of times Loonwatch fans have taken issue with Abdulmajid’s posts. An example…
abdulmajid, you are getting too emotional. Do you get this emotional when your fellow Pakistani Muslims kill Christians over accusations of blasphemy? I think not.
And you’re missing the point: Abdulmajid is only one person—pretty much all of Spencer’s fans, including you, support oppression against Muslims. Yes or no?
November 20th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
So yes, that’s me, Dawood, Cynic, Dan, and Stephen G. Parker who have officially taken issue with some of Abdulmajid’s comments.
And Bob, your silence on Spencer’s disingenuous tactics and the amazingly bigoted fans of Jihadwatch speaks volumes.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Good points Mossizle. As for you Bob, here are the (found) examples of Loonwatch fans taking issue with some of Abdulmajid’s comments.
abdulmajid, shut up for a change and chill out.
“Where is JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) to come rushing to the defense of these bullies who, in his view, are really victims of liberal dhimmitude?”
JihadBoob is a fanatic who jerks off to Serbian war criminals. Do you expect any less from that idiot?
“Abdulmajid – Don’t answer evil with evil; answer evil with good. If you respond with hatred to those who hate you, you just show that you are no better than they are. The teaching of Jesus (PBUH) and of Muhammad (PBUH) both was to that effect. Answer a fool in such a way as to expose his folly, but don’t answer in an equally foolish way. If you wish others to respect Islam and Muslims, then act in a way worthy of respect; don’t give them any legitimate reason to attack you. Leave judgment to God; He knows best, and also knows well how to make justice and mercy ‘kiss each other’. He is well able to show even people like Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer the error of their ways, and bring about a genuine change of mind and heart. That one who now preaches hatred for Islam, may yet become one of its outspoken proponents! If not, God is well able to judge all by Himself, without our assistance.”
Those threats are rather sick tbh. And you haven’t linked to their source btw (a problem Dawood is also having with you atm).
Dawood is right—those quotes are disgusting.
And as for the threats you’ve quoted, they are as disgusting to me as your opinions are regarding the Islamic juristic tradition and your frequent inability to decry any violence perpetrated upon Muslims due to them believing in Islam. In other words, I refudiate them just as I refudiate your opinions.
So yeah, that’s another one of your arguments going down the drain.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
by the way, AbdulMajid said (if memory serves me right) that he had lived through the Serbian massacre, that’s why he feels strongly about Jihad Bob’s (spencers) hatred and calls for genocide at his site.
So the likes of Jihad Bob have no excuse to use him, when he has obviously suffered so much trauma. It’s understandable he would say what he did when threatened by JihadBob, but he has never made death threats.
and certainly Zak hasn’t either, you take what he says out of context, Mr Jihad Bob, Zak was agreeing with the points not the presumed calls for genocide.
and NassirH, you’re right, I do wonder why JihadBob takes issue with Zak, of all people, he’s a uncontroversial kind of guy, quite secular too, hardly one that can be called a “supremacist”. Maybe the secular ones are the ones these people fear? Or maybe Zak has wiped the floor clean with him somewhere else…
November 20th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Bob, I think you need a woman in your life. Seriously, if you need help finding somone I will help. Your lunacy is nauseating.
November 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I hear Pamela Geller is available…
He called her a an “outspoken lady”. Yeah, good luck keeping up with that for the rest of your life. Imagine if he brings Campbell’s soup into the house…
November 20th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Not so sure about that Mosizzle, I hear Pam’s already intimately involved with someone…
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pam_geller_robert_spencer.jpg
November 20th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Speaking of one trick ponies, once again JihadBob comes back to offer his trademark brand of tu quoque…as if that’s somehow going to prove that 99% of JW comments are not hateful. Yeah, right.
And “Cynic approves this message”? What part of
Those threats are rather sick tbh
don’t you understand fucktard? Hint: asking you to provide quotes of alleged threats =/= condoning said threats. *facedesk*
November 20th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
How embarrassing for JihadBob. He came in blasting except he was shooting blanks. As usual, it ended with him being humiliated just like in every other post.
November 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Why oh why do we even respond to Bob and the like? All it really does is validate them… Lets just ignore him… other loons.. and loon sites… See what happens…
November 20th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I am studying psychology and I can tell you right now that “JihadBob” has serious mental problems perhaps stemming from him likely coming from a poor, uneducated, racist, and maybe even a sexually abusive incestual family. Ignore him until he gets himself a shrink and starts taking the medications he desperately needs. I feel sorry for you Bob. *hugs* to you
.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Sorry bob, that’s just low, very low, so low that you went through the floor this time. Spencer is saying he won’t debate because of what one guy wrote, tell me bob, if Spencer is so correct and right then why won’t he debate so he can wipe the floor with Loonwatch? Surely his position is strong enough for him to take all comers? Right?
Oh, and I also note that you are regrettably silent on Bryan Fischer, can we take it that you support said man’s views? Using your logic silence is consent.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
jihadbob is a loon
November 20th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) is upset. Danios must have done well!
November 21st, 2010 at 12:40 am
I know this is off topic, but I truly do believe this is a very troubling article. Even more troubling is the fact Roger Ebert retweeted this! Twice!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-religious-excuse-for-barbarity-2137927.html
November 21st, 2010 at 12:50 am
Also, how the heck do you guys at LW have the guts to read comments on JW? Its depressing, disgusting, and deserves the eye of the FBI on them.
PS thank Allah we haven’t heard from psycho geller in a while.b
November 21st, 2010 at 1:54 am
Brother,
i wouldn’t let that article trouble you too much. The points it raised were refuted here on Loonwatch and even in the comments section of the same article you linked to. It is just another disguised attack on Islam, this time in the name of animal rights.
Also, fellow Loonwatchers, i am sure you all remember a poster named Jack(not Jack Cope) arguing that the banning of Shari’ah in OK couldn’t possibly lead to situation the Jews faced in Europe prior to the Holocaust? And he argued that most Isalmophobes don’t advocate things such discrimination against Muslims, persecution of Muslims,attacks against Muslims, deportation of Muslims from the “west”,cessation of Muslim immigration to the “west”,or worse human rights violations, such as concentration camps,indiscriminate murder, torture,nuking of Mecca and genocide. Has he been to Spencer and Geller’s sites? This article proves that a majority of visitors to Robert Spencer’s site advocate these things, even with the disclaimer “exonerating” Spencer. But if the snippets aren’t enough, and you don’t take my word for it, visit jihadwatch as i do often.
Allahu A’lam
November 21st, 2010 at 2:08 am
I honestly can’t stomach more than 1 article and its accompanying comments (which seal the deal) over at JW. I usually end up quite nauseous after it all.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:14 am
I actually believe now that jihadbob is Spencer.. After all he hasn’t denied this charge, and reminds me a lot f Spencer
November 21st, 2010 at 6:01 am
i found the same thing with the all Islamophobes.. the lies are the same, the MO is the same.. the cowardice to not actually debate is the same..
November 21st, 2010 at 8:07 am
JihadBoob, you’re one to talk about Free speech You fellow rightist fascists do everything to curtail free speech, be it criticism of almighgty Israel or comments that are apparently anti american or criticism of America’s armed forces or w.e else. You brand any Muslim an Islamofascist and stealth jihadist if they dare to say they support Islamic law, or side with the Palestinians or criticise Israel.
People like you are doing your very best to supress free speech for those you oppose. Your type only want your own views getting air time.
Also, you’re getting rather pathetically desperate. Your precious Robert Spencer and his hate site have been exposed yet again. Desperation anyone? Could you get anymore desperate? Probably, it should be fun watching.
If this were an Islamosupremacist hate site as you dumbasses olike to claim, losers like you and HalalDork woulda had every single post of yours deleted, especially HalalDork, who seems to go outta its way to insult Islam, muslims and make hateful comments every chance it gets.
Just look at what happens even to those that make sensible comments on Jihadwatch, its like a lynchmob, accusations of closet muslim, taqqiyah fly around, and dhimmi appeaser, leftist etc
November 21st, 2010 at 10:39 am
by the way, AbdulMajid said (if memory serves me right) that he had lived through the Serbian massacre, that’s why he feels strongly about Jihad Bob’s (spencers) hatred and calls for genocide at his site.
No, he’s a Catholic convert to Islam. His experience to Serbia is limited to some of his Muslim friends who were from the region.
I believe he’s from Spain, which partly explains one of his two main talking points in his rants.
Anyways, it’s revealing to go back to those two threads and see not only did loon posters not speak out against Abdul, even after I highlighted some of his statements, but that members were supporting what he said.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:11 am
JihadBob, I’ve noticed that you always go in circles. We’ve already addressed this non-point.
Anyways, it’s revealing to go back to those two threads and see not only did loon posters not speak out against Abdul, even after I highlighted some of his statements, but that members were supporting what he said.
The only person who specifically “supported” what Abdulmajid said was Zakariya—and that was in reference to genetics. You supported Halal pork when he said…
@ JIHAD BOB.The Muslim LUNATICS burn the Chuches , burn the Holy Bibles and persecute the Christians in the Muslim countries all the time,while the police looks the other way.No Muslim is ever prosecuted.The coluding police officers are usually suspended for a short period of time.Islam in fact protects the criminals against the Christians in favour of the Muslims.Muslims rape the Christian girls and women to humiliate the Christians to follow the teachings of Quran.The Quran is the best book for turning humans into ferocious animals with M morals.It is in fact a text book of terror and should be exposed not praised like their prophet
Does that mean you support everything the illiterate Halal pork says? Do you think Muslims are snakes and deserve to be ethnically cleansed from non-Muslim majority countries? (I’m guessing YES, mainly becuase of your cult-like worship of Spencer).
I believe he’s from Spain, which partly explains one of his two main talking points in his rants.
Most of your comments are undoubtedly rants. This is entirely because you can’t address the points brought up against your pathetic arguments. Your latest rant proves this.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:25 am
JihadBob, How do you know AbdulMajid is a Catholic convert to Islam? But even if he were, do you think he was doubly embarrased, ie. that a member of his former religion can be such a disgrace to Catholocism? Certainly the poster called Lex Agent of Chaos, who used to post, was clearly embarrased by you, and once apologised for sharing the same faith, though of course, nobody blamed him.
I doubt Abdul Majid sat down and shared a tea and broke bread with you. I’ll believe that when I hear him say it.
I’m sorry, but since you’re a proven liar, I cannot take your word. What I do want to know, is when you’re going to debate Danios
November 21st, 2010 at 11:27 am
And most importantly, the genocidal sentiments expressed by Jihadwatch fans are shared by Spencer—as shown in Danios’ article. Conversely, Loonwatch’s writers have expressed only tolerance and have never advocated violence of any kind (unlike Spencer). Apart from that, the overwhelmingly majority of Loonwatch fans are rational and tolerant, quite unlike the bigoted and vitriolic haters who are fans of Jihadwatch.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:59 am
Oh yeah, that’s right JihadBitch
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/seattle-man-attacks-shopkeeper-thinking-he-is-muslim/#comment-22682
Feeling the ‘peacefulness’ of Islam, yet?
November 21st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Microcosm of your thinking right there. One Muslim says “Jihadbitch” (kinda funny but offensive if you like), and suddenly the ‘peacefulness’ of Islam comes into play. Honestly thats a second grade insult too.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
How does being called a “JihadBitch” compare to when JihadWatch commenters regularly call for the nuking of Mecca? What about Robert Spencer who had “f**k CAIR!” as the title of one of his posts in which he stupidly tried to explain that the websites “f**kislam.com” and “f**kallah.com” magically redirected to his hate site. How does a Muslim calling you a “JihadBitch” in any way question the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. People have called you JihadBoob as well here. They are just playing on your name. A bit like how Spencer says things like “Honest Ibe Hooper” or “Brave Ahmed Rehab” or “Islamic Supremacist Reza Aslan” or “Hamas-linked CAIR” or “Dhimmi Carter” or “Libelblogger Charles Johnson” or “Motoonist” and of course “Ground Zero Mega-Mosque” or “Victory Mosque”…To name a few! And do not get me started on what Pamela Geller gets upto on her blog.
If you want to prove that you are not a bitch, then you need to stop whining like one.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The comments after this article are really quite sad. JihadBob: If you are so worried about some random internet poster saying such terrible things and truly fear for your well-being and safety, then it should be a police issue and not something you whine about here to other random internet posters. Plenty of regular posters at this site have condemned or distanced themselves from what was said; your refusal to accept that is telling. I don’t know about others here, but I simply can’t read every comment posted on the site, nor is there a dedicated way to keep track of them. And no where do any of the articles on this site support such hate-filled and vindictive comments.
The fact that you are so focused on one random poster (where is he now?) instead of engaging with either the article or the other multiple points raised following it, shows us that you are just here to troll the site and not actually engage in discussion or debate.
I notice that you have not refudiated or distanced yourself from any of the comments posted from Jihad Watch, though. Personally, I would like to see one clear and simple statement from you denouncing them and their xenophobic, islamophobic and genocidal ideas. One clear and simple statement; I made mine long ago against the random comments on this site you like to keep repeating.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
If these bigots truly feared us Muslims, they wouldn’t be commenting such negative things about us. It’s pure and simple propaganda that’s all!
November 21st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Awwww…it looks like I hurt poor wittle Bob’s fweewings!
You were whining about some guy going to Beirut—how is that not “bitchy”? Apart from that, every time an article has the word “Christian” or gives examples of physical violence against Muslims, you get your panties in a bunch. Also, need I remind you that have engaged in insults yourself?
I was kind of half expecting for Zakariya to submerge from the cesspool he resides in and respond to my comments directed to him.
Actually, you did, dipstick.
That’s because you, like most Muslims, are supporters of Islamo-fascism.
Surely not idiots like Danios and the rest of the morons at his well funded site
It’s called the internet. Get over it. Saying “bitch” or any other curse word doesn’t equal calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing. And if you think it does, then your hatred is obviously at a point of no return.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I understand it gets frustrating when dealing with Bob’s perpetual lies and distortions. But I think everyone needs to try and refrain from using profanity and making childish remarks. Of course, it’s nothing compared to the hatred coming from Jihadwatch, halalpork, cheryl etc.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Yeah…sorry
I thought it was a little funny…I mean, there’s not many words that can describe his personality any better—maybe bigoted, of course. Anyways, I stopped calling him a “bitch” after Justin told me not to.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“I thought it was a little funny…I mean, there’s not many words that can describe his personality any better—maybe bigoted, of course. Anyways, I stopped calling him a “bitch” after Justin told me not to.”
I understand. Just be careful not to show “islamic supremacy” by cursing on the internet. lol.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@Khushboo
Why would some of the extremists go so far as to advocate genocide of Muslims, if they didn’t truly fear Muslims?
More generally, what makes people willing to commit genocide (against any group)?
November 21st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Oooooweee. NassirH is on a JihadBob pwning streak. Pat yourself on the back Nassir =)
November 21st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Nassir H :It is simply impossible to find a sane Muslim.!400 years of indoctrination by Mohammad has caused irrevrsible damage to Muslim brains and some useful idiots like DAVID FROST.To keep his job with AL JAZEERA,he has opted to be a cheer leader of ignorant Muslims on loon watch.He is like the setting sun.Good luck Sir.Moha-Mad david.Keep wagging your toungue for your lunatic followers.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:59 pm
and halalpork injerjects to show us all how it’s really done. Well done internet crusader!
November 21st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
*interjects
November 21st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
this isnt an insult…more of an observation, but i seriously think halal pork is mentally retarded.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“this isnt an insult…more of an observation, but i seriously think halal pork is mentally retarded.”
I’m sorry jawad, but this is an insult to mentally retarded people everywhere.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
It’s not fear as in “dangerous” George, but it is fear of us taking over, as in more people converting to Islam. Sorry, I should’ve made myself clearer. They’re not scared of us being violent although they love to use that excuse to get people riled up. They’re just afraid that Christians will no longer become a majority.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:09 pm
@ Khushboo ;How many Muslim Idiots have you produced through BED ROOM JEHAD,dear madam?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Now that’s just low, Halalpork, even for you. You really are a disgusting piece of crap.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
That is why I tell people to be carefull arguing with Trolls like JihadBob and HilalPork they are not here to argu or discuses but
1. to get the whole comment section to reply back to him
2. To use comments said back to him to be discredit this site and what it does
November 21st, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I’m starting to get confused. Has JihadBob’s argument come to”
“Hey Abdulmajid posted a couple of (vague) threats on this site, therefore the truly genocidal and xenophobic comments you can find on 90% of JW articles can be ignored. And I’m not going to condemn them either. I’d rather spend my time bitching about a lone posters’ emotional rants. Oh, and because of his comments, everybody here is an Islamofascist”
Is that not the definition of tu quoque (albeit poorly done)?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I just don’t understand why he can’t speak out against the comments at the JW site and distance himself from them, when those of us regular posters clearly spoke out when becoming aware of the lone comments here.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Now I know you were trying really hard to stoke some fires and get people angry there Halal Pork. But when you say stuff like BEDROOM JIHAD, I think more people here are going to laugh at you than take you seriously (this is assuming they were even taking you seriously in the first place).
