Top Menu

“Facts, Schmacts!”: Michael Medved on Islam

In his latest, as of this writing, blog post on his “Police Blotter,” Robert Spencer highlights a piece by Michael Medved entitled, “Disapproval of Islam is No Indication of Bigotry.” Medved writes:

The real question raised by all such expressions of public opinion should confront the nearly 40% of Americans who say they feel positively impressed by Islam and its influence.

What aspect of Muslim teaching and achievement most inspires such respondents? The daily reports of suicidal violence from every corner of the globe, with fellow-Muslims (invariably) as the primary victims? Or the well-known association of Islamic piety with open-hearted respect for the rights of women, homosexuals and infidels? Or is it the sterling record of economic progress, cutting age technology and social justice achieved by precisely those societies (like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan) that take Shariah law most seriously? Or would Islam’s American admirers cite the record of Muslim charities in the U.S., the most prominent of which (remember the Holy Land Foundation?) have been shut down by the government for their lavish support of murderous terrorist groups like Hamas?

Quite naturally, the people who look favorably on Islam feel unconcerned over its ancient teachings or loathsome perversions in benighted corners of the globe, and focus instead on the law-abiding, patriotic, family-loving Muslims who have established benign communities throughout the United States. But even the decent people who reside in those communities rightly worry that their impressionable off-spring may become too religious, too zealous in their fervent commitment to The Prophet and his teachings.

Notice how, in a few short paragraphs, Medved cites such things as suicide terrorists, countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, and Islam’s “ancient teachings” and infers that, therefore, Islam itself is bad.

Funny how Medved doesn’t mention all those “ancient teachings” of the Bible that demand stoning to death? Or, the fact that suicide terrorism is not a uniquely Islamic phenomenon? Moreover, Medved says:

There is no real parallel to this fear in Christian or Jewish homes. Christian parents may feel embarrassed by their religiously reborn children suddenly studying the Gospels obsessively, or witnessing obnoxiously to family or friends, but they needn’t worry about wayward kids blowing up themselves or others in the name of Jesus.

Really? What about the “Christian Bin Laden” who was arrested for plotting to blow up a women’s clinic? Or Timothy McVeigh? He was a known Christian. What about the Lord’s Resistance Army? Oh, but these are not Muslims, so they don’t count.

Medved goes on:

Jewish mothers and fathers may hate the scraggly beards and black hats adopted by a suddenly Orthodox generation, or resent the refusal to eat non-kosher food at home, but even the most fanatical of their kids feel scant temptation to travel to remote mountain hideouts as part of an international terror conspiracy.

Wow. Then, Mr. Medved must not have heard about the recent book Jewish Terrorism in Israel, written by two Israeli scholars, that documents Jewish terrorist activity dating from before the creation of the Jewish State. This is from the conclusion of the book:

It is true that radical Islamists to a certain extent justify their terrorism with their aspiration to help the Palestinian nation realize its nationalist goals and by claiming they are responding to the ongoing harm to Palestinians. However, even a movement such as Fatah, all the more so Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda, openly declare that they will not rest until the complete liberation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is achieved [the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located on the same site in Old Jerusalem as the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism].

On the other hand, although in much smaller numbers, there are Jews who regard the very presence of the mosques as an obstacle to the redemption of the people of Israel. A larger number hold a Kahanist worldview, according to which—irrespective of the conflict with the Palestinians—the Jewish state should cast out the Arab minority from within. Some of them are willing to try to implement this goal in a violent way or by means designed to bring about a violent escalation in the relations between Jews and Arabs.

Again, they don’t talk about Muslims, so it doesn’t count. Medved also failed to mention the comments of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator, who said that Gentiles are meant to serve Jews:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.

That is why gentiles were created,” he added.

You remember Rabbi Yosef…he called for a plague on the Palestinian people. Isn’t that, like, genocide?

But, wait! Medved exposes more of his worldview:

The spiritual leader of the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero insists that the true problem is extremism, not Islam itself. “The real battlefront today is not between Muslims and non-Muslims,” declared Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to the Council on Foreign Relations, “but between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions.”

This ignores the huge differences –both quantitative (Islamic radicals are vastly more numerous) and qualitative (Muslim fanatics endorse uniquely murderous rhetoric and deeds) – between extremists in one faith tradition and all others.

