Having been a very strong advocate of religious tolerance and pluralism, it is with great reservation in my heart that I publish the Understanding Jihad Series, which compares violence and war in the Judeo-Christian tradition to the jihad of Islam. Certainly, the intention is not to target one particular faith or religious group. Quite the contrary, the goal is to prevent religious majoritarianism, whereby the dominant religious and cultural group is able to target weaker, poorly represented minority populations. These articles are meant to prevent a certain level of religious smugness that has become quite prevalent today. In the words of Prof. Philip Jenkins, “Jews and Christians…so ignore their own scriptures that they become self-righteous” towards Muslims and Islam.
The aggressive way that anti-Muslim propagandists have pushed the Islamophobic idea–that Muhammad/Islam/Quran/Sharia/Allah are so uniquely violent and warlike–has made it almost impossible for me not to write such articles. The data makes my case overwhelming: a recent Pew Research poll found that almost half of U.S. adults think that the Islamic religion is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, a figure that has almost doubled since 2002. A clear majority of conservative Republicans (66%), white Evangelicals (60%), and Tea Baggers (67%) believe Islam is more violent than other religions, with a plurality of whites (44%) and older folks (42-46%) also thinking this. (Of note is that blacks, Hispanics, and liberal Democrats are significantly less bigoted towards Islam.) The idea that Islam is more violent than other religions–held most strongly by old white conservatives–is a key pillar to the edifice of Islamophobia. The need for the Understanding Jihad Series seems self-evident.
Any time Islam is mentioned on the internet, pseudo-experts ferociously start copying and pasting a litany of Islamic texts to whack Muslims over the head with. This anti-Muslim sentiment, fueled by profound ignorance (of both their own scriptures and Islamic), is no longer limited to fringe elements and has found its way into the mainstream. Pro-Israeli hawks, in particular, have tried to transform this bigotry of Islam from a merely theological tussle into state policy. It is hoped that pointing to Judeo-Christian scriptural sources that are far more violent than what is quoted from Islamic sources will instill in the extremist Zionists and Messianic Christians a level of religious humility.
My fear in so doing, of course, is of offending well-meaning Jews and Christians. Indeed, while it is true that there is a definite link between Zionism and Islamophobia, it is also true that some of the most effective defenders of Muslims are in fact Jews. These include such notable personalities as Glenn Greenwald, Richard Silverstein, Jon Stewart, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal, and–without naming names–even some writers of LoonWatch (gasp!). To be absolutely clear, I do not think that Judaism and Christianity are violent religions. What I am simply trying to prove is that just because certain Quranic verses seem violent, one cannot make sweeping statements of the religion based on this…no more so than showing certain violent Biblical verses would prove the inherent nature of Judaism or Christianity. When people from the majority group realize that their own religious tradition also has “problematic” texts, they are usually more hesitant to rush to judgment about other faiths.
Although in the past I have compared Islam to Christianity–such as when I compared the traditional Islamic concept of “dhimmi” to the traditional Christian concept of “perpetual serf”–in the Understanding Jihad Series the comparison will more often be made with Judaism. The reason for this is that it is much easier to compare Islam to Judaism because both are very similar in basic structure. The Jewish Halacha is equivalent to the Islamic Sharia and the rabbinical tradition is analogous to the Islamic jurisprudential tradition. The similarities between the two religions are actually quite uncanny. Therefore, it makes sense to invoke this comparison.
The reader should not think that I believe that a certain religion or another is violent. Rather, there exist peaceful and violent interpretations of religion. I reject the view held by religious orthodoxy that the human mind is simply an empty receptacle that unthinkingly “obeys” the divine plan. Hundreds of years after their prophets have died, believers (of all faiths) are forced (by virtue of not having a divine interlocutor) to exert their own minds and ethics to give life to texts, to render 3D realities from 2D texts. Such an elastic idea–that a religion is whatever its believers make it into–is certainly anathema to orthodox adherents who simply desire a step-by-step instruction manual to produce human automatons. But the truth is that even these orthodox adherents necessarily inject into the religious texts their own backgrounds, beliefs, and biases.
One can see why I do not think that simply showing a Biblical verse here or there would prove that Judaism or Christianity are violent faiths. There is a long journey from what is on the page to what is understood and put into practice. And once this reality is comprehended, it is hoped that Jews and Christians will gain a larger perspective when they approach Muslims and their religion.
It should be noted of course that not all Islamophobes are Jewish or Christian. Many are ex-Muslims who feel that their former religious affiliation gives them a free pass to be bigoted. This is hardly surprising, given that historically the worst oppressors of the Jewish minority in the Western world were actually ex-Jews converted to Christianity. Though they think of themselves as truly special, there is nothing unique about apostates from a religion; they have existed throughout history, and it was not uncommon for their zeal for their new religion to convert into wholesale bigotry for what they left behind.
When I argued that Moses was more violent than Muhammad, one critic pointed out that atheists would condemn both. Yet, one only needs to glance at anti-Muslim websites to see that these atheistic Islamophobes try to (and need to) prove that Muhammad/Islam/Quran/Sharia/Allah are uniquely violent. Short of proving this uniqueness, their agenda fails. Thus, it hardly matters to the effectiveness of my article whether or not one believes in Jewish or Christian prophets. If we use the exact same standards applied to Islam to all religions and find them to be as violent or more violent than Islam, then what exactly is their point? This question is what my articles force onto them, to which the “I am not a believer” excuse hardly suffices.
There will definitely be those militant atheists who genuinely can’t tolerate any religious faith. These are the equal opportunity haters. But because they do not single out Islam, I am less bothered by them. Although many of their rantings are childish, they are not as destructive because they do not specifically target vulnerable minority populations.
Having thus expressed my general discomfort in writing these articles, I hope my readers can take into account context and intent. If, for example, a white supremacist site compiled a list of all criminals that are black, this would be a clear case of bigotry. An effective and appropriate way to counter this list would be to produce an even longer list of white criminals. Even though the action is the same (producing lists of criminals of a particular race), it is the context and intent that are all important. It is in a similar fashion that I am producing a “counter-list” of Biblical verses to counter the popular list of Quranic quotes that Islamophobes like to share. LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series will categorically answer the question that an alarmingly high number of Americans answered incorrectly: is Islam more likely than other religions to encourage violence?
I would nonetheless strongly caution overzealous Muslim readers from using these articles to stir hatred against Jews and Christians, noting that Islam has no shortage of “problematic” texts.
March 11th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Well said, Danios.
March 11th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So you’ll be addressing the mainstream interpretation of key Koranic passages & Hadith to show Islamophobes their misunderstanding of Muslim texts and teachings?
March 11th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Well put-this Jew is glad that you are tryinh to understand BOTH faiths, because both religions certainly have issues
March 11th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
TRYING to understand
March 11th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Great explanation, Danios. I look forward to reading more.
Really, at the heart is this: one shouldn’t cast stones in a glass house.
March 11th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
If you could also explain the meaning and reasoning behind the “problematic” texts in Islam. Everyone of them is fairly easily explained by either knowledge of the situation in which the verse was revealed or by the next verse which qualifies what looks to be a harsh verse.
March 11th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Violence is the eternal state of man. To blame it on religion, schooling, upbringing, society etc is oh-so-boring to me.
That muslims *can* be violent should be a no-brainer. But no matter what the right-wing jackasses try to do, Islam is the fastest growing major faith in the world and will God willing continue to do so, because it appeals to people of all ethnicities, color, social status and race at a very very fundamental level.
About the “problematic” texts in the Quran – well the truth is that there are none. It is problematic mostly only to non-muslims who don’t necessarily have the patience to sit down and read the Quran in its entirety. There are lots of “problematic” *cultural* issues with Arabs and other parts of the world that oftentimes get mixed up with Islam.
Like “honor killing.” There’s absolutely nothing in the Quran or in the sayings of the prophet to condone this, but it happens in “muslim” countries. So people think Islam is a problem.
Rape is a lot more common in non-muslim countries. We never associate rape with faith, do we?
March 11th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Give it up.
March 11th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Thank you for this piece, Danios. I particularly appreciated the portion at the end where you mentioned that these articles should not be used to stir hatred towards Christianity or Jews. I don’t think fellow LWers would do so, but visitors to the site could misconstrue your intent and this article does a great job of allaying those fears.
In light of this article, I think your other article (and more to come, God-willing) can be understood in the fashion that you intended and I applaud your efforts. Keep ‘em coming.
March 11th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Aanand is clearly not familiar with Islamophobic rhetoric. Perhaps he should take a gander at Robert Spencer’s book, which is quite popular amongst right-wingers and even some on the Left. I think refuting this garbage is important, because unfortunately it has seeped into politics.
March 11th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
@Aanand – “Rape is a lot more common in non-muslim countries”
I didn’t realise that. I have always assumed sex crime rates were roughly the same in all countries irrespective of the dominant religion. Do you have a link where I can read about that?
March 11th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
this will make a good debate between the jihad watchers (being honest on thier side) and the Loonwatchers. I look forward to your series, I have seen some great analysis here, and alot of great commenters too.
I want to say that parting White Evalgelicals, Tea Patiers, and “conservative’ Republicans as seperate demographics in polling is like saying I am a different person because I change my clothes.
March 11th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I disagree Nur Alia, while I don’t support the Tea Party, many people from the Tea Party are bigger loonwatchers than us and they think this whole “Islamic terrorism” thing is concocted up to distract people.
March 11th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Danios
I’m sorry you feel discomfort.
Kubla Khan was more violent than Mother Teresa
Stalin was more violent than my English teacher
Moses was more violent than Muhammed
So what? What point are you “trying” to make?
There all dead, they’re not going to hurt anyone nor do any good works – there six foot under.
More’s the point – what is their legacy?
Moses – Moses Baskets
Stalin – pointy moustache
My English teacher – nice lady was a good Catholic and did many good deeds.
Muhammed – a lot of people who live in difficult circumstances follow him, they have quite extreme ideas about daily life: stone the adulterer (if it’s a woman), throw gays off tall buildings.
I’d follow my English teacher any day.
March 11th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Oh, by the way, I guess you my have realised – my English teacher, was a good lady, but not a good teacher.
March 11th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I was just flicking through Spencer’s book since NassirH published a link to it, and I found a hilarious sentence, which demonstrates exactly what Danios’ point is. Spencer says, page 19:
“There is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Quran’s exhortations to violence”
Wow.
March 11th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
(WHAT IF THEY WERE MUSLIM TIME)
FIVE CHARGED IN ALLEGED PLOT TO KIDNAP OR KILL TROOPERS, JUDGE – TOP
Casey Grove, Anchorage Daily News, 3/11/11
Five people in the Fairbanks area were arrested Thursday by state and federal law enforcement on charges connected with an alleged plot to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge, according to the Alaska State Troopers.
Francis “Schaeffer” Cox, Lonnie Vernon, Karen Vernon, Coleman Barney and Michael Anderson are accused of conspiring to commit murder, kidnapping, and arson, as well as weapons misconduct, hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence, according to trooper spokeswoman Megan Peters in a written statement late Thursday.
An investigation “revealed extensive plans to kidnap or kill Alaska state troopers and a Fairbanks judge,” the statement said. The plans included “extensive surveillance” on the homes of two Fairbanks troopers, the statement said.
“Investigation also revealed that extensive surveillance on troopers in the Fairbanks area had occurred, specifically on the locations of the homes for two Alaska state troopers,” the statement said. “Furthermore, Cox et. al. had acquired a large cache of weapons in order to carry out attacks against their targeted victims. Some of the weapons known to be in the cache are prohibited by state or federal law.”
March 11th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Should be interesting. And it should be good discussion. But there are some who would rather just hate and belive and repeat lies than learn
March 11th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
A very noble effort danios and respect for time and hard work you put in. It is a piece that is very much neeeded in the anti loon blogosphere.
However I do have to make the point that these loons deal in lies and ratings. Truth does not enter the equation. It’s very much a shouting contest and in their small minds whomever shouts the loudest is clearly telling the truth.
Case in point: if you went through JW website and pointed our the lies and deception line by line. You then presented your findings to the contributers of JW and some of their loony bloggers.
Do you think that they would change their opinion or even give your work a second thought.
They don’t care about the truth.
It’s about lies and smears and how effectively they can project their bigotry on the simetimes unsuspecting public.
I do think that your work will make a difference to us antiloons as a point of reference.
So for that, thank you!
March 11th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Here is a great article about Christians and Muslims
http://rt.com/news/iran-people-church-tv/
I was shocked too, it’s in Iran!
March 11th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I came across this website while I was searching the Internet: http://www.evilbible.com/
March 11th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Arman, that website is run by a militant atheist who despises Christianity. It’s probably not unlike the numerous Islamophobic websites guilty of outright libel.
March 11th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Knock yourself out with the Brick Testament, the bible stories told in Lego:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
It’s fun!
March 11th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Good website, Jack! For those who found Danios’ article on Moses too long, they can just use the Lego version.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/massacre_of_the_amorites/dt02_34b.html
Yay! Lego!
March 11th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Danios, I look forward to reading the upcoming articles. May I suggest that you drop a link to this article in the future articles as well? That way, anyone who happens upon the site, say, in a couple weeks’ time or so, and reads the upcoming pieces, will be able to put them in the right context as you say.
As for the “problematic” texts in Islam, it’s quite clear that Danios was referring to the fact that it is possible to find a litany of verses/texts in Islam that might “appear” problematic if not properly understood, same as would be the case with Christian or Judaic textual material.
March 11th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I think both Evil Bible and The Brick Testament are hateful sites that are best to avoid. I do not see the difference between them and a lot of the anti-Islam websites that exist.
March 11th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
I watched the Riz Khan show Danios has linked to above and frankly I don’t think Riz ought to have had the Muslim guy on at all. It completely diluted the Professor’s message and it appeared, especially initially, that the Muslim had misunderstood the Prof’s work and perhaps saw him as a sort of critical opponent of Islam.
March 11th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I think the difference between a website like The Brick Testament and anti-Islam hate sites, is that the Brick Testament doesn’t make claims about Christianity or Christians being wicked or evil.
March 11th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Danios, you are a lamp of light in a sea of darkness…May you continue to shine always…Keep up the good work…
March 12th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Danios and Dawood:
Are you going to respond to “The Translated’s” new allegations? They don’t seem very difficult to address, and he further exposes himself by making the following claim.
That being said, Loonwatch is being dishonest when they say that the Arabic word nikah, which they translated as ‘marriage/betrothal’, “does not mean sexual intercourse at all.”
In actuality and in context, this was what was posted on Loonwatch (note that “The Translated” cuts out the word “here” in his quotation of Loonwatch):
The proper translation of this line is actually as follows: “and from this verse we take the permissibility of betrothal/marriage (nikah) with prepubescent girls.” The word nikah here does not mean “sexual intercourse” at all. In fact, the mufti issuing the fatwa says the exact opposite: namely that although a girl may be betrothed when she is prepubescent, no sexual intercourse ought to occur until (1) at least after she passes puberty and (2) she can physically bear it without any harm to her.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:10 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the zany Kinana of Khaybar is gloating about the above on JihadWatch’s comments sections. Apparently he didn’t read Loonwatch’s rebuttal, but instead got his info solely from “The Translated.”
If I remember correctly, I once saw a comment of his claiming that a majority of Muslims believe that offensive warfare is justified. I’m sure Loonwatch will refute this claim in its upcoming series on Jihad.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:29 am
“noting that Islam has no shortage of “problematic” texts”
Excellent article, I would say there is no problematic texts in islam. Well maybe in the Hadith but no problems in the Quran.
Muslims follow the Quran, hadith is just secondary. If you can find ‘problematic VERSES’ in the Quran that would be great. I want to see how Islam answers to those verses.