On a side note, I feel like a book called BEDROOM JIHAD: A MANUAL ON SEXING UP THE WEST would be a total best seller.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
“I just don’t understand why he can’t speak out against the comments at the JW site and distance himself from them”
Easy, because he supports them.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) is doing anything and everything to distract people from the fact that Danios gave him a square roshambo kick in the junk. Haha
HalalPork just hates Muslims. No need to dignify him with a response. He’s been explicitly racist and is still trying to claim Muslims worship a moon god.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:08 pm
The irony is that his favourite Doctor, whom he quotes from hates him just as much as he hates Muslims.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
jihadboobs reference to me was just another way of diverting attention.
I don’t feel I should take back anything I’ve said about that fellow; I do have to admit that his inflammatory rhetoric consisting mostly of crude jingoism and primitive Muslim bashing (of the same kind Julius Streicher did towards the Jews) disgusts me profoundly and sometimes gets on my nerves. And such rhetoric as his has cost many an innocent life.
I’m fortunate not to have gone through the horrors of Srebrenica or Omarska myself (the serbofascists would have singled out someone like me for immediate liquidation anyway) but I have first hand accounts from people who did go through all of this. The Bosniaks have been shortchanged and stabbed in the back, and they merit the sympathy of the world; only their Muslim brethren were willing to give them some. And it enrages me to no end that 15 years after the bungled ending of the war in Bosnia and the lopsided armistice that was forced upon the Bosniaks, they still are denied not only justice andredress but their nationality and their right to exist continue to be challnged as well. And people like jihadbooby and all other (especially Serb) anti-Muslims find nothing wrong with that. Who would want to share a country, even a continent or better this planet with such people?
At least, their moral or other shortcomings notwithstanding,even the most radical of Islamists or Fundamentalists do not consider exterminating a people or denying them their identity like the Nazis or the Serbs did. AND, what is most important, they do not think that it is right to take revenge for wrongs committed in the past, like the Serbofascists always do: they always justify the genocide commited against the Bosniaks with whatever was doen to the Serbs from 1389 on; as if somebody had the right to clobber me over something my great-great-grandfather did! Why shouldn’t I hate such vengeful and morally rotten people from the bottom of my heart! But even so I would never consider killing somebody unless he represents a danger for my physical integrity and my continued existence, or that of my family. I would then only exercise my right of self-defense.
That the, ah, opinions of such luminaries of mankind are so disgusting that I would like to inflict them some serious pain for being at the same time stupid and evil is something else. I have been most fortunate not to have – yet – been assaulted by such individuals. I have been fortunate that most people here don’t have a problem with me being what I am, what I chose after I saw what good Christian people did in the name of “their” God to innocent people in Bosnia. I’m not going back. I will not be insulted nor demonized nor dehumanized and I will not be taken like a lamb to the slaughter.
Keep up the good work here. Show such sleazy frauds for what they are lest they pull off another Milosevic or Karadzic stunt. And they are no better than the Nazis: exposed for what they are and deprived of the ridiculous attributes of their ridiculous power to frighten, they are only pathetic, pitiful figures.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:30 pm
@Cynic:
true but knowing when to quit has never been the strong point of these anti-Islam buffoons, has it?
They’ll keep kissing, flirting, hugging, hissing, spitting and cat-calling till the end of time (as long as they can go back to hating Islam at sundown)
More entertainment for us…:D
November 21st, 2010 at 7:33 pm
And I condemn ANY act of xenophobia! Some idiots have even replied to me that in the 16th century the Spaniards did right to commit ethnic cleansing, “because Spain was Christian before and so they returned it only to its former state”. Hah! Forcing the Spanish Muslims to become Catholic yet keeping them as third-class citizens and finalyl expelling them is and ermains an act iof xenophobia! What the Serbs did in Bosnia and Kopsova is XENOPHOBIA! All the evil and vitriolic crude Muslim-bashing I read about Muslims on almost any web page are xenophobia. Xenophobia is nothing to be understood (some things, the more you understand them the more you hate them) but a crime and anybody who is guilty of a xenophobic act is a criminal. Simple as that.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Thank you for clarifying your stance AbdulMajid, of course you had all the provocation in the world, and you’re right, it was just a diversion tactic. Anything to discredit the site, that’s why JihadBob hangs around here.
The mind boggles, JihadBob won’t take up an offer to debate, nor will Hugh Fitzgerald, who is also anonymous, yet he kicks up a fuss about a comment.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:42 pm
“because Spain was Christian before and so they returned it only to its former state”. Hah! Forcing the Spanish Muslims to become Catholic yet keeping them as third-class citizens and finalyl expe”
Yes, and the correct response to that, is what was Spain before it became Christian? Are pagans justified in mass murder of Spanish Catholics to return it back to paganism? According to their logic they are.
The right to land, has always been by conquest. Nobody owns land for perpetuity, and we do not know who will own what in 500 years time.
Even when the divine commands ordained conquest, it had to be fought in an earthly manner (Joshua Ben Nun’s conquest of Israel for example). There were no angels waiting to hand the land on a silver platter. Even then it was by conquest, war and battle. Always has been, always will be.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I NOW HAVE NOTHING BUT UTTER DISGUST FOR THIS [snipped]
Comment by Danios: Sometimes LW fans do us a disservice…sigh.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:30 pm
I like this new website that defends Prophet Muhammad:
http://www.defendtheprophet.com
November 21st, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Justin, that’s a nice website—I like it. May I suggest this blog? It’s by a dude who used to comment on Loonwatch during its infancy. I find his posts both insightful and informative, just like the comments he used to post.
http://allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/
Where’d he go anyway? He was an epic anti-loon.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@Danios,
Why was Kushboo’s comment snipped? And HalalPork always gets away with it!
November 21st, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Yeah, I mean he does call himself Halal Pork.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Halal pork is both an oxymoron and a moron.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 am
Ladies and gentlemen we finally have prove that JihadBob is in fact, Robert Spencer. If you are to look at that the article in which the comment was posted, you will see that it refers to JihadBob, not Robert Spencer.
I had posted a comment asking for JihadBob to be ignored because he is clearly insane, and then Mosizzle replied with his “he is a cancer…..” post.
So Mosizzle was talking in reference to JihadBob and not Robert Spencer.
Yet Robert Spencer took it to refer to him?
I know there was always speculation that JihadBob was Robert Spencer, but now we have proof. And considering how much time he spends on this site, he is not ignorant of loonwatch, just afraid of it.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 am
@NassirH
Yes that is a good blog. He has a very good article up I read before. And you are right about HalalPork
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:28 am
Sam Seed,
I agree with that sentiment, whatever Khushboo said in response to H-Pork’s offensive comment, couldn’t have been worse than what H-Pork posts surely?
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:50 am
abdulmajid, you do realize that Catholic Croats were also slaughtered in Srebrenica by Serb forces? Who do you think attacked Dubrovnik and Vukovar? Since you seemed to convince that the entire war in the Balkans was exclusively Muslim-Christian when the reality was evident. You think Serbs love Croats for what the Ustase did to them back in World War 2? You think Croats would love a Serb for raping Croat nuns and torching their churches during the siege in Dubrovnik? Keep in mind, Serbs attacked Slovenia, a Catholic Slavic nation, FIRST.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:04 am
And abdulmajid, for consistency’s sake, do you also feel the same disdain towards the Taliban who also tried to wipe out it’s Shia Hazara population in Afghanistan during their rule? Last I checked, I often see the conservative nutters rush to the defence of people like Mullah Umar and Mullah Dadullah simply because they professed to uphold the message of the Almighty, in spite of the fact that they committed some disgusting atrocities against the Shi’a population during that time until the U.S. invasion. Go on MuslimMatters and find these same hypocrites defending any so-called ‘Islamic’ movement that claims to uphold Shariah as if that gives them a green light to start committing ethnic cleansing en mass.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:48 am
@ Beautiful Muslim Doll :According to your logic,once some country is occupied by Muslims through conquest,It is alright for them to keep just like Spain but not alright the other way round.I think time has come for the Non-Muslims to unite and drive all the Muslims back to Saudi-Arabia.We should start with liberating Egypt,Syria,Lebnon,Turkey,Libyia and the rest because the SWORD OF ISLAM could be easily broken by the Non-Muslims now.Muslims are 1400 years behind now and can easily be defeated by starting with expelling all the Muslims from the West.They have caused enough damage to the world morally,socially and economically.There can never be peace with Muslim beggers around with eternal threats of terror.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 am
“I can’t imagine a Muslim who would defame any of the prophets in the Bible yet you have nutters who hate our prophet so much that they have to resort to name calling. Do they know him?No!Do they want to know him? No!
How can you hate a person without knowing his true character?
Muslims love all the prophets, we love Jesus, Moses and Muhammad. ”
I’m an atheist, I feel no need to defame anybody.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 am
Wow HalalPork… has the idea of peaceful coexistence, human dignity, and mutual respect ever crossed your mind? You say you’re Christian right?
http://www.defendtheprophet.com/2010/11/21/readers-view-no-room-in-christianity-for-muslim-hating/
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:23 am
What They Say About Muhammad
http://www.defendtheprophet.com/what-they-say-about-muhammad/
The following is a concurrent resolution by the 96th Congress (1979) honoring the 14th century of Islam.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES October 4 (legislative day, June 21), 1979
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Honoring the Fourteenth Centennial of Islam.
Whereas November 21, 1979, marks the fourteen hundredth anniversary of the founding of Islam, an event which will be commemorated throughout the world, including in the Holy Cities of Islam; and
Whereas Islam is one of the mankind’s great religions in history and today, followed by approximately eight hundred million people encompassing every major region of the world; and
Whereas the word “Islam” derives from Abraham’s willingness to accept all God’s commands, an example profoundly meaningful to all monotheistic religions; and
Whereas the “House of Islam” extended gracious hospitality to philosophy and science in both the East and West when these scholarly disciplines were threatened by narrowness and prejudice, thus preserving this precious heritage for subsequent generations; and
Whereas Islam strives for a world-wide community which, in the words of one Islamic poet-philosopher, “does not recognize the superficial differences of race, or history, or nationality”; and
Whereas the United States and countries of the Islamic world hold in common many benefits and values including the concept of world community, which inspired the founding Fathers of our own country; and
Whereas international understanding and peace are strengthened by free and open communications among nations representing various historical and religious traditions:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That Islam is hereby recognized for the rich religious, scientific, cultural, and artistic contribution it has made to mankind since its founding.
Sec. 2. The Congress takes note of the contribution of Islam and wishes success to the fourteenth centennial commemoration.
Sec. 3. On the occasion of this anniversary, the Congress pledges its efforts to achieve better understanding, reductions of tensions, and the pursuit of improved relations with all nations of the world.
Sec. 4. The Congress requests that the President forward a copy of this resolution to the Chief of State of each country where Islam has a significant following and where celebrations will mark this important international event.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 am
“The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. And the showdown in Iraq, that is surely coming, between Sunni Arabs (who will never accept their new, inferior status) and the Shi’a Arabs (who will never yield any of the power they have now acquired thanks to the deposing of Saddam Hussein by the Americans) is likely only to exacerbate Shi’a-Sunni tensions and war in the Yemen.”
Let us note that every day that doesn’t bring news of a shii=a/sunni bloodbath in Iraq is further proof that Jihadbob is completely and totally unreliable and incompetent as as an explicator of events in the middle east.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:47 am
Arab loon desperately seeking attention…
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:16 am
That’s true Ian, not that we needed any more proof of his unreliability, it’s what you get when you take your advice from Professor Wikipedia and Dr Google. I think, and pray, that Iraq holds itself together.
And good luck with that Mr Harby, what an odd Arab name BTW. You can join Mr Pork, bob, Miss Manners and Eternal in the play corner, they are attention seekers too. Have fun and try to keep the noise down, debate is great but loony postings is not.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:12 am
Justin, that’s an interesting find but the website doesn’t give a source for the resolution honoring the 14th century of Islam. I couldn’t find the information anywhere but the other quotes are definitely interesting. The House of Representatives did pass a resolution honouring Ramadan, which made right-wingers think that America had submitted to Islam (?)
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2007/October/20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384.html
Here’s the best quote about Muhammad from Gandhi. Its amazing that a lifelong pacifist and father of modern non-violent resistance is impressed by Muhammad (PBUH) who Islamophobes accuse of being violent.
“I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind….I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:44 am
@ Danios
did you read what Porky said about me?! I called him a pig b/c he’s pork and I simply said he needs to be banned. What did I say wrong? What he said to me was disgusting! I never stooped to his level.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 am
@Abdulmajid, I’m certainly against ethnic cleansing and the whitewashing of history.
Perhaps you’ll decide to comment on Muslim Spain’s colorful history of ethnic cleansing, both against fellow Muslims and later against Jews and Christians and perhaps consider this as a possible motive for why Christians later decided to expel Muslims, who arrived in their country as invaders, after the reconquest?
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
JihadBob,
So after condemning ethnic cleansing and genocide unequivocally (something you have consistently failed epically) you want him to comment on ethnic cleansing in Spain, centuries ago? For what? So that he can apologize for genocide just like you did in your last sentence amirite? What part of “I’m certainly against ethnic cleansing” did you not understand? Poor troll is poor.
The topic is Robert Spencer’s frequent projection and guilt-by-association libel. Stick to it. kthnxbai.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
“@Abdulmajid, I’m certainly against ethnic cleansing and the whitewashing of history.”
Yet your love of Serbian war criminals would beg to differ, doesn’t it?
How do you reconcile your support of them as a practicing Catholic, when they also tried to kill off the Catholic Croats?
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:28 am
Haha…Muslim Spain’s ethnic cleansing was baby weight compared to the reconquista/inquisition.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 am
Haha…Muslim Spain’s “ethnic cleansing” was baby weight compared to the reconquista/inquisition.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 am
There there Khushboo, it’s alright, ignore the silly little man in the corner with his foaming mouth and possibly stained underwear… he didn’t even spell ‘Jihad’ right. Fool, but wish him peace as always
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
@ Khushboo :That was the shock therapy given to you to bring you down to earth.Muslims are like the stones over which the water of truth has been flowing for the last 1400 years but they are quite Impervious to any sensible reasoning.You have been persecuting Non-Muslims for centuries but when some body retaliates you sqeel like PIGS.Mohammad was after power and glory.His name means PRAISED ONE.He always wanted to be praised and kept at equal pedestal to God/Allah or above Him.If some body says any thing against the Muslim god Allah,they could tolerate that but against Mohammad would release collective WRATH of Umma even on false allegations.One Christian woman in Panjab,Pakistan,who was a farm worker with other Muslim women who abused her for being a Christian and called her names.She retaliated and the blaimed her falsly that she used bad language against Mohammad which no Christian would ever dare in Pakistan.She has four young Children and she has been in jail since 2009 and recently she was awrded DEATH sentence under 295 C of Blasphemy laws of Pakistan.Muslims have been worshipping Mohammad through history.They even used to drink his urine out of devotion.This is mentioned in Muslim sources which they would never admit.Hence it is waste of time to convince that Islam,Mohammad and Quran are all fraud inspired by devil.Please wake up while still there is time.You are unfortunately so sick in the mind which is guiding you towards terrorist jihad even through loon watch.Whom God wishes to punish,He turns them MAD.Unfortunately,that is what has happened to the UMMAH.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
References for the above points please Mr Pork especially the drinking of Mohamed’s urine, I’d really like to see that one since Mohamed declared urine an impurity
And since you seem to have some sort of rapport with God these days what with all this stuff you come out with on how He works and how right you are about everything, do you recon you could put in a word about the whole global warming thing? It’s getting a bit out of hand what with no one being sensible about it I was hoping that He could sort it out, you know make everyone do the right thing rather than be selfish idiots. And ask Him for a spell check as well. And some sanity. Thanks, peace.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
That one guy just had to go and bring Dumbledore into all of this….honestly.
OK, I really want Spencer together (OK, not together…echhh) with some of my Turkish friends. We’ll see just how much of everything is just him trying to latch onto some twisted thought pattern that has no choice but to be labeled “genocide chic”.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Hi Lex, are you the “agent of chaos”?
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I don’t understand why I get snipped and people have said much worse things than me. I think there’s favoritism here.
I also don’t understand why Porky’s still here for saying blasphemous stuff and being misogynistic. It was good talking to you guys. I’m out.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“and abdulmajid, for consistency’s sake, do you also feel the same disdain towards the Taliban who also tried to wipe out it’s Shia Hazara population in Afghanistan during their rule?”
Dan, as a matter of fact I do.
“The right to land, has always been by conquest. Nobody owns land for perpetuity, and we do not know who will own what in 500 years time.”