A Christian fundamentalist may talk about burning Korans; Muslim crazies regularly burn buildings- and people. Even after Pastor Terry Jones called off his idiotic barbeque of the Islamic holy book, Muslims reacted with deadly riots in Kashmir that killed 16 and wounded sixty, while burning several schools and other government buildings.

Some Americans may dislike the style of worship in Pentecostal or Catholic churches, but the faithful (no matter how tackily dressed) never surge out of their sanctuaries on Sundays with fury and blood-lust, looking for non-believers to stone and property to destroy. Every Friday, however, somewhere in the vast Muslim world, some congregations of the devout react to their uplifting prayer services by going directly from their mosques to rousing orgies of rage and violence.

This last statement is an over-reaching exaggeration at best. And, once again, Medved says these things while seeming to ignore all the atrocities committed by Christians and Jews in the name of their religion. It is all documented on the website: www.whatiftheyweremuslim.com. It goes to show that extremists are all the same – namely, extreme – and come from all walks of spiritual life.

But, that doesn’t fit into the neat little world of people like “Scholar” Robert Spencer and Michael Medved, and so they ingore the facts and continue on with their assertions about Islam.

Medved concludes:

This observation isn’t an expression of bigotry; it’s a factual product of reading the newspaper, and regularly monitoring international news. The lame-brained insistence that all faith traditions deserve equal respect (or equal condemnation) doesn’t demonstrate tolerance or broad-mindedness; it expresses, rather, a refusal to take any religion seriously enough for honest evaluation of its virtues and flaws.

Reservations about Islam, and even fears of the Muslim faith’s influence on the world at large, don’t constitute paranoia or intolerance. These concerns represent an honest and reasonable response on the part of a significant segment of the public to a serious global challenge to the values that Americans hold most dear.

No, Mr. Medved, your “observation” is nothing more than a repeating of the Muslim “Police Blotter,” citing the crimes of those who are Muslim and then projecting their criminality to all of Islam. It is as unfair as judging a town by its own police blotter. Now, I’m not saying that Mr. Medved is a bigot because he, obviously, has a negative view of Islam. I am only showing that the facts are not on his side.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Dawood

    That’s really the best response you can come up with JihadBob? Lame.

  • JihadBob

    I agree with you that al-Qaeda are Muslims and I also agree with you that their religious views are in line with mainstream Islam.

  • Khushboo

    The main thing is that if you believe in one God, his Book, the Quran, messengers incl. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last messenger, and the afterlife, you’re a muslim, no matter if you’re Shia or Sunni.

  • Mosizzle

    Also, fellow Muslims, we should be under no pressure to change our beliefs and practices just because some Islamophobe says so or because some human rights organization thinks it’s wrong for us to throw stones at adulterers but has no problem with America using banned chemical weapons in Fallujah, where babies are still being born disabled.

  • Mosizzle

    Jihadbob has gone crazy so I’ll just answer him by telling him what my Imam said in Friday sermon: “Denying any part of Islam doesn’t make you a non-Muslim but ridiculing an Islamic belief does”. So there you have it.

    If you don’t believe in hand chopping and stoning it doesn’t make you a kaffir but don’t make fun of it.

  • Khushboo

    Your question above was whether hand chopping and stoning is unIslamic and I answered. I, like many others, am a Sunni Muslim who don’t belong to any school of thought and that does not make me less of a Muslim. I know that most Muslim countries except Saudi Arabia don’t chop off a thief’s hand, but instead fine them and put them in jail. Stoning is a cultural, brutal punishment and is certainly not Islamic. Only minority radicals (some Wahabis) believe this is Islamic or maybe it’s just to gain power over people(i.e. the gov’t.).

  • JihadBob

    5:39 And whoever turns back to Allah(swt) after doing wrong, and reforms (his being),then surely Allah (swt) shall turn towards him. Truly Allah (swt) is Ever-Forgiving.

    So which school of thought in Sunni or Shia Islam prohibits hand chopping?

    And for the ones where hand chopping is permitted (I’ll go ahead and assume all or most), would Muslims who follow these traditions no longer fall into the fold of these traditions?