March 12th, 2011 at 6:33 am
It seems that both Al-Mutarjim and SATV have only been blogging on Loonwatch this week. Obviously, Loonwatch’s articles were so devastating to their reputation that they feel they have to attack Loonwatch before anyone takes the rest of their articles seriously.
Any one can see that their articles are a desperate attempt to take the focus away from the real issue.
SATV also responded to Danios’ article on Moses. He didn’t respond to what was in the article but instead launched a rant on the Prophet’s actions against Pagan caravans.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:09 am
This is a commendable effort to educate, and enlighten people of other religious backgrounds about the context in which violence is allowed in Islam, and the desire of evangelicals especially, to draw attention away from their own scripture. They would sometimes deny the Old Testament to be Christian scripture(in hopes of escaping criticism), yet defend the Zionist aspirations of some Jews who uphold the Old Testament.
While I am not trying to distract you from your goal, it would be even better to address people with no faith, who assume that that(being atheists) gives them the moral superiority to disparage Islam, without having to be criticized in return. They too, draw from the pool of misinformation perpetuated by the Zionist loving evangelicals.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:18 am
quote iSherif: “May I suggest that you drop a link to this article in the future articles as well? That way, anyone who happens upon the site, say, in a couple weeks’ time or so, and reads the upcoming pieces, will be able to put them in the right context as you say.”
LW can probably do that, seeing they have a bar up top with links to articles on Islamophobes. Categorizing these articles seem to be one of the more important things to do. For example, this article can neatly be inserted as a preface/prologue of the entire Understanding Jihad series.
The trackback for this post links to Stormfront? o_O
March 12th, 2011 at 9:37 am
I don’t understand why one can’t address the claims of Robert Spencer rather than engage in ‘what-aboutery’ arguments.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:52 am
“I don’t understand why one can’t address the claims of Robert Spencer rather than engage in ‘what-aboutery’ arguments.”
How about he refutes some of the stuff here then? Don’t act all dumb now…
March 12th, 2011 at 9:55 am
“The trackback for this post links to Stormfront? o_O”
Stormfront are split between hardcore racists who hate everyone not like them and hardcore racists who are even more hardcore anti-Semites and thus want to ‘ally’ with Muslims because they think we hate Jews. Thus, they go back and forth fighting each other over whether to ‘recruit’ Muslims. Pathetic bunch the lot of them.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:56 am
How about he refutes some of the stuff here then? Don’t act all dumb now…
Well, I certainly think Danios’ treatment of the dhimmitude being ‘abolished’ should be addressed by professionals, since the experts I read give a different spin to the matter of dhimmitude being quasi abolished by the Ottoman empire – as all Hadd punishments were – to saying dhimmitude is no longer a theological reality in Islam.
That would be like saying hand chopping is no longer part of Islam. It is, just as dhimmitude is.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:57 am
The trackback for this post links to Stormfront? o_O
Lol, that’s exactly what I thought.
Oh and Bob, are you honestly going to sit there and say that this site didn’t “address” the claims of Robert Spencer? Much less refute entire chapters of his disgrace to the lives of trees everywhere.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:10 am
“Well, I certainly think Danios’ treatment of the dhimmitude being ‘abolished’ should be addressed by professionals, since the experts I read give a different spin to the matter of dhimmitude being quasi abolished by the Ottoman empire – as all Hadd punishments were – to saying dhimmitude is no longer a theological reality in Islam.
That would be like saying hand chopping is no longer part of Islam. It is, just as dhimmitude is.”
Put your money where your mouth is please.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:30 am
“Well, I certainly think Danios’ treatment of the dhimmitude being ‘abolished’ should be addressed by professionals”
Spencer is a professional Muslim hater. In fact, he actually did respond when the epic dhimmitude article came out. Danios replied and then Spencer shut up.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/robert-spencer-is-a-chicken/
Why did he shut up, Bob? Why was he unable to defend his claims? Indeed, Robert Spencer is a chicken — and not a halal one either.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:43 am
RDS, that thread at the neo-nazi hate site is interesting. One of the morons, ColdStar, was ranting about creeping Sharia and why we should ban Muslim immigration to America, and something about Muslims including Spain into “Dar al Islam”. ColdStar actually reads JihadWatch! If you go back a bit, you can see that he links to it a lot.
They were having a discussion about Jihad and some other forum member posted this article to see how ColdStar analyses it.
His response:
“I don’t like it!
It is nonsensical and confusing.”
Whenever someone links to a LW article, it automatically gets written here. Even if that someone happens to be a racist. I think it should be removed.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:52 am
“RDS, that thread at the neo-nazi hate site is interesting. One of the morons, ColdStar, was ranting about creeping Sharia and why we should ban Muslim immigration to America, and something about Muslims including Spain into “Dar al Islam”. ColdStar actually reads JihadWatch! If you go back a bit, you can see that he links to it a lot.”
JW’s views and Stormfront’s views share a lot of commonalities which is hardly surprising, and you’ll notice that from the thread. However, as I said, plenty of Stormfront people try and ‘recruit’ Muslims as Jew hatters, playing on false perceived prejudices against Jews.
In reality, Stormfront’s views have a lot in common with groups like Al-Queda. Yet they don’t get a special hearing in the US Congress…
And quote of the week from that thread has to be:
“If we could not resist them, how can we even dream of being able to resist the Muslim Jihad? Nondiscrimination statutes and hate crime laws will see to that.
The lunatic fringe makes the laws and has them enforced. That same lunatic fringe has declared Jihad on all of us by dragging the Muslims into our lands.”
I have to laugh at them calling others a “lunatic fringe”
March 12th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Mosizzle, why is it ‘Islmophobic’ to say that Spain is part of dar al Islam?
Are these people ‘Islamophobes, do they read JihadWatch?
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/07/islamist-territorial-goals-illustrated.html
March 12th, 2011 at 11:14 am
‘”Mosizzle, why is it ‘Islmophobic’ to say that Spain is part of dar al Islam?”
I didn’t even say it is Islamophobic to claim that Spain is part of dar al Islam.
.However, it is Islamophobic to fear that Mooslims of Spain will rise up and overthrow the Spanish government just as it is anti-semitic to say the same about Jews. On Stormfront, you will find both.
By the way, nice to see you defend White Supremacists.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Bob, are you going to add something or just be stupid as usual? Pulling up random links again? You are dull.
And I’m still waiting for all these ‘experts’ views you have read r.e. LW. Again, money where your mouth is or bugger off please. Thanks.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:28 am
“do they read JihadWatch?”
I wasn’t speculating whether he reads Jihadwatch or not. The guy actually does read JW and admires Robert Spencer. It doesn’t really mean anything, I just found it interesting how he hates Islam so much that the doesn’t mind reading pro-Israel sites, even though Neo-Nazis hate Jews.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:36 am
And I’m still waiting for all these ‘experts’ views you have read r.e. LW. Again, money where your mouth is or bugger off please. Thanks.
Danios’ argument is that since the Ottomans, by adopting Western systems of governance (Napoleonic, English Common Law), abolished dhimmitude, this thus means dhimmitude is no longer theological reality in the world today.
I pointed out the Ottoman empire also abolished Hadd punishments and, therefore, the same considerations regarding dhimmitude should also be applied to hand chopping, etc in Islam.
We can test Danios’ belief that dhimmitude is no longer a theological reality in Islam by examining if hand chopping has similarly been abolished.
If hand chopping has been abolished in Sunni Islam, then I would also feel compelled to agree with Danios that dhimmitude has similarly been disregarded by Muslim legal scholars.
If hand chopping is alive and well in a number of Muslim majority/Islamic states – and there is no question over its implementation and its relation to Islam – then I feel obliged to disagree with Danios that the discriminatory laws of dhimmitude have been repealed.
Hopefully we can agree to that.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Is it alive and well in states that were part of the Ottoman Empire Bob?
March 12th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Guys in lawn chairs who want to take over Spain…
What does that have to do with anything again? Or perhaps a better question would be, why is Bob unwilling (or unable?) to refrain from moving goalposts? I’m sure he’s just as enraged at Islamophobes who think Turkey is occupied and deserves to be ethnically cleansed of its Muslim population—but then again, JihadBob regarded that as a “noble effort.”
Perhaps you should crawl over to Stormfront, where you can find many like-minded loons who feel the same way you do about Islam and Muslims.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:49 am
You are such a tool Bob and I know where you got that, don’t try and pretend it’s your own.
So, because hand chopping, a completely irrelevant part of ‘Islamic Law’ to what we are talking about is not removed (debatable, it isn’t practiced much) then ‘dhimmitude’ isn’t even though it is? That is is like claiming that although murder and stealing have been outlawed, becuase people still steal, murder hasn’t been outlawed.
And the fact remains that nearly no ‘Islamic State’ does ‘hand chopping’, even those few that do (care to name them? Oh we have… Iran, Somalia and Saudi maybe… hmmmmm, representative…) don’t do it much. And the fact still remains that *no* ‘Islamic State’ practices ‘dhimmitude’.
NEXT!
March 12th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Is it alive and well in states that were part of the Ottoman Empire Bob?
Well, Hamas is pushing for a return to true Islam, so I guess it’s only a matter of time before Gaza witnesses more criminals sentenced to hadd punishments.
But if Egypt doesn’t punish people with hand chopping (although you don’t dispute Sudan (?), Pakistan, Saudi and the UAE do), isn’t that more because of colonialism and the Ottoman’s political reforms than a reform in Hanafi/Maliki (not sure which school most Egyptians are) school of jurisprudence?
March 12th, 2011 at 11:54 am
“That is is like claiming that although murder and stealing have been outlawed, becuase people still steal, murder hasn’t been outlawed.”
Exactly.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
“Well, Hamas is pushing for a return to true Islam, so I guess it’s only a matter of time before Gaza witnesses more criminals sentenced to hadd punishments.”
Proof please… especially for the laughable ‘true Islam’ shite = hadd.
“But if Egypt doesn’t punish people with hand chopping (although you don’t dispute Sudan (?), Pakistan, Saudi and the UAE do), isn’t that more because of colonialism and the Ottoman’s political reforms than a reform in Hanafi/Maliki (not sure which school most Egyptians are) school of jurisprudence?”
Sudan it happens in areas under the control of nutters, Pakistan has it where the Taliban are in control (not the govenment), Saudi is also full of nutters and I’ll need data for the UAE.
This is dull bob, I hope you are enjoying your foolishness becuase I am not, I do it from necessity, like explaining to a child why it’s bad to pick up dirty things.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Forgot about Somalia.
Jack, the truth is, is that Saudi is the only pure Islamic state out there (Afghanistan was and Somalia is on its way to becoming one). The other nation states have been tainted with non-Muslim/Islamic beliefs.
This is the legacy of colonialism and the Ottoman empire’s reforms that Muslims I talk with deeply despise.
But I think you missed my point. Dhimmitude is part of the same legal superstructure that hand chopping is. If Danios’ argument that dhimmitude is abolished in Islam because of the secular minded reforms of the Ottoman empire, then that means we should see hand chopping is similarly abolished in Islam because the Ottomans banned all Hadd punishments.
What we see, however, is that countries that follow Islamic law for criminal matters (Egypt follows Islamic law for family cases), hand chopping is still practiced.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
That means, then, that dhimmitude is most likely not abolished within Islam, since hand chopping is not abolished.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“Forgot about Somalia.”
Under the control of AQ types, i.e. nutters.
“Jack, the truth is, is that Saudi is the only pure Islamic state out there (Afghanistan was and Somalia is on its way to becoming one). The other nation states have been tainted with non-Muslim/Islamic beliefs.”
Proof that these are ‘true Islam states’, I don’t think you will find any that agree with you there.
“This is the legacy of colonialism and the Ottoman empire’s reforms that Muslims I talk with deeply despise.”
You don’t talk with Muslims, please don’t lie. If you do, we know the sort that you cherry pick to ‘talk’ to.
“But I think you missed my point. Dhimmitude is part of the same legal superstructure that hand chopping is. If Danios’ argument that dhimmitude is abolished in Islam because of the secular minded reforms of the Ottoman empire, then that means we should see hand chopping is similarly abolished in Islam because the Ottomans banned all Hadd punishments.”
Repeating for the terminally stupid:
“That is is like claiming that although murder and stealing have been outlawed, becuase people still steal, murder hasn’t been outlawed.”
“What we see, however, is that countries that follow Islamic law for criminal matters (Egypt follows Islamic law for family cases), hand chopping is still practiced.”
No it doesn’t.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Bob is pretending that Danios refuted only one of Robert Spencer’s claims in regards to dhimmitude. In reality however, there are numerous lies in Spencer’s books. For example, Spencer claims that the Pact of Umar was rigidly enforced when the reality was quite the opposite. Spencer also, in his response to Loonwatch, claimed that the Doctrine of Witness never existed—which is, again, a blatant lie. There are other examples but that’s aside the point: Danios completely ripped Spencer’s arguments apart. There’s also the refutation of Spencer’s arguments on taqiyya and other subjects, both major and minor. Loonwatch’s case against Spencer is airtight, and anyone who denies that is either stupid or kidding themselves.
As for Bob’s absurd new non sequitur conflating dhimmitude with Hadd punishments, it’s complete baloney. Truly ridiculous. Danios writes:
“Spencer’s claim–that no Islamic “authority” or “sect or school” has ever “abrogated” the laws of “dhimmitude”–is quite simply false. It is a boldfaced lie or profound ignorance, either of which casts great doubt on Spencer’s “scholarship.” Over 150 years ago, the caliph (supreme leader of the Islamic world) abolished the dhimmi system entirely. In 1839, a caliphal decree known as the Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane was issued, implicitly recognizing the equality of all Ottoman subjects, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. In 1856, ‘the Hatt-i Humayan [was issued], in which the principles of 1839 were repeated and the guarantees of the equality of all subjects were made more explicit. Thus, Muslim and non-Muslim were to have equal obligations…and equal opportunities…’”
March 12th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Bob: None of those places – bar Palestine and Egypt (which don’t have hudud laws, let us be clear) – were part of the Ottoman Empire, so your point is moot.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Here is another in thousands of examples of your “religion of peace” in action!!! Deny this happened, I challenge you looney tunes:
Islamic antisemitism — and just like with the Nazis, the world remains silent. From the AP, with their obvious bias (which I removed):
“Palestinian” is code for Muslims in Israel. Just like “Asian” is code for Muslim in the UK. And “youth” and “immigrant” (despite having been native born) in France or Denmark is code for Muslim.
ITAMAR, West Bank – A Palestinian infiltrated a Jewish West Bank [Judea and Sumaria] settlement early Saturday and killed five people, the Israeli military said.
Israeli media is reporting that the dead are all members of the same family — parents and three children. The family — including an 11-year-old, a 3-year-old and an infant — was all stabbed in their sleep, the YNet website reported.
The military says it is sweeping the area in search of the perpetrator and has set up checkpoints throughout the West Bank. It has instructed all residents to stay in their homes during the extensive sweeps.
[....]
The attack took place in the middle of the night against a religious community on the Jewish Sabbath.
The attack was reminiscent of a similar one against Itamar in June 2002, during the height of the violent Palestinian [Muslim] uprising, when a gunmen burst into the home of a family and opened fire.
The mother of the family and three of her children were murdered. Another two children were seriously injured and a local security official was shot to death as he tried to help.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Danios’ argument is that since the Ottomans, by adopting Western systems of governance (Napoleonic, English Common Law), abolished dhimmitude, this thus means dhimmitude is no longer theological reality in the world today.
I pointed out the Ottoman empire also abolished Hadd punishments and, therefore, the same considerations regarding dhimmitude should also be applied to hand chopping, etc in Islam.
