Top Menu

Navigation

Nachum Shifren: Racist Rabbi Still Trying to Run For Senate Seat

By on May 14, 2012 in Loon Politics, Loon Rabbis

Nachum Shifren is still trying to run for senate. He thinks “White Americans” like “him” are under assault by everyone else. In the past we exposed Shifren for being the racist and hate-monger he is in our article, Rabbi Nachum Shifren: Rides the Wave of Islamophobia and Rabbi Nachum Shifren: EDL is the Salvation of the West from the “Muslim Dogs”.

I am not even sure if Shifren is still a Jew, how can he say this and remain a Jew, perhaps he is a “self-hating” Jew?:

… I AM an Islamophobe, and everything we need to know about Islam, we learned on 9-11! I believe in peace and justice for everybody – but that’s not why they’re here…. We’re getting sucker-punched because we as white – yes I said it! – as white, Christian Americans are being taught that somehow WE are to blame for all the problems.

Clearly he didn’t mean to say that he is a “Christian,” maybe he forgot to add the “Judeo” part?

Also see Richard Silverstein’s take: California Tea Party “White Christian” Settler Rabbi for US Senate

California: EDL-supporting Senate candidate claims to defend ‘white Americans’ against threat of Islam

San Mateo, CA — In the US Senate primary in California on June 5th, where 23 candidates vie to challenge Senator Dianne Feinstein in November, conservative candidates were recorded on videoverbally attacking teachers, Muslims, and minority groups to excite their base at GOP and Tea Party venues.

The video was recorded at a “Get to Know Your Candidates” event hosted by the San Mateo GOP at the American Legion Hall here. Dr. David Levitt, the candidate who recorded the event, reports unmasked homophobia, Islamophobia, and racism in the Republicans’ speeches.

In the video Republican candidate Rabbi Shifren cries, “… I AM an Islamophobe, and everything we need to know about Islam, we learned on 9-11! I believe in peace and justice for everybody – but that’s not why they’re here…. We’re getting sucker-punched because we as white – yes I said it! – as white, Christian Americans are being taught that somehow WE are to blame for all the problems.”

PRWeb, 14 May 2012

In October 2010 Nachum Shifren visited the UK to express his solidarity with the English Defence League, joining them for ademonstration in support of Israel and against “Islamic fascism” at which he was the main speaker. Fired up by Shifren’s Islamophobic rhetoric – he described Muslims as “dogs” who were trying to “take over our countries” – three EDL members attacked an Islamic literature stall and were later convicted of public order offences, with one of them receiving a seven-day prison sentence and a five-year CRASBO.

, , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Comments
 →
    • Political science pro

      Interestingly enough, the Ibn Saud clan has used the Wahabi interpretation of the Quran to do exactly that. Even in the days of the Prophet, it was never re-named “Mohamed’s Arabia.”

    • HGG

      “Also, I wouldn’t necessarily describe Loonwatch as leftist. We share a mission, but we don’t all come from the same vantage point.”

      The Left Wing/Right Wing dichotomy is often useless in the grand scheme of things because of its relativity. Obama, for example, is known to some in the US as a Marxist-Socialist- Communist. to the left of Chairman Mao, while in many other parts of the world, he would be Center-Right politician at most.

      But, from an American perspective, yeah, I would say Loonwatch, according to their frame of reference, it’s a pretty Leftist site.

    • HGG

      “a fictitious book (bible) that was written by racist, sexist, genocidal men thousands of years ago.”

      This certainly raises the level of discourse about the subject.

    • JT

      Tom, you’re talking nonsense. According to the Qur’an, the mass killing of men, women and children was never even ordered by God. From a Qur’anic point of view, the violent details of the war as described in the OT never happened. Take a look at the verses Illisha has provided.

      BTW, the command to not kill peaceful people, or women and children is not something I have cooked up. It’s true. All references to war in the Qur’an refer only to when you have been attacked first and even then if the other side offers a peace treaty you have to accept it. In the Hadith of the Prophet, we find him numerous times telling the Muslims to not harm non-combatants, women, children, monks, livestock, trees etc. when fighting a war.