Certainly we don’t know, but at least I want my children and grandchildren to be certain where they belong and what is their land. And Bosnia has existed for over 1000 years even when it was conquered land, first by the Ottomans, then by the Austrohungarians, then by Royalist and Titoist Yugoslavia. Its identity and memory were never lost. Bosnia will continue to exist, as France, Hungary or Turkey have.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
As many have already mentioned, they seem to have a strange projection disorder. Just because they endorse ethnic cleansing they imagine that everyone else must feel the same way.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
JihadBob: “@Abdulmajid, I’m certainly against ethnic cleansing and the whitewashing of history.”
I noticed that when making this general statement above, you then specified it to a rather limited scope. Are you also against the reconquesta?
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Justin, that’s a nice website—I like it. May I suggest this blog? It’s by a dude who used to comment on Loonwatch during its infancy. I find his posts both insightful and informative, just like the comments he used to post.
http://allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/
Where’d he go anyway? He was an epic anti-loon.
I don’t know, but the person you’re referring to would quote mine his block paragraph essays for most of his article – meaning, he would crack open a single book, then take all of that author’s citations and quotes and use it in his articles to make it look like he did extensive research.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Hmmm…didn’t Andrew Bostom accuse Robert Spencer of plagiarism?
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
LOL, thanks for the laugh, NassirH
Hard as it is to believe, Bostom is even worse than Spencer, he is an out and out liar, he simply fabricates, i’ve seen stuff which goes against his own religion even. He’s not above rewriting Jewish history.
Khushboo, you need to develop a thick skin, don’t go on account of H-Pork, mayb Danios or amin can offer some explanation. Maybe Danios didn’t see H – Porks’ comments. I doubt he reads all the comments. Take it from someone, who has had many fights here.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
That’s surprising—it seems we have an Islamophobe advocating ethnic cleansing on this very thread.
@ Beautiful Muslim Doll :According to your logic,once some country is occupied by Muslims through conquest,It is alright for them to keep just like Spain but not alright the other way round.I think time has come for the Non-Muslims to unite and drive all the Muslims back to Saudi-Arabia.We should start with liberating Egypt,Syria,Lebnon,Turkey,Libyia and the rest because the SWORD OF ISLAM could be easily broken by the Non-Muslims now.Muslims are 1400 years behind now and can easily be defeated by starting with expelling all the Muslims from the West.They have caused enough damage to the world morally,socially and economically.There can never be peace with Muslim beggers around with eternal threats of terror.
Anti-Muslim bigots are the Picassos and Da Vincis of nonsensical rants.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Do you refudiate halal pork’s comments JihadBob? We have spoken out against other comments on other threads, what about this one?
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
@JihadBob
We here on this page want to find common ground between people of all faiths and traditions so that we can all live together in peace and respect despite our religious or political differences. Wouldn’t it be better for you to find common ground between Islamic tradition and your beliefs?
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Bet we all know what JihadBob or HalalPork… Or was it JihadPork and HalalBob… will say next!
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:18 am
Don’t take it personally Khushboo, you’re a woman and you know what that means to *ahem* ‘keyboard warriors’ like him with minimal female contact
It’s fine, just ignore it, pathetic guy sniping at someone on an website, tells you all you need to know.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:13 am
‘ hushboo : I am extremely surprised that no Muslim has ever condenmed that BLASPHEMY laws of Pakistan which are used relentlessly to persecute the Innocent Christians there and kill them without mercy.That shows the callousness of Muslims in genral.As a Muslim,you have thick skin and cold hearts.You know how to cut throat and make a video of that.Have you heard of whwt happenened to DANIEL PEARL in KARACHI,since he was a JEW? Can you recall what Mohammad did to 900 JEWS of Quraiza tribe?I am sorry ,you have such a delicate skin like a Rhino like all the other Muslims!!!One thing that the Muslims lack most is COMPASSION.They must stop atrocities committed against the Christians in the Muslim countries under the henious blasphemy laws ,which are abused by Musims because without these laws Islam has no legs to stand on.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:54 am
These islamophobic (or better said) anti-Muslim goons always talk like Radovan Karadzic. They are as criminal as him, for if they think along this line, and they have expressed that they will chase the Muslims back to Saudi Arabia and should start by expelling them from the West, they will certainly do the same things Radovan Karadzic has done. This must not and will not come to pass, but it is appalling that a scant 15 years after the horrors of Srebrenica and the Serb anti-Bosniak genocidal crusade a considerable majority of people in the West seems to believe that it is all right to do such things, provided the intended victims are Muslims, and to this end Muslims must be dehumanized and delegitimized, demonized, stigmatized…just like the Nazis did with the Jews, and the Serbs with the Bosniaks. So, anybody who talks or thinks like Radovan Karadzic is himself a Radovan Karadzic or his willing executioners, that is, to say it clearly, a potential genocidary. Combined with the “economic crisis” which was created so that the rich can keep getting richer while making the poor poorer this looks very much like a repetition of 1933; even though we are far from such a crash as that of 1929-32 which made 1933 (Hitler’s rise to power and the spread of fascist ideology to all corners of the globe) possible, … be watchful and be careful. That is why we need web sites like this one.
Some people here have advised me to be kind with those who are unkind with me, not to show them the same hate they do; and that is good advice; our Prophet’s (saws) and the Messiah’s (pbuh) message are to that effect.
But what dialogue can there be with the Radovan Karadzics and Milan Lukics of this world? They are out to destroy and subdue people who profess the Muslim faith, not just in Bosnia but almost everywhere else. It is legitimate to defend oneself against such people, with all and any means, and to make sure that no legislation targeted specifically against Muslims (or for that matter, against any particular ethnic or religious group)is ever passed again.
I have been lucky so far not (yet) to have become the victim of anti-Muslim (islamophobic) aggression. But when it comes to that, what am I supposed to do? Certainly not be led like a lamb to the slaughter, nor be hunted down like a rabbit. And much less present my daughter to those fiends.
The Bosniaks have always been among the most liberal Muslims around, an example and a counter-proposal to wahhabism and other such backwards ideologies (and make no mistake, Islam is by itself not backwards-oriented) and that is, I think why teh serb genocidals and their backers in Russia and the West want to see them destroyed, because the Bosniaks are of the “ain’t no such animal” variety; that is why I’m willing to defend them, to my last breath, and as opposed to almost all other foreigners in Bosnia I do not have a particular agenda there that is contrary to Bosnia’s own. Also, why should I be together with a Bosniak girl if I didn’t love her country as well? And why should I see what happened in Spain during and after the reconquista – the humiliation and extermination of a whole people which surely was among the better representatives of Mankind – repeated in our time? Aren’t we today supposed to be “more civilized”? Some idiots applaud the crusades and the reconquista, and want to see them repeated in our time! And they have the NERVE to call themselves “civilized”! No, their abide is Hell and it is the obligation of any decent human being to send them there as fast as possible; So, next time around the genocidal crusade resumes, I know where my place is and even though I have the greatest reluctance about harming or even killing somebody: such people who have through their words and deeds so dehumanized themselves do not, I repeat, do not deserve to walk this Earth. The Radovan Karadzics and Milan Lukics of this world deserve the Fire of Hell and not to walk this Earth. While I do earnestly hope that war will mnot return to Bosnia, as long as these people are around I don’t see how it can be avoided in the long run, only that then it will not be 1992-95 all over again; and then the day of reckoning will come. The names and faces of those who raped and murdered Bosniaks are well-known, at least over there, it will not be so difficult to track them down and to make them pay for what they did. And that will be a strong warning to anybody who attempts to do the same. If I can make a small contribution to that, I will not have lived my life in vain.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 am
@HalalPork
Chapter: On mercy
On the authority of Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, who narrated that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Those who are merciful will be given mercy by the Most Merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth and the One above the heavens will have mercy on you.”
[Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Manners, #4941, hasan-good]
http://www.dailyhadithonline.com/2010/11/show-mercy-to-those-on-earth.html
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 am
Wait Justin, I’ll fill in for Mr Pork:
Blah blah blah SNAKES blah blah blah blah blah SIDE STEP/IGNORE ABOVE MADE POINTS blah blah blah blah NON NONSENSICAL UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM blah blah SOMETHING ABOUT URINE blah blah blah blah GENOCIDAL RANT blah blah blah blah blah WET DREAM ABOUT KILLING STUFF blah blah blah WET DREAM OVER PAM blah blah blah blah SOMETHING ABOUT SEX WITH UNDERAGE GIRLS AND/OR BOYS blah blah blah blah COMPLETELY UNRELATED BIT ABOUT SOMETHING RANDOM, INCLUDING THE WORD SNAKES AT LEAST ONCE.
As you have noted, the above text can pretty much substituted anything Mr Pork writes. If you want, memorize this text or it’s component parts and you’ll never have to read anything that fool writes again
Peace.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:17 am
Abdul, do you join me in condemning the program of ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from the Hijaz and neighboring Nejd desert begun under Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs?
We can then look at the economic and religious policies of the early Muslims and compare them to Hitler.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 am
I have been lucky so far not (yet) to have become the victim of anti-Muslim (islamophobic) aggression.
ROFLMAO!!!
Yeah, you’re really ‘lucky’. The FBI recorded all 107 ‘Islamophobic’ incidents against Muslims last year.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:30 am
@JihadBob
Perhaps you should condemn those Jews and Christians who violated their peace treaties with the Muslims and as a result of that were expelled from Hijaz.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Oh poor stupid H-Pork, you are blind
“@ Beautiful Muslim Doll :According to your logic,once some country is occupied by Muslims through conquest,It ”
Can’t you read?
I said
THE RIGHT TO LAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN BY CONQUEST
Where did i mention Muslim?
From time immemorial the right to land has always been by conquest. If it wasn’t, no country would maintain a military.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:03 am
Perhaps you should condemn those Jews and Christians who violated their peace treaties with the Muslims and as a result of that were expelled from Hijaz.
Do you want me to condemn Pal-Arabs who committed treason against the state of Israel, as well?
But that’s pretty funny. Actually, all Jews and Christians were gradually relocated under Muslim rule. It had nothing to do with peace treaties.
But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to make you feel better.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am
Whats a Pal Arab ?
Ah you mean those who where living there before the Zionists came ?
The word is Palestinian.
Bit like the native population in the USA. Do you condem the USA govt for braking many treaties with the native peoples ?
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:22 am
@JihadBob
Actually, it had everything to do with the Battle of Khaybar and Banu Nadir instigating hostilities against the Muslims. Muslims have every right to expel people who don’t want to live peacefully with them. But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to make you feel better about hating Muslims.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:22 am
Or Bob is it an arab who is your pal? . Although I doubt they are many of those , apart from the usual suspects
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 am
@ Justine ;I agree with you that the Muslims have every right to expel people who don’t live peacefully with them.Like wise the Jews have evey right to expel the Arab terrorist from Israel and West bank.Also the West has every right to expel all the Muslims who can never live in peace with Non-Muslims unless they can subjugate them.@ Jack Cope:If you search under {Mohammad’s urine},you would find that a fatwa was given by Dr,Duma of Al-Azhar University that the Sahaba’s of Mohammad used to drink his urine.Mohammad also advised the people of Ukle tribe to drink urine of camel ,mixed with its milk as medicine.As a good Muslim,I am sure you must have used that often.Drink on ,My friend.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
JihadBob: We can then look at the economic and religious policies of the early Muslims and compare them to Hitler.
Sure. I’ll start. Here’s what Daniel W. Brown writes in his book, “A New Introduction to Islam” about the early conquests:
“No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690… [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]” (p.109)
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
“I agree with you that the Muslims have every right to expel people who don’t live peacefully with them.Like wise the Jews have evey right to expel the Arab terrorist from Israel and West bank.Also the West has every right to expel all the Muslims who can never live in peace with Non-Muslims unless they can subjugate them.”
I agree Mr Pork, so thus you are fine with the Muslims living in the West now aren’t you? And the majority of Palestinians who want to live in peace? Right? Or are you to blind to see that Muslims live in peace?
As for the urine, I can’t find this so called Fatwa. The camel urine thing has been covered so many times but hey, you are blind so here goes again. Urine has urea in it which is used as a treatment in many medicines, typically skin treatments and shampoos. Clear?
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Sure. I’ll start. Here’s what Daniel W. Brown writes in his book, “A New Introduction to Islam” about the early conquests:
Massive land grabs seem rather ‘Hitleresque’ to me.
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Bit like the native population in the USA. Do you condem the USA govt for braking many treaties with the native peoples ?
I’m confused. The Jews are like the Native American population or the Arabs?
So, basically you’re saying that the Pal-Arabs committed treason against Israel (according to loon logic, this alone is grounds for ethnic cleansing), joined up with other Arab countries to push the Jews into the sea, lost the war (after voluntarily fleeing their villages) and this all is similar to the Native Americans.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
JihadBob, stop lying you stupid ignorant illiterate turd,STOP REVISING HISTORY TO SUIT YOUR BIGOTRY
Hitler wasn’t reviled for land grabs, otherwise the British (for it’s empire) would be classed worse than empire
Hitler was reviled for using genocide as a means of empire creation,
As for land, let the strongest man take all. I’m all for that
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@ JihadBob
“Do you want me to condemn Pal-Arabs who committed treason against the state of Israel, as well?”
Please expain what this treason was? Be specific, and then I’ll see if I want to condemn it. And while I support Palestinian Arab resistance to the occupation, terrorism is not an acceptable form of resistance. This includes Hamas, and besides, it would benefit Hamas to use peaceful protest because they would be more legitimate to the world.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
JihadBob: Massive land grabs seem rather ‘Hitleresque’ to me.
Could you be a bit more detailed about how the early Muslim conquests were no different from Hitler’s reign? Thank you.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Nice to see JihadBob sidestepped actually having to condemn Halalpork’s views as quoted above by NassirH, or the reconquesta after asking us to condemn other comments raised (which we did). Very telling.
He instead mumbled something about the Hijaz again, after we’ve already discussed history and I brought the early sources up to show that his views were mistaken.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Ah, and he’s now moved onto the Israel-Palestine issue. Nice goalpost shifting.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 pm
reconquesta after asking us to condemn other comments raised (which we did). Very telling.
I support legitimate acts of resistance.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Just so you guys know, our friend Bob has a history of purporting revisionist history as fact. For example, he once called Jerusalem “their city” in reference to the Crusaders (see: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/michael-moores-open-letter-to-juan-williams/). Obviously, Bob sincerely believes that Western Europeans have more right to the Middle East than Middle Easterners themselves—a belief that reeks of racism (another example of his is his use of the term “Pal-Arab”). He is also critical of Abraham Lincoln in favor of the Confederacy, which again, is another example of his bizarre worldview (his excuse is that Lincoln was liked by “Demonic Leftists”). Anyways, Bob is fully aware that his beliefs are that of the fringe, as exemplified by this comment he made:
At least, that’s what I read from your post, since I can’t see a rational connection to supposedly supporting the restoration of the Confederacy (you know, South had slaves, so the South=evil – as an aside, didn’t Athens have slaves? does that make any supporter of Athenian democracy a supporter of slavery??? ZOMG!!!) to sharing an alternative historical view regarding Abraham Lincoln.
Note the defense of “supporting of the Confederacy”.
And yes Bob, we know you can never refute what Loonwatch’s articles have to say—that’s why you’re forced to move goalposts. It’s quite obvious.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:06 pm
*another example of his racism
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I support legitimate acts of resistance.
Good, so then you support the right of early Muslims to defend themselves against Banu Nadir.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Wow!!! Where to begin! We have now left the solar system!! This is how far we must go to find the shifted goalposts.
As Cynic said “The topic is Robert Spencer’s frequent projection and guilt-by-association libel. Stick to it..” But Alas we could not. Since Robert Spencer accuses Loonwatch of being a hate-site, as opposed to his peace-spreading site, examination of comments from both sites, a snippet of which this article provides,proves conclusively that Spencer is a liar.
Yet jihadbob continues to support him by refusing to distance himself from the comments on that site. You know jihadbob, you can still be a critic of Islam without aligning yourself to rabid loons like Geller and Spencer. Why can’t you condemn them? Are you and Robert Spencer the same person? Or are you Hugh Fitzgerald?
Note: the last two questions are yes/no questions.
Now as NassirH said “JihadBob: I brought up the fact that every time violence against Muslims occurs, you condoned it. Curiously, you have no response to this point.” We will include in this persecution as well as violence. Answer me this bob, is the situation of the Ethiopian Muslims in the land of the first Hijra and the persecution of Muslims in Eritrea,a Muslim-majority country no less, a case of Islamophobia or xenophobia? i asked you this once before. Will you answer it or ignore it now? Do you condemn this persecution being committed by Christians against Muslims?
“Perhaps you’ll decide to comment on Muslim Spain’s colorful history of ethnic cleansing, both against fellow Muslims and later against Jews and Christians and perhaps consider this as a possible motive for why Christians later decided to expel Muslims, who arrived in their country as invaders, after the reconquest?”