We can test Danios’ belief that dhimmitude is no longer a theological reality in Islam by examining if hand chopping has similarly been abolished.
If hand chopping has been abolished in Sunni Islam, then I would also feel compelled to agree with Danios that dhimmitude has similarly been disregarded by Muslim legal scholars.
If hand chopping is alive and well in a number of Muslim majority/Islamic states – and there is no question over its implementation and its relation to Islam – then I feel obliged to disagree with Danios that the discriminatory laws of dhimmitude have been repealed.
Hopefully we can agree to that.
So, according to your line of reasoning, if hand chopping and other hadd punishments still exist as a reality today, then that must mean that dhimmitude does as well, because both are seemingly derived from Islamic theology, and both were abolished by the Ottoman Empire over 100 years ago.
However, by that same token, if one exists where the other does not, then this association of yours (between dhimmitude and hadd punishments) becomes false.
Furthermore, dhimmitude historically was, unlike the hadd punishments, initally very circumstantial and ephemeral. This would make its application much less of a theological reality than the hadd punishments.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Jack, this Wiki article says the punishment for theft in Pakistan may include hand amputation.
It didn’t source its claim other than a link to Pakistan’s constitution covering Hudood laws, which mentions stoning and some other stuff but I didn’t read anything on amputation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance#cite_note-0
March 12th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Don’t feed the troll
March 12th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Jack, this Wiki article says the punishment for theft in Pakistan may include hand amputation.
It didn’t source its claim other than a link to Pakistan’s constitution covering Hudood laws, which mentions stoning and some other stuff but I didn’t read anything on amputation:”
1. you quote wiki
2. no it doesn’t, read it
3. you quote wiki
4. it is completely irrelevant to your ‘argument’ even if you do
March 12th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
*4. even if it does
March 12th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Jack, there was some news from 2008 that Hamas legislators were seeking to implement crucifixion and hand chopping in the Gaza strip:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts
You can also search ‘hamas hand chopping’ on google and come across a Hamas children’s program published on Jihad Watch where Hamas tackles the issue of hand chopping as a punishment for thieves to children.
Certainly that program that was broadcast on Hamas TV makes it difficult to spin it as Hamas opposes or does not approve of hand chopping.
Re: UAE – I’ve heard from residents who live/lived in Sharjah that hand chopping is still implemented. Hopefully a resident of Sharjah can confirm this for us.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Bob’s argument is absolutely absurd. That because Hudd punishments exist means that the Ottoman Empire didn’t abolish dhimmitude—a classic non sequitur. It says a lot that this is the best “argument” the loons can come up with. I mean linking to now abolished laws in Pakistan that have nothing to do with the dhimmitude?
March 12th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“Jack, the truth is, is that Saudi is the only pure Islamic state out there (Afghanistan was and Somalia is on its way to becoming one). The other nation states have been tainted with non-Muslim/Islamic beliefs.”
Rubbish. Please explain why Osama wants to overthrow the Saudi government if it is the only pure Islamic state. “Tainted with non-Muslim beliefs”? You’ve been reading too much Qutb.
“What we see, however, is that countries that follow Islamic law for criminal matters (Egypt follows Islamic law for family cases), hand chopping is still practiced.”
Haha. Pakistan follows “Islamic Law” thanks to Zia. He, as well as a few clerics, changed the constitution to make it more “Islamic” yet he didn’t add Hand chopping or Dhimmitude or a punishment for apostasy.
Sounds like your argument is melting away.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“Jack, there was some news from 2008 that Hamas legislators were seeking to implement crucifixion and hand chopping in the Gaza strip:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts”
Great, random link that they were trying to implement something at some point in time maybe probably maybe = bugger all towards your ‘argument’.
“You can also search ‘hamas hand chopping’ on google and come across a Hamas children’s program published on Jihad Watch where Hamas tackles the issue of hand chopping as a punishment for thieves to children.
Certainly that program that was broadcast on Hamas TV makes it difficult to spin it as Hamas opposes or does not approve of hand chopping.”
Hamas = nutters who should be in prison as far as I am concerned, why should I care what they think when it is wrong and the only way they can enforce it is via fear and brainwashing? Clearly if it were true, they could do it without resorting to that.
“Re: UAE – I’ve heard from residents who live/lived in Sharjah that hand chopping is still implemented. Hopefully a resident of Sharjah can confirm this for us.”
Really? You heard of some random person? This is somewhat of a recurring pattern with you…. anyway former resident of Dubai who worked in Sharjah right here, no they don’t.
Admit it bob, you are here to troll and nothing more, none of your ‘arguments’, as usual, hold water. Please go now or contribute something useful.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Bob’s argument is absolutely absurd. That because Hudd punishments exist means that the Ottoman Empire didn’t abolish dhimmitude—a classic non sequitur.
No, I think you misunderstand.
I totally agree with you that the Ottomans abolished both Hadd punishments *AND* dhimmitude – good for them, I say.
But my point is whether we can conclude that dhimmitude (and therefore Hadd punishments) have been abolished in Islam.
Islam =/= Ottoman empire
March 12th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Just look at Bob’s “evidence.”
-Random, pro-Israeli blogs
-The hate site JihadWatch
-I’ve heard from residents who live/lived in Sharjah that hand chopping is still implemented. Hopefully a resident of Sharjah can confirm this for us.”
-This is the legacy of colonialism and the Ottoman empire’s reforms that Muslims I talk with deeply despise.
Is anyone else highly skeptical of a few of these?
March 12th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Islam =/= Ottoman empire”
The Muslims have to honour the decrees of the Khalifa that were approved by the Sheikh ul Islam. The only way they can probably not do so is if a new Khalifa comes and abolishes the previous decrees.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Rubbish. Please explain why Osama wants to overthrow the Saudi government if it is the only pure Islamic state. “Tainted with non-Muslim beliefs”? You’ve been reading too much Qutb.
Why don’t you go ask him yourself? In the meanwhile, why don’t you ask him which of Saudi’s legislative laws he would change or establish if his ilk were to take control of Saudi?
Haha. Pakistan follows “Islamic Law” thanks to Zia. He, as well as a few clerics, changed the constitution to make it more “Islamic” yet he didn’t add Hand chopping or Dhimmitude or a punishment for apostasy.
We’ll see. I remember reading an article of Pakistani doctors who refused to perform amputations because of the Hippocratic Oath they took.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
No, I think you misunderstand.
I totally agree with you that the Ottomans abolished both Hadd punishments *AND* dhimmitude – good for them, I say.
But my point is whether we can conclude that dhimmitude (and therefore Hadd punishments) have been abolished in Islam.
Islam =/= Ottoman empire
This is a strawman. Firstly, Spencer claimed that no authority in the revised or abrogated the laws of dhimmitude, which a palpably false claim. Secondly, Islam is not a monolith. You seem to have a desire to interpret our religion for us, and by concluding that “Islam hasn’t abolished dhimmitude” is a fallacious argument you reveal an essentialist and shallow view of the religion on your part.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
So he went from using the Ottoman Empire to represent Islam in his first post here, to denouncing it as not representative of Islam in less than 3 hours? What the…?
March 12th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“Why don’t you go ask him yourself”
You’re such a moron. Osama wants to overthrow because even he believes it to be un-Islamic. He called the Emirate of Afghanistan the only Islamic country in the world. Gadahn said that all 57 Muslim countries of the world are apostate states so according to the people who you believe to be true Muslims, no country in the world is purely Islamic and hence you can’t use examples from these countries to make a point about Islam.
Loon fail.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Danios
You say “These articles are meant to prevent a certain level of religious smugness that has become quite prevalent today”. Sorry I can’t help being smug.
Heard this news?
Officials have blamed Palestinians for the overnight attack, which left a couple, two children and a baby dead in the Itamar settlement, near Nablus.
The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported. BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12721170
Obviously as a typical Muslim you would celebrate the murder of Jews in Nablus, and cheer the killer for his zeal in killing Jew babies. I’ve also seen a Utube video yesterday of a Egyptian Imam extolling the Nazis for there methods of extermination of Jews (one of his comments was: “look here how the Germans can cut the heads off 5 Jews in one go”).
See I can feel smug in the knowledge of how undeniably sick and twisted the Islamic religion is.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Ok, I acknowledge theft is not punishable with hand chopping in Pakistan.
I apologize for my error.
I still believe hand chopping is punishable in Sharjah.
Hand chopping is punishable in Saudi Arabia.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
But my point is whether we can conclude that dhimmitude (and therefore Hadd punishments) have been abolished in Islam.
Hadd punishments do not equal dhimmitude. They are two, totally different things. There were some countries that based their laws on Catholicism when it came to divorce—are we to conclude that the Doctrine of Witness wasn’t abolished in Christianity because those laws existed? You’re only exposing the weakness of your argument by conflating the Hudd punishments and dhimmitude.
March 12th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“You say “These articles are meant to prevent a certain level of religious smugness that has become quite prevalent today”. Sorry I can’t help being smug.
Heard this news?
Officials have blamed Palestinians for the overnight attack, which left a couple, two children and a baby dead in the Itamar settlement, near Nablus.
The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported. BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12721170”
So one person does something bad = you being ‘superior’ to them? Who shall we next judge by the content of their prisons and headlines? So feel ‘smug’, but also realize how foolish it is.
“Obviously as a typical Muslim you would celebrate the murder of Jews in Nablus, and cheer the killer for his zeal in killing Jew babies. I’ve also seen a Utube video yesterday of a Egyptian Imam extolling the Nazis for there methods of extermination of Jews (one of his comments was: “look here how the Germans can cut the heads off 5 Jews in one go”).
See I can feel smug in the knowledge of how undeniably sick and twisted the Islamic religion is.”
That bollocks and you know it, damn well nearly slander in fact to suggest such a thing don’t you think? ‘Typical Muslims’ do *not* celebrate the death of *anyone*, other than in the abstract whereby you ‘celebrate’ their achievements in life. I would suggest not jumping in like that, it’s foolish. And so what if some nut ‘Imam’ states such a thing, does it make it ‘Islamic’ or right or representative? Of course you will find such things you youtube, can find them from all sorts of people.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
So one person does something bad = you being ‘superior’ to them? Who shall we next judge by the content of their prisons and headlines? So feel ‘smug’, but also realize how foolish it is.
I thought his point was, as usual, there’s a certain high level of projection when it comes to making claims of non-Muslims.
Just the other day, an Egyptian cleric called for the killing of Copts.
Religious smugness?
March 12th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“I thought his point was, as usual, there’s a certain high level of projection when it comes to making claims of non-Muslims.
Just the other day, an Egyptian cleric called for the killing of Copts.
Religious smugness?”
No, I don’t think it was, I think his comment was just daft.
And so you just go and do it again? Representing one as all? I’d like to see this ‘cleric’ you keep quoting…
March 12th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Hadd punishments do not equal dhimmitude.
Agreed. Just as polygmany is not the same as Hadd punishments nor dhimmitude. Not sure of the ban on Muslim women being able to marry non-Muslim men – which is enforced in Egypt.
Is that ‘dhimmitude’?
There were some countries that based their laws on Catholicism when it came to divorce
Yes, but divorce (other than adultery, in which the marriage is annulled) is still prohibited by the Catholic Church. That some nations that have a Catholic heritage have moved to allow divorce has not changed the status of divorce from within the Catholic church.
Similarly, the Ottoman empire abolished hadd punishments and dhimmitude within its national borders. I see no evidence to conclude that either hadd punishments or dhimmitude has been abolished in a general sense from within the schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.
are we to conclude that the Doctrine of Witness wasn’t abolished in Christianity because those laws existed?
We would have to assume Danios’ reporting of that particular doctrine was accurate and that the church, not individual nation-states, still adheres to the doctrine.
But yes, I would agree with you. If Spain went through a radical transformation in the 17th century and abolished the accepted stances of the church regarding these two doctrines (amongst others), that wouldn’t mean the two doctrines were/are no longer relevant to Catholicism as a civilization.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
JihadBob, in which countries is Dhimmitude still practiced? Which Muslim governments collect Jizya? What about Iran — it rejects the authority of the Sunni Ottoman Empire so surely Khomeini must have reintroduced the Jizya…
What about Saudi Arabia?
That is a more appropriate discussion rather than talking about which countries enforce Hudood punishments.
Even Qaradawi says that Jizya is no longer applicable on non-Muslims.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Similarly, the Ottoman empire abolished hadd punishments and dhimmitude within its national borders. I see no evidence to conclude that either hadd punishments or dhimmitude has been abolished in a general sense from within the schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.”
Again, show examples of where this enforced by an ‘Islamic Government’ and that is not Saudi or Iran. And the same for ‘dhimmitude’. You can’t. That is your evidence.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“I see no evidence to conclude that either hadd punishments or dhimmitude has been abolished in a general sense from within the schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.”
The Caliph has more authority than everyone else. If he abolishes these punishments, with the approval of the Sheikh al Islam, then they are abolished. Kind of like how the opinion of the Pope is more important than that of a bishop.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Thankfully for fos you can’t slander a belief. Problem is, because these people aren’t censured (the Egyptian Imam) it provides ammo with which to shoot Muslims. Imagine if someone said that in Europe, they’d get well censured; 3 years in jail most like.
and – hey pal – before you whine on about people taking pot-shots at your religion, get your house in order, lock these preachers of hate who incite violence up, boot out all the dodgy Imams. Yeah they can have their freedom of speech, let them vent their hate to some cows in a field, not a mosque or on an Arab news network
March 12th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The Ottomans for the most part represented the Hanafi school in its later manifestation – even South Asia relies on one of the later Ottoman Damascene Hanafi scholars as an authority in the school. This was Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1836), and his son ‘Ala al-Din Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1888) was part of the committee which drew up the Mejelle and other parts of the legal reforms the Ottomans enacted in the mid-late 1800′s.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Man, did I ever get a headache going through Bob’s comeback ‘arguments’. I can totally understand why he was banned, as he’s nothing more than a troll. He brings absolutely nothing to the table intellectually, and just drags a thread along with most of its commentators off-topic. Not very productive to say the least.
March 12th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“I see no evidence to conclude that either hadd punishments or dhimmitude has been abolished in a general sense from within the schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.”
Firstly, it isn’t “Hadd punishments or dhimmitude,” but instead only “dhimmitude.” Hudd punishments are completely irrelevant to the argument. When Spencer claimed that ‘dhimmitude’ has “never been abrogated or revised by any authority,” was he lying or ignorant? The Ottoman Caliph himself and numerous Islamic scholars have “revised and abrogated” the laws of dhimmitude; to deny this because Saudi Arabia or Somalia have Hudd punishments is completely dishonest, and only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.
Secondly, your claim that dhimmitude hasn’t been abolished in the schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence is also irrelevant, and reveals your essentialist view of Islam (see above link). Again, the same argument could be made against the Church in regard to its doctrines. Your retort was also predictable, hence the following from Danios’ article:
“I have a nagging suspicion that Spencer will now move the goalposts, and argue that there are some ultraconservative Muslims who don’t have such enlightened views about the topic. But that was not his claim. His claim was that no Islamic authority has ever “abrogated or revised” the dhimmi laws.”
March 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Danios, I’ma have to pull you up on something. Can you stop describing atheists as militant? Someone saying that religious people are deluded is not anywhere in the same league as people who blow up planned parenthood clinics. Someone being hacked off that religious institutions get tax breaks is not anywhere in the same league as flying planes into buildings. Atheists do not go round nicking land off people because of a divine mandate. An atheist writes a book and s/he’s a “militant”. For a religious person to be the same they have to murder someone! As for being dangerous (“Less dangerous”, yeah, because whilst we aren’t out to blow you and your shit up, a billboard might fall over!), seriously? How am I dangerous? What danger does an atheist pose to you? Honestly, you moan about double standards, and then say something that dumb. :-/
March 12th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
^ Badger, I used the phrase “militant atheist” in a non-literal way, but I get what you are saying. Perhaps “intolerant atheist” would be more accurate.
