Top Menu

This is What You Can Expect From a Mitt Romney Presidency: Islamophobia

It’s going to be Islamophobia on crack if Mitt Romney wins (thanks for all who sent in tips):

Pamela Geller, for all those who’ve forgotten is the looniest blogger ever. Everything out of her mouth competes with everything she has said in the past to be more over-the-top, racist, hateful, and Islamophobic.

Just take look at a sampling of her positions over the past three years:

Pamela Geller calls for the destruction of the Golden Dome;  Obama is a Mooslim, Jihadist, Pimp, anti-Semite who is