      “Now you are using the Koran to bash non Muslims.”

      What?! Explain, please.

    • IlanReiber quit with the BS trolling. No where in the Quran does it say Muslims and non-Muslims are not allowed into Mecca and Medina, that opinion is taken from the hadith which you are unfamiliar with. The Quran only states that the polytheists should not be allowed near the holy sanctuary in Mecca.

      Hopefully God is not a real estate agent who deeds people land through slaughter. Obviously, you believe, though I think many Jews would disagree with you that God is a real estate agent, and that it is OK to exterminate, disposes and expel Palestinians of their land. Then you justify it and say well Saudis do it too.

      Interesting diversionary attempt to derail this thread, but not going to fly.

    • IlanReiber

      Ilisha, Ilisha, I did not mention Saudi Arabia. I said Mecca. Medina. Yes, apologies, I misquoted you. I meant ‘real estate guide’. You use your ‘real estate’ guide to keep Mecca and Medina only for yourselves. Please do not dance around the issue. Israel is Holy land. Non Moslems were expelled or murdered from Mecca and Medina. Unless you are calling for a democracy in Mecca and Medina where Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists can build their houses of prayer, you have no right to inist G-d is not a real estate agent. You cannot practice religious apartheid in your holy land (Allah is a real estate agent then?)and then insist Israel does not in her Holy land.

      It’s hypocricy. It states, my God is a real estate agent but yours is not.

    • IlanReiber

      Ilisha, reading the above dialogue between you and Tom, if you reject using any Book as a religous guide, does it mean you call for a democracy in Mecca? Medina? The orders to exterminate the idolators in Canaan, came from G-d. Does the Koran condemn the Israelis for this genocide?

      Israel is real estate for Jews from G-d. It doesn’t matter if others do not believe that, because when the exile ends the nations will recognise Israel as a reborn nation. That has already happened. G-d is indeed a real estate agent.

      Does Torah Promote Genocide?

      http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/850235/jewish/Does-Torah-Promote-Genocide.htm

      For example, this issue we have of destroying the Canaanites: In that era of city-states continually locked at war with one another, a pacifist stance–even a non-aggressive one–would be tribal suicide. Land belonged to those that conquered it and stood closely at guard to protect their conquest. The world had not yet evolved to a state where nations could appreciate peace as a value; indeed it did not for another three millennium with the advent of the League of Nations–and even then we know how sincere that turned out to be. So Torah had to teach a people how to value life and human dignity while living in a savage world.

      And then, at a later date, those laws no longer applied. Even before Hellenism inundated and homogenized all the cultures and tribes of the Mediterranean, Sancherib the Assyrian conqueror had forcefully broken those tribes apart, moving peoples from their places into foreign lands where they were quickly assimilated and disappeared. When they returned from the Babylonian exile, the Children of Israel were no longer commanded to destroy the populous of the land–since those people no longer existed. Persia had moved the world from a collection of city-states bullying one another to a competition of true empires, and so that application was no longer relevant. But what then became of the instruction of an eternal Torah that gave that command?

      Ingeniously: it became internalized. The seven nations of Canaan became seven elements of human character, such as lust, anger and haughtiness that must be eradicated from within each one of us if our bodies are to become a holy land in which a temple may be built and G-d may dwell. The nation of Amalek became the cold, intransigent sense of “I am” that lies at the core of all evil. Instead of war upon nations around us, we are enjoined to make war at the evil within–by the same Torah, with the same words.

      Now you will understand why Jewish people never study the text of the Torah without the glosses and commentaries our people have accumulated through the ages.

    • Sarah Brown

      Thanks Nur Alia – I think it is possible to think that nothing justifies those murders and yet still agree that it’s fair to point out that not knowing the full story could be an issue, just as it would be the other way around.

    • Tom

      JT

      Now you are using the Koran to bash non Muslims. What does what you say have to do with what I said? Allah was talking to Mohammed according to the Koran, not to Jews.

      The Koran condems the Jews for worshipping the calf (idol worship) which it also tells Muslims not to do. From this one can deduce neither Allah nor Yahwah wanted idol worship.