March 12th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
how about we all complain about danios to look cool so people know that we are “real men”.people should be more appreciative for him to spend time putting together articals, but my complaint is that he spends to much time replying to comments. If you dont like whats said (not people like jihad bob and ahni there good for readers to see how stupid islamaphobes are) just deleate the comment. Remember anand?
, though i agree that the picture should not have been there he ruined a hole thread by ranting about danios, it wasnt even a real debate,just two sides ranting going no where. Also if some one says a stupid comment like “muslims are terrorists” with no evidence just deleate it or preferably ignore it just dont use a whole comment space.
March 12th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
It seems there is alot of discussion about why Islam IS more prone to violence than other religions by our resident anti Islam people…
Now lets discuss the other part of the topic. Please convince the Muslims why other religions are less prone to violence than Islam.
Muslim brothers and sisters responding to the anti Muslims…
Please dont let them control the conversation. It isnt a debate if one side is ALWAYS defending thier posistion. A debate is two or more sides laying out a posistion, giving basis for holding that posistion (which is lacking in the anti Muslims) and the other side rebutting it.
REMEMBER…BOTH SIDES !!!
March 12th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I love how these morons with no idea what the Quran says come in here and say that saudi Arabia practices true Islam.
I suggest you read the Quran because under true Islam a man cannot be a king. Pure Islam rejects the idea of royalty and Man’s sovereignty over man.
March 12th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Nur Alia
“Now lets discuss the other part of the topic. Please convince the Muslims why other religions are less prone to violence than Islam”
Woa that’s a real hard one, er let me think, ooh ooh I got it: Jesus says love your neighbour as yourself. When some smart arse tried to trick him about who was his neighbour he told a tale of the Good Samaritan (in Jesus’ day Samaritans were considered to be a bunch of scum bags) – anyone can be your neighbour (that means non-Muslims as well). Ooh ooh please I got another one: Jesus said “it’s said love your neighbour, hate your enemy, I say love your enemies”. Now I fink that’ll help me be less prone to stoning an adulteress if I take it on board. Oh yeah there’s the one about the adulteress, she was about to be stoned to death, Jesus said you who are without sin cast the first stone – the crowd all buggered off.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
John, explain why more of the world’s violence has been caused by people who are Christian, both religiously and culturally, than anyone else. Obviously, a few Christians of the past had not interpreted Jesus’ words as you have. In terms of statistics, throughout history, Christianity seems to be more prone to violence. But unlike Islamophobes, we don’t blame Christians or their faith for the violent actions of a few.
People of all religious groups have been violent — even Buddhists and Hindus.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Call me a hypocrit for refuting, but you havnt even read the quran and there are many verses in the quran that support peace. Refuted in one sentece. Try not to post stuff that is so easily destroyed. “Do not slay the hand thats out to slay you” prophet mohomad (pbuh).
March 12th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
i just realized how violent seming the quote by the prophet (pbuh) could sound, please dont think ill of me.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
A follow-up article will address Robert Spencer’s comparison between Muhammad and Jesus.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Defenderofislam: Could I ask then about Surat al-baqarah 2: 190-193? This Surat is oft cited by extremists as justification for violence against the west. It has been cited by notables such as Osama Bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri themselves. I’ve read the Surat carefully in Arabic and various translations in English, and it seems to say that Muslims should fight/kill those who reject Islam and fight against Muslim (rule) *wherever they are found. If the infidels merely reject Islam but don’t fight (Muslim rule), there should be no aggression against them. Violence is only for, and this seems a key word, ظالمين zalimin (oppressors) – those who not only reject Islam, but oppose (and fight against) the Uma – or Islamic Nation, which presumably has no borders. So when radicals claim that their violence against the west is justified by the Quran, are they not correct? When you all speak of “Islamaphobes” ( الظالمين perhaps?), doesn’t this Surat suggest that you should literally fight/kill them where ever they are found? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m asking sincerely.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Nadir:
Your argument is a very weak one, which I will thoroughly refute in a follow-up article.
I will repeat the comment I made in part 1 of the Series:
I have studied the Islamophobic arguments very deeply. In order to refute them thoroughly, one must peel away at each layer of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is like an onion, so one must start from the outside and peel away each layer of lies. Whenever I refute one particular layer of lies, Islamophobes will not defend it. If their arguments are sound, why don’t they defend it instead of moving goalposts?
For example, they claim that Muhammad was the most intolerant, violent, and warlike prophet ever. OK, that’s an argument. Now stick by it or concede defeat if refuted on that particular point. When I prove that Moses was more violent, then why not defend your initial statement (that Muhammad was the most intolerant, violent, and warlike)…instead of moving to the next trite argument, i.e. that Muhammad is revered as perfect by Muslims whereas Moses is not by Jews.
[Or, in this case, Nadir has moved to another layer and argued about a particular verse in the Quran...instead of dealing with the issue of Moses vs. Muhammad.]
This pattern has quickly emerged when the Islamophobes reply to my articles. They will jump to the next layer of lies. But then–rest assured–I will peel away *that* layer. Then they will jump to the next layer. And so on and so forth.
But eventually, I will have destroyed the entire onion of lies. And that’s exactly what I did with the issue of “dhimmitude”. It was a very carefully planned series of refutations. They have nothing left now when it comes to “dhimmitude”. Every substantial argument has been refuted on that topic.
The same will occur with this topic of “jihad” and “violence” in Islam.
My question to Nadir is:
(1) Have you conceded this particular layer of the onion, namely that Moses was far more violent and warlike than Muhammad?
Do you concede defeat on this point? Yes or no?
Try not changing the argument.
(2) Alternately, you can try refuting my articles on “Dhimmitude.” Can you?
Why is it that Islamophobes always have to move to topics I haven’t addressed yet? There are like 1,452 arguments Islamophobes use, so they can always switch to another one when one of them fails. But why not stand up and defend the ones that I have actually thoroughly refuted?
You can’t, can you?
March 12th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Nadir:
That verse was discussed here. As you can see, the loon got pwned.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/12/asra-nomani-can-learn-a-thing-or-two-from-lesley-hazelton-about-the-quran/#comment-44231
March 12th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Nadir: My posts above the one linked by NassirH go into further detail regarding the verse in question.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
^ Watch him change his argument now.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:10 am
John Trinci
Thank you for your attempt. However, you have a problem with just quoting the passages, storys and so on from the New Testement of the Bible, and not the old.
Your problem is, that Jesus is God thing. You see, God is an eternal being, he knows all, and wills all…do you agree with this?
This isnt about whether Jesus is God…that isnt my arguement, and of course as a Muslimah, you already know my posistion on this. So dont attempt to change the topic.
So…if Jesus is God to you, and God is an eternal being, then you must admit that Jesus, in some form, according to the Bible ordered all of the killing without mercy. He ordered the harsh punishments found in the Bible as well, including stoning.
You see how you cant seperate the two in your beliefs? It is a very simple, logical and reasonable conclusion.
Now, please convince me through Biblical scripture (because that is what is used to indite every Muslim for the criminal actions of some) that Christianity is LESS PRONE to violence than Islam.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:14 am
“Please convince the Muslims why other religions are less prone to violence than Islam.”
Well, there are not nearly as much Buddhist terrorist groups around the world, blowing shit up and displacing people. There are not nearly as much Hindu terrorist groups around the world. There are not nearly as much Christian terrorist groups around the world. There are not nearly as much Jewish terrorist groups around the world.
When is the last time a Christian terrorist group blew up a disco or a train or subway station in the name of Christianity? No, seriously, I’d like to know.
And also, I’d like to know the name of the Christian equivalents to Sayyid Qutb or Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and so on and so forth.
And while you’re at it, give me the names of the Christian equivalents to Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Harakat Shabaab al-Mujahidin, Jemaah Islamiya, Laskar Jihad, Dzhamaat Modzhakhedov, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, al-Jama’ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallaha.
Show me the Christian equivalent to the Taliban.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:26 am
Jack:
You can’t look at one moment in history—the last thirty or so years, for example—and conclude something like that. Looking back at the last century, I’m sure one could find a multitude of non-Muslim terrorists who invoke their religion to justify their actions. The fact that the Muslim world is far more religious, and thus more likely to invoke religion, also needs to be considered.
Personally, I don’t think that any major religion promotes terrorism. Even the Zionist Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, agrees with me, as he said “At no time did the [Muslim] jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism [in Islamic tradition].”
March 13th, 2011 at 2:15 am
“Well, there are not nearly as much Buddhist terrorist groups around the world, blowing shit up and displacing people. There are not nearly as much Hindu terrorist groups around the world. There are not nearly as much Christian terrorist groups around the world. There are not nearly as much Jewish terrorist groups around the world.”
Not these days, but in the past yes. And just as often as not, it wasn’t terrorist groups, it was fully sanctioned by government.
“When is the last time a Christian terrorist group blew up a disco or a train or subway station in the name of Christianity? No, seriously, I’d like to know.”
The US ‘Christian’ government has bombed many civilians to bit, but they are seen as ‘government’ for some odd reason that makes it alright…
“And also, I’d like to know the name of the Christian equivalents to Sayyid Qutb or Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and so on and so forth.”
There are plenty, I can google them if you want, but you will find hundreds online with their own little followings.
“And while you’re at it, give me the names of the Christian equivalents to Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Harakat Shabaab al-Mujahidin, Jemaah Islamiya, Laskar Jihad, Dzhamaat Modzhakhedov, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, al-Jama’ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallaha.”
Again, we have ‘governments’ but we also have such groups just waiting waiting waiting to hatch, you can see them all over the internet and many are getting ready for ‘war’.
“Show me the Christian equivalent to the Taliban.”
See above
I think the point here is everyone has their nutters, it’s just how they are 1) reported, 2) which side of the ‘fence’ you are on and 3) the historical time period.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:16 am
Nur Alia
You asked: “Now lets discuss the other part of the topic. Please convince the Muslims why other religions are less prone to violence than Islam”
Then you backtrack:
“You see, God is an eternal being, he knows all, and wills all…do you agree with this?”
This is just simply setting up a false premise from a Muslim perspective, and in any case why are you bringing god into it?:- “prone to violence” we were talking about people today being prone to violence as a result of their beliefs – which are influenced by the particular religion they adhere to – not if gods are violent or not.
“if Jesus is God to you……”
How is that relevant? If you’re a Christian it’s a matter of New Covenant and Old Covenant or evolution of ideas – depending on the Christian’s stance. Taking your question (at the top) that’s all that matters, what does it matter what atheists think (“there’s nothing logical about religion – you believe in sky fairies”), or Jews think (“hogwash Jesus wasn’t God”), or Muslims think (what you just said)?. The point is: is the Christian in the street made more or less prone to violence by his or her religion?
Why don’t you download a new testament in pdf and tap in “love” or “forgive” and other non-violence words and then compare that with the Koran in pdf and you’ll get the picture.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:34 am
“The point is: is the Christian in the street made more or less prone to violence by his or her religion?”
They are equally prone since in reality religion has very little to do with it. I am sure if China invaded the USA, we’d start seeing a lot of very violent Christians all of a sudden!
“Why don’t you download a new testament in pdf and tap in “love” or “forgive” and other non-violence words and then compare that with the Koran in pdf and you’ll get the picture.”
I’d suggest you do it first…
March 13th, 2011 at 2:37 am
I did.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:40 am
“Why don’t you download a new testament in pdf and tap in “love” or “forgive” and other non-violence words and then compare that with the Koran in pdf and you’ll get the picture.”
John Trinci, it doesn’t take a genius to find “amiable” parts of both the Qur’an and Bible. Of course, doing such would mean jack shit to you if you’re like Roland Shirk, who believes that the verses extolling peace in the Qur’an are inspired by Satan.
“If you should raise your hand against me to kill me – I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you. Indeed, I fear Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (5: 28)
“And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend” (41: 34)
“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.” (Abu Dawood)
“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” (Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon)
March 13th, 2011 at 3:03 am
Here is another in thousands of examples of your “religion of peace” in action!!! Deny this happened, I challenge you looney tunes:
Hmmm… a Palestinian murdering a Jewish family… is supposed to demonstrate what exactly?
That Palestinians can commit murder just like anyone else?
That hardly seems related to Islam or Muslims in general.
The reality, is that you’ll never find a “religion of peace” in action because religions don’t “act” at all, people do.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:11 am
” I am sure if China invaded the USA,…”
I’m sure your right – so what?
This is the topic – remember:
Nur Alia
“Now lets discuss the other part of the topic. Please convince the Muslims why other religions are less prone to violence than Islam”
The fact that followers of a religion believe their leader said “love your enemies” makes them less prone to violence – sure it wont stop all of them from chopping heads off and sucking out the blood with a straw – but it has a positive effect.
Now – a religion whose followers believe their leader says “fight your neighbours who don’t believe what you believe”; is, I’m sure you agree, a religion that is more prone to violence? You would expect them to make more of a pastime of killing or making life difficult for their neighbours who don’t believe what they do. Sure it wont stop all of them from being nice and kind – but it has a negative effect.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:15 am
I don’t get where this argument is going, especially from the point of view of the islamophobes. Muslims commit more acts of violence (mostly in the third world) than most other people; therefore we should restrict their civil freedom here in the west? I mean, what other purpose do police blotter websites like JW serve other than feed and fortify that mentality? Even they’re realizing how utterly stupid that line of argumentation is, so they had to cook up this whole ‘muslims are taking over the world’ conspiracy. Surely if they are trying to overthrow our government, it’s perfectly okay to discriminate against them right? Or so the argument goes.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:24 am
NassirH Says:
” it doesn’t take a genius to find “amiable parts of…”
It’s irrelevant what I think about the Koran – I’m not a Muslim. It is relevant what Muslims think about what the Koran says about how they should act.
Awesome
“Palestinian murdering a Jewish family”
I didn’t say Palestinians killed anybody, allegedly some did – it’s irrelevant. My concern is with some muslims’ reaction to the killing.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:27 am
John Trinci:
So you’re basically comparing the best verses in the Bible to a non-existent verse in the Qur’an? Please see my above comment citing verses in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It seems that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, as exemplified by your absurd claim that “a typical Muslim you would celebrate the murder of Jews in Nablus.”
Hmmm…now why would a Palestinian be miffed off at Israel? It must be because of Islam, no doubt. He woke up one day, read the Qur’an and decided to kill Jews! Forget the fact that over a billion other people read the Qur’an and have reached a radically different conclusion. Obviously, the fact Israel has expulsed and killed hundreds of thousands has nothing to do with the man’s actions. There have been about 40+ Palestinians killed for every Israeli in the conflict (if my memory serves me correctly). I’m sure John Trinci is just as incensed about that as he is about non-existent verses in the Qur’an.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:53 am
John,
“fight your neighbours who don’t believe what you believe”
The Prophet Muhammad never said that. But if you want to take statements out of context, it’s only fair I do the same to Jesus and take his comments out of context.
“I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34)
“he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)
Many people love to claim that Jesus was a complete pacifist, and attack the Prophet Muhammad for waging war against the Quraysh, forgetting completely that they both lived in different time periods and different areas under different conditions. Also, Jesus did in fact do some violent things. Remember when he threw out the moneychangers from the Temple and destroyed their businesses when he got angry? Was he loving them as he loves himself? Clearly Jesus’ words weren’t meant to be taken so literally because at times he seems to allow violence that is necessary and at other times he seems to be condemning it completely.