    They could call themselves Muslims but they could no longer say that they are Hanbali or Hanafi?

  • JihadBob

    Bob, stoning is not mentioned in the Quran at all.

    Nice deflection.

    I asked if holding views contrary to the teachings of the schools of jurisprudence puts one outside the fold of Islam, at least the fold of those schools of thought.

    All schools of thought believe that stoning is a permissible punishment, so are Muslims who are against stoning not Sunni or Shia Muslims???

  • Khushboo

    Bob, stoning is not mentioned in the Quran at all.

    As for stealing, you must read more than just one verse:

    5:39 And whoever turns back to Allah(swt) after doing wrong, and reforms (his being),then surely Allah (swt) shall turn towards him. Truly Allah (swt) is Ever-Forgiving.

    If God is forgiving, surely we can be too.

  • Syed

    JihadBob said, “Now, can you answer me if Muslims who do not believe in hand chopping, stoning adulterers are un-Islamic?”

    Martin Luther wrote, “We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]” — On the Jews and Their Lies

    Now can you answer me if Christians who do not believe in slaying are un-Christian?

  • Khushboo

    Mo, you should know him by now. He’s thinking ‘Facts, Schmacts’.:)

  • Mosizzle

    What the friggin’ hell, Jihadbob?

    Did you read what I wrote?? All of those things have been explicitly (I repeat: explicitly) forbid by both medieval scholars (who are supposedly extremist) and contemporary scholars of Islam. In other words those things are forbidden in Islam and Al Qaeda does them.

  • NassirH

    So there aren’t any religious practices of al-Qaeda that places them outside the fold of Orthodox Sunni Islam.

    Um…

    I know this must be embarrasing for you but…

    Mossizle posted:

    Terrorism, the rape of young people (both male and female) to guilt them into blowing themselves up, the killing of innocent Muslim and Non-Muslim civilians, the kidnappings (which go against the ethics of war in Islam,even according to medieval Islamic texts), the use of torture on prisoners of war, the persecution of people based on their race even though they are of the same faith (That would be the Pashtuns killing the other ethnicities in Afghanistan), the growing and selling of drugs such as opium , giving fatwas without the religious training necessary (I’m looking at you, Osama!), the destruction of places of residence (prohibited by Caliph Abu-Bakr), the use of suicide, destruction of graves, bombings inside and near mosques, breaking oaths taken during citizenship (Quran states we should honour contracts even if it means other Muslims lose out), the use of compulsion in religion (No it has not been abrogated in the Quran), intolerance for other religions…

  • JihadBob

    So there aren’t any religious practices of al-Qaeda that places them outside the fold of Orthodox Sunni Islam.

    Thought so.

    Now, can you answer me if Muslims who do not believe in hand chopping, stoning adulterers are un-Islamic?

  • Mosizzle

    “But you haven’t explained what religious practices of al-Qaeda you consider un-Islamic.”

    Terrorism, the rape of young people (both male and female) to guilt them into blowing themselves up, the killing of innocent Muslim and Non-Muslim civilians, the kidnappings (which go against the ethics of war in Islam,even according to medieval Islamic texts), the use of torture on prisoners of war, the persecution of people based on their race even though they are of the same faith (That would be the Pashtuns killing the other ethnicities in Afghanistan), the growing and selling of drugs such as opium , giving fatwas without the religious training necessary (I’m looking at you, Osama!), the destruction of places of residence (prohibited by Caliph Abu-Bakr), the use of suicide, destruction of graves, bombings inside and near mosques, breaking oaths taken during citizenship (Quran states we should honour contracts even if it means other Muslims lose out), the use of compulsion in religion (No it has not been abrogated in the Quran), intolerance for other religions…

    They do some weird things in the name of Islam. And no they are not justified to use any means necessary to advance the cause of Islam. Listen to Imam Al-Sharif (Dr.Fadl), a founder of Al-Qaeda who later gave up his terrorist ways, “There is no such thing in Islam as ends justifying the means.

  • http://@JihadBob Muslim

    “This ignores the huge differences – both quantitative (Islamic radicals are vastly more numerous”

    So the quantitative aspect of “Christian America” under self-proclaimed “Christian” rulers such as Bush & Obama with its (ironically) biggest killing ability in the world (Military Industrial Complex)is whitewashed?