      The killing of non combatants in the land is something you cooked up. If Allah said that to the Muslims he did not condemn the Jews for the genocide in the Old Testament, which existed at the time the Koran was said to be revealed to Mohammed. Why didn’t Allah condemn that if you think it is wrong? You assume they were non combatants? Why does the Koran say Allah punished the Jews for being too cowardly to fight? They were punished from entering for a number of years, 30 or 40 I believe. You cannot pretend that they were non combatants just because you choose to, when your Book doesn’t support it.

      As I said, liberals cannot see they’re useful idiots.

    • JT

      “Silence is complicity.”

      Except that Islam explicitly forbids the killing of non-combatants. Using the Old Testament to bash Muslims is a bit stupid. A lot of people are content with mining just the Qur’an and Hadith to find material to use against Muslims, but you’ve clearly thought outside the box.

    • Tom

      ASPIE AND ATHEIST

      You are committing a fallacy by comparing Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.

      I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Long before Saudi Arabia came into being there was religious apartheid in ‘Saudi Arabia’. I did not mention Saudi Arabia, I mentioned Muslim Mecca and Muslim Medina.Israel was a theocracy when Jews controlled it. God did not mean for it to be a ‘democracy’ as we understand democracy.

      I wasn’t comparing, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. The UN comprises how many Muslim countries who decry Israel for apartheid? That is couble standard here is that they won’t call for their own religious land to be a ‘democracy’. From that viewpoint, Israel is justified in being Jewish if she ever decides to do away with a ‘democracy’ and Muslim states cannot do anything about it, moreover they should laud Israe for not doing what they did, namely, expelling their non Jewish citizens.

      As for your calling Moses sexist, genocidal, well that is true but it was God who ordered it, and since in the Koranic allah doesn’t condemn the genocide in the Old Testament. Silence is complicity. If you note the Koranic Allah doesn’t condemn Jews for the genocide of the native Canaanatie but it does condemn them for other things like worshipping a calf. This means Muslims cannot complain of a Jewish Israel if the Israelis decide to have one, since the Koran itself claims they were punished for not being Jewish enough. Do you note how such countries are not above using liberals and democratic countries to serve their own agendas, but do not hold their own to liberal values. The liberal left are useful idiots here. They cannot see they are merely being used.

      A country decides it’s own future.

    • Glenn

      It is interesting how distorted this has become MyLiberty provided a forum for all candidates to speak along with the Rabi were other unpalatable candidates such as the woman from the Peace and Freedom party esposing socialisim and then of course there was Mr Levitt who was espousing Marxisim Hardly Tea Party supported candidates. This video goes a long way in the misrepresentation of what transpired that evening.

    • Arab Atheist – ملحد عربي

      @Aspie and Atheist You said: (bible)…was written by racist, sexist, genocidal men thousands of years ago.

      Certainly there are disturbing parts in the bible (OT & NT), just like there are some in the Quran too. But you suggest that those who wrote those texts are evil. While some of their teachings should be completely unacceptable modern day, I doubt that those reformers were exceptionally or essentially racist or violent. However, your over-confident tone seems to indicate that the bible was exceptionally violent. My understanding is that when the bible was revealed, bigotry (racial, tribal, and religious) was the norm (terrible as it may be).

      Religion, no matter how much I disagree with it, is much more complicated than the way you described it (religion = evil). However, like you said, it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to justify modern day injustices anyway, as we see done by Israel.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Nur Alia

      I completely agree with you. Israel is not a victim, rather it is the aggressor. It is a state founded on a mandate found in a fictitious book (bible) that was written by racist, sexist, genocidal men thousands of years ago.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Tom

      Israel shouldn’t be a Jewish state. It has to treat all it’s citizens equally, not just the Jewish ones.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Tom

      You are committing a fallacy by comparing Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.

      The discussion was on Israel, so don’t try to change the topic by comparing to Saudi Arabia, as it still does not justify the pathetic ‘Israel is/needs to be a Jewish state’ argument.