“The fact that followers of a religion believe their leader said “love your enemies” makes them less prone to violence”
Obviously, that isn’t true because Christians, both religious and cultural, have killed more than Muslims have. What Jesus has said hasn’t had the effect that you claim.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:55 am
“I’m sure your right – so what?”
The point being that violence isn’t to do with religion since any faith can go ‘violent’ given the circumstances since someone can twist a faith. This adds further to you point:
“It’s irrelevant what I think about the Koran – I’m not a Muslim. It is relevant what Muslims think about what the Koran says about how they should act.”
Since most Muslims, not living in places where someone is invading them, don’t feel the need for violence. In fact, it can be said that Islam, like most faiths, has two ‘modes’, one for war, one for peace. That said, none of what the extremists do actually fits with Islam’s teaching on war…
I am trying to get what your point actually is here.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:15 am
Ah yes, Christianity, the religion of Peace, as opposed to that savage, political ideology of Islam.
Remember the Crusaders? Those loving, God-fearing Heroes of days past who ‘liberated’ and sacked Jerusalem – killing men, women, children, be they Muslims, Jews, and even their fellow local Christians. But it’s OK, because they were ‘Dhimmis’ (/sarc).
And let’s not forget the Inquisition, ah yes, the Prime example of religious tolerance and love. Tell that to the Morenos and Moriscos.
There’s many more examples of that kind of lunacy.
But the thing is, not every Christian – or even Christianity itself – is held responsible for these atrocities. Why is it then, that Islam and all Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of a few?
Did Jesus instruct its followers to commit said atrocities? No. But did it happen anyway? Yes. Did the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran instruct Muslims to attack and kill innocents? No. Does it happen anyway? Yes.
Why then, the double standards?
March 13th, 2011 at 4:23 am
I am a bit perplexed as to why people are drawn to any belief system, creed or group that wants to eventually dominate all others through empire building. To me that is a sure sign of someone getting killed somewhere. That’s why I avoid all groups like the plague. I don’t feel comforted by being part of a group. Maybe it’s my Aspergers…
March 13th, 2011 at 4:28 am
Awesome
“Palestinian murdering a Jewish family”
I didn’t say Palestinians killed anybody, allegedly some did – it’s irrelevant. My concern is with some muslims’ reaction to the killing.
@ John Trinci,
That comment wasn’t addressed at you.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:35 am
Farlowe, non-religious groups aren’t guaranteed to be peaceful either. Just look at China, the USSR, North Korea etc. The need to expand and dominate is still there without religion. Maybe it’s just human nature
March 13th, 2011 at 4:41 am
Mosizzle I totally agree. I wasnt just commenting on religions.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:08 am
I see. Well, in general, I think people want to dominate and spread their idea because they genuinely think it’s a good idea. Whether it’s communism or religion, people spread it because they really do think that it’s good for the people they are conquering. If violence has to be used, then so be it because in the end the conquered people will thank them (or so they think).
March 13th, 2011 at 5:16 am
Masa
“But the thing is, not every Christian – or even Christianity itself – is held responsible for these atrocities. Why is it then, that Islam and all Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of a few?”
You’re right – they shouldn’t. Islam must bring its nutters into line same as Christians. If a group belonging to a church started doing evil things like beating up Pakistani’s and supporting their actions with verses from the old testament, they should be thrown out of the Church one, and; two persuaded that there actions are wrong and repent (i.e. give themselves up to the authorities and go to jail)- then let them back in.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:29 am
John, thanks for understanding the difference between the extremists, the rest of the Muslims and their religion. And I agree that Muslims should do everything possible to contain the extremists and the West must not do anything that gives them more power, authority or recruits.
March 13th, 2011 at 6:13 am
/\/\/\/\/\
And that includes not letting nuts like Choudary have primetime TV interviews and attention in the media… yes, Muslims need to do a lot, but bloody hell help us!
March 13th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Danios: Your talent for being a presumptuous tool never disappoints. That wasn’t an “argument” – if you can set your contempt for all things not praising you aside for a second and read my post, you’ll see some honest questions there that I’m asking for an honest yes or no answer to. But first, to answer your questions:
“(1) Have you conceded this particular layer of the onion, namely that Moses was far more violent and warlike than Muhammad?
Do you concede defeat on this point? Yes or no?”
A: No. I can’t concede defeat on something I agreed with all along. But it’s of no consequence to me. To my knowledge, there aren’t any Christian or Jews citing the actions of Moses as justification to kill me and attack my homeland. If there were, I’d be be more concerned about Moses and the Old Testament than I am.
(2) Alternately, you can try refuting my articles on “Dhimmitude.” Can you?
A: I didn’t read your articles on dhimmitude, but will go look at them as time allows. Dhimmitude is not something I consider to be specific to Islam, so I tend to discount it as an anti-Islam argument.
Now can you answer the questions that I asked?
Q: When radical Muslims like OBL say the Quran permits them to attack the west (civilian and military targets) because the west has committed aggression against the Uma, are they not correct? After all, the west has committed aggression against Muslims in Muslim lands.
Q: Does the Uma have borders? If so, what are they? If not, does that mean that what you call “Islamaphobes” can be considered الظالمين and the Quran permits Muslims to literally fight/kill them?
March 13th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Nadir, please have a look at my comment linked above by NassirH, and the other comments previous to it when I delve into the tafsir of that particular verse in question.
March 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am
killing men, women, children, be they Muslims, Jews, and even their fellow local Christians. But it’s OK, because they were ‘Dhimmis’ (/sarc).
There were no Christians in Jerusalem at the time of the 1st Crusade, Masa. That may have been one of the reasons a minority of Crusaders hijacked the crusading movement and began killing Jerusalem’s inhabitants.
I condemn the act of killing innocents as I condemn all killings of civilians by ancient military forces.
And let’s not forget the Inquisition, ah yes, the Prime example of religious tolerance and love. Tell that to the Morenos and Moriscos.
Well, the inquisition only targeted Christians. Christians weren’t concerned if Jews or Muslims were secret Jews or Muslims, only if Christians were.
March 13th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Obviously, the fact Israel has expulsed and killed hundreds of thousands has nothing to do with the man’s actions.
I would like to see evidence that Israel has expelled or killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs.
Anyways, if you grant Palestinians license to hate Jews for these reasons, shouldn’t you allow Middle Eastern Jews to hate Arabs after they were pressured or forced to leave their homes in the Muslim world?
March 13th, 2011 at 10:07 am
“I would like to see evidence that Israel has expelled or killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs.”
The UN estimated in 1949 that there were 726,000 Palestinian refugees. Many of these were expelled, and many fled because of the violence and war between the Arab states and Israel. All of this is due to the fact that Israel was created. Had the state not been created, these refugees would still be in their own houses. It is understandable that the 4.7 million descendants of these refugees would still be very angry about what happened to them. Modern historians have different ideas about the cause of the Exodus. By the way, even Pro-Israel sources give a number of 400,000+
“Anyways, if you grant Palestinians license to hate Jews for these reasons…”
No one is giving a license to hate. Hate is wrong but we must understand why the Palestinians don’t like them. Similarly, the Middle Eastern Jews should not be hateful but if they do hate Arabs it is understandable. However, the majority of Israelis are not from the Middle East, so why do so many Israelis hate Arabs?
March 13th, 2011 at 10:09 am
The UN estimated in 1949 that there were 726,000 Palestinian refugees. Many of these were expelled
Ok, I just need a quote showing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were expelled by the Israelis.
Historians Benny Morris says the vast majority of Palestinians never saw a Jew as they voluntarily left their homes and towns to flee the upcoming war between the fledgling state of Israel and the combined might of several Arab nations.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:10 am
And let’s not forget the ongoing removal of Arabs from their land:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/the-real-ramifications-of-christian-end-times-lunacy/
March 13th, 2011 at 10:11 am
It’s also interesting the same could be said of Pakistan’s creation. Unfortunately that led to the displacement (and killing) of even a greater amount of people than the creation of Israel. To me, that Pakistan is Indian land is a fact rarely mentioned. Wouldn’t you agree?
March 13th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Well, the inquisition only targeted Christians. Christians weren’t concerned if Jews or Muslims were secret Jews or Muslims, only if Christians were.
Oh man, how I lol’d at that. You do know the condition for Muslims and Jews was convert or leave right? And in many cases, convert or be burned at the stake. Hazard a guess at where the terms crypto-Jew, and crypto-Muslim originated.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:28 am
“It’s also interesting the same could be said of Pakistan’s creation”
Hahaha. I absolutely love it when people bring out this statement. Are you really so stupid and blind? Did the Pakistanis come from the outside and steal Indian land? No, moron, the Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs were all living in British India and Pakistan was created in the NorthWest for the Indian Muslims to go. It was just a movement of population within the country itself that was arranged WITH the consent of both sides. Israel and Palestine is a whole different story. Only the Jews accepted the plan, and most of them had only populated the land recently whereas in India, both sides accepted the plan, and Muslims had been there for 500 years. Also, many Muslims disagreed with Jinnah’s proposal and stayed. Today there are about as many Muslims on the Indian side as there are on the Pakistan side.
The Pakistanis didn’t steal Indian land, they were Indians!
BMD also made the same argument and I discussed it here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/allen-west-says-keith-ellison-is-the-antithesis-of-american-values/#comment-52850
Lol.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Here are a couple of things that peace loving Jesus allegedly said in the New Testament:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” — http://goo.gl/37lf0
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” — http://goo.gl/SqR9w
I believe both were used by the crusaders
March 13th, 2011 at 10:39 am
“Unfortunately that led to the displacement (and killing) of even a greater amount of people than the creation of Israel.”
Well, *duh*, transferring 11 million people is going to more violent and difficult than transferring 500,000-700,000 people.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:47 am
“It is incumbent on all Muslims to wage jihad against the non-believers” Directly from your own Islamic doctrine. What is it about jihad that you looney tunes do not understand???!! Jihad of the sword? Jihad of the pen? Jihad of the spoken word? The violence and murder against Kafirs vis-a-vis jihad? Take your pick, jihad means to do bad things to Kafirs “whenever and wherever you may find them.” What is the matter? Are all of you Muslims “truthophobic?” Or are all of you Muslims just soooooo tired from playing the victim card and spending all of your waking hours spewing your Islamic bullshit propaganda?
March 13th, 2011 at 10:49 am
This is addressed to those who believe that only religious groups bring violence: not true! Some people use religion to justify their actions (i.e. terrorists like KKK and Al Qaeda). Some are motivated by power and greed, not religion (i.e. North Korean dictator). Some have political agenda (i.e. Far right nutters who are indirectly responsible for hate crimes here in the U.S.). So NO, it’s not always violence b/c of religions!
March 13th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Yet another moron…
*ignore*
March 13th, 2011 at 11:19 am
According to this idiot, jihad of the pen probably means stabbing those kafirs with a pen as hard as you can…repeatedly. Sorry, that’s pretty much the only ‘bad thing’ you could do with a pen I could think of.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Also ban stupid names, muslims may be offended by them such as the “allah”.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Jack…
In responding to one of my posts, you said this.
“…When is the last time a Christian terrorist group blew up a disco or a train or subway station in the name of Christianity? No, seriously, I’d like to know…”
Notice how you narrowed the targets of the evil doers. Does narrowing your placement of targets make Christianity less prone to violence than Islam, or is it selective history.
So, lets do what you did in responce.
When was the last time a Muslim terrorist group bombed a women’s center in America? Or…people or groups that affiliate themselves with Christianity lynch people because of thier skin colour, or send ideological agents into a church to shoot a man point blank because of his legal service to a community…in America.
Or…How many Muslims belong to the Lord’s Resitance Army, who have terrorized ‘in the name of Christianity’ for years…including rape of thousands of African women inclusing Muslims (of course, these CHRISTIANS belive that they are doing the will of God)
So…do we really want to continue this.
Oh…and that group, Lord’s Resistance Army, or the Klu Klux Klan, ‘soverign citizen’s’ groups, and people like Franklan Graham want to overturn democracy, and install thier own version of government…these are the equivilant of the Taliben…all of them justify thier ‘righteous duty’ in Christianity.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am
lol @ Cynic. so true! He really is an idiot!
I guess we should just take the insults and not fight back through words (jihad), just nod, and become doormats… or better yet, convert to their way of thinking and become “real Americans”.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
John Trinci…
Thank you again for responsing in a civil manner.
When you responded before to the original challange which was ‘Show us how Christianity is LESS PRONE to violence than Islam’…you used New Testement passages from the Bible, ignoring the old testement…as all apologists that have your point of view do.
However, if Jesus is God to you, and God is eternal to you, then Jesus…in some form had to have issued the edicts of savagrey, genocide, and merciless war as commnaded by God…right? Also the harsh punishments such as stoning were edicts from God according to the Bible…right?
So, you cant quote the New testement and not the old…because Christianity is the WHOLE Bible.
You also said this…
“… The point is: is the Christian in the street made more or less prone to violence by his or her religion?…”
Lets use your statement in context to modern life. In America, there are more murder, rape, and other violence toward other ‘people on the street’ in number of incidents than anywhere else on earth. In America, more people are in jail than live in most average sized cities in the world.
So…if the Christian on the street (as you put it) is less prone to violence by his or her religion, and 85%of Americans identify themselves as Christians…how is this possible?
And…one last word..in the form of a parable.
Say my husband wanted a gift to show me how much he loved me. He found a beautiful diamond ring and bought it. However, he didnt give it to me, but showed it to me from time to time and said…”this is how much I love you”…is it really a gift for me?
However, if he gave the ring to me, and told me how much he loved me…as I wear it, I cherish that love. The ring itself is just a ring, and means nothing by itself, but because it is a symbol of my husband’s love, the ring means to me, my husband loves me.
This is what ‘googling’ the number of times the word love appears in the Qur’an, compared to the Bible means to me. The word means nothing…just a sting of letters unless it has meaning.
This is because God created us, and everything we know with the ‘essence’ of his love toward us according to Islam. We wear it, see it, hear it, and live it should we choose to follow the will of God.
Please understand that God doesnt have to tell Muslims that they are loved. Thier existance is proof.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
^Also, one of the names of Allah is Al-Wadud — Most Loving.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Ok seeing how you cant see the obvious i will put it in your eyes, of course you will close them no doubt. In the Quran god is known for his mercy, it says that even if your sins are bigger than the earth its self that Allah will still forgive you. If this mercy isnt love than what is? It also has adam forgiven where allah tells him that he would still forgive him if his sins reached the heavens, is that a god who lacks love? In every sura, exepting one it opens “In the name of god the merciful the benificent”. Countless times in the Noble Quran allahs forgivness and love prevail the sins that the sinners have sinned (lol). Im not trying to smear christianity, but why would god need to die to forgive the world? That is among the few things that confuse me about christianity.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“Ok, I just need a quote showing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were expelled by the Israelis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out (expulsed) from their land due to the creation of Israel, many times due to Israelis themselves. Playing semantics won’t change that fact. In the Six-Day War, 300,000 Palestinians left the West Bank and Golan Heights. Even according to your hero, Benny Morris, less than 20,000 out of the 120,000 who applied were allowed to come back to their homes. As for deaths caused by Israel, it’s far above the 50,000 range, with some estimates at over a hundred thousand (when including Arab soldiers)
“Whereas the Palestinians, the Arab states, their supporters, and many Israelis assert that the refugees were forced by Israeli military or paramilitary units to leave their homes and property, the government of Israel has disclaimed responsibility, placing blame for the flight on Palestinian leaders and the surrounding Arab countries, which, Israel states, urged the refugees to leave. In recent years, several Israeli revisionist accounts have produced evidence that in many instances the Israeli military did force Palestinians to depart.”