    PS Bliar of the UK also admitted he was inspired by his Christian religion.

    Please note that I do not consider Bush, Bliar etc as genuine Christians despite their crusading rhetoric.

  • JihadBob

    Considering that you always insist that we Muslims have no right to “tell Christians what they believe in”, you should grant us the same rights and let us decide who is a mainstream Muslims and who isn’t.

    But you haven’t explained what religious practices of al-Qaeda you consider un-Islamic.

    Witchcraft? Paganism? Occult practices and beliefs?

    Do tell.

    We’ve shown several times that al-Qaeda’s beliefs aren’t mainstream: for example, I mentioned that killing civilians is forbidden.

    I thought you said that al-Qaeda’s militant views are political, not religious.

    Besides, haven’t Muslim scholars given the green light to kill civilians in special circumstances in the past?

    Doesn’t Qaradawi advocate suicide bombings inside Israel?

    Is he not a Muslim?

    Lastly, these views are not really beliefs that would make someone fall outside Orthodox Islam – al-Qaeda does not pray to saints like Shia Muslims or believe that OBL is the Messiah, Mahdi or prophet after Islam.

    Using your argument, couldn’t we say that Muslims who do not believe in hand chopping for theft are not real Muslims?

    Stoning married adulterers are not real Muslims?

    Not subscribing to the belief in intra-Koranic abrogation not real Muslims?

    So apparently Communism is unarguably violent, while the violence of Nazism is debatable.

    Well, communism holds as one of its tenets the violent overthrow of Capitalist government.

    How is that belief not inherently violent?

    Besides, you haven’t answered my question – if we are to agree that Nazism and Communism are inherently violent belief systems, then why aren’t the majority of Nazis and Communists terrorists?

    Why aren’t communist party members in the US not blowing everything up as we speak right now?

    You can also list those hundreds of terrorist attacks not to do with oppression and other stuff you’ve pushed forward too.

    I think it was in regards to occupation, not oppression.

    It’s kind of hard to qualify what oppression is since I don’t consider Islamic terrorism in many regions of the world as necessarily being perpetuated because of oppression.

    Why do you think so many people hate them?

    Uh, because they recently managed to blow up tens of thousands of Muslims in the past few years.

    Why do you think al-Qaeda’s popularity after 9/11 was so high in the Muslim world?

    Because their targets weren’t Muslim.

    No, you miss the point, there is no comparison since the majority if not all Nazis supported what the Nazis were doing or actively engaged in it.

    Well, Nazis who deny the Holocaust may not support such actions.

    Besides, we’re talking about a time before the Nazis became a state power.

    Why weren’t all Nazis terrorists?

    Why aren’t all Communists terrorists?

    You asked me why all Muslims aren’t terrorists, hopefully you can find the answer to that question when you answer mine regarding the Nazis or Communists.

  • Cynic

    So apparently Communism is unarguably violent, while the violence of Nazism is debatable.

    Bahahaha, JihadBob is a joke.

  • NassirH

    @Bob

    Considering that you always insist that we Muslims have no right to “tell Christians what they believe in”, you should grant us the same rights and let us decide who is a mainstream Muslims and who isn’t.

    You haven’t shown that al-Qaeda’s religious beliefs are not mainstream.

    Nope. Wrong again. We’ve shown several times that al-Qaeda’s beliefs aren’t mainstream: for example, I mentioned that killing civilians is forbidden. Of course, you ignored this, as you do with every piece of evidence that shatters your thesis (which is, btw, “Muslims are trying to take over the world”).

    I suggest you reply to @Dawood again, as your response obviously didn’t take any facts into consideration. Here is what Dawood posted:

    Again: You deny Muslims the ability to define the miscreants within their own religious tradition as being non-mainstream, yet expect legitimacy when you define the LRA in this way. Do you somehow think that your double-standards will go unchallenged without being highlighted?

    (Bearing in mind that JihadBob didn’t respond to Dawood’s last question—the answer would be yes, JihadBob believes his epic double-standards will go unchallenged.)

    Oh, and I found this wonderful tidbit from JihadBob. It’s another example of his epic double standards.