      Since Israel as a Jewish state obviously cannot guarantee it’s non-Jewish citizens equality, then obviously Israel cannot be a Jewish state and therefore should adopt democracy and the doctrine of being separate from religion.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      Maybe this racist asshole should take his good ‘ol fashioned white folk ideology and shove it up his ass, [snipped]

    • Nur Alia

      @sarah

      You posted this as a response to my comment…

      “…Nur Alia – do you mean you get the sense, from the Western media, that the Israelis are the victims? The UK media’s a bit different maybe …. ‘Both sides are not being helpful in resolving it’ sounds about right…”

      We get some western media here in Malaysia. When you compare it to the Chinese media (the one I read for news most often) you get a sence that the west ‘favors’ Israel over the Palistinians by not reporting what escalated a certian incident.

      For example…I read one day that an Israeli soldier was found not guilty for what was decribed by witnesses as him emptying his weapon into a girl who had…while playing with friends…wondered into some forbidden zone by accident. The next day, in the same spot 5 illegal settlers, including a pregnant woman was murdered in a car. The western media never reported the first crime…and after the second crime happened, Obama condemned it, and it was first page news in the western media as if it was some ‘random attack’.

      Now, for the record, I always condemn the murder of ANY innocent people. I never take any side in this. Murder is not political, or religious, it is plain evil…so I am not justifying anything here…and dont imply, or accuse me of doing it.

      This is an example of what I mean. In the west, the Israelis are the victims’, and in reality one murder is never rectified by another as we see in this incident.

    • Tom

      Arab Atheist

      Be that as it may, it makes no sense for Muslim anti semites of all people to whinge about a ‘Jewish Israel’ (i’ll take that from an atheist or a liberal since they don’t like religion) when they have Muslim Mecca and Muslim Medina. If they deglitimise Israel by saying it shouldn’t be Jewish, well then why isn’t the left wing, decrying religious apartheid in Mecca and Midina? You’ve seen the hugh signs banning infidels (including Christians and Jews who are supposedly ‘book people’)

← Older Comments
 →

Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator

By on May 1, 2012 in Feature, Loon-at-large

Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim (TAM) has been keeping a close eye on the loons who write for Jihad Watch.  The chief loon of JW, Robert Spencer, had initially been slated to debate David Wood, another Christian loon like himself.  Realizing no doubt that they are on the same side of the loony equation, the debate has been scrapped.  Instead, both Spencer and Wood have agreed to face off against Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.

As Musaji presciently noted, “[b]oth Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe.”  The nefarious duo are very familiar to the Muslim community of the U.K., not because they have a large following (they don’t), but because they are routinely trotted out by anti-Muslim right-wingers.  The set-up is always the same: a right-winger pundit will invite one of these two clowns onto their show for a “debate.” By making the hated Choudary and Bakri the representative for the Muslim side, the debate is of course already won.  Muslims are left thinking, “with friends like these, who needs enemies…”

Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are absolutely despised by the vast majority of the Muslim community, even by the ultra-conservative and radical Muslims they pretend to represent.   They are caricatures, just one step away from being Achmed the Dead Terrorist or a character thought up by Sacha Baron Cohen (like Ali G or Admiral General Aladeen, A.K.A. The Dictator).  Choudary and Bakri play the part of terrorists and radical Islamists, which is why hateful Islamophobes love giving them ample air time: look at how crazy those Moozlums are!

It’s absolutely no surprise then that Robert Spencer and David Wood, two loons in their own right, would debate two even loonier loons.  Spencer wastes his time engaging such unserious clowns, because–just as Sheila Musaji noted long time ago–he has a pattern of seeking out complete fools to debate with so that he can then crow in victory afterward.  Meanwhile, Spencer will doggedly avoid debating anyone (1) with a serious grasp of knowledge of the topic at hand and (2) the debating skill to back it up.  And of course, (3) anyone named Danios.  What’s interesting is that even Robert Spencer’s debating partner, David Wood, seemed to imply on his website that Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are weak debaters.  Wood agrees with Choudary and Bakri’s view that Muhammad existed, but he doesn’t think that they will be able to make the convincing argument.  Why not just debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist or The Dictator?  It would certainly be just as enlightening and perhaps a bit more entertaining.