Peretz, Don. “Refugees: Palestinian.” Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 1915-1916.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I was reading the comments above and I think I should correct my mistake that General Zia did not add Dhimitude and Amputation to the Constitution. I found out that he did add amputation to the constitution, but it has largely been rejected by judges so it is not enforced at all and so no one has ever been amputated in Pakistan. The punishment is the same as it is in the West and that is imprisonment. But none of this had relevance to the argument about Dhimmitude anyway. And let’s not start it up again, I want to see how Bob responds after he made the disastrous mistake of justifying Israeli expulsion of Palestinians by bringing up the Partition of India. If Bob wants to talk about Dhimmitude, he should do it on the relevant article.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Funny thing happened yesterday. Spencer got in a fight with one of his cult followers in JihadWatch’s comments section, because apparently he was accused of not supporting Israel enough. Spencer got really miffed and threatened to ban the commentator, calling him all sorts of nasty names—you could tell Spencer is extremely thin skinned, which is odd because he makes a living spreading hate against over a billion people. What’s especially ironic is that this took place under an article that downplayed (denied?) the Bosnian genocide, basically blaming the Muslims for the whole war and making Serbia out to be the innocent victim. Apparently he spends too much time being an apologist for Serbian war crimes instead of Israeli ones.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
John,
Is the old testament an ingtegral part of the Bible, or is it a buffet where you pick and choose sections here and there like the 10 commandments?
March 13th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
That was quite a funny incident. I always thought JWer “WildJew” was very loyal to JihadWatch. But now they’ve had a pretty hilarious bitch fight.
One anti-Spencer comment and Spencer is even ready to ban one of his loyal fans…
March 13th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
My father being an isreali muslim (palistinian roots) during the six day war, hid in a cave. Hes seen alot of things and he testifies that that was among the scariest things that happend to him. My nephew also claimed to have been hurt by zionist “jews”. My familie used to be wealthy but after zionists “bought” the land. I live i america, i do not remember isreal and im making plans to go there this summer. Im not complaining just sharing, the people who should be complaining are the people who are living in palistine where babies are shot on a weekly basis. I chalenge you to spend one month in gaza just one month. They wont have to tell you about the pain of isreals occupation you will see it.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I just realized how much that sounded like robert spencer excuse for hating muslims, you know familie exiled from turkey. The difference is i dont think the torah encourages violence i love jews just not the zionists who claim to be jews. Again i even think some zionists are decent people just misguided
March 13th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
JahilBob
“Well, the inquisition only targeted Christians. Christians weren’t concerned if Jews or Muslims were secret Jews or Muslims, only if Christians were.”
lol!
Tell that to the Jews..er…cryptojews!
“great harm suffered by Christians (i.e. conversos) from the contact, intercourse and communication which they have with the Jews, who always attempt in various ways to seduce faithful Christians from our Holy Catholic Faith”
Always trying to whitewash Christian repression, ay bobby boy?
March 13th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Dawood: Didn’t read the surrounding posts, and now I think I see that you are saying that the Surat must be considered in the context of the geopolitical realities of the time. Very fair point, I read a very good rebuttal to an OBL “fatwa” very similar interpretation of that particular Surat here:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/jihad/the-alleged-fatwa-of-osama-bin-laden-5643
I guess the question for me remains: if a Muslim were to draw parallels between the geopolitical realities of the time and the geopolitical realities of today, and felt “persecuted” and “attacked” as many Muslims do these days (and loonwatch tries very hard to confirm), would that person be wrong to interpret the passage as being just as applicable today as it was back then? Would it be fair for the person to take up arms against those he/she felt were الظالمين? This seems to be what many Jihadists are saying – they are acting in retaliation for aggression against the Uma. The link I provided above defines the Uma as a Nation State, which the author seems to suggest no longer exists. However, to many (most?) Muslims, Uma is the Islamic Nation – and it has no borders. It’s defined in ideological, rather than geographical, terms, isn’t it?
So when Bin-Laden says the Quran states that Muslims should literally fight الظالمين (al-zalimin; oppressors) who practice فتنة (fitna; persecution) against the Muslims, he’s correct isn’t he? It’s just that he’s possibly using much looser definitions of the words فتنة (fitna) and الظالمين (al-zalimin) than his more moderate counterparts, and equating events of the time to events of today.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I wonder why Nadir is so desperate in connecting his imaginary dots. News flash buddy: ‘feeling’ persecuted for th
March 13th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I wonder why Nadir is so desperate in connecting his imaginary dots. News flash buddy: ‘feeling’ persecuted for them to be ‘oppressed’. Examples of oppression would be invasions, pogroms etc. I think it’s absurd that you’re suggesting that Islamophobia as reported by this site is enough justification for OBL. You’d love that wouldn’t you Nadir?
March 13th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
“Whereas the Palestinians, the Arab states, their supporters, and many Israelis assert that the refugees were forced by Israeli military or paramilitary units to leave their homes and property, the government of Israel has disclaimed responsibility, placing blame for the flight on Palestinian leaders and the surrounding Arab countries, which, Israel states, urged the refugees to leave. In recent years, several Israeli revisionist accounts have produced evidence that in many instances the Israeli military did force Palestinians to depart.”
I’m not denying that some Palestinians were forced from their homes by Jews just as there were Jews in Palestine and the greater Arab world forced from their homes by Arabs, I’m asking for information regarding your allegation that 100′s of thousands of Palestinians have been killed or forcefully expelled by the Israelis.
So far I’m getting smoke screens and obfuscation.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
*** ‘feeling’ persecuted isn’t the same as actually being oppressed.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Why should I not take the Koran seriously when it claims to be a complete book and its passages clear?
The Koran ultimate revelation from God to mankind – timeless and universal.
I disagree with those who insist the Koran must be interpreted traditionally (with the aid of Hadith) when, to me, the Koran’s clear passages should be able to be understood without the need for outside sources.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Nadir: This seems to be what many Jihadists are saying – they are acting in retaliation for aggression against the Uma.
The Prophet(saw) said the Ummah is one body. If one part feels pain, all of it feels pain. If what the Jihadists are doing is good for the Ummah, all of us would be flourishing. The fact is, we are not. Considering that the death of a single innocent person is tantamount to the death of all humanity, and the Jihadists have claimed the lives of many innocent people, their actions have worsened the situation of the Ummah. The Jihadists are like gangrene. Unless the part of the body affected by this disease is amputated, the whole body will continue to suffer.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
JahilBob: Why should I not take the Koran seriously when it claims to be a complete book and its passages clear?
The problem isn’t why you should take the Quran seriously. The problem is why should we take YOU seriously when it is obvious that you are nothing but an uneducated, hateful troll?
March 13th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“I disagree with those who insist the Koran must be interpreted traditionally (with the aid of Hadith) when, to me, the Koran’s clear passages should be able to be understood without the need for outside sources.”
Of course, because you’re the great exegete JihadBob, whose abridged tafsir are widely respected the world over.. It’s ironic that you take offense to what you perceive to be Muslims interpreting Christianity for you.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
When has Bob ever used the “Qur’an alone”? The irony being that his interpretations are squarely against the Qur’an-only Muslims in almost every single respect…
March 13th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“I’m not denying that some Palestinians were forced from their homes by Jews just as there were Jews in Palestine and the greater Arab world forced from their homes by Arabs, I’m asking for information regarding your allegation that 100′s of thousands of Palestinians have been killed or forcefully expelled by the Israelis.”
There are two lies in your above comment. First, I didn’t limit the victims of Israeli to Palestinian Arabs, hence my comment “Israel has expulsed and killed hundreds of thousands.” Secondly, I didn’t say “Israelis,” but rather “Israel.” Can you deny that Israel’s creation has led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? The war in 1967, started by Israel, alone led to the displacement of about 300,000. The Israelis let only a tiny fraction return to their homes. No matter how many times you put words in others’ mouths, you can’t deny that hundreds and thousands of Arabs have been displaced and killed by Israel.
Also, you failed to read my comment. Arabs blame the Israeli military and paramilitary forces for the over 700,000 forced out of their homes. Israel says otherwise, so it depends on who you ask.
“Whereas the Palestinians, the Arab states, their supporters, and many Israelis assert that the refugees were forced by Israeli military or paramilitary units to leave their homes and property, the government of Israel has disclaimed responsibility, placing blame for the flight on Palestinian leaders and the surrounding Arab countries, which, Israel states, urged the refugees to leave. In recent years, several Israeli revisionist accounts have produced evidence that in many instances the Israeli military did force Palestinians to depart.”
March 13th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
“I disagree with those who insist the Koran must be interpreted traditionally (with the aid of Hadith) when, to me, the Koran’s clear passages should be able to be understood without the need for outside sources.”
Move over Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al JihadBob is here.
MufassirBob needs to shut up before he looks even more stupid then he already is. You’re the same fool who was whining that we shouldn’t tell you how to interpret your religion, yet here you are telling us how to interpret ours. Obviously you would rather draw conclusions based on half the verse out of context like you did with 9:7 (if you want to continue you that please do it on that article) and ignore what every important Muslim has said about it.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
A continuation of my above comment…
“Every year Palestinians commemorate the Nakba (“the catastrophe”): the expulsion and dispossession of hundreds of thousands Palestinians from their homes and land in 1948. In 1948 more than 60 percent of the total Palestinian population was expelled. More than 530 Palestinian villages were depopulated and completely destroyed. To date, Israel has prevented the return of approximately six million Palestinian refugees, who have either been expelled or displaced. Approximately 250,000 internally displaced Palestinian second-class citizens of Israel are prevented from returning to their homes and villages.”
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/171.shtml
Perhaps now, Bob, you could substantiate your claim that “a minority of Crusaders hijacked the crusading movement.” You have a penchant for demanding that others provide evidence for their claims yet never do the same yourself. Maybe you remember the time you made the unsubstantiated claim that “the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.” It turned out you made a complete fabrication, when I happened to look into it. Muslims became Christian out of a fear of deportation and when the Byzantines captured Cilicia, for example, they expelled the Muslim population. Just goes to show the lengths you’ll go (i.e. blatantly lie) to whitewash crimes, at least as long as the victims are Muslims.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
JustBob,
I notice that you are obsessed with hand chopping. If you are a thief and its bothering you, don’t go to Saudi Arabia.
Problem solved!
March 13th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
AJ, don’t invite him to start that again
He will only embarrass himself.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
EI?
Nice source. Is that where you had to go after failing to obtain a quote from any respected historian?
Smoke ‘n’ mirrors, Nassir.
Disappointed but not surprised.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Ibn Abu Talib: Thank you for the thoughtful response. I wish there were more responses like that, it would help temper the blogosphere I think.
Cynic: It would seem that many Muslims feel that the invasions and continued occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support to Israel, constitute persecution and oppression of Muslims. I take it you don’t see it that way?
March 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
“the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.”
I believe that quote was probably referring to when the Byzantines reconquered Anatolia and, instead of killing or enslaving Turkish troops, the Byzantines customarily offered them to switch sides and join their military.
Then again, if you’ve done any amount of reading of the Byzantine empire, you’d probably be forced to agree with the quote too.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“Disappointed but not surprised.”
Hey, it’s not my fault that you reject any source that goes against your preconceived notions. Even without the info on Electronic Intifada, what I asserted was clearly correct. Just look at everything else I’ve cited. Perhaps instead of sounding any lamer, you can respond by substantiating your claims. Byzantines? Crusaders? Nope? That’s what I expected.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
When has Bob ever used the “Qur’an alone”? The irony being that his interpretations are squarely against the Qur’an-only Muslims in almost every single respect…
Dawood, this comment was introduced to me when talking to a Muslim when interpreting the passages of the Koran. I had taken the route of quoting Tafsir to ‘prove’ the meaning of a Koranic verse but was explained that God in the Koran says his book is complete and its passages clear.
After that, I changed my method of discussing what the Koran says and began to only take a sola scriptura approach. Overall, I find Muslims play two types of games, one, if you do quote Muslim exegetes on the Koran, Muslims will ignore these scholars and simply understand a passage based on their reading of it. Most Muslims I find typically go this route.
The second is your approach of often times ignoring the plain meaning of the Koran and relying on historical texts and hadith to interpret the Koran.
Both ways have their merits and I’ve heard them explained in a logical manner, but I prefer the former rather than the latter if, for no other reason, why should we not believe what Allah says in the Koran of his book being complete and its passages clear?
Also, what do you do, Dawood, when the interpretation of passages by men conflict with each other? It becomes a game of which human you choose to decide what God is telling you rather than decide for yourself from God’s words directly what he tells you.
March 13th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
“I believe that quote was probably referring to when the Byzantines reconquered Anatolia and, instead of killing or enslaving Turkish troops, the Byzantines customarily offered them to switch sides and join their military.”
So apparently the Byzantines supposedly allowing Muslim soldiers to fight for them but expelling Muslim civilians counts as “the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.” Are you stupid? Also, you made no mention of Turkish troops in your original comment. What was that about “smoke n’ mirrors,” again?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/muslims-and-christians-condemn-baghdad-church-massacre/#comment-37484
March 13th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Nadir, you’re stating the obvious. Al-Qaeda believes that Muslims are oppressed and are fighting the oppressors. That is understandable. But they kill civilians, which goes against Islamic rules of warfare. In fact, they have become the oppressors, hence why Muslims can fight them.
Osama may like to quote the verse but he is blatantly violating the second part of the verse:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
March 13th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Nice source. Is that where you had to go after failing to obtain a quote from any respected historian?”
Lol. You’re the one who quoted the Israeli historian Benny Morris. Up until the ’80s Israelis believed that they never kicked any Palestinians out and that they all left freely. When Israeli documents were released, the New Historians such as Benny Morris actually revealed how Israel had in fact expelled many Palestinians. Right wingers accused him of being a traitor. But then Benny said something more worrying that now doubt pleased them very much:
“perhaps, had [Ben-Gurion] gone the whole hog [by expelling every single Palestinian], today’s Middle East would be a healthier, less violent place”
Professor Avi Shlaim, another Israeli historian, gave an appropriate response:
“What Israel carried out in 1948 was ethnic cleansing and what Benny is telling us now is that Ben-Gurion should have been more thorough and comprehensive in his policy of ethnic cleansing. Benny seems to have lost his moral bearings.”
“It is very ironic that Benny Morris, who has done more than any other scholar to reveal the full extent of Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 has come full circle and is today suggesting that Israel did not expel enough Palestinians in 1948.”
March 13th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
So apparently the Byzantines supposedly allowing Muslim soldiers to fight for them but expelling Muslim civilians counts as “the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.” Are you stupid? Also, you made no mention of Turkish troops in your original comment. What was that about “smoke n’ mirrors,” again?
Yes, because I look at centuries of customary practice instead of extrapolating several incidents to come to my conclusions. I’ve done my reading on Byzantine military history, I suggest you do the same.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
JustBob:
Here is your original comment regarding the supposedly “non-existent” persecution of Muslims in Byzantine territory:
“I am not aware of persecution against Muslims in regions re-conquered by the Romans…”
Now, when I pointed out you were mistaken, you went off about Turkish soldiers supposedly being allowed to fight for the Byzantines. Something that was completely dishonest, and certainly doesn’t indicate “the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.” In reality, the Byzantines were know to have expelled Muslims from the territory they conquered. And you have gall to claim that others don’t read? It’s a bit like how you whine about Muslims supposedly interpreting your religion, yet you forward interpretations of the Qur’an never before suggested by Muslims. Truly hypocritical.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Lol. You’re the one who quoted the Israeli historian Benny Morris.