    Thank you for agreeing with me that the vast majority of Nazi party members from the formation of their party to the moment they were voted into power never engaged in terrorism, despite the fact that Nazi ideology could be said to have been violent.

    The same could be said of communist groups and individuals. Communism is undoubtedly a violent belief system, but the vast majority of communists in the US will never engage in violence.

    Notice that Nazism, a far-right ideology, “could be said have been violent”, while Communism, basically part of the far-left, is “undoubtedly a violent belief system”.

    So apparently Communism is unarguably violent, while the violence of Nazism is debatable. Considering that JihadBob sympathizes with the Confederacy I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a soft spot for Nazism, as both Nazi Germany and the Southern Confederacy are two extinict states championed by far-right folks such as himself.

    For more on JihadBob and the Confederacy:
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/roman-conaway-vet-threatens-muslims-and-obama-in-lead-to-standoff/

  • http://thebandofstrangers.blogspot.com/ Jack Cope

    Sheesh, Bob, Al-Queda are not mainstream, do you speak to Muslims? What do they say about it? Exactly.

    Now for the rest.

    I’ve never seen anyone ‘predict’ such a clash and as a matter of fact, there is not one now and never will be one provided the war hawks in the US are kept under control. Muslims certainly don’t want it, it’s ‘your’ lot that seem to be pushing for it.

    “Well yes. Muslims are carrying out defensive Jihad, after all.

    It won’t be until al-Qaeda or Muslim moderates establish a true Islamic state where the kalifa can declare war against the non-Muslim world (offensive Jihad).”

    Righhhhttt….. first of all Al-Queada will never get to do that, simply because, as said many many times, they have not support. Secondly, the idea of ‘Offensive Jihad’ is a misnomer to most Muslims, so even if the rest of us get our act together then it’s not going to happen.

    “Uh, no.

    Not really the same. I think the calls for holy war and dehumanization of non-believers before the Nazis invaded is missing. Besides communists, there was no desire to establish a totalitarian government after the Nazis left.”

    Kinda there, however there were a number of ‘resistance groups’, especially more ‘Orthodox Church’ and Communist ones that had similar grand ideas and rhetoric. It depends, when people get desperate they listen to whoever is standing up, so through Europe and other occupied places it varied.

    “There are so many objections that I could find to ordinary insurgents in Nazi occupied Europe to the global Islamic militant movement that I would tire myself out and feel rather silly pointing out such gee whizz statements.”

    Go for it, I don’t like such ‘strawman’ arguments, you do it far to much. You can also list those hundreds of terrorist attacks not to do with oppression and other stuff you’ve pushed forward too.

    “I’m confused by what you’re trying to say.

    But yes, Muslims have only until recently been on the occupied/losing/weaker side in a military conflict.”

    My point here is once again, why have such groups never appeared? And no, Islam hasn’t only recently been in such a situation, ‘Muslim’ lands have been ‘lost’ before etc. Why did no such thing happen then?

    “In prior centuries, Islamist armies were sent out to raid, invade and plunder non-Muslim lands, all justified through the texts and teachings of Islam.”

    Sorry, no, I’m going to again have to ask you to show me where people used Islam to justify this. Because you can’t justify it, Islam will only stand for defensive Jihad, all the rest is up to the state and down to them.

    “Who is they, exactly?

    The majority of Pakistanis who admire Osama bin Laden? The fifty % who held a favorable view of the Taliban (before the Pakistani Taliban began bombing Pakistani targets), the % of Muslims who support the terror group Hamas?

    Should I point out that OBL was named the most popular famous figure in an Arab/Muslim nation only a few years ago?

    Islamist groups only lost much of their support because they began bombing Muslim countries, not because their goals (the formation of an Islamic state) or their ideology is a turn off for most Muslims.”

    First of all, support for Hamas is, to most of us, like support for the IDF, both as bad as each other quite frankly.

    Secondly, you’re facts are kinda there but not completely. Yes, such groups had some support because people saw that, finaly, someone was ‘getting back at the ‘west”, again we hit the oppression, real of not, thing.