Robert Spencer’s homepage boldly declares that he is “the acclaimed scholar of Islam”, and yet he has no educational qualifications to validate that lofty claim.  In fact, all he has is an M.A. in Christian studies…If I get an M.A. in Buddhist studies, does that mean I get to be “the acclaimed scholar of Judaism”?  Spencer has never had his work submitted for peer review in the academic world, and so his arguments–while they certainly might pass off in the non-scholarly world–have never been tested by the real experts in the field.  Spencer’s version of peer-review is debating the equivalent of Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator.

In any case, let’s not beat around the bush.  It’s me in particular who Robert Spencer fears. One would think that he would want to debate me now that I’ve won the Brass Crescent Award for Best Writer last year (and was runner-up the year before), in no small part due to my writings against Spencer.  I have been refuting his book for a long time now, decimating his arguments one by one.  Spencer can’t respond intelligently, so of course, he naturally fears facing off in debate.  It has now officially been 684 days–that’s 1 year, 10 months, and 14 days–since I agreed to have a radio debate with Robert Spencer.  In that time, Spencer has furiously been generating excuse after excuse to avoid the debate.

Spencer continues to use my anonymity as an excuse to cover up his cowardice.  I’m an anonymous blogger and I have expressed my intent in preserving that anonymity for now.  Yet, Spencer repeatedly insists on a public venue–so that I “show my face”–knowing full well that I won’t accept such a condition.  In this way, Spencer gets out of the debate and can then disingenuously claim that I was the cause of the impasse.

Robert Spencer engages in typical right-winger projection: look how cowardly Danios is that he doesn’t show his face.  But, it is Spencer who is the coward, at least when it comes to defending his views.  What difference does it make who I am or what I look like?  The obvious answer is that Spencer wants to engage in ad hominem attacks against me, instead of focusing on the substantive value of his arguments, which my writings have shown to be severely lacking.  It’s now quite evident to all who want to see it: my refutations of his book are irrefutable.  I know it, you know it, he knows it.

And that’s why Robert Spencer will keep running away from me.  Instead, he’ll debate fools and loons.  Yawn, what’s new?

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

*  *  *  *  *

Here is Sheila Musaji’s article from TAM:

David Wood and Robert Spencer “Debate”?

by Sheila Musaji

David Wood is not as well known as Robert Spencer, so a little background is in order.  Wood is an Evangelical pastor and has a series of polemical articles on Answering Islam.  His focus seems to be on anti-Muslim polemics.

Kiera Feldman reported on an incident in 2010:

Organized by Stop the Islamization of America, the first rally against the “Ground Zero mosque” was held in a plaza near the site of the Twin Towers on June 6th—D-Day. “We are not hatemongerers!” Pamela Hall proclaimed from the podium. “We just want our families and our future to be safe from the racist, bigoted ideology that murdered 3,000 people.” In the crowd, signs ranged from “Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11” to crude drawings of Mohammed with the label “beast.”

Toward the end of the rally, two dark-skinned men were overheard speaking Arabic. The crowd transformed into an angry mob, surrounded the men, and shouted, “go home” and “get out.” The Bergen Record reported that the two scared men, Joseph Nasralla and Karam El Masry, had to be extricated by police. It turned out they weren’t even Muslim. They were Egyptian Coptic Christians who’d trekked cross-country from California to join the cause against the “Ground Zero mosque.” Nasralla later told John Hawkins of Right Wing News that the Record coverage was indeed accurate, adding that he’d been shoved and his camera knocked to the ground. “He said he was worried that things might have really gotten out of hand if the police hadn’t escorted him and Karam El Masry away,” Hawkins wrote.

“I actually caused that by accident,” an evangelical pastor named David Wood told me with a chuckle. He meant the near race riot. Wood is a PhD student in philosophy at a respectable New York institution whose name he didn’t want me to use. Passionate about proselytizing to Muslims, Wood’s expertise is Christian apologetics, the practice of arguing unbelievers into faith. He is best known as the creator of a viral video “Of Mosques and Men,” which argues all Muslims—even those who seem “peaceful,” like “good citizens in public”—had an urge to “smile when there were terrorist attacks.” But Wood allows himself a little laugh about violence when Muslims are on the receiving end.