Right, the most highly cited historian on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict (I believe) as opposed to ‘Electronic Intifada’.
If you’re not familiar with Benny Morris (whose work hacks on the Left base their own writings on – Norman Finkelstein for one) then I suggest you try reading his books.
It should become immediately obvious to anyone why Morris is widely regarded as the foremost leading historian on the conflict.
such as Benny Morris actually revealed how Israel had in fact expelled many Palestinians.
Not exactly. Morris simply disagreed with both narratives – the one used by the Israelis that the Palestinians left due to the calls by the Arab nations to evacuate and the one by the Arabs that Palestinians were forced from their villages.
He found instances of both, but the vast majority of Palestinians left on their own accord to avoid being caught between the fighting of the Arab armies and Israelis.
“What Israel carried out in 1948 was ethnic cleansing and what Benny is telling us now is that Ben-Gurion should have been more thorough and comprehensive in his policy of ethnic cleansing. Benny seems to have lost his moral bearings.”
Typical of the far left spin and quotes taken out of context. You can watch Morris respond to his own quotes on youtube. I figure if you’re actually interested in seeking truth, you should do your part rather than rely on second hand sources or for others to do the job for you.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuD-UbmiBT4
It’s one of four videos form a democracy now segment featuring Benny Morris.
In one of the segments, I don’t remember which one, Morris addresses the quote you posted himself and you can decide if his comments are reasonable for yourself.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
So if some one has a strong opinion there wrong? Robert spencer has a republican bais, but you say nothing. And just becuase mozzile may have made an accident in his comment, or erred on some detail dosnt destroy the fact that palistian children and babies are being shot as we speak, how many ppl must die before people like you see that there is suffering. my only care about your self your race and your beleifs and culture. The point is that palistinians are hurt every day, the people that hurt them are isrealis, that simple. It matters not what a leftiest,atheist christion, jew, muslim might say, not even statisics made by imperfext humans matter just fact. again just spend one month in gaza living with a muslim family, you will never go back to being a self absorbed loser. Also here is a imperfect statistic, like all of them that support my beleif
Available data on the Palestinian refugee and displaced population is characterized by uneven quality and uncertainty primarily due to the absence of a comprehensive registration system, frequent migration for political and economic reasons, and the lack of a uniform definition of a Palestine refugee. Generally, most Palestinian refugees are considered to be prima facie refugees (i.e., in the absence of evidence to the contrary).
The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) administers the only registration system for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA records, however, only include those refugees displaced in 1948 (and their descendents) in need of assistance and located in UNRWA areas of operation – West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Estimates of the refugee and displaced population may also be derived from statistics maintained by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); census data from host countries and Israel; and, population growth projections.
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).
These figures where taken from yes, a pro palistinian site, however hard as i may look for a nuetrul website it is almost imposiible, so bob try to find a website that supports neither palistine or israel and show it to me.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
“Typical of the far left spin and quotes taken out of context. You can watch Morris respond to his own quotes on youtube. I figure if you’re actually interested in seeking truth, you should do your part rather than rely on second hand sources or for others to do the job for you.”
Is this going to be like the time you referenced me to Youtube videos in an attempt to deny the Bosnian genocide? I don’t know why you’re still denying that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and expelled due to Israel. It’s an undeniable fact. I already provided you with more than enough evidence.
-60,000 Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla by the IDF in 1948.
-20,000 Palestinians expelled from Israel’s borders in 1950 due to Israeli policy.
-Much of the Syrian population was expelled from the Golan Heights by the Israeli army.
-In Qalqilya, 12,000 inhabitants were evicted.
-About 1,000 Palestinians killed in the First Intifada
-About 650 killed in the Second Intifada.
-Between 43,000 and 70,000 of the Arab military killed, in regards to all the years of the conflict.
-About 6,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces since 2000.
-About 51,000 civilians killed, according to Eckhardt’s estimates
Do I really need to go on? The number already rises far above the hundred thousand range. I didn’t even mention all the expulsions in 1948.
March 13th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“Right, the most highly cited historian on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict (I believe) as opposed to ‘Electronic Intifada’.”
I didn’t say he was a bad historian. In fact, it’s quite respectable that he had the guts to admit that some Palestinians were forcefully expelled from their homes. You accept that. But your objection is with the claim that Israel is responsible for the displacement of 100,000+ people.
There were 700,000 refugees that would still be in their homes had it not been for the creation of Israel. Israel can be held responsible for the displacement of people. It may not have directly forced out all of the Palestinians, but it is indirectly responsible for the “Exodus”. If hundreds of thousands of Jews move in, then it’s obvious that hundreds of thousands will have to move out and give up their land. They knew that when they were immigrating (often illegally and against British laws). If you really want to compare it with the Partition of India, then let’s do so. The Hindus, Sikhs and the Muslims who moved got new houses on the other side and were all compensated for any land that they lost and they have now fully integrated into their societies. Now both countries are doing quite well. The same cannot be said of Palestinian refugees. Their 4.7 million descendants, many of whom have only ever seen life in refugee camps, will understandably be bitter towards Israel.
As for the videos, they seem interesting. When I have time, I will watch them all and then hopefully we can discuss this further.
This thread has really gone off-topic. In future, Bob, let’s keep the discussion to the actual article.
March 13th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
I’ve fallen terribly behind on comments, but anyways, next piece is on its way.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Regarding this ridiculous “Dhimmitude” theory that the deranged islamophobes have sneaked through the back door and the Anti Loons have given legitimacy by trying to explain away – please see this link about the mayor of Upper Nazareth prohibiting Christian symbols in a Jewish Town:
How the mayor (of a Nazareth suburb) stole Christmas
http://972mag.com/how-the-mayor-of-a-nazareth-suburb-stole-christmas-2/
All Loons please explain
March 14th, 2011 at 8:00 am
Bro Dawood, do you have Mahmoud Ayoub’s “The Quran and its interpreters” in pdf format? Also, do you have any articles by Michael Lecker on the veracity of the Constitution of Medinah? Sorry for the inconvenience caused but I would really appreciate it if you could upload these documents for me (assuming of course you have them).
March 14th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Sorry I don’t have either as pdf, but Google books has some of his articles and book chapters available on preview, and I have to say – they are very interesting and lend support to my views expressed in the previous thread on the issue contrary to JihadBob’s.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:43 am
@Danios: “The Jewish Halacha is equivalent to the Islamic Sharia and the rabbinical tradition is analogous to the Islamic jurisprudential tradition. The similarities between the two religions are actually quite uncanny. ”
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I’d like some…
When was the last time a Jewish court amputated a limb, stoned a person, hanged a homosexual, canned someone for drinking alcohol…
It is this defense of Sharia that scares me the most and it’s the reason I can never allow Islam to rear it political head in the US.
March 14th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Anyways, I’m curious why (correctly) believing that Islam is more violent than other religions is a bigoted belief.
1) That doesn’t cover the standard definition of bigotry
2) Is believing that Catholic priests are more inherently likely (due to their celibacy, etc) to abuse children than preachers, Imams and Rabbis similarly bigoted?
March 14th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
It’s no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests “frequently” abused children.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html#
Are Americans more bigoted toward Catholics than Muslims or is one anonymous writer dropping a ‘power word’?
March 14th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
LOL—watch the goalposts move!
March 14th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
“Anyways, I’m curious why (correctly) believing that Islam is more violent than other religions is a bigoted belief.”
And it’s ‘correct’ how? Or shall we go digging through the long bloody history books of the past and find out… hmmmm, find out what? Oh yes…
March 15th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Rehmat is clearly an ignorant bigot, claiming to be an expert on other religions. I won’t speak for xtianity, but we don’t seek converts to Judaism because if you follow the 7 Noahide laws, you are accepted as righteous.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Slevdi Davoteca,
Rape statistics:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
March 15th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I can’t tell if Rehmat is a confused islamophobe, or LW finally has its very own Anjem Choudary.
March 15th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Rob: I can’t tell if Rehmat is a confused islamophobe, or LW finally has its very own Anjem Choudary.
I have seen Rehmat’s posts in other Islamic forums. He is a rabid anti-semite. I request the administrators of Loonwatch to ban this person.
March 15th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Yes, skimming through his website I can see his world revolves around Israel and Jews. Rehmat, if you don’t believe that Islam is a peaceful religion perhaps you should remove “Let there be no compulsion in religion” from the top of you blog.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
““It is incumbent on all Muslims to wage jihad against the non-believers” Directly from your own Islamic doctrine. What is it about jihad that you looney tunes do not understand???!! Jihad of the sword? Jihad of the pen? Jihad of the spoken word? The violence and murder against Kafirs vis-a-vis jihad? Take your pick, jihad means to do bad things to Kafirs “whenever and wherever you may find them.” What is the matter? Are all of you Muslims “truthophobic?” Or are all of you Muslims just soooooo tired from playing the victim card and spending all of your waking hours spewing your Islamic bullshit propaganda?”
1. I am all for free speech, but when someone uses the name of the Most High, Rabbil alamin as their screen name(which is blasphemous and offensive to all Muslims), and then proceeds to lie, misrepresent Islam(9 line post,8 factual errors!, demolishing the record set by Allen West, then demolished by Robert Spencer, only to be beat by Pamela Geller!) and then uses vulgar language, surely that is grounds for this poster being banned. If he was just drive-by trolling/sock puppetting, then good riddance, but if not…
2. Rehmat, i don’t know who you are so i’m not accusing you of anything. Presumably you are Muslim.Why are one of your posts directed at Jack Cope? Now i’m sure for the sake of knowledge many Muslims have visited Hizbollah’s website and TV channel online, but when do you provide a link to it on your blog?
3. I don’t believe that Islam is the “religion of peace” either, since Islam isn’t a pacifistic religion, and Muslims fall into the trap of insisting that “Islam is the Religion of Peace” simply because some Islamophobe says it isn’t. Maybe, Rehmat, you meant to clarify, by saying that Islam is the “religion to/for peace”(I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here). After all la ikraha fi-d-din is at the top of your blog and words like islam, salam, salama, aslama all come from the same root.
Allahu A’alm
March 16th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Rehmat, you are shifting goalposts, I am whining because and you are appyling your own version of Judaism selectively to suit your bigotry, something that anti-semites typically do. You originally said, Judaism doesn’t accept other religions, but that is a lie. Now you attempt to shift goalposts like anti-semites do, to justify your lie, by bringing in who is a jew or who isn’t a Jew which is another subject.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Rehmat, the Messiah will bring peace and the messianic era which Jesus did not. Nailing people on the cross is not peace.
For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html
March 16th, 2011 at 2:38 am
Rehmat, The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not.
http://www.aish.com/jl/jnj/nj/48961716.html
The Jewish idea is that the Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. The Torah (as explained in the Talmud – Sanhedrin 58b) presents seven mitzvot for non-Jews to observe. These seven laws are the pillars of human civilization, and are named the “Seven Laws of Noah,” since all humans are descended from Noah. They are:
1.Do not murder.
2.Do not steal.
3.Do not worship false gods.
4.Do not be sexually immoral.
5.Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
6.Do not curse God.
7.Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.
Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these laws earns a proper place in heaven. So you see, the Torah is for all humanity, no conversion necessary.
As well, when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of spirituality, which the prophet Isaiah referred to as a “house for all nations.” The service in the Holy Temple during the week of Sukkot featured a total of 70 bull offerings, corresponding to each of the 70 nations of the world. In fact, the Talmud says if the Romans would have realized how much they were benefiting from the Temple, they never would have destroyed it!
Today, there are many active groups of non-Jews called “B’nai Noach” who faithfully observe the Seven Laws of Noah.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:48 am
Rehmat, more in response to your clearly bigoted statements on marriage, who is a Jew, and not accepting other religions. Judaism does not have replacement theology.
Jewish Attitudes Toward Non-Jews
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm
• You don’t have to be Jewish to find favor in G-d’s eyes
• G-d gave only seven basic commandments to gentiles
• Yiddish words for gentiles are goy, shiksa and shkutz
• Judaism does not approve of interfaith marriage, but it is very common
• Jews do not proselytize, but it is possible to convert to Judaism
Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.
Interfaith Marriages
Traditional Judaism does not permit interfaith marriages. The Torah states that the children of such marriages would be lost to Judaism (Deut. 7:3-4), and experience has shown the truth of this passage all too well.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:49 am
[Deleted by Danios for being utterly racist, stupid, and bigoted towards Jews.]
March 16th, 2011 at 10:00 am
So you now jump to racism. Your cherrypicking out of context lines just show you’re a rabid anti semite.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:11 am
I think you have the wrong website, Rehmat, there are many Jewish readers here and some writers of Loonwatch are Jewish too.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Agree, I don’t think running around slamming other faiths is a good idea at all. It’s just stupid.
March 16th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
What a lot of people don’t *get* about the Talmud, is that it’s not a list of prescripts, but recorded discussions about the meaning and application of the Torah. And in effect, the rabbis who study and expound the Talmud are part of that discussion.
So it’s not all that static, as in: ‘The Talmud says X’, so ‘X’ is a rule’.
This I learned from Adin Steinsaltz one of the great scholars of Talmud living today.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
I keep finding the concept of 7 Noahide laws really interesting. But there are a lot of different ways to take it.
At one end you can view it as a really inclusive concept which means that according to Judaism, non-Jews will meet with divine approval as long as we meet a very minimal standard.
But I read/heard some explanations of the concept from Orthodox Jews and it can be stricter than you realize. For example the 7 laws are all capital offenses if you violate them. And then your obedience only “Counts” if you are obeying the rules because you believe that God commands them in the Torah, not just because your reason or your own religion tells you to act that way. Then to be more specific, the command to not worship idols is commonly held to exclude Christian belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. And then the commandment to not tear the limb of an animal / eat blood is less restrictive than full kosher laws but excludes most supermarket meat.
Most interesting is that the religion which is closest to the Noahide religion is obviously Islam. I actually often wonder if the Noahide concept played a role in the early interactions between Islam and Judaism in the time of the prophet.
Alternatively, I’ve read some discussions on the identity of the Sabeans and one of the possibilities was that they were what was left of the religion of Noah.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Rehmat the lunatic has been banned. I hope he takes his psych medication.
March 17th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
The biggest excuse islamophobe atheists have for not targeting Jews and Christians is more or less, “They’re hypocrites so leave them alone.”
March 18th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Adbdul-halim, yes giving divinity to a man and Xtian trinitarian belief would violate the 3rd, nevertheless that is Avodah Zarah for the Jew, the non Jew is not held to the same rigid standard, and what is permissible to non Jews is not permitted to Jews and vice versa.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:23 am
I am not sure why you have to keep repeating how sorry you are if you were to offend any Jew/Christian when exposing the Judeo-Christian texts, when it is factually true to say that they are filled with nothing but sex sex and violence. There is nothing to be apologetic about offending “their” feelings, they certainly have no such qualms when they do the same to Islam and Muslims.
March 26th, 2011 at 9:38 am
J Ila – I’m not sure what you are saying. I understand the general point that Jews and Gentiles have different commandments according to Judaism. But aren’t Trinitarian Christians still in violation of the commandments of Noah?
May 7th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I agree with you Danios and i uderstand your point…this Islamophobia wave promoted by the extremists of the far right of both U.S.A and some european countries is leaning dangerously towards a new kind fascism and therefore it must be stopped; Spencer, Wilders,Geller and his followers promote a binary, essentialist, supremacist and totalitarian ideology which claims that the so called “judeochristian values” are superior to any other human values(but ironically they present themselves as the defenders of human rights and democratic freedoms, and that is a disingenuous tactic, they do so to give an air of repectability to their wicked and bigoted views),today the target of their hate speech are Islam and muslims…but i wonder who is next in their hate list? buddhists and hindus may be?.