    Finally, yes, their ideology bloody well is a turn off! Why do you think so many people hate them? Why do scholars denounce them? Heck, anyone who thinks that killing civilians is OK deserves that hate. That is key to their ideology, the fact that they believe they can kill others and the fact that they feel they can denounce any Muslim not like them as an apostate. Sure, we share the one ‘goal’ (not really) of an ‘Islamic state’ but we also pray and so do they, so it’s really nothing. And the whole ‘Islamic state’ thing amongst the rest of us is not a ‘solid’ ideal anyway.

    “Thank you for agreeing with me that the vast majority of Nazi party members from the formation of their party to the moment they were voted into power never engaged in terrorism, despite the fact that Nazi ideology could be said to have been violent.

    The same could be said of communist groups and individuals. Communism is undoubtedly a violent belief system, but the vast majority of communists in the US will never engage in violence.”

    No, you miss the point, there is no comparison since the majority if not all Nazis supported what the Nazis were doing or actively engaged in it. In other words, the opposite to Islam were, as we have covered, you have but a handful engaged/supporting.

    Communism isn’t really violent, I fail to see the comparison or the point you are making. Sorry.

  • JihadBob

    Again: You deny Muslims the ability to define the miscreants within their own religious tradition as being non-mainstream, yet expect legitimacy when you define the LRA in this way.

    Uh, no.

    You haven’t shown that al-Qaeda’s religious beliefs are not mainstream.

    News to you? It’s news to me that people thought there would be a coming wave!

    No, your previous comment was news to me and I followed that up by pointing out that many had prophetically predicted a clash between the Muslim world and non-Muslim world.

    The fact of the mater is that it has not happened until Muslims were ‘oppressed’,

    Well yes. Muslims are carrying out defensive Jihad, after all.

    It won’t be until al-Qaeda or Muslim moderates establish a true Islamic state where the kalifa can declare war against the non-Muslim world (offensive Jihad).

    Such a ‘streak’ appears in any culture, let’s take resistance groups in WWII as examples of that, perfectly normal people driven to acts of ‘terrorism’ under oppression from the Nazis.

    Uh, no.

    Not really the same. I think the calls for holy war and dehumanization of non-believers before the Nazis invaded is missing. Besides communists, there was no desire to establish a totalitarian government after the Nazis left.

    There are so many objections that I could find to ordinary insurgents in Nazi occupied Europe to the global Islamic militant movement that I would tire myself out and feel rather silly pointing out such gee whizz statements.

    Right…. ‘Jihad against the infidel’… examples? Please. Again, same as above, there have been no such groups because Muslims haven’t been ‘oppressed’ as they are now.

    I’m confused by what you’re trying to say.

    But yes, Muslims have only until recently been on the occupied/losing/weaker side in a military conflict.

    In prior centuries, Islamist armies were sent out to raid, invade and plunder non-Muslim lands, all justified through the texts and teachings of Islam.

    they have no support, please provide evidence that they do.

    Who is they, exactly?

    The majority of Pakistanis who admire Osama bin Laden? The fifty % who held a favorable view of the Taliban (before the Pakistani Taliban began bombing Pakistani targets), the % of Muslims who support the terror group Hamas?

    Should I point out that OBL was named the most popular famous figure in an Arab/Muslim nation only a few years ago?

    Islamist groups only lost much of their support because they began bombing Muslim countries, not because their goals (the formation of an Islamic state) or their ideology is a turn off for most Muslims.

    That is no comparison to Islam where, at most, there are a few thousand ‘terrorists’ if we take ‘resistance groups’ like the Taliban into account, out of a population of 1.57 billion.

    Thank you for agreeing with me that the vast majority of Nazi party members from the formation of their party to the moment they were voted into power never engaged in terrorism, despite the fact that Nazi ideology could be said to have been violent.

    The same could be said of communist groups and individuals. Communism is undoubtedly a violent belief system, but the vast majority of communists in the US will never engage in violence.

  • Mohammed Sameel

    tarig says ” Its you that are brainwashed, you that are brain dead”

    mind you, Cheryl, missmanners and the likes of them are not brainwashed or brain dead, they simply do not have one.:D

  • http://thebandofstrangers.blogspot.com/ Jack Cope

    Well Bob, you’ve given the best answer to my question that I’ve seen so far… well that being mainly because you’ve been one of the few who, rather than just say ‘oh, makes sense’ continues to charge on regardless… Anyway, let’s deal with it.