As he tells the story of that day, “[The Copts] were complaining about not having anything to hand out. And I said, ‘I’ve got some pamphlets on Islam, specifically on whether Islam is a religion of peace.” The pamphlets contained passages of the Qur’an selected to suggest the answer is no. “People thought they were there to defend the mosque and promote Islam,” Wood explained. “Lots of people were fired up about that.” But it was a goofy case of mistaken identity, a funny little mix-up. “The guys who were doing it were actually Christians,” Wood told me as if clearing up the whole matter. “They weren’t Muslims.” In other words: the mob’s anger and actions were justified, but misdirected. Aim better next time?

Garibaldi of Loonwatch has written exposes about Wood in two articles here and here

Wood and Robert Spencer will have a “debate” this coming Sunday on the thesis of Spencer’s new book Did Muhammad Exist?  This “debate” will be moderated by Pamela Geller.  That may be the only time that you will see the combination of Pamela Geller and moderation in the same sentence.

Wood made the “challenge to a debate” by video and Spencer accepted the “challenge”.

Spencer is still falsely claiming that Muslims are afraid to debate him, and says in his acceptance: So David Wood will do their work for them.  Read my article Danios vs Spencer:  18 months and Spencer still avoiding a debate for the Saga of Spencer’s avoidance of a debate with Danios.  See The Muslim Communities Useful Idiots for information on some of Spencer’s past debates with Muslims, and why I believe that engaging with bigots is not productive.

These are not individuals who hold respectable, if controversial opinions.  These are bigots, and engaging them in such a forum only provides them with some veneer of respectability.

Hosts like Hannity, or Bolling can claim that they have been “fair and balanced” because they included a Muslim.  And, full time, paid mercenaries in a “holy war” against Islam like Spencer, will claim “victory” no matter what the outcome.  If they have no “facts” that will stand up to scrutiny, they will stoop to ridiculous slurs, as they did with Christina Abraham.  And, when all else fails, if any Muslim says anything reasonable, they will say that it is taqiyya.

This sort of devious, unethical, and downright childish behavior, is not surprising from individuals who consistently “get it wrong” when it comes to Islam and Muslims, and who see no ethical problem with simply removing articles from a site when they are proven to be inaccurate.  Not too surprising for individuals who are co-founders (Spencer & Geller) of a group, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), which has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The group is also described by the ADL in the following terms: “Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), created in 2009, promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American” values. The organization warns of the encroachment of shari’a, or Islamic law, and encourages Muslims to leave what it describes as the “falsity of Islam.”

I believe that it is not “cowardly” to leave these folks alone, just sensible.   It is not that their claims cannot be, and have not been answered, but rather that they have proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy and dishonorable in both their tactics and their responses to reasoned argument.

Spencer and Wood seem to have a mutual admiration society.  Spencer posted a notice about the “debate” with a note to watch Wood’s video, and Wood posted a notice with a note to read Spencer’s book.

The notice points out that this “debate” will be right after Geller and Spencer’s “Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference” (their most recent anti-Muslim hate fest) ends.  It is worth noting that David Wood will be a speaker at Spencer and Geller’s conference.  I’m sure their promotional video will be more exciting than the actual “debate”.

It seems pretty obvious that rather than a debate, this is a calculated publicity stunt to gain a little more notoriety for their conference, and to publicize Spencer’s book.  I’m sure that they will both have an opportunity to get in a few anti-Muslim zingers in the course of this “debate”.  Let the bigots talk among themselves.

UPDATE 4/30/2012

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any more strange.  Robert Spencer just posted a new notice about tonights “debate”.  The debate is now to be between Spencer and Wood (on the same side) versus Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.

Both Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe.  Just type their names or the term lunatic fringe into our TAM search engine for more information on these disreputable folks.

I’m curious as to how Spencer is going to talk to Omar Bakri since the last I heard he had been denied re-entry to England, and arrested in Lebanon.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Comments
 →

    • @British

      Personally I don’t have a problem with anyone wanting Anjem Choudary as far away from them as possible. After all he is a nut job, but if you’re serious, you really ought to know better than to lump him in with all other Muslims in the same box, especially if you spend a lot of time here. In reality he doesn’t even represent mainstream British Muslims.