“Abdul, do you join me in condemning the program of ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from the Hijaz and neighboring Nejd desert begun under Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs?”
During the Reconquista,the Christian Spaniards expelled Muslims and Jews for FEARED(read: supposed treason) treason, and you believe this was justified and not ethnic cleansing. Correct? Yet, when the Muslims expelled certain Jewish tribes from the Hijaz for ACTUAL treason you believe that this was not justified, calling it ethnic cleansing?
Note: There are still Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula and many East African immigrants/emigrants living there are either Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
“Do you want me to condemn Pal-Arabs who committed treason against the state of Israel, as well?”
Now let’s see, in the never-ending cycle of land grabs for Palestine, the Jews systematically created a Jewish-ethnic majority after their invasions, through various programs which invariably included brutal violence. You are calling resistance to this type of occupation treason? And comparing it to a situation where the Jews of ancient Arabia had treaties with Muhammad(saw) which they summarily violated? what treaty did the Palestinians have with the Zionists, that they subsequently violated Is your loon logic unable to recognize real treason, legitimate resistance, and/or true examples of ethnic cleansing?
“We can then look at the economic and religious policies of the early Muslims and compare them to Hitler.”
Why are Islamophobes constantly trying to make a link between Islam and Nazism? Between an ancient religion and a relatively modern political philosophy diametrically opposed to each other. Why are these same Islamophobes loathe to admit that Hitler was a Christian?
“Massive land grabs seem rather ‘Hitleresque’ to me.”
What do you say about Israeli land grabs in Palestine and the dream of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates),the dream of the “ultra-orthodox” Jewish extremists?
“I’m confused. The Jews are like the Native American population or the Arabs?”
And not on this issue alone. The topic was the legitimacy of resistance to groups who break their treaties. Hence, early American settlers breaking their treaties with the native Americans, just like the Jewish tribes in the time of the Prophet(as). i believe he was alluding to your support of both.
“I support legitimate acts of resistance.”
i doubt it, or along with your condemnation of acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians, you would support their legitimate right to self determination and to resist occupation. There are many Palestinian Christians you know.You would also recognize Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistanis legitimately opposed to the idea of Western powers invading and occupying entire countries for the sake of hunting relatively few terrorists.
Note: the US presence in Pakistan, like her many military bases all over the world is what i call “soft invasion”, maintaining a military presence, with the consent of the occupied country’s government, in order to assure it’s “interests” are protected. Other political theorists have called it “policing the globe”.
————–
@ haram pork,
You are truly despicable! First you insulted BMD with you misogynistic comment, now Khushboo, and then you referred to Justin as “Justine”?
“@Khushboo
“You have been persecuting Non-Muslims for centuries but when some body retaliates you sqeel like PIGS.”
And here we have a clear statement assigning collective guilt to all Muslims.
“Mohammad was after power and glory.His name means PRAISED ONE.He always wanted to be praised and kept at equal pedestal to God/Allah or above Him.If some body says any thing against the Muslim god Allah,they could tolerate that but against Mohammad would release collective WRATH of Umma even on false allegations.”
And here we have a clear case of projection and someone believing they have the ability to discern the psyche of a long dead individual. Wanna-be psychiatrists are always in need of one. Here’s a clue, though : Muslims don’t worship Muhammad(saws). But you supposedly worship ‘Isa(as). Are we to take it that you aren’t offended when he is blasphemed?
“One Christian woman in Panjab,Pakistan,who was a farm worker with other Muslim women who abused her for being a Christian and called her names.She retaliated and the blaimed her falsly that she used bad language against Mohammad which no Christian would ever dare in Pakistan.”
Asia Bibi was released by a Muslim. Wasn’t it Islam that was responsible for his show of compassion?
“Muslims have been worshipping Mohammad through history.They even used to drink his urine out of devotion.This is mentioned in Muslim sources which they would never admit.”
Muslims aren’t part of some ultra secret society whose documents are unavailable to the general public. i too am waiting for the source of your ridiculous assertion.
“Hence it is waste of time to convince that Islam,Mohammad and Quran are all fraud inspired by devil.”
Yes it is a waste of time convincing people that a lie is the truth. Allah(swt) says:
Qur’an 47.14: What! is he who has a clear argument from his Lord like him to whom the evil of his work is made fairseeming: and they follow their low desires.
“Whom God wishes to punish,He turns them MAD.”
Perhaps this is an explanation of your case. It’s a great self-diagnosis anyway. Now go self-medicate.
———
@Beautiful Muslim Doll
“As for land, let the strongest man take all. I’m all for that”
The Earth belongs to Allah(swt), which he has given to mankind as a trust. The Earth is spacious enough for all of us to live together in peace. Conquest and strongest man take all attitudes all belong to the primitive mindset. Right now the Israelis have the strongest military in the Middle East and one of the strongest in the world, thanks to the US. Are we to assume they have the right to Palestine? Might does not make right.
Allahu A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:40 pm
@NassirH
“Just so you guys know, our friend Bob has a history of purporting revisionist history as fact. For example, he once called Jerusalem “their city” in reference to the Crusaders (see: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/michael-moores-open-letter-to-juan-williams/). Obviously, Bob sincerely believes that Western Europeans have more right to the Middle East than Middle Easterners themselves—a belief that reeks of racism (another example of his is his use of the term “Pal-Arab”).”
He isn’t the only one who thinks this NassirH. For many Zionists and their supporters, the right of ETHNIC EUROPEANS who aren’t even Semites to own Palestine over the rights of actual Middle Easterners who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, is a given for them. And let’s not forget the plight of many Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Maybe we should start referring to the Israelis as “Jewish Palestinians”, to balance out bob’s lunacy.
Allahu A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Good, so then you support the right of early Muslims to defend themselves against Banu Nadir.
Defending oneself is ethnically cleansing an entire tribe over an alleged assassination plot?
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:04 pm
muhammad ‘abd-al haqq
“The Earth belongs to Allah(swt), which he has given to mankind as a trust. The Earth is spacious enough for all of us to live together in peace.”
That is true, i agree with all you said, however, the assumption here is that humans are perfect and all respect each others right to exist in peace. That’s not the case
” Conquest and strongest man take all attitudes all belong to the primitive mindset. ”
not really. If a ruler sees injustice, he can’t ignore. He has to do right, by invading and bringing justice to the oppressed. I mean geunine justice. Not the pretence of helping for the sake of oil, or other benefits.
“Right now the Israelis have the strongest military in the Middle East and one of the strongest in the world, thanks to the US. Are we to assume they have the right to Palestine? Might does not make right.”
Well, the US military being the mightiest wouldn’t be a problem if they used it to end dictatorships, bring peace and human rights. The US military does the opposite.
What about countries who want freedom from oppressive rulers? Are to ignore them and pretend all is cozy?
Though i agree with your sentiments, you have to do and judge case by case.
First, If I were head of a powerful country, and had the means to end dictatorships and bring about justice to oppressed people, and those poeple called for help, rest assured, i’d order the military in.
Second, conquests don’t necessarily mean you strip rights from whomever is already there or that they cannot be acheived through other means, mutual consent for example.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
@Beautiful Muslim Doll
Ok, now that i understand you better i can agree with you to a certain extent. However you must understand that the idea that “because i am mighty, i have the right to invade and conquer lands” is primitive. Nations in the modern age should be involved in cooperative efforts to usher in peace. While the the Platonic ideal of a benevolent dictator has it’s merits, as you said, humans are imperfect, so no one has the right to invade and conquer under any pretense. i believe you were possibly referring to the prophetic career of Muhammad(saws) when you said: not really. If a ruler sees injustice, he can’t ignore. He has to do right, by invading and bringing justice to the oppressed. I mean geunine justice. Not the pretence of helping….” Yes, ending oppression is noble jihad, but the issue is Israel’s right to Palestine on the basis of might makes right. Perhaps i should have said might doesn’t always make right.
“Well, the US military being the mightiest wouldn’t be a problem if they used it to end dictatorships, bring peace and human rights. The US military does the opposite.”
But you said that the strongest should take all. Does the US have the right to rule the world simply because she is the mightiest nation?
“What about countries who want freedom from oppressive rulers? Are to ignore them and pretend all is cozy?”
“First, If I were head of a powerful country, and had the means to end dictatorships and bring about justice to oppressed people, and those poeple called for help, rest assured, i’d order the military in.”
Violence always begets violence. The idea, in the modern age, that we must fight oppression with violence, unless as a last resort or in the case of self-defense, is primitive.
“Second, conquests don’t necessarily mean you strip rights from whomever is already there or that they cannot be acheived through other means, mutual consent for example.”
Mutual consent, especially in the case of invasion and occupation, and conquest are mutually exclusive. Conquering something implies a resistance on the part of the conquered. Conquest, no matter what the intentions of the conqueror’s are, does not bring justice. Do you think the world conquests of the early Muslims is what the Prophet(as) had in mind?
Allahu A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@JihadBob
“Defending oneself is ethnically cleansing an entire tribe over an alleged assassination plot?”
For someone who loves using Islamic sources, albeit in a very arbitrary way, to prove your assertions, it literally boggles the mind how you can believe that the assassination plot was “alleged”, or that the Jewish tribes of the time were not guilty of treason. i suppose aiding and abetting the enemy, turning traitor, and providing material support to the enemy means something other than treason in your universe.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
This whole thing with the urine drinking seems to originate from an Egyptian mufti named dr. ali gum’a. It was widely condemned.
http://www.partitionofindia.com/_archive/00000ded.htm
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
JihadBob: Defending oneself is ethnically cleansing an entire tribe over an alleged assassination plot?
How does one ethnically cleanse a tribe? FYI, the Banu Nadir were not the only Jews in Medinah. So having them expelled is technically not the same as ethnic cleansing since people of their ethnicity who belonged to other tribes remained.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
It is useless to discuss with a fool, and an evil fool at that (you know whom I mean). Just read what this individual writes. There is no need to debunk him; he himself does a swell job at disqualifying himself.
The serbofascist advocates of splitting Bosnia apart and thus legalizing Radovan Karadzic’s crimes too have done more to generate anti-Serb feelings than anybody who genuinely hates the Serbs ever could.
Other than committing genocide against Muslims (or whoever they choose to point out as the enemy) fascists of the old and the new kind have nothing to offer. They can cause a lot of harm to innocent people. But they can’t do anything constructive. They must be exposed as the sleazy frauds they are, not only here on the www; but in the real world as well.
Everybody who comes to this site can see for himself how these individuals only come to insult and provoke., but that they don’t have anything constructive to say. NO, only destructive things. they are like mad dogs; actually worse; a mad dog can’rt be held responsible for being mad, yet must be put down lest he kill others. So it also must be with the sleazy frauds who are defined as anti-Muslims And I say anti-muslims because Islamophobes is too friendly a word to use for such inndividuals.
I’m sorry if by my appreciation of these luminaries of mankind I have caused some irritation; or if I should have done my cause a disservice; but they get on my nerves; were I to confront such an individual under the circumstances that prevailed, say, in Bosnia from 1941-45 and 1992-95; or in Kashmir; or in Palstine, I would not hesitate to shoot. Or what do you exopect me to do with someone who has all my life humiliated me and now comes with the expressed intention to kill or expel me, introduce my daughter to him perhaps?
Jihadbooby has expressed what he woudl liek to do with Musllims (send them all back to Saudi Arabia); also from countries like Egypt and Turkey. Good. I have taken notice. I will be prepared for any jihadbooby epigone who comes along with the idea of bashing in my skull or raping my daughter just because we are what we are. And for that above statement by jihadbooby alone I can’t wish him to “live long and prosper”. Quite the contrary. I will not even try to refute him in nice words and composed speech with solid arguments and facts because the truth does not serve him. This individual talks just like Hitler, I hope he will share Hitler’s fate. And likewise all who think that way too. What is unfortunate is that all the little Nazis are always allowed to get away with murder.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
For someone who loves using Islamic sources, albeit in a very arbitrary way, to prove your assertions, it literally boggles the mind how you can believe that the assassination plot was “alleged”, or that the Jewish tribes of the time were not guilty of treason. i suppose aiding and abetting the enemy, turning traitor, and providing material support to the enemy means something other than treason in your universe.
Wasn’t Saddam Hussein convicted of war crimes for the execution of Shia villagers following an assassination attempt in that village?
If Saddam was found guilty of war crimes after unarguably at least a few Shia Iraqis committed treason by attempting to assassinate him, what does that make Muhammad?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
@ Abdulmajid
relax man it’s not all about Bosnia and Serbia, you know. These rants where you declare”
“a mad dog can’rt be held responsible for being mad, yet must be put down lest he kill others.” and
“were I to confront such an individual under the circumstances that prevailed, say, in Bosnia from 1941-45 and 1992-95; or in Kashmir; or in Palstine, I would not hesitate to shoot.”
“I hope he will share Hitler’s fate.”
These are not helping your reputation.
allahu A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
bob, Saddam mercilessly slaughtered civilians on a whim and on flimsy evidence if any at all. If Mohamed did indeed do what you suggest, which I must again stress is not proven, it is entirely different. He had concrete proof that these people betrayed him and broke their treaties and even then, he didn’t kill the lot of them. Would you trust someone ever again if they literally tore up the treaty you made with them when the chips were down, amongst other transgressions? Then again, I can hardly expect you to think rationally, you’ve proven incapable of that my freind. Cease and desist making a fool of yourself please. Peace.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
If Muhammad (PBUH) was a war criminal for defending his people, then what are we to call the ancient Hebrews and their entirely offensive conquests? I’ll quote one insightful neocon loon:
The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:
“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).
And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).
Then he went after the Amalekites, and we are told that “David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled” (1 Samuel 30:17).
Again, “David did as the LORD commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba to Gezer” (2 Samuel 5:25).
Further we read in 2 Samuel 8, “David defeated the Philistines and subdued them…he defeated Moab…David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah…David struck down 22,000 men of the Syrians…and the LORD gave victory to David everywhere he went…and David made a name for himself when he returned from striking down 18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt…and the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (vv. 1,2,3,5,6,13,14).
And this, remember, was “the man after (God’s) heart” (1 Samuel 13:14).
Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.
The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/fischer-god-honors-those-who-inflict-massive-casualties-because-christianity-is-not-a-religion-of-pacifism/
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
As for your comparison with Saddam, it’s entirely fallacious because the Jews were regarded as equals according to the Constitution of Medina—as long as they didn’t commit treason.
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.
This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those [Jews] who followed them and joined them and labored with them.
They are one community (ummah) to the exclusion of all men…
To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided…
The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war [with the Muslims] so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
…
The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.”
Again, if you condemn Muslims for protecting themselves, then obviously you condemn the numerous Biblical figures that conquered the Holy land, right Bob?
Also, why do you persist on moving goalposts?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
@ JihadBob
“Wasn’t Saddam Hussein convicted of war crimes for the execution of Shia villagers following an assassination attempt in that village?
If Saddam was found guilty of war crimes after unarguably at least a few Shia Iraqis committed treason by attempting to assassinate him, what does that make Muhammad?”
LOL! WHAT?!! Saddam Husein was tried for war crimes for that one incident? Methinks you have a very myopic view of historical events. Still having trouble distinguishing from actual treason and legitimate resistance to oppression aren’t you? Think hard on why Saddam was really tried and executed and get back to me. Oh and while you’re at it, re-read my post to you and actually engage the issues, answer the questions posed to you without equivocation, stop moving the goalposts in arguments, and stop trying to find lines you can nit-pick and mine for your endless circular arguments and tu quoque fallacies.Thanks
Allhau A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I found something interesting, and it actually has to do with the topic highlighted in the article (hat tip to Rob):
Moharebeh | November 17, 2010 10:21 PM | Reply
I know exactly what site that came from. I’ve gone there a few times to point out their hypocrisy and lies, but they are obviously a bunch of taqiyya-spraying Muslims who are only concerned with how infidels define their precious religion. It’s funny how they don’t seem to mind Islamic terrorists defining their religion…
Hmmm…now who could this be?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
“Oh and while you’re at it, re-read my post to you and actually engage the issues, answer the questions posed to you without equivocation, stop moving the goalposts in arguments, and stop trying to find lines you can nit-pick and mine for your endless circular arguments and tu quoque fallacies.”
I think our good freind lacks such an ability muhammad… still we can give it a try huh bob? You know, try and debate rather than dropping absolutely every point that is made to you. Peace.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
If Muhammad (PBUH) was a war criminal for defending his people, then what are we to call the ancient Hebrews and their entirely offensive conquests? I’ll quote one insightful neocon loon:
Muhammad ethnically cleansed an entire tribe after an alleged assassination plot against *himself* !!!
He didn’t besiege and later forcefully evict (though he intended to massacre) the B. Nadir tribe in defense of anyone else.