May 8th, 2011 at 7:12 am
Any religiously indoctrinated mind is its own prisoner to which only a shock of reality can break its bonds to permit an escape escape if the ego can be either contained or suppressed! In the case of Islam…fear of death aids that imprisonment.
May 10th, 2011 at 9:47 am
@Kasey Says:
May 8th, 2011 at 7:12 am
“Any religiously indoctrinated mind is its own prisoner to which only a shock of reality can break its bonds to permit an escape escape if the ego can be either contained or suppressed! In the case of Islam…fear of death aids that imprisonment.”
Okay, what in your mind would that shock of reality be?Mankind needs direction, mankind is given guidance. He can choose to follow or reject.
May 19th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
So you take the time to write an article and try to discern whether people are unfairly biased against Muslims…and you quote that ‘teabaggers’ are 67% likely to view Islam as a violent religion. You lose any credibility when you deliberately malign a group with an offensive term. Your bias slip is showing…
Oh — and I’m not an offended teabagger…I don’t belong to any group — but I do find that to be an offensive term…
May 19th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
And you lose any credibility when all it takes for you to think someone loses *all* their credibility just for using a term like Tea Bagger.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:37 am
Rates of Violence and Genocide
Number Killed Throughout History by Socialism, Islam & Christianity
Socialism
- approximately 156 million killed in ONE century
- I’m not going to even bother doing total numbers of Socialists throughout history or their kill rate, because it’s just so plainly astronomically higher than for Christians or Muslims
Major Events:
72 million – Mao
50 million – Stalin
29 million – Fascism during WWII
500,000 – Marxists in Ethiopia
1,200,000 – Tibetans killed by Communist China
3 million – Cambodia
4 million – North Korean famines and repression
Christianity
- approximately 161 million killed over 20 centuries
- approximately 3.6 billion Christians throughout all of history
- approximately 4.5 people killed per 100 Christians
Major Events:
5 million – Crusades, although most historians actually estimate 1,500,000
1 million – Cathars
1 million – pagans in Europe
4 million – French wars of the 16th century
12 million – Germans during the 30 Years’ War
16 million – Jews killed in Europe, including the Holocaust
21 million – Native Americans
6 million – Muslims killed during the Reconquista
60 million – Africans during the Slave Trade
22 million – Congolese by the Belgians
1 million – Australian Aborigines
Islam
- approximately 95 million killed over 14 centuries*
- approximately 2.15 billion Muslims throughout all of history
- approximately 4.4 people killed per 100 Muslims
Major Events:
20 million – Tamerlane
20 million – Arab Slave Trade in Africa
3 million – 1971 Bangladesh Atrocities
1,500,000 – Armenian Genocide
1,500,000 – pagan and Christian Sudanese killed
22 million – Hindus killed during Muslim conquest of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
9 million – Christians martyred by Islamic civilization
10 million – Buddhists killed throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
Two factors brought about the rough equalization of 4.4 people killed per 100 Muslims and 4.5 killed per 100 Christians throughout history:
1) Christianity is 600 years older than Islam.
2) Christianity has always had way more adherents than Islam.
* I could find very little data on intra-Muslim conflict or on Muslim conquest in Central Asia, S.E. Asia or Africa except for Tamerlane. So, for example, I have incorporated no estimates of the number killed by the Muslim Kara-Khanid western Uighurs invading and forcefully converting the Buddhist Karakhoja eastern Uighurs, and I didn’t incorporate any estimates of all the wars Indonesian sultanates fought subduing the remaining Hindu kingdoms of SE Asia in Bali and the Majapahit Empire. Furthermore, Hindu Nationalists claim that Muslims killed 80-100 million Hindus during their conquests, while Muslim partisans claim that the population grew by 35 million. I chose 22 million killed as a halfway-between number between these two estimates. Therefore, the number killed by Muslims that I have above is probably way underestimated. In comparison, I feel I could find comprehensive data on intra-Christian conflicts. Intra-Muslim conflicts about which I could find very little data involve the various Shi’a sects (including the Ismaelis, Kharijites, Twelvers, etc.) fighting with the Sunnis, both Shi’a and Sunni oppressing Sufis, and persecution of Yezidis and Druze.
September 11th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
This article is a huge steaming pile of taqiyya.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
“This article is a huge steaming pile of taqiyya.”
Yet you can refute not a word of it, nor do you even know what ‘taqiyya’ is. Which one of us is really telling the truth here? Don’t bother responding.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
@ Nerses, there are so many fallacies in your post that I don’t know where to begin. Your comment perfectly encapsulates your profound double standards. This is aside from the fact that you don’t provide any evidence to buttress your numbers. You claim that 9 million Christians were “martyred” by “Islamic Civilization” while conversely state that the 6 million Muslims who apparently died during the Reconquista weren’t “martyred,” but rather simply “killed.”
The deaths of the “martyred” Christians are attributed to a nebulously defined “Islamic Civilization” while the “killed” Muslims are simply the product of the Reconquista, a just war to drive out the invading foreigners. Christianity is absolved; Islam is indicted.
You then continue to take pains to mention that historians assert that only about 1.5 million died during the Crusades (again, with absolutely no citations) while conversely citing the highest, politically charged estimates for events such as the Armenian Genocide. Yet, it’s quite odd that you also mention that a million Cathars were killed, since (as mentioned) you claim that the numerous Crusades in conjunction killed only 1.5 million. Is it not true that the Cathars were subject to the Albigensian Crusade? Apparently that particular crusade killed about a million but all the other numerous crusades—stretching from the Danube and Maghreb to Iraq and the Baltic—would then be responsible for only about half a million deaths? In other words, your numbers don’t make any sense.
There is also the fact, of course, that your post excludes numerous conflicts. Again, this is also indicative of your profound, anti-Muslim biases. You add Tamerlane to your list (who continued the Mongol tradition of his ancestors) but ignore all the wars waged by Western powers in the twentieth century. Odd how Stalin and Tamerlane are respectively attributed to Socialism and Islam, while the French Wars in North Africa (which caused the deaths of millions of “Koranimals” [JihadWatch-speak for “Muslims”] and ravaged the native Algerian economy) are completely ignored; Napoleon, European imperialism in China and India, and so on, are also ignored.
The fact is that Western Civilization has been responsible for more deaths than anyone else. Academics, as opposite as Samuel Huntington and Khalid Yahya Blankinship have conceded this. It’s odd that Islamophobes constantly bring up all the wars Muslims engaged in historically, since any person less bigoted would concluded that “Judeo-Christians” have killed far more. Even more interesting is that fact that your numbers contradict that of Islamophobes; Spencer and Geller forward the number 270 million while Breivik claims that Muslims have killed 300 million (for added effect). The fact that so many people fall for these ludicrous claims is a testament to the widespread credulous bigotry in the anti-Muslim movement.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
“Intra-Muslim conflicts about which I could find very little data involve the various Shi’a sects (including the Ismaelis, Kharijites, Twelvers, etc.) fighting with the Sunnis, both Shi’a and Sunni oppressing Sufis, and persecution of Yezidis and Druze.”
Because they were relatively few and far between when compared to Intra-Christian conflicts—most of which you didn’t include in your list, incidentally. Off the top of my head, there was the early fitnah, the conflict between the Fatimids and Abbasids, and the Safavid-Ottoman wars; each of these were separated by centuries. Furthermore, you already listed the biggest “Intra-Muslim conflict” in terms of causalities, i.e. Tamerlane. He killed far more Muslims than any other religious group, though your purported number still seems unbelievably high.
Your comment also highlights your ignorance. Firstly, Kharijites are not a Shi’a sect. I also don’t know what you mean by “Sufi persecution.” Sufis were historically widely accepted and respected, and there were probably thousands or Sufi brotherhoods throughout the Islamic world. Numerous influential scholars (e.g. al-Ghazali), viziers, military groups (e.g. the janissaries), and so on, were affiliated with Sufism. In the last great Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire, Sufism was an integral part of life. From the Caucasus and West Africa to South and Central Asia, Sufism flourished and indeed often provided the most violent resistance against European imperialism.
You just added “both Shi’a and Sunni oppressing Sufis” to bolster argument. Though you might think otherwise, it’s evident that you lack any real knowledge on the subject.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:12 am
@Nerses
I think your figures are a little off there. The WW2 facism should be in the christian section seeing as Hitler was Christian. Also I think the number killed was 50million (including Jews) You also left out things like the genocide of Amerindians in the Caribbean and Central and South America. Unless your 21 million “Native Americans” figure included these. Also I think Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths not 50?
October 29th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
jihad series: when you have no truth, you say anything.
October 30th, 2011 at 12:45 am
The concept of ‘Sunnis and Shi’a oppressing Sufis’ is based on the preferred narrative of Western culture, in which supposedly liberal Sufis represent the pacifist trend in Islam, while the supposedly orthodox and hidebound Sunnis and Shi’a are presented as the ‘bad Muslims.’ The problem is, it doesn’t work out that way. In fact, it’s an overly simplistic look at Islam, and one which I believe is both based upon Western misunderstandings about ‘sectarianism’ in Islam, eagerly eaten up by would be New Agers, and by those with a firm political agenda.
The thing is, we Muslims don’t really have ‘sects’ as such. At least, not to the same degree that Christianity has Catholics, Orthodox Churches, Protestant Churchs, etc. Sunni and Shi’a are more like traditions, albeit ones with profound influences. Our scholars don’t really agree with EACH OTHER all that often, let alone with other Muslim groups, so to be honest it is difficult to formulate an ‘average Sunni opinion’ or an ‘average Shi’a opinion.’ It’s compounded because we’ve been REALLY BAD about not studying the traditions of our coreligionists and neighbors in recent history. It’s one area where Muslim scholarship has been lacking unfortunately. I think for us Shi’a, as a numerical minority and one concentrated in a very few geographic regions, we’re a little more conscious of these things. But even so, there are some pretty insular Shi’a communities out there.
The thing is, Sufis are even LESS of an organization. It’s not so much a ‘sect’ in the term of representing an organized doctrine, but rather each Sufi order represents a specific path or way to God. Each order is an independent group with their own silsila, their own chain of succession and command. Membership may be fluid or tightly controlled, and their doctrines may be secret, esoteric or completely unknown to people on the outside. It’s hard to make generalizations about Sufis. They are ‘mystics,’ but they are not the ONLY mystical expression within Islam. Many are indeed pacifists, and they do tend to tailor their group to local needs, but that still gives a wide variety of orders and brotherhoods.
One can be Sunni or Shi’a and still follow a Sufi order. In fact, since Sufi orders don’t generally cover issues of fiqh, that tends to be the norm. Some orders are linked with specific groups. The Tijaniyya and Suhrawardiyya are linked with Sunni Islam. The Safavids were a Shi’a Sufi group, as are the Nimatullahi today, and I suspect that the Bektashi started off as Shi’a as well.
And far from being marginalized, the Sufi orders have played a vital role in crafting states. The Fulani ‘jihad states,’ including Sokoto and Kano, were both inherently linked with the Tijani Order. The Caucasian Imams, including Imam Shamil, were all members of the Naqshbandi Order. Bektaşism (and Alevism) had a heavy influence in the Ottoman Empire. The Safavids in Iran, who restored the title of ‘Shah’ and converted the country to Shi’ism, were both a dynasty and a Sufi order. Something like half the population of Libya is connected with the austere Sanussi Brotherhood. And various Sufi orders continue to influence South Asia and Senegal today.
In all fairness, yes, Sufi groups HAVE been persecuted here and there. The Wahhabis (and Deobandis I believe) have no love for Sufism, and certainly there has been suppression in places like Sudan and Afghanistan in recent years. And in fact this sort of thing goes back at least to the first Mongol conquests, though many of these persecutions tended to be along ideological grounds (one famous example, Saladin’s persecution of the Ishraqiyyun philosophy). Often times historically one Sufi group would find favor in a royal court while another would suffer persecution. And of course it is NOT right, not at all, but it’s something to consider when trying to formulate any estimate of peoples killed. The Safavids and Ottomans were not ‘nice’ people, but they were hardly any more bloodthirsty than any of their other contemporaries. Sometimes much better in fact.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
In discussion with a friend who is full blown islamaphobe there may be a problem with Danios pretension that one can argue that all religions have problematic passages. My friend would argue that Islam scripture Quran is authored by Allah and thus cannot be changed. The Christian Bible is considered by Christians to be inspired by God, however written by man. Many of the problematic passages are found in the old testament. Christians have a new testament written after Jesus, which takes president over the old problematic paassages. Islam has no posibility of a new testament, thus the problematic passages must stand alone. How would Danios respond to this argument?
December 27th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
You guys are just making stupid arguments around here. Come live with me where I am and tell these stories to the Muslim community and see if you won’t get your heads chopped off! All the theory in the world cannot make that a lie. I just wish you looneys would be real because it is not the theories that are getting people murdered in the name of Islam, it is the practice of Islam. If you didn’t know the rise of terrorism in the name of Islam is as a result of the awakening of the Islamic community to piety. Quoting all the stories in the world doesn’t change a thing. People see this before becoming islamophobes like me.
December 28th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@Orangutang
“You guys are just making stupid arguments around here. Come live with me where I am and tell these stories to the Muslim community and see if you won’t get your heads chopped off! All the theory in the world cannot make that a lie”. Talk about stupid arguments, go and live in the trees man.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Danios, to debate whether Moses or Mohammad was the more bloodthirsty ‘prophet’ is pointless! (Quite apart from the fact that I’m sure Mohammad would win that one, by slaughtering approximately 700 Jewish men after the Battle of the Trench in 628, a battle they had not participated in, and that wasn’t much of a fight anyway!)
The critical issue is who does the killing TODAY, and it’s Muslims.
Do you know the motto of the Ikhwan?
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Start complaining about THAT!
I don’t know if you’re a Muslim or an apologist for Islam, in any case, it’s ISLAM that’s the problem, and not the ‘Islamophobes’. BTW, I am an atheist, but I don’t care what any religion has done in the past, I am concerned about what Islam is doing TODAY…
January 6th, 2012 at 12:34 am
Of course they are. Open your damn eyes.
Oh, it’s not a religion, it’s a 7th century form of repressive government with the goal of only allah (satan) worshiping allowed and sharia forced on everyone.
They frakkin tell you what their goal is, don’t you believe them?
January 30th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Hi Danios,
Your piece on “understanding the Jihad series” is a monumental achievement! You singlehandedly and elegantly demolished a long-standing myth about Islam as the most violent religion of the Abrahamic Faiths.
You were probably asked this before but considering your unique insightful understanding of the subject, have you considered turning it into a book to reach even more people in the general public? It would be a great service and would indirectly enhance interfaith interactions because as the saying goes…one cannot complain about the snow on one’s neighborhood when your own doorstep is unclean. This may in turn lead to mutual respect and understanding.
Meanwhile, I wish the entire series could be field in one pdf file. As it is now, it is difficult to know where the series ends.
Thanks for your exemplary achievement! Keep it up!
Ismail
March 16th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Jihad is an Arabic word which means ‘to struggle’. According to Shari’at, it means to struggle for God and His religion which’s Islam. Jihad can be done also and initially with knowledge, your criminal desires, with pen, with tongue and with your moral character. Jihad with sword can’t be done without direct permission from God given either by God Himself or by some representative. Imam Mehdi is the current representative but is hidden. Thus, Jihad with sword can’t be done before asking him and nobody can claim to be knowledgeable with Imam Mehdi.Thus, Palestinians and Kashmiris aren’t performing any Jihad. As for terrorists, so there’s no terrorism in Islam. Be peaceful and let others live peacefully.