    “Uh, that would be news to me.

    I think a number of people correctly knew that there would be a coming conflict or wave of terrorism with Islam.

    And that was by sensing the fanaticism and militancy in Muslim society.”

    News to you? It’s news to me that people thought there would be a coming wave! Are you going to back that one up or is this another ‘hundreds of attacks that were not due to oppression’ thing? The fact of the mater is that it has not happened until Muslims were ‘oppressed’, again if there were such a streak then why is that so? Such a ‘streak’ appears in any culture, let’s take resistance groups in WWII as examples of that, perfectly normal people driven to acts of ‘terrorism’ under oppression from the Nazis.

    “Uh, because Muslims had armies that could wage Jihad against the infidel up until very recently.”

    Right…. ‘Jihad against the infidel’… examples? Please. Again, same as above, there have been no such groups because Muslims haven’t been ‘oppressed’ as they are now.

    “And I’ll say here and now that such groups have no widespread support from the mainstream,

    You can say you’re the Queen of England. I just don’t know how many people will believe you.”

    Of course, you don’t do facts… tell me Bob, ever spoken to Muslims? Befriended one? Visited Muslim countries? Heck, ever even logged onto a Muslim website? I don’t think so, hence you can’t really comment. I’ll say it one more time, they have no support, please provide evidence that they do. Opinion polls from around the world back my point up, nothing backs up yours.

    “I’m not comparing Islam to Nazism. But let’s use some common sense here.

    If we all agree that Nazism is violent, then why weren’t all members of the National Socialist Party carrying out acts of terrorism?”

    Well, even if not *all* members of the Nazi party were carrying out violence/terrorism, a significant majority were with most of the rest supporting them, if not all. That is no comparison to Islam where, at most, there are a few thousand ‘terrorists’ if we take ‘resistance groups’ like the Taliban into account, out of a population of 1.57 billion. So sorry, no, common sense shows the opposite to what you are saying. Again, it cannot be denied that when compared to the mainstream, these extremists are a handful.

  • Dawood

    Haha, I am not the one who is classifying professed believers whilst not allowing others to do the same towards those within their own tradition. My view of the Ahmadiyya is entirely irrelevant. A person can still be a Muslim without being Sunni, by the way.

    Again: You deny Muslims the ability to define the miscreants within their own religious tradition as being non-mainstream, yet expect legitimacy when you define the LRA in this way. Do you somehow think that your double-standards will go unchallenged without being highlighted?

  • JihadBob

    Bob, if there is a ‘militant streak’ in Islam then why is it this ‘streak’ only becomes apparent when a country is ‘occupied’?

    Uh, that would be news to me.

    I think a number of people correctly knew that there would be a coming conflict or wave of terrorism with Islam.

    And that was by sensing the fanaticism and militancy in Muslim society.

    Why were there no ‘Islamic’ terrorist groups before now?

    Uh, because Muslims had armies that could wage Jihad against the infidel up until very recently.

    And I’ll say here and now that such groups have no widespread support from the mainstream,

    You can say you’re the Queen of England. I just don’t know how many people will believe you.

    The other is to ask the question that if Islam is violent, why aren’t there 1.57 billion more terrorists in the world, again contact me if you ever get an answer to that.

    I’m not comparing Islam to Nazism. But let’s use some common sense here.

    If we all agree that Nazism is violent, then why weren’t all members of the National Socialist Party carrying out acts of terrorism?

    They (the LRA) self-identify as Christian, regardless of their “practices”, so what does you trying to somehow show that they are not legitimate or mainstream

    I didn’t say they weren’t legitimate.

    If they call themselves Christian then they are Christian in my book.

    But they aren’t mainstream. I didn’t think I needed to accompany my belief that a self proclaimed Christian cult/group that practices witchcraft and incorporates beliefs from animism wouldn’t be a mainstream belief movement in Christianity. But I guess I must have forgotten about you.

    Do you think the beliefs of Ahmadis who believe their founder was a prophet after Muhammad, the Messiah and Mahdi all in one are mainstream views within Orthodox, Sunni Islam?

    Hopefully between the time you read my post and type out your post some common sense will manage to find you.

Powered by Loon Watchers