Holy smokes.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
He had concrete proof that these people betrayed him and broke their treaties and even then
He had an angel whisper in his ear (no joke).
Concrete proof everyone, an angel whispered in my ear. Now I can go besiege these Jews who were plotting on dropping a millstone on my head even though they didn’t actually try to harm me when I was in their compound.
You couldn’t make a better cult leader than Muhammad.
Really, Jack, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
***Saddam mercilessly slaughtered civilians***
But Saddam was convicted for the killing of male Shia villagers following an assassination attempt.
His crime against hunanity that he was convicted for was no less heinous than Muhammad’s.
Surely if Muhammad were alive today, he would hang right next to Saddam.
Would you trust someone ever again if they literally tore up the treaty you made with them when the chips were down, amongst other transgressions?
And this happened, when?
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Yet again, Bob, you simply avoid all our points. In fact, even when you quote our questions you don’t answer them.
If Muhammad (PBUH) was a war criminal for defending his people, then what are we to call the ancient Hebrews and their entirely offensive conquests? I’ll quote one insightful neocon loon:
You didn’t answer this question. How do you reconcile the offensive conflicts on the Bible with your condemnation of Muhammad for simply defending his people? They were planning an attack on the Muslims—what should the Prophet have done?
Your double standards are epic.
PS: I noticed you’re spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, you still haven’t condemned Spencer and his genocidal and bigoted fans.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
And still, not one condemnation of the genocidal bigots over at Jihadwatch and the vitriolic hatred Spencer continuously instills in them.
I won’t be holding my breath.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
JihadBob? Can I ask a question? If you saw a person being beaten, would you try to help in some way or walk away and think it is not your business?
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@ JihadBob
Answer my questions please, stop avoiding them.
***Saddam mercilessly slaughtered civilians***
“But Saddam was convicted for the killing of male Shia villagers following an assassination attempt.”
Still having trouble distinguishing actual treason from legitimate resistance to oppression aren’t you? We have been through this nonsense about Muhammad(saws) ethnically cleansing the Jewish tribes of Arabia in other threads. You had your a$$ handed to you then, why are you repeating the same nonsense? Hint for you: key word in this sentence “Saddam mercilessly slaughtered civilians” is CIVILIANS. And this is just epic:
“He had an angel whisper in his ear (no joke). Concrete proof everyone, an angel whispered in my ear. Now I can go besiege these Jews who were plotting on dropping a millstone on my head even though they didn’t actually try to harm me when I was in their compound.You couldn’t make a better cult leader than Muhammad. Really, Jack, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.”
Are you a Christian bob? If yes then tell me Who was Musa(as)speaking too when he had the encounter with he burning bush? Who were the men that communicated to Ibrahim(as)news of his wife’s pregnancy? Who announced to Mariam(may Allah be pleased with her)that she would have a son and what to name him? i could go on, but you get my drift. Pretending to be incredulous to miracles when it is related to Islam, but affirming miracles if it has to do with Christianity is not a good look for you Islamophobes. Epic fail, try again.
Allahu A’lam
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Lilly – let’s rephrase it for JihadBob: If you saw a Muslim (or even “Muslim looking”) person being beaten, would you help them (or lend a hand perhaps)?
JihadBob – First of all it’s nice to see a little of your vitrolic self. Maybe you should report back that the “taqiyya-spraying” Muslims still refuse to believe your lies about their religion?”legitimate acts of resistance”? Now we have your opinion of the Reconquesta out of the way, what about refudiating Halalpork’s vitrolic and hate-filled comments seen above and on other threads? What about distancing yourself from the genocidal and islamophobic comments found on JihadWatch and other sites? Again, we regular Loonwatchers have distanced ourselves from and condemned such positions from Muslim and other groups, including other posters on this very site.
We have already discussed the Banu Qurayza incident numerous times, and after you raised the issue of sources I went straight back to Ibn Hisham’s recension of the Sira and also al-Waqidi laying out the exact Arabic that is recorded for the former with all of the details it contains. The fact that you didn’t even know that al-Waqidi’s text existed shows how insincere you actually are regarding historical evidence of the issue; his text is well known to Muslim scholars of the sira, and even Western academics. You are just after polemics, pure and simple. The Arabic sources – which you already accept as genuine by even bringing up these issues – record that the various Jewish tribes in question broke their treaties with the Muslims through a variety of conscious acts, and were punished accordingly. If you have any evidence from any other primary or near-primary sources showing otherwise, then bring it. Otherwise we have to accept what sources are available, which do not paint the picture you are trying to upon analysing them closely.
Trying to impose 20th century moral and legal imperatives on a 7th century society is hardly fair; I would like you also to do the same with Europe, China and elsewhere at the time if you really want to bring up the human rights issue. In fact, let’s widen the scope to include every single human society on the planet from the dawn of creation until the end of WW2 whilst we’re at it, to be fair. Historically, what have the punishments been for treason, and how have lands, empires and kingdoms been captured or conquored throughout history? When did the type of punishments metted out in 7th century Arabia become abnormal historically?
The same happened when you brought up “massacres” in Khurasan, using al-Baladhuri as a source for this, and other incidents. When I brought the exact Arabic as recorded there, and also Western academic discussion of the said incidents, it did not show what you implied. You have a very ahistorical view of medieval warfare, it has to be said.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:47 am
“Trying to impose 20th century moral and legal imperatives on a 7th century society is hardly fair”
Of course its unfair and dishonest, but it’s the modus operandi of the hypocritical islamaphobe. They do the same thing when they start accusing the Prophet of being a ‘pedophile’, a 20th century psychiatric term. They disregard facts such as it was normal for a young child to get married then, or that the first age of consent laws were created only in the 13th century with ages as low as 7, or even in the US the age of consent was 10 until the beginning of the 20th century. Yet they continue to be dishonest, and try to compare current standards to 1400 years ago..(But only if they are muslim) You won’t hear “war crime” when Crusaders are mentioned.
Regardless, this whole thing with Banu Nadir seems nothing more than tribal battles which was common before and after Muhammad. To compare this to Saddam is being incredibly disingenuous. I mean, after the defeat in Medina when they were being expelled it was said of the Banu Nadir “Their women were decked out in litters wearing silk, brocade, velvet, and fine red and green silk. People lined up to gape at them.” Compare that to halabja.
November 24th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Dear Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq: I know, but it is the example closest at hand for me and it is where a non-Muslim people openly waged a war of destruction and genocide against a Muslim people in Europe with a cruelty and mercilessness not seen there since the days of WWII; a particularly egregious instance of anti-Muslim genocide and of xenophobia. Other examples are Palestine and Kashmir, and it is very unfortuate that there are also Muslim states which engage in warfare against other Muslims (what the Taliban did to the Hazara or the Darfur conflict – a monstrous perversion of tribal conflict between nomadic and sedentary tribes, a true anachronism – come to mind). However that does not diminish the fact that in Bosnia the Serbs were the aggressor and not the other way round and for me this is especially bitter, for the Bosniaks are among the most liberal Muslims around and I think that this is the reason why they were persecuted so viciously: to stamp out what according to the serbofascists and anti-Muslims can’t be. They certainly do not deserve their current fate.
And about that evil subject jihadbooby and those of his ilk I am taking nothing back; they disqualify themselves with their anti-Muslim rant; and yes, these people ARE like Hitler, and like Hitler must be stamped out. God forbid they ever gain political power. One Third Rich and one Holocaust were already one too many.
But unless what they say is particularly offensive and untrue or out of context I will refrain from engaging in discussion with such people. Everybody with at least a modicum of decency and average intelligence should know their statements are all false or drawn out of context; it is just not possible to try and convince them otherwise; it is a waste of time to try. The truth is out there for those who want to see it and those who refuse to see it or whom the truth does not serve have already condemned themselves to the Fire of Hell. They are best ignored; but if they get blood of innocents on their hands or are the intellectual authors of acts of xenophobic violence it is the duty indeed of any decent person to send them to Hell where they belong as fast as possible. And the same holds true for all those who wish to see Bosnia erased from the map and the Bosniaks brought to their knees and scattered to all corners of the globe. I’m not calling for murder of a particular person or a partiular group of people; however, in legitimate self-dedfense or to prevent genocide or to render a dangerous person or people harmless I think sometimes it becomes unavoidable. I hope you understand.
Assalamu ‘aleikum
November 24th, 2010 at 8:23 am
The fact that you didn’t even know that al-Waqidi’s text existed shows how insincere you actually are regarding historical evidence of the issue; his text is well known to Muslim scholars of the sira
Sure I didn’t.
(BTW, we’re talking about the B. Nadir, not Qurayza)
Trying to impose 20th century moral and legal imperatives on a 7th century society is hardly fair
You’re right, that Muhammad didn’t slaughter the three Jewish tribes was entirely due to the opposition such an act would provoke amongst Muhammad’s Muslim allies who were against whole sale massacres.
Do you deny that Muhammad’s intentions were thwarted due to the likes of Ibn Ubayy?
But of course, we learn from the Koran that’s Muhammad’s conduct is to be followed for all times by all peoples. So it is fair to compare Muhammad to twentieth century standards.
I’ll leave it to you to decide if Muhammad’s contemporaries were better role models for humanity to follow than Muhammad was.
it did not show what you implied. You have a very ahistorical view of medieval warfare, it has to be said.
I seem to recall that I was the one to make the point that massacring inhabitants from cities that were taken by force was the ‘norm’ during those times when someone mentioned the crusades.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:01 am
After being MIA for a couple of days in Thailand where Wifi was hard to come by, it’s good to see everything running smoothly here at Loonwatch.
JihadBob is still consistently tu quoque-spraying (<–see wut i did thar?). Check.
JihadBob is still sidestepping arguments.
JihadBob's own argument is going in circles. Check.
JihadBob still can't bring himself to condemn truly genocidal and hateful comments on both this site and JW. Check.
Halal Pork is still harping about the POISONOUS SNAKES. Check.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Do tell, JihadBob, what was the fate of the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem on 15th July 1099?
“…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” Raymond of Aguilers
Unlike the Prophet, the Crusaders had no reason. They were just having fun…
November 24th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Except of course for fellows like you. Some of them call us snakes. You are the devil, you are the snake.
This comment regarding snakes didn’t come from HalalPork.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Do tell, JihadBob, what was the fate of the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem on 15th July 1099?
What was the fate of Christians in Odessa and Antioch only a few years later?
Do tell.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:57 am
JBorat: What was the fate of Christians in Odessa and Antioch only a few years later?
I don’t know. Were they cannibalized?
November 24th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
One update Cynic, Mr Pork managed to post a response with no caps and that was mostly grammatically correct :-O I was shocked… anyway, hope you had fun in Thailand, I had to cancel my trip because KTM suspended train services
November 24th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I wonder if the Jews in the rhineland broke treaties with the Crusaders or were allowed to leave while playing flutes or were given the opportunity to choose their own fate.
Let’s see what the humble Crusader Godfrey said:
“…to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name ‘Jew,’ thus assuaging his own burning wrath.”
War-criminal? Nah..
November 24th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I wonder if the Jews in the rhineland broke treaties with the Crusaders or were allowed to leave while playing flutes or were given the opportunity to choose their own fate.
I wonder if one can learn the difference between actions of individual crusaders and those of the crusading enterprise?
War-criminal? Nah..
Oh, good point. Muhammad’s crimes weren’t as bad as some brigands you can find in the history books somewhere, so he must have been a moral individual.
I don’t know. Were they cannibalized?
They may have been. The Christians of Antioch were ruthlessly put to the sword after they peacefully surrendered to Baibar’s forces.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
@ Abdulmajid,
walaikum salam brother,
First off i highly doubt that anyone here seriously entertains the idea of convincing jihad bob and his supporters. i think we respond merely to counteract their lies with the truth and to show readers who may not know the truth about Islam that Muslims are not what the haters portray us as. The haters don;t realize what a service they do us and what a disservice they are to themselves
Second,as Muslims we all probably have some anti-Islamic event(s) in our lives that we can rant about.i am from Haiti, and i consider it a personal insult when Islamophobes accuse those Muslim organizations in Haiti helping with disaster relief of terrorism and not really caring about Haiti. But it’s not excuse for verbally abusive comments to commenters who are after all just someone on the web who could be anybody. .jihad bob and his ilk are most likely trolling spammers, so it is best not to become like them. Allah(swt)says to argue with people like them in a respectful manner.
Barak’Allah fi kum
@ JihadBob,
You are digging yourself a circular hole with a tu quoque shovel.
Dawood said:The fact that you didn’t even know that al-Waqidi’s text existed shows how insincere you actually are regarding historical evidence of the issue; his text is well known to Muslim scholars of the sira
You said:Sure I didn’t.
Did you though? Your argument could only have come from someone either unfamiliar with al-Waqidi or someone selectively ignoring him.
“(BTW, we’re talking about the B. Nadir, not Qurayza)”
BTW, you have argued that Muhammad(saws)ethnically cleansed more than one Jewish tribe in Arabia, not just the Qurayza or Nadir. You are merely using the same arguments for the Nadir case in order to deflect from the loss you suffered when debating about the Qurayza. Remember you were the one that said:”You’re right, that Muhammad didn’t slaughter the three Jewish tribes was entirely due to the opposition such an act would provoke amongst Muhammad’s Muslim allies who were against whole sale massacres”. So it seems we ARE talking about all three tribes in relation to ethnic cleansing and you are…*gasps* moving the goalposts to pretend we are only talking about the Banu Nadir.
“Do you deny that Muhammad’s intentions were thwarted due to the likes of Ibn Ubayy?”
Again you are playing the role of clairvoyant psychiatrist. The sources do not offer us the insight of the intention of the Prophet(as)in this matter, so you are only speculating and being disingenuous by asking the question this way. If you believe these sources are reliable, and you would have to unless you are a fraud like Ali Sina, your conclusions must match the sources.
“But of course, we learn from the Koran that’s Muhammad’s conduct is to be followed for all times by all peoples. So it is fair to compare Muhammad to twentieth century standards.”
i admit i have a problem with the idea of differing standards for different periods in history as this would undercut the claim to be a universal message. But ironically this leads me to the same conclusion as Dawood and others, but for different reasons: comparison is not valid because it presumes that 21st century(yes we are in the 21st century) standards are the standard. Islam is about Universal standards. Arguing about 7th versus 21st century standards is bogus western logic, based on a clearly false operating assumption, which itself is based on moral relativism.
“I seem to recall that I was the one to make the point that massacring inhabitants from cities that were taken by force was the ‘norm’ during those times when someone mentioned the crusades.”
This is you being a hypocrite bob. Imagine it being the norm what the Crusaders did and using that as some sort of justification, yet what Muhammad(saws)did in response to sedition, betrayal, and treason was not normal.smh
Cynic said:Do tell, JihadBob, what was the fate of the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem on 15th July 1099?
“…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” Raymond of Aguilers
Unlike the Prophet, the Crusaders had no reason. They were just having fun…
You said:”What was the fate of Christians in Odessa and Antioch only a few years later?”
Do you not know what tu quoque looks like?
Allahu A’lam
November 24th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Bob:
“I wonder if one can learn the difference between actions of individual crusaders and those of the crusading enterprise?”
Crusading enterprise? “Some” brigans? Godfrey was one of the leaders of the first Crusade! He became the ruler of Jerusalem!
lol@bob
Godfrey:
“In this, our Holy War,” he said to his men, “we shall slay all the children of Israel wherever we shall fall in with them. I shall not rest content until I have exterminated the Jews.”
True to his inhuman oath, Godfrey and his soldiers massacred large numbers of Jews. They did this without pity or mercy, saying: “We are performing a sacred duty, for we have the blessings of the priests on our enterprise.”
lol@bob
Forget even the Crusades. Look at the history of massacres and persecution of the Jews in Christian Europe:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/
Nah, these were all brigands. Martin Luther was a brigand when he wrote “the jews and their lies”
Yet the islamaphobes call Muhammad a war criminal when the treaties were broken, he allowed the tribe to leave Medina with their lavish belongings while playing music, and picked one of their own leaders to choose their fate.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Rob,
What can you expect from people who constantly are shifting the goalposts; part of which involves constantly evolving or shifting definitions. Civilian casualty becomes collateral damage. Crusaders are freedom fighters, but mujahideen are terrorists. A pedophile is someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to children, but a man with a total of 11 wives, all adults biologically, is still considered a pedophile. Executing traitors for treason is justified in any case where it’s not us evil Mooslims. A Muslim does it and he’s an automatic war criminal. i could go on and on forever with epic Islamophobic double standards that result from this mentality.
Allahu A’lam
November 24th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
JihadBob: How can you on the one hand state that you believe such violence and/or displacement of peoples were the norm in medieval and pre-medieval societies [in fact, if you take the Crusades as a "norm", as you mentioned above, one would have to say that you believe the norm to be much more severe than what happened in Arabia], and then attempt to discredit Muhammad’s character when the above happened? Especially when the sources show – to the abscence of any other historical evidence I certainly know of, and that you are not forthcoming about citing besides repeating your own and others assertions without facts – that the parties in question were parties of a treaty giving them inalienable rights and position in the community, which they then broke treasonously during a time of war when the Medinan community was in danger of being wiped out.