    • british

      start the great purge of muslims from Britain! First on the list Anjem Chowderhead!

    • Hass

      Spencer will try to look good in front of the audience by PICKING TO CHOOSE THE ONES WHO AREN’T EVEN SCHOLARS i.e. Choudhary.

      Sorry Spencer, your bleak attempt to win a debate has been found out. And your marketing attempts to promote your book are quite open too… it doesn’t take a genius to figure out your petty strategies.

    • Géji

      @john spielman Says: “Dear Geji; Sorry to be late in responding to you, but I didn’t see your last post til now”

      Oh yes you saw-it, even before I reminded you on the other thread. But chosen to ignore-it cause as I suspected you had no logical answer to provide refuting my yet very simple questions you brought upon yourself, other than coming back with nonsensical rants that beats-around-the-bushes when you could have been just as easily shortened- to answer yes or no.

      > “As far as Jesus is God, this is the core belief in Christianity because not only did the disciples affirm this in their writings to the early church (John’s, Peter’s Paul’s epistles or letters but Jesus Himself confirmed this fact as recorded in the gospel accounts and proven by His miracles of walking on water, multiplying the loaves and fishes, healing the blind deaf and dumb, and raising the dead and finally by His resurrection from the dead after His crucifiction”

      Funny, cause even with all “His miracles”, I thought a large section of -“the core belief in Christianity” – was that Jesus was only the 2th person of trinity as son of God, and not God the father himself.

      > “So Jesus with the Fatherand Holy Spirit (one GOD -the Hebrew iterm is Ehad I believe) created the heave and earth (John 1). He gave the law to the Israelites and He spoke through the prophets.”

      So you see, when I’m saying you’re beating around the bushes for no reason, when a simple YES would have suffice to answer my whole question, i.e., — Is Jesus as “GOD” the one who gave the laws/instrustions to the Bible prophets and their followers to carry-out his orders such as ~ him ordering to carry-out genocidal warfares that eliminates everything that breaths & Those ordering on women & Those ordering stoning even those that curse him and his kings? — Thus, YES Géji it is Jesus that did that, would have sufficed and would had save you lots of time typing as well. —— So thus as far it is official! -(according to you) Jesus as “GOD” ordered those punishments to be carried-out by his believers. Therefore, He didn’t did-it himself did he? but ordered others to do it for him isn’t.

      > “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name. Vengence belongs to the LORD as we are unqualified to punish”

      Let’s drop the hypocritical cop-out and be consistent shall we. And remember that we already establish it’s your Jesus-(again according to your own words “GOD”)- that “HE gave” the laws/instructions that ordered the punishments his Biblical prophets and their “Israelites” followers carried-out and applied against those infidel sinners such the “evil” Cananites ordering that annihilated them t’ill the last one that breaths including their farm animals, and the stoning of those that curses him and his kings.

      So then why are you contradicting yourself a minute later by saying – “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name” – Didn’t you said by the same token that he (Jesus) actually fulfilled the Biblical laws/instructions the prophets carried-out punishing infidels when he came to earth as God/man?

      So by contradicting yourself, you’re either proving your Jesus “GOD” is very contradictory, he’s one thing one moment and different thing the other, by extension proving he is not “GOD” at all as you says he is, thus fake. Or you have to admit since according to you his “GOD”, he did did ordered such cruel punishments in the Bible for his prophets and their followers to carry-out against infidels. He did not did-it himself, but ordered others to do it. Which makes your whole assertion of quote – “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name” – FALSE.

      ————————————-

      Sir David: “His holy angels …. MMMMM sounds like drones to me No change there then”

      Oh yes ‘dear’ Sir David, I see you too are smelling from miles-away the usual hypocrisy of our dear Mr john spielman . He first claimed Jesus-(“GOD” according to him) will have no help whatsoever carrying-out the delightful job at slaughtering infidels, but then he(Jesus) somehow now a minute latter he’ll have “His holy angels” as helpers? I wonder if john spielman think George W Bush is one of those “holy angels”, since Bush precisely stated such when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with the “holy” blessing of Jesus the warrior “GOD”.

    • Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69

      His holy angels …. MMMMM sounds like drones to me No change there then

    • cont’d. Now the old testament tells us why God “gave” the land of Canan to Israel, it was because the Cananites were so evil (practicing idol worship and engaing in child sacrifice to Molech) Deuteronomy9:5. The penalty of sinning against God was terrible for the Cananites and later for Israel when they turned from God and were nearly wiped out as a people by the Babylonians as God had revealed by the prophets.But now we the world are in an age of Grace (undeserves love and mercy of God) As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name. Vengence belongs to the LORD as we are unqualified to punish (Let him who is without sin cast the first stone). Luke 19 parable is about the end of this age when Christ returns as King of king and Lord of lords. We will not be carrying out His opunishments as it will be Jesus Himself with His holy angels (see Revelation 19 and 2 Thessalonians)

    • john spielman

      Dear Geji; Sorry to be late in responding to you, but I didn’t see your last post til now. As far as Jesus is God, this is the core belief in Christianity because not only did the disciples affirm this in their writings to the early church (John’s, Peter’s Paul’s epistles or letters but Jesus Himself confirmed this fact as recorded in the gospel accounts and proven by His miracles of walking on water, multiplying the loaves and fishes, healing the blind deaf and dumb, and raising the dead and finally by His resurrection from the dead after His crucifiction. So Jesus with the Fatherand Holy Spirit (one GOD -the Hebrew iterm is Ehad I believe) created the heave and earth (John 1). He gave the law to the Israelites and He spoke through the prophets. He fufilled the entire sacrifical and judicial system on the cross (Matthew 5:17-18 an many otrher passages)so now we are in a age of grace where our sins don’t always result in immediate punioshment by God.

    • khushboo

      How about Wajahat Ali vs. Spencer? He’s not anonymous and could easily bring him down to his knees!

    • flow

      Some people so hate salafis that they boil with rage. They then try to sound as if they have something to say. They dont! http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=10142 http://www.takfiris.com/takfir/articles/heigk-the-cult-of-omar-bakri-operating-within-the-united-kingdom-and-faking-attachment-to-salafiyyah.cfm Here is a taste: “Anjem Choudary is a Hardcore Takfiri.He makes Takfir of the Muslim Rulers. He even made Takfir of Sheikh Bin Baaz (RahimaHullah). (I personally heard him say that he believes that Sheikh Bin Baaz is a Kafir. (Wa’iyyadu’billah- We seek refuge in Allah). He is very Jaahil with regards to the Deen.” “… then when you criticize these people, and describe them as they are, it is as if you are an enemy of Islam and the Muslims, as if these people represent Islam and the Muslims in the first place. They only represent their own groups, and their own agendas and their own partisanship and their own innovated methodologies.” “…….attempting to deceive other muslims with their claimed attachment to the way of the Salaf.” Basic lesson: Do not let your hatred of a person or group of people turn u away from being just.

    • rookie

      The “Debate”:

      ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmZe6Y-RXfc&feature=player_embedded

    • rookie

      Truth Seeker say: “A lot of Salafis have more in common with Choudary and Bakri than you are afraid to admit.”

      Oh dear, this moron ir right again. They all have beards.

    • “Please don’t call these bozos “Salafis”. They’re not. They are Takfiris and Kharajites…Their inspiration is not from the Book and the Sunnah or The Salaf, but from the 20th/21st century political movements/ideologues. They are blowhards who need to heed the advice of the Ulema.”

      A lot of Salafis have more in common with Choudary and Bakri than you are afraid to admit. Given that the Salafis have no problem beating women in Tunisia or attempt to destroy Egypt pre-Islamic heritage or slaughtering women and children in Algeria’s civil war, is it so hard to believe that a lot of Salafis who themselves want to declare EVERYTHING bidah would come to the defense of Choudary and Bakri? After all, don’t they, in spite of all the mischief they cause, consider them to be brothers in Islam as opposed to liberal Muslims whom they regard as murtads and worthy of execution?

← Older Comments
 →
Powered by Loon Watchers