And as for your snide remark regarding al-Waqidi’s work, it’s clear from the discussion in question that you had absolutely no idea his work existed, and insisted on using the Sira of Ibn Ishaq as the sole source with which to argue the Bani Qurayza issue. That’s why I also went straight to the Arabic of the latter to show that the recorded event is not as you say, and gives no further information regarding the whole incident.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Bob refused to answer Dawood’s question (that’s apart from failing to sufficiently address any of his points)?
Lilly – let’s rephrase it for JihadBob: If you saw a Muslim (or even “Muslim looking”) person being beaten, would you help them (or lend a hand perhaps)?
Bob, I think we have enough proof to establish the fact that you condone violence against Muslims, as well as support racial supremacism (you did, after all, call Jerusalem “their city” in reference to Western European Christians).
PS: You sound like a broken record, Bob.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I wonder if one can learn the difference between actions of individual crusaders and those of the crusading enterprise?
Well Bob, do you consider the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and the slaughter and expulsion of its Jewish residents only the result of the ‘actions of individuals’ instead of the ‘Crusading enterprise’? The quote cited by Rob…
to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name ‘Jew,’ thus assuaging his own burning wrath.
…is from Godfrey, a knight who was one of the primary leaders of the First Crusade—not just your typical crusader. Another example of the First Crusade’s leaders condoning (actually taking part) in such massacres is that of count Enico, a Catholic German noble who took part in leading the Crusades.
But Emico and the rest of his band held a council and, after sunrise, attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances. Breaking the bolts and doors, they killed the Jews, about seven hundred in number, who in vain resisted the force and attack of so many thousands. They killed the women, also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age and sex. The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and that they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brother, children, wives, and sisters, and thus they perished at each other’s hands. Horrible to say, mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1096jews.html
It should be noted that Bob once called his defense of the Crusaders a defense of “human rights”.
November 24th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
and then attempt to discredit Muhammad’s character when the above happened?
Well, for a seventh century brigand, I wouldn’t.
But Muhammad is a prophet for all times.
So I’m judging him by our time.
And even from his own time, his morality fails, as shown by the fact that his contemporaries were typically less violent than he was.
which they then broke treasonously during a time of war when the Medinan community was in danger of being wiped out.
More exaggeration. The B. Nadir were ethnically cleansed following an alleged assassination plot.
Now, tell me, what civilized country on the earth expels an entire people without that action looking rather bad?
it’s clear from the discussion in question that you had absolutely no idea his work existed
You would be mistaken.
I’m interested in the earliest accounts from the prophet’s life, including hadith collections collected only a hundred years after the prophet’s death (or earlier) and the earliest biographies.
It’s true I have never read Waqidi, but I was aware of him. It was actually Muslim tradition of passing down Muhammad’s military exploits that prompted writers to document the prophet’s life in literary form. Some focused solely on his military career whereas other writers wrote of the prophet’s entire life story. In Ibn Ishaq’s case, he was continuing on the work of three other Muslim scholars he studied under and the personal work of his father in recording sayings and stories of the prophet, placing his biography of the prophet even earlier than what is generally given credit to him for.
November 24th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Yet another round of baseless speculation and hypocrisy provided by Bob—why am I not surprised?
But Muhammad is a prophet for all times.
So I’m judging him by our time.
Actually, you’re judging him by ‘our times’ because he’s a Muslim. It’s similar to how you called Saladin a war criminal while conversely portraying the Crusaders as heroes, despite the fact that Saladin was far nobler (he was the epitome of chivalry in The Talisman), less violent, and more merciful than the Crusaders. Apart from that, this is by far the silliest argument you’ve provided us with. Seriously, it‘s pretty pathetic.
More exaggeration. The B. Nadir were ethnically cleansed following an alleged assassination plot.
Are you saying they didn’t break the treaty? The Banu Nadir clearly attempted to kill Muhammad (PBUH), according to Watt.
“Abu Ja’far [Al-Tabari} says: As for Al-Waqidi, he says that when they conspired together to drop a stone on the Messenger of God, Sallam b. Mishkam told them not to do so, and warned them that it would mean war, adding Muhammad knew what they intended. They ignore his advice, however, and ‘Amr b. Jihash went up to the roof to roll the stone over.”
You already accept the Hadith and Sira as fact—it’s clear that the Banu Nadir broke the treaty.
Now, tell me, what civilized country on the earth expels an entire people without that action looking rather bad?
The ancient Hebrews, for example. By the way, you still haven’t addressed my questions regarding your religious hypocrisy.
It’s true I have never read Waqidi, but I was aware of him.
That’s weird, you only seem to know about Al-Waqidi was it was pointed out (several times, for days) that you obviously didn’t. Hmmm…
November 24th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“I wonder if one can learn the difference between actions of individual crusaders and those of the crusading enterprise?”
The whole point of this site is to show Islamophobes like you the importance of distinguishing the actions of a few religious extremists from the rest of the Muslims. Besides, the Crusaders’ actions were supported by the Pope, many priests, the leaders in charge of the Crusade. Compare that to today when the actions of Al-Qaeda are rejected by the majority of Islamic scholars.
“And even from his own time, his morality fails, as shown by the fact that his contemporaries were typically less violent than he was.”
I have seen Islamophobes try to twist history to make it seem like the Pagan Arabs were very civilised and that Muslims destroyed their peaceful ways…Unfortunately for you, there is great evidence that the tribes of Arabia were almost constantly in a state of war with many wars breaking out because someone’s camel drank out of someone else’s well. Don’t forget how Pre-Islamic Arabia abused slaves and women and would bury baby girls alive. They were a horrible group of people. Then, when they became enlightened with Islam, they were turned into great scientists and astronomers. Muhammad forgave all of Mecca after he conquered it and this was later on in his life when the peaceful verses of the Quran were supposedly abrogated. The Quraysh would not have been so forgiving if they had conquered Medina.
“Now, tell me, what civilized country on the earth expels an entire people without that action looking rather bad?”
You will find that many of the countries that you called “civilised” have often expelled people. America forced Native Americans off of their land in order to dominate the area and Israel has also expelled Palestinians during the War of Independence and continues to do so when it feels like demolishing a few houses in the West Bank.
November 24th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
JihadBob:
You would be mistaken.
I’m interested in the earliest accounts from the prophet’s life, including hadith collections collected only a hundred years after the prophet’s death (or earlier) and the earliest biographies.
That’s funny, you did not mention knowing about him in the thread where I brought numerous citation and quotes regarding his work. But you would know then, that al-Waqidi died over a decade before Ibn Hisham (whose recension of the Sira Ibn Ishaq we have today), and also the fact that he cites his own more rigorously authenticated chains of transmission for the information conveyed in his work; something Ibn Hisham’s work does not always do accurately, sometimes completely skipping. You would also know that Muslim historians such as Ibn ‘Asakir rated al-Waqidi higher than Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq regarding accuracy and for the details of early Islamic history.
It’s true I have never read Waqidi, but I was aware of him. It was actually Muslim tradition of passing down Muhammad’s military exploits that prompted writers to document the prophet’s life in literary form. Some focused solely on his military career whereas other writers wrote of the prophet’s entire life story. In Ibn Ishaq’s case, he was continuing on the work of three other Muslim scholars he studied under and the personal work of his father in recording sayings and stories of the prophet, placing his biography of the prophet even earlier than what is generally given credit to him for.
Nice history lesson, although I didn’t ask about it. You would also know that al-Waqidi’s collection is considered pre-eminent regarding the former, which funnily enough includes the incidents you have raised regarding the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza and so forth.
A few interesting things emerge from your paragraph above, however: a) You accept that isnads are generally considered accurate and convey probitive information regarding the Prophet; b) You even suggest that Ibn Ishaq’s work rests on authority earlier than his own time, which is an amazing admission on your part especially considering Muslim scholars of hadith and others even within his own time and afterwards considered many of his collected statements innacurate; c) Instead of dealing with the actual text within Ibn Ishaq’s work, which I quoted in full regarding the Banu Qurayza incident (and could do for the others too if I thought it would do any good – which it won’t), you still choose to discuss mindsets, preconceived opinions and baseless statements instead of dealing with what is recorded, which does not support your assertions; d) After all that, your “acceptance” of hadith is actually only partial and rests on accepting that which allows you to demonise Muhammad and the Muslims, and downplaying those which hadith scholars consider valid regarding the totality of Muhammad’s life. You obviously won’t accept the quotation from al-Waqidi above regarding the situation as being accurate, because it doesn’t fit your pre-conceived notions regarding Muhammad.
November 25th, 2010 at 6:39 am
tinkle
November 25th, 2010 at 6:51 am
“The ancient Hebrews, for example. By the way, you still haven’t addressed my questions regarding your religious hypocrisy.”
maybe he can show where his god in flesh DISAGREES with God almighty when HE (God) told moses to go slay the idolatorers.
“Travel through the land, and see what was the end of those who rejected…”
November 25th, 2010 at 6:55 am
Being kind to neighbors, as well as forgiving the transgressions against one’s own self has been instituted from the very beginning of man’s being placed on this earth. The law of Noah states these fundamental realities well prior to Jesus (AS). Noah preached for 900 years, way longer than the period of Jesus, whose ministry according to the NT is 3 years. But this idea of ‘turning the other cheek’ has never been taken to mean denial of God’s punishment, even by Jesus himself. It was not taken that way by Muhammad (S) either, despite him ‘turning the other cheek’ for over 4 times the length of Jesus’ whole ministry.
November 25th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Numbers 14:36 So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it–37 these men responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before Yahweh. 38 Of the men who went to explore the land, only Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived. 39 When Moses reported this to all the Israelites, they mourned bitterly. 40 Early the next morning they went up toward the high hill country. “We have sinned,” they said. “We will go up to the place Yahweh promised.” 41 But Moses said, “Why are you disobeying the Lord’s command? This will not succeed! 42 Do not go up, because Yahweh is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43 for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from Yahweh, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.”
44 Nevertheless, in their presumption they went up toward the high hill country, though neither Moses nor the ark of the Lord’s covenant moved from the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites and Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and attacked them and beat them down all the way to Hormah.
jihadtits, were the pagans wrong in protecting their national teritory?
i heard that the right of people to protect thier national terrirtory has been recognised for centuries.
November 25th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Besides, the Crusaders’ actions were supported by the Pope, many priests, the leaders in charge of the Crusade.
The Crusade itself was supported by the Pope. Duh.
Just like the Jihads were supported by the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs.
Compare that to today when the actions of Al-Qaeda are rejected by the majority of Islamic scholars.
Why not compare it to the Jihads from the time of the crusades?
Unfortunately for you, there is great evidence that the tribes of Arabia were almost constantly in a state of war with many wars breaking out because someone’s camel drank out of someone else’s well.
Actually conflicts between tribes and villages in Pre-Islamic Arabia were largely bloodless. Muhammad’s goal of war was to destroy one’s enemy. The Pagans did not practice this form of fighting.
Don’t forget how Pre-Islamic Arabia abused slaves and women and would bury baby girls alive.
Don’t forget how Muslims beat their wives and honor kill their children.
They were a horrible group of people.
Eh? See above.
Then, when they became enlightened with Islam, they were turned into great scientists and astronomers.
When was this, again?
The Quraysh would not have been so forgiving if they had conquered Medina.
And you know this, how, exactly?
Of course Muhammad and the Meccans were not on equal footing. He was the traitor and they people fighting against a traitor who had declared war against their city.
So, even if they would have executed Muhammad and fellow traitors, it would have been entirely in their right to do so and no different from the mass execution Muhammad carried out himself.
Israel has also expelled Palestinians during the War of Independence
Really? Benny Morris says the vast majority of Pal-Arabs left on their own accord. Where there were forced evacuations, this was in the context of the precarious situation the Israelis were facing by having potential hostiles behind the Israeli front lines.
November 25th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Jihadbob – when will Spencer stop debating by proxy on this forum and man up to an actual debate with Danios? All I hear is clucking of some caged chickens from the Jihadwatch front … LOL
November 25th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“Why not compare it to the Jihads from the time of the crusades?”
Go for it.
“Actually conflicts between tribes and villages in Pre-Islamic Arabia were largely bloodless. Muhammad’s goal of war was to destroy one’s enemy. The Pagans did not practice this form of fighting.”
Lol. How many people did the Muslims kill in Badr out of about 900? 70 pagans. Death toll of Uhud: 70 Muslims and 45 Pagans out of 3,000. Death toll at the conquest of Mecca: 0 and 0. Seems pretty bloodless to me. Muhammad never destroyed the enemy. The majority of the Pagans were still in Mecca and even when he conquered it, he didn’t kill anyone.
“Don’t forget how Pre-Islamic Arabia abused slaves and women and would bury baby girls alive.”
Are you denying this?
“Then, when they became enlightened with Islam, they were turned into great scientists and astronomers.
When was this, again?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
“The Quraysh would not have been so forgiving if they had conquered Medina.
And you know this, how, exactly?”
I suppose they must have gathered a force of 3000 soldiers and 200 cavalry for some other reason.
“Of course Muhammad and the Meccans were not on equal footing. He was the traitor and they people fighting against a traitor who had declared war against their city.
So, even if they would have executed Muhammad and fellow traitors, it would have been entirely in their right to do so and no different from the mass execution Muhammad carried out himself.”
How was he a traitor? He had moved away from Mecca because they were threatening the lives of the Muslims. It was his city as well. Do explain how him preaching Islam to his friends and family in Mecca is equivalent to treason. Would Jesus also be a traitor to the Jews because he preached Islam to them?
It’s also hypocritical for you to justify the mass execution of Muslims for treason whilst accusing the Muslims of being murderers when they did the same to the Jews who had actually betrayed them after signing the Constitution of Medina.
“Really? Benny Morris says the vast majority of Pal-Arabs left on their own accord. Where there were forced evacuations, this was in the context of the precarious situation the Israelis were facing by having potential hostiles behind the Israeli front lines.”
Wow an Israeli Historian! I’m sooo convinced. Many left after they saw the massacre at Deir Yassin. If Palestinians left because they were worried that they would be massacred by Zionists, that does not count as leaving “voluntarily”. The end result of Zionism and the illegal mass immigration of Jews to the Holy Land was that 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes and the state of Israel was born. If Israel was not created, Palestinians would still be in their homes and Jews would be in theirs (In Europe).
November 25th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
It’s quite annoying when you sidestep literally dozens of the points directed against you, but don’t worry JihadBob, we understand: you would rather showcase your astounding double standards and hypocrisy than address any of our arguments.
The Crusade itself was supported by the Pope. Duh.
Just like the Jihads were supported by the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs.
What’s your point? It’s quite obvious your understanding of the Crusades is extremely simplistic and wrong (i.e. Christians are always good, Muslims are perpetually evil). That’s why you claimed the Catholic authorities leading the Crusades weren’t responsible for the massacres of European and Middle Eastern Jewry, when in fact (as we’ve shown) they directly took part in them.
Actually conflicts between tribes and villages in Pre-Islamic Arabia were largely bloodless. Muhammad’s goal of war was to destroy one’s enemy. The Pagans did not practice this form of fighting.
As Mossizle pointed out, the wars between Muhammad (PBUH) and the Arab Pagans were relatively bloodless. Apart from that, Muslims brought a level peace and stability that Arabia had never seen before, not to mention Pax Islamica (from the borders of China to the Atlantic), which was pivotally important to the transfer of ideas and technologies between civilizations, and consequently to the development of modern science.
Don’t forget how Muslims beat their wives and honor kill their children.
Hindus beat their wives and ‘honor kill’ their children, as do Christians and other religious groups.
Eh? See above.
Oh, so Muslims are “horrible people”? What about the genocidal lynch mob over at Jihadwatch? They’re “freedom fighters”, am I right? Of course, if you start believing what Spencer and Geller say, then all sorts of things become acceptable and your logic inevitably becomes twisted. I mean…you do think that pelting Muslims with food and shouting obscenities at them on their sacred holiday is perfectly acceptable. In fact, you have never condemned violence against Muslims, instead, you have consistently made excuses for such violence (this is despite hypocritically demanding we Muslims condemn some of our own ilk).
Of course Muhammad and the Meccans were not on equal footing. He was the traitor and they people fighting against a traitor who had declared war against their city.
So, even if they would have executed Muhammad and fellow traitors, it would have been entirely in their right to do so and no different from the mass execution Muhammad carried out himself.
The Pagan Meccans drove Muhammad (PBUH) and the Muslims out of Mecca because they believed his preaching threatened their wealth and power: the conflict was entirely their fault. Muhammad was simply forced to defend himself and his people. Anyways, according to your loon logic, the Jews would have been entirely justified in attempting to execute Jesus simply because they didn’t like the threat to their power and the religion he preached (something Mossizle already has mentioned). And besides, isn’t it you who sympathizes with the Confederacy? The Southerners who launched the bloody Civil War are the real traitors, not Muhammad or Jesus.
Oh, and you still have failed to respond to my question regarding your religious hypocrisy.
Really? Benny Morris says the vast majority of Pal-Arabs left on their own accord. Where there were forced evacuations, this was in the context of the precarious situation the Israelis were facing by having potential hostiles behind the Israeli front lines.
Because Benny Morris says something, then it’s true? Benny Morris is unarguably anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and pro-Israeli—not exactly a neutral source.
This reminds me of the time you cited Noam Chomsky when making excuses for denying (supporting) the Bosnian genocide. It ended up being embarrassing for you, since Chomsky was talking about Albanians, not Bosnians…and not a peep from you about that subject ever again…
Apart from that, you’re again showcasing your immense double standards here. You call what the Israelis did—in an obvious attempt to soften up their actions—“evacuations” only done because of “potential hostiles behind the Israeli front lines”. What exactly is the difference between what happened during the creation of Israel and what Muhammad (PBUH) did with the Banu Nadir in the 7th century? In fact, the only difference is that the Muslims were simply following what was stipulated in the Constitution of Medina, which unlike the UN partition, was accepted by all sides, both Jewish and Muslim. You’re actually judging 7th century Muslims by a moral standard that can’t be met by modern Westerners!
November 25th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
As I said in the post above: JihadBob accepts only those hadith and early sources which paint a specific picture of Muhammad and the early Muslim community, not those which go clearly against his preconceived narrative. Yet he still has the gall to make the point of us needing to use “early sources” in our discussion!
This is the same sira literature which tells us of the economic and social boycott of the early Muslim community in Mecca, resulting in them needing to eat the bark from trees on the outskirts of Mecca, of them needing to do something to fortify Medina from impending attack, and them all working together to dig a ditch in order to repel aggression (why would they need to do that if they did not fear being overrun?), and many other things.
The same sira literature which shows that the Banu Nadir not only plotted against Muhammad, breaking the initial treaty between the Muslims and Jews in Medina, but that they also went against the terms agreed upon in their surrender. Not only that, but they then plotted with the Quraysh leading to the Battle of the Trench. So why, then, is JihadBob inclined to accept only the details of specific incidents in the sira, and interpret them in a savage way, yet not accept the sira’s recording of the context, the various factors all interplaying with each other, and the background leading up to the said events?
It’s simply disingenuous, and has a specific motive in mind rather then a sincere discussion of actual history using early sources. No more and no less. And he shifts goalposts, jumps from one topic to the next, back and forward across time (across almost 1.5 millenia!), space (geographic location), and excuses away the transgressions of non-Muslims at whim. All of which has been exhibited above in this thread alone. And all without condemning the vitrolic hatred of other Islamophobic posters on this site (never mind Jihad Watch itself!), whilst asking anti-Loons to do that which he has not himself done, and continually refuses to do.
November 25th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
The hypocrite, mendacious and hateful lingo used by the anti-Muslims reminds me of the way Julius Streicher spoke and wrote For those who are too young to remember, Julius Streicher was the prominent Nazi propagandist and editor of teh anti-semitic propaganda rag “Der Stürmer” which was all about Jew-baiting and Jew-bashing. Same as these individuals are doing with us Mooslims. And everybody knows how genocidal talk begets genocide. It was like that in Bosnia; and it is of course not exclusive to Muslims. Remember “Radio Mille Collines” in Rwanda? Remember what happened in Rwanda? Julius Streicher was one of the top Nazi war criminals and he was hanged, deservedly, and if there is something to regret about it, it’s that they could hang him only once. Nobody has tracked down the Hutu Julius Streicher. Nobody has tracked down and brought to justice the Serb Julius Streichers of Bosia; there are so many anyway; just read some of their posts in all related fores. Absolutely and utterly disgusting. What debate can there be with such individuals? Their purpose is evil. Of course it is better to ridicule them; but sometimes they just drive me mad. I wonder, what kind of mother raised such fellows?
November 25th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
“What debate can there be with such individuals? Their purpose is evil. Of course it is better to ridicule them; but sometimes they just drive me mad. I wonder, what kind of mother raised such fellows?”
I think debate is necessary to counter their negative views of Islam. If we let them walk away then they will continue to spread their propaganda. We have to do something. Also, I would avoid the use of Nazi comparisons. Comparing your opponent to a Nazi in any debate is considered a bad strategy and a flaw in your argument.
November 25th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
When was this, again?”
Sorry, which of these scientists were from Arabia?
How was he a traitor?
Uh, he declared war against the people of Mecca before he ‘moved’ away…
Wow an Israeli Historian! I’m sooo convinced. Many left after they saw the massacre at Deir Yassin.
Someone who isn’t a historian. I’m soo convinced….
In fact, the only difference is that the Muslims were simply following what was stipulated in the Constitution of Medina, which unlike the UN partition, was accepted by all sides,
You’re right, the UN partition was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Pal-Arabs.
I see you still have not answered me if Muhammad’s actions in ethnically cleansing an entire tribe over an alleged assassination plot were any different from the crime against humanity Saddam Hussein was hung for.
That’s why you claimed the Catholic authorities leading the Crusades weren’t responsible for the massacres of European and Middle Eastern Jewry, when in fact (as we’ve shown) they directly took part in them.
They weren’t. You should stop embarrassing yourself.
Because Benny Morris says something, then it’s true? Benny Morris is unarguably anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and pro-Israeli—not exactly a neutral source.
Let me know of a source that is neutral.
The same sira literature which shows that the Banu Nadir not only plotted against Muhammad
Right, the angel whispering in Muhammad’s ear. Gotcha. Amazingly, for a people plotting to assassinate the prophet while he was in their fortified compound, surrounded by Jewish warriors, he walked right out without much of an incident.
Muhammad must be one smooth operator. Are there any other fantasies/fairy tales you’d like to share with us?
Not only that, but they then plotted with the Quraysh leading to the Battle of the Trench.
Seems pretty reasonable after they were driven from their homes. Did Muhammad ever plot against the Meccans? Was Muhammad a traitor?
November 25th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Anyways, I ask to take this to a forum where discussions of this type are better suited.
I’ll be happy to engage in debate but I don’t see much of a point doing it on a blog such as this.
November 25th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Would that forum by any chance be JihadWatch?
“I’ll be happy to engage in debate but I don’t see much of a point doing it on a blog such as this.”
You think you’re wasting your time. You think that you are oozing genius in your writings but not that many people read them. You want to publish this on a forum where more people read your rambles and where there are more people to support your side of the argument. Retreat!
But seriously,what d’you have in mind?
November 25th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
JihadBob: You don’t see much point doing it on this blog? Then why are you here? You’ve been spouting the same lines since you began posting, regardless of the counter-evidence presented by various other posters here and you going in circles across different threads, shifting the goalposts as you go. Yet you don’t see the “point”?
November 25th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
And by the way, the forum “better suited” to this type of discussion has a name: Academia. The problem is, it doesn’t support your views, so you have to then manouver in a way to sideline it and continue to engage in polemics.
November 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
JihadBob thinks Muslims are horrible people. ORLY? Tell me something I don’t know.
Oh, and I think Dawood’s post sums up JihadBob very accurately.
November 25th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Jihadbob – when will Spencer stop debating by proxy on this forum and man up to an actual debate with Danios?
November 25th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I meant the earlier, longer post.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
And our resident loon/broken record drones the same thing again and again and again…
It’s obvious, as many anti-loons have already pointed out, that you’re incapable of rational discussion, Bob. Heck, even in your latest comment, you unequivocally dismiss all the evidence brought forth because it doesn’t fit you preconceived notions. This time, it’s a medieval European source, not Arabic.
They weren’t. You should stop embarrassing yourself.
Actually, the people leading the Crusades were responsible for the massacres of Jews in several places, and some even took part in them (something that has been repeated how many times now?).
Albert of Aix, a medieval European historian:
“But Emico and the rest of his band held a council and, after sunrise, attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances. Breaking the bolts and doors, they killed the Jews, about seven hundred in number, who in vain resisted the force and attack of so many thousands. They killed the women, also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age and sex. The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and that they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brother, children, wives, and sisters, and thus they perished at each other’s hands. Horrible to say, mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised.”
Soloman bar Samson, a medieval Jewish scholar:
“It was on the third of Siwan…. at noon [Tuesday, May 73], that Emico the wicked, the enemy of the Jews, came with his whole army against the city gate, and the citizens opened it up for him. Emico a German noble, led a band of plundering German and French crusaders. l Then the enemies of the Lord said to each other: ‘look! They have opened up the gate for us. Now let us avenge the blood of ‘the hanged one’ [Jesus].”
Enicho was a German noble leading crusaders into the Holy Land. I could also mention Godfrey’s statement—he was one of the First Crusade’s primary leaders.
“…to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name ‘Jew,’ thus assuaging his own burning wrath.”
Oh, and let’s not forget this latest doozie.
Someone who isn’t a historian. I’m soo convinced….
Mossizle has as much authority as Robert Spencer, whom you uncritically follow with cult-like devotion. Actually, Mossizle has more authority, since he doesn’t run a blog where the lynch mob gathers to fantasize about genocides.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Would that forum by any chance be JihadWatch?
JWatch is a blog like this one. It’s not a forum.
Duh.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.
No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm. But they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp
Next…
November 25th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
“Would that forum by any chance be JihadWatch?
JWatch is a blog like this one. It’s not a forum.
Duh.”
What “forum” do you have in mind? No doubt you want another forum because, like I said, you think your ramblings are making no difference here and your skill would be better used elsewhere, or you want a forum where there are other commenters like you who can support you when you’ve made some dumb errors. Believe me, you have made many. Like the one where a “Palestinian” who was hunting blacks in Detroit turned out to be an Israeli Arab Christian.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Really Bob? Are being serious? The fact that you would actually cite that website is telling. One simply has to go to their homepage to see them harping about the evils of the “mainstream media”.
The people leading the Crusades were responsible for the massacres, as I’ve shown. The opinions of the local clergy have nothing to do with that. You’re simply moving goalposts…again.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.”
Catholic website declaring that the also Catholic Crusaders did not hurt the Jews. Wow…I am soooo convinced!
What about the Jews massacred at the siege of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Crusader Army?
“…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” Raymond of Aguilers
Lovely Peaceful Crusaders at work.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Speaking of Bob’s dumb errors, he once claimed that Jordan banned Judaism. He also claimed that Turkey was run by the secular military, and conversely claimed that “the Mullahs call the shots” in Turkey. And he did that all on the same thread!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/politifact-most-muslim-countries-allow-churches-synagogues/
Oh, and Zanzibar is apparently an independent country–if you’re Bob.
November 25th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Did you miss the part in myth 3 where he also said:
——-
The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days.
———–
I guess you must have skipped past it to get to Myth 5?
November 26th, 2010 at 4:00 am
No! It couldn’t have been the noble Crusaders slaughtering all those people. And if it was, it was surely a band of riff-raff with too much ‘Crusader enthusiasm’. The general Crusader intention was never to kill Jews. Enough of the taqiyya-spraying horrible Muslims.
/sarcasm
November 26th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Lovely find, Dawood. I guess that means Catholics no longer have the moral high ground when discussing Muslim conquests of the Middle Ages.
November 26th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Did you miss the part in myth 3 where he also said:
Now, which part would that be? I thought that I was very clear that sacking a town or city that was taken by force was the norm for those times.
But I agree with you, the actions under the ‘best’ of Muslims, the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs, are comparable to those who are generally regarded as the worst of Christians, the Crusaders.
November 26th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Loonwatch already discussed that subject with Robert Spencer, and Spencer ended up running like the coward he is.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/#comments
November 27th, 2010 at 6:13 am
Jihadbob, your website was justifying the crusaders sacking of Jerusalem where they massacred Muslims and Jews. If the murder of a city’s inhabitants after a siege is justifiable in 1099, then why is it so detestable that the Muslims do the same when they attack other cities.
Your comment also highlights your hypocrisy. You consider the massacre at Jerusalem as the fault of a few extremist Crusader but the majority of them were peace loving people. Yet when Muslims use the same logic today, you deny it as ‘taqiyya’.
By the way, the massacre wasn’t committed by a few individual crusaders. It was the Crusader army itself. How could one or two Crusaders besiege a city and kill people in such huge numbers that blood runs unto their ankles?
November 27th, 2010 at 7:51 am
In addition didn’t the Crusaders kill ALL the non-Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem (as well as some of the other cities they conquered). Killing EVERYONE in a sacked city wasn’t normal even in medieval times — I think the only other forces to do this were the Mongols (along with the Timurids, who were inspired by the Mongols).
November 27th, 2010 at 9:45 am
In addition didn’t the Crusaders kill ALL the non-Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem
No, read the quote again:
When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.
As for the norms from those days, happy to compare these actions to those of Baibars taking Antioch, the Muslim conquest of Odessa and Mongol invasions.
I could also highlight Muslim atrocities under the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs. Once again, we find that the best of Muslims are comparable to the ‘worst’ of Christians.
It was the Crusader army itself.
Actually, segments within the Crusader army seemed to have carried out the lion share of atrocities when they took Jerusalem.
Happy to look at the actions of Muslims during this time period, perhaps we’ll see that Baibar’s massacre of Antioch’s Christians, who allowed his army entry into their city without resistance, was completely beyond the pale for expected conduct of armies during sieges?
November 27th, 2010 at 10:31 am
If you want my opinion, Bob is desperately trying to save some face. Believe me Bob, everyone knows; it’s quite obvious.
Also, I heard Loonwatch was going to deconstruct Spencer’s crappy Crusade chapter in his Pathetically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Anyways, I suspect the Jihad rebuttal Loonwatch is going to release next will be epic, since Spencer makes several assertions that are completely false.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Once again, we find that the best of Muslims are comparable to the ‘worst’ of Christians.
Apart from the fact that this is another one of your bigoted comments…it’s completely false. Heck, even Daniel Pipes disagrees with you.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/#comments
Also, Muslim scholars of the time expressed horror at Baibars’ capture of Antioch, conversely Christians who witnessed the massacres at Jerusalem seemed to express admiration. And speaking of Crusader atrocities, can you bring any proof of this statement—it sounds like more of your BS.
Actually, segments within the Crusader army seemed to have carried out the lion share of atrocities when they took Jerusalem.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Jihabob: I could also highlight Muslim atrocities under the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs.
Go ahead. I dare you.
November 27th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“As for the norms from those days, happy to compare these actions to those of Baibars taking Antioch, the Muslim conquest of Odessa and Mongol invasions.”
“I could also highlight Muslim atrocities under the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs. Once again, we find that the best of Muslims are comparable to the ‘worst’ of Christians.”
Yeah, JB, go for it. Knock yourself out. Seriously, knock yourself out.
And the Mongols weren’t Muslims. At first anyway, afterwards they converted. That is once they started attacking Muslim lands which was way after Genghis Khan. That is also perhaps the only major historical example when a conqueror adopted the religion of the conquered which proves again that Islam is so irresistible. Oh, and Muslim scholars like Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah declared them to be non-Muslims anyway because they continued to kill Muslims. So no need to compare them with anything.
November 27th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I thought that ibn Taymiyyah regarded the Ilkhanate as non-Muslim not because of its wars against Muslims, but because it used a secret (!) system of law called Yassa, rather than the Shari’ah.
The Yassa prohibited Islamic halal slaughter, and in its other aspects was little more than a licence for mass murder.
November 27th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I think you’re right. But in any case, the Mongol Invasions were not the fault of Muslims but JihadBob wants to include them in that category so he can “compare” them to the actions of the Crusaders.
Caught red handed, JB!
November 27th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
As for the norms from those days, happy to compare these actions to those of Baibars taking Antioch, the Mooslim conquest of Odessa and Mongol invasions.
I could also highlight the taqiyya-spraying Mooslim atrocities under the ‘rightly’ guided taqiyya-spraying caliphs. Once again, I ignore the overwhelming evidence provided by the taqiyya-spraying Moolsims, and find that the best of Satan-worshipping, taqiyya-spraying Mooslims are comparable to the ‘worst’ ( I, JihadBob, have apostrophes there cuz I don’t really have any problem with violent Christians, in fact I love em’ for taking care of them horrible Mooslims!) of loving and god-fearing Christians
Odessa was founded by Muslims, at least according to Wikipedia. Apparently they were part of the Crimean Khanate. Also, as anti-loons have already pointed out, the Mongols only converted to Islam after they conquered large parts of the Islamic world.
Also, what is it with you and moving goalposts?
November 27th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@ JihadBob
At first it seemed like you only wanted to dig your grave with your circular tu quoque hypocrisy-laced posts, but now it seems like six feet is not enough for you. Now you are tunneling for the center of the earth with your nonsense.
“(BTW, we’re talking about the B. Nadir, not Qurayza)”
If we are talking about Banu Nadir, then we are talking about forced expulsion, not ethnic cleansing, aren’t we? Everyone, everyone except you and Robert Spencer and co., seems to understand that ethnic cleansing refers to massacres and violence and genocide.Empires have been engaging in forced immigration and repopulation for millenia. How do you think the Jews got to Babylon in the first place? In any case removal for treason does not a war criminal or genocide make.
“You’re right, that Muhammad didn’t slaughter the three Jewish tribes was entirely due to the opposition such an act would provoke amongst Muhammad’s Muslim allies who were against whole sale massacres.”
So the Prophet(as) didn’t slaughter any tribes but was still a genocidal, ethnic cleansing war criminal? Is that your hypocritical, sarcastic humour again? I seem to recall you making the point that Muhammad(saws)knew about the Nadir’s treachery because of the “fairy tale” of the angel warning him of their treachery?
“Right, the angel whispering in Muhammad’s ear. Gotcha. Amazingly, for a people plotting to assassinate the prophet while he was in their fortified compound, surrounded by Jewish warriors, he walked right out without much of an incident. Muhammad must be one smooth operator. Are there any other fantasies/fairy tales you’d like to share with us?”
Are you sure you’re a Christian? Tell me about Musa(as) and the burning bush; The being who spoke to Ibrahim(as) about the birth of his son; the being who gave Mariam(raa) news of the birth of ‘Isa(as). Not that i believe any of those stories are fairy tales, but as an atheist might say, asking us to believe your fairy tale over another groups fairy tales is a bit hypocritical, no?
Will you now answer some pertinent questions as posed by me and other Loonwatchers or continue to avoid, ignore, sidestep,evade, obfuscate, lie,equivocate, dissimulate(taqiyya) and engage in tu quouque hypocrisy? Will you condemn truly genocidal and hateful comments on both this site and JW. Do you condemn haram pork and eternel’s genocidal rants? Are you Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald?
“What was the fate of Christians in Odessa and Antioch only a few years later?”
Can you convince us that this wasn’t an anomaly, an outlier largely condemned by the Muslim community of that time? Do tell.
“I wonder if one can learn the difference between actions of individual crusaders and those of the crusading enterprise?”
The Crusaders were supported by the Pope,(“The Crusade itself was supported by the Pope. Duh.”), so it would seem that the actions of the crusading enterprise, which were horrific, were also supported by him. i’m not here to claim that this was an example of true Christianity at hand, but there is no Pope in Islam, so show me where the Pope condemns those individuals for their horrific actions during the Crusades.
“Just like the Jihads were supported by the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs.”
Do you know what a false analogy is? It resembles tu quoque, which you are all too familiar with.
“Oh, good point. Muhammad’s crimes weren’t as bad as some brigands you can find in the history books somewhere, so he must have been a moral individual.”
You have yet to prove that Muhammad(saws) was a war criminal, much less a criminal, so stop with the rhetorical smokescreen.
Question for you.. Why do you insist on using Ibn Ishaq as if he was the only historian or historiographer among us Muslims? Could it be that the Islam-bashers of old and new rely on it exclusively to make their bogus claims? You, like them, must be unaware of the numerous other Muslims historians, but are selectively quoting. Don’t continue to pretend you knew about al-Waqidi. You all but admitted that he is unimportant to you which suggests, like i said, that you were unaware of his existence, or chose to ignore him because he could not be made to fit into your bogus narrative.
Again, this is you being a hypocrite bob. Imagine it being the norm what the Crusaders did and using that as some sort of justification, yet what Muhammad(saws)did in response to sedition, betrayal, and treason was not normal. How can the medieval norm, which was much worse than what happened in Arabia be proof of the immoral character of Muhammad(saws)? If this was the medieval norm than, if anything, the Prophet(as)was exemplary in his morality. smh
“I’m interested in the earliest accounts from the prophet’s life, including hadith collections collected only a hundred years after the prophet’s death (or earlier) and the earliest biographies.”
No you are not. This is obfuscation. You are actually interested in finding the bogus tafsirs of your fellow, yet more scholarly, Islam-bashers, and regurgitating their conclusions. If you know who ibn Ishaq is then you know of ibn Hisham. If you know ibn Hisam, you know al-Tabari. If you know them, you would know of al-Waqidi AND use him as your source, if your intention is honest portrayal of the information from the available sources.
“Don’t forget how Muslims beat their wives and honor kill their children.”
That’s epic…i won’t forget that Jews, Christians, and Hindus do the same things.
“Sorry, which of these scientists were from Arabia?”
You are being disingenuous by moving the goalposts from Muslims to Arabs. Even so you will fail.
“Uh, he declared war against the people of Mecca before he ‘moved’ away…”
Quote and source of this declaration war?lol
“I see you still have not answered me if Muhammad’s actions in ethnically cleansing an entire tribe over an alleged assassination plot were any different from the crime against humanity Saddam Hussein was hung for.”
i see in your nit-picking campaign you are still unable to distinguish between ethnic cleansing/genocide and forced expulsion/deportation due to treason. You yourself admitted that Muhammad did not slaughter the tribes, although your bogus exegesis and understanding of the events has somehow given you the ability to read the mind of the Prophet(as) and declare that:
“You’re right, that Muhammad didn’t slaughter the three Jewish tribes was entirely due to the opposition such an act would provoke amongst Muhammad’s Muslim allies who were against whole sale massacres.”
This is the embarrassment lying hypocrisy and arguing in circles leads to.
That’s why you claimed the Catholic authorities leading the Crusades weren’t responsible for the massacres of European and Middle Eastern Jewry, when in fact (as we’ve shown) they directly took part in them.
“They weren’t. You should stop embarrassing yourself.”
Who was responsible when you claim the Pope was responsible for the Crusades? You are here claiming that a central religious authority is not responsible for individual actions that they sanctioned, but that a group lacking central religious authority(Muslims)are collectively responsible for the individual actions of our coreligionists. And we are not even blaming Christianity for the action of the Crusaders, just those in authority who sanctioned and incited them. Why can’t you do the same for Islam?
“Let me know of a source that is neutral.”
In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a Palestinian source is no more neutral than an Israeli source. You know better than that bob.
“Seems pretty reasonable after they were driven from their homes. Did Muhammad ever plot against the Meccans? Was Muhammad a traitor?”
Why were they driven from their homes, bob? let’s play the tu quoque game…. Did the Meccans plot against Muhammad(saws)? What kind of people plan to silence a religious leader by murdering him because of his preaching? Tell me again about the myth of the religiously tolerant pagan Meccans and their utopian society.
“I’ll be happy to engage in debate but I don’t see much of a point doing it on a blog such as this.”
As someone else said, that forum is academia, this is merely you conceding defeat, but pretending you can better get your point across in another forum.
“Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.”
And i suppose the Christian crusaders invading Palestine were intent on invading the holy Land to take it from the Muslims and give to the Jews, Robin Hood style?
“Now, which part would that be? I thought that I was very clear that sacking a town or city that was taken by force was the norm for those times.”
So what about the siege of the Jewish fortresses in Arabia? By normal, do you mean moral and justified? be careful how you answer that…that is if you choose to answer. lol keep up the hypocrisy
Allahu A’lam
November 27th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
“But I agree with you, the actions under the ‘best’ of Muslims, the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs, are comparable to those who are generally regarded as the worst of Christians, the Crusaders.”
“I could also highlight Muslim atrocities under the ‘rightly’ guided caliphs. Once again, we find that the best of Muslims are comparable to the ‘worst’ of Christians.”
You seem to be spamming this quote in various forms. After all, don’t all of your arguments take the form of some tu quoque fallacy where you seem intent on proving that the best of Muslims are comparable to the worst of christians? i will be waiting patiently for evidence(ie sources) of this newly packaged assertion, ie that the actions of the Crusaders truly were comparable to the actions of the Prophet(as) and his campaigns, and the campaigns of the Rashidun.
Allahu A’lam
November 27th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“That’s why you claimed the Catholic authorities leading the Crusades weren’t responsible for the massacres of European and Middle Eastern Jewry, when in fact (as we’ve shown) they directly took part in them.”
BTW The above quote came from NassirhH, not your truly. Sorry for any mix up. Oh, NassirH where did theis quote come from:
Moharebeh | November 17, 2010 10:21 PM | Reply
I know exactly what site that came from. I’ve gone there a few times to point out their hypocrisy and lies, but they are obviously a bunch of taqiyya-spraying Muslims who are only concerned with how infidels define their precious religion. It’s funny how they don’t seem to mind Islamic terrorists defining their religion…
Allahu A’lam
November 27th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/islamic-hate-site-says-spencer-is-like-a-cancer-that-must-be-cut-out.html#comment-731313
It was a comment from the post that this article at LoonWatch is refuting. And NassirH identified it as commenter Ahni who comments at SpencerWatch.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Ah the infamous Ahni, he/she refuses to engage me on spencerwatch. Thanks Mosizzle!
Allahu A’lam
November 28th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Keep digging JihadBob, soon you will come out past the centre of the earth in Australia!
So what I gather from all your posturing and arguing in this thread is that you view the Crusaders as the worst of Christians. Is that correct? Because your continued discussion offering them as an example to compare the ‘best’ of Muslims with the ‘worst’ of Christians is telling.
It sounds like soon we will be having an historic ‘apology’, not unlike the Australian Prime Minister recently gave to indigenous Australians for decades of expulsion, killing, forced conversion to Christianity and forced expulsion from their indigenous ancestral lands and families.
Are we making progress?
November 28th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Awwwwwwwwwww, I feel left out, how come I don’t get to be called a lieing Muslims bastard? Not fair Mosizzle
But at least we know they read it and can’t refute it, if their position was defensible then they would say ‘readers, go fourth and mash them to bits with our powerful truths!!’ But for obvious reasons they can’t do that so they resort to the ‘readers, what we say is truth BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON’T TRY AND CHECK!!!’. Essh, all extremists are the same… can’t bear the thought that their house of cards might fall down. Isn’t that right Mr Spenser? You are free to debate any one of use, please, do email me if you wish: the.strangers.blog@gmail.com
November 29th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Excuse me but when jihadbooby here talked about expelling all Muslims to Saudi Arabia (even from Egypt or Syria) he DID talk like Hitler. After all, Hitler once considered sending all European Jews to Madagascar…
Let’s face it this guy is already beyond good and evil. God help us if such individuals should ever come to power. I hope the memory of last time (1933-45) is still enough of a deterrent.
And: my father taught me that it is best to behave with a gentleman like a gentleman, and with a scoundrel like a scoundrel. All else is bunk.
November 30th, 2010 at 6:24 am
And all fascists are alike, they share the same idea, that their own is superior and any population whom they don’t happen to like or whom they see as being in the way is inferior or has to be delegitimized or demonized in order to make it easier for the majority to accept why they must be expelled or exterminated. The Nazis did it with the Jews (“Send them to Madagascar”…later they found it easier to exterminate them); the fascists among the Zionists try to do it with the Palestinians (they’re just a bunch of uncivilized Bedouin…we take up only so little of Arab land…send them to Jordan…Jordan is Palestine”), the Serbofascists with the Bosniaks (Ratko Mladic once said in an interview for the German magazine “Der Spiegel”: ‘Let them make their monkey sate on the moon! Or of you Germans like the balije so much, why don’t you take them all in?…Today we present the town of Srebrenica, to the Serb people…take revenge on the Turks!’The Hutu in Rwanda di it through their hate radio “Mille Collines”. Before and during the anti-Tutsi genocide it blaredout “They’re cockroaches…get rid of the cockroaches…stamp them out!” Always the same. Al fascist are teh same. And when they are defeated as they always must, but unfortunately not before they have caused incredible harm to innocents, they pretend there never was any genocide! Fascism will always be defeated because the idea that there are superior human races or peoples, inferior ones and those who are vermin and must be exterminated is the greatest evil that exists and sooner or later it is seen as such. The Tutsi took over Rwanda but nether did tehy subdue nor exterminate teh Hutu. If only it had happened in Bosna as well but I don’t give up hope that one day the serbofascists will step over the line and be crushed, and that I will live to see it. The Nazis and teh militarists of Japan were utterly defeated but not before they had caused teh death of millions of innocents. There are still Nazis and Japanese fascists around but at least Japan and Germany had to remove aggression and military adventurism from their political agendas for good. One is free to liek or dislike others but not to try< and demonize, delegitimize, expel or exterminate them. That is no longer freedom of expression, that is fascism, xenophobia, criminal! And if I can claim that I am morally superior to those morons it is because I have grown up without this perjudice. Of course even I have to admit that I profoundly dislike some people but I'd never go so far to try and kill them or exterminate them. Not even the Serbs or the Israelis, because I know there are also good and decent people among them. But I hate the notion that some half-witted moron with a uniform and a gun would blow my brains out which are much more worthy than his (at least to me!)
Those SS guys and the Nazi strongmen, divested of their uniforms and their attributes of power looked pathetic, mediocre, insignaificant, like teh vermin they made their victims out to be. Same goes for those terribel Chetnik militiamen of Bosnia or the Hutu killers of Rwanda. When will people ever learn that all fascists are worthless?
I mean look at Booby Spencer here, at Radovan Karadzic, at Tudjman, at Goebbels, are they by any means admirable figures? Read their messages of hate, aren't they actually very dumb and ridiculous?
November 30th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
There are 195,449 sites with a better three-month global Alexa traffic rank than Loonwatch.com. The time spent in a typical visit to this site is approximately three minutes, with 80 seconds spent on each pageview. The fraction of visits to the site referred by search engines is roughly 19%. While we estimate that 42% of the site’s visitors are in the US, where it is ranked #130,388, it is also popular in Canada, where it is ranked #23,530. Approximately 63% of visits to Loonwatch.com consist of only one pageview (i.e., are bounces).
Alexa review of Loonwatch
November 30th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Gotta love the tagline at Alexia for LW Imad: About Loonwatch.com (loonwatch.com): Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists. !
Audience Snapshot
Based on internet averages, loonwatch.com is visited more frequently by users who are over 65 years old and browse this site from home.
Nice to know our senior citizens are doing their bit against the anti-Muslim loons!
November 30th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“www.Jihadwatch.com is ranked #1,448,962 in the world according to Alexa’s three-month traffic rankings. Jihadwatch.com has the pagerank #6. Jihadwatch.com in business since, 08-Oct-2003. The estimated website net worth based on its advertising revenue is around $1,663. Jihadwatch.com receives 759 pageviews per day and generates nearly $2.28 in advertising revenue. Jihadwatch.com has recently shown a 33% Growth in the traffic rank. Jihadwatch.com has outbound links from #77 website. Jihadwatch.com appears to be hosted in United States
=================================================
Compare that to loonwatch
===============================================
http://www.Loonwatch.com is ranked #250,817 in the world according to Alexa’s three-month traffic rankings. Loonwatch.com has the pagerank #5. The estimated website net worth based on its advertising revenue is around $9,605. Loonwatch.com receives 4,386 pageviews per day and generates nearly $13.16 in advertising revenue. Loonwatch.com has recently shown a 1% Loss in the traffic rank. Loonwatch.com has outbound links from #231 website. Loonwatch.com appears to be hosted in United States
November 30th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Isn’t that amazing guys?
November 30th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
That really surprises me Aamir! Seriously, I never never expected that. What about old Pam’s site?
November 30th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Absolutely amazing, and quite surprising in fact!
November 30th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
In fact i was expecting the opposite..it is awesome!With Danios’s Jihad coming soon i am expecting it to increase enormously..
November 30th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
All thanks to Jihadbob n halal pork..(no sarcasm)
November 30th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com is ranked #28,139 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Visitors to the site view 1.4 unique pages each day on average. Visitors to the site spend roughly three minutes per visit to the site and two minutes per pageview. Roughly 76% of visits to Atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com are bounces (one pageview only). Compared with internet averages, it appeals more to users who are over the age of 45; its visitors also tend to consist of higher-income, childless men browsing from home who have attended college.
I have no idea where they get these profiles from, but they are funny!
December 1st, 2010 at 7:24 am
@ Dawood:
That’s not their tagline; it’s the loonwatch description
December 1st, 2010 at 7:30 am
Imad, yes I know, but it’s a classic and good to see it on there. The senior citizens issue confuses me though, unless lots of readers are using their gran’s PC and internet connection or something?
December 1st, 2010 at 9:15 am
Dawood Everyone of them is Robert Spencer , older men who attended college higher income etc
He just goes there a lot
December 1st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
45 year old childless men sitting at home visiting atlas shrugs? Are they sure what kind of site it is?
Well, she did post a video of herself in a bikini that made right wing loners go crazy…
A 51 year old in a bikini…They must be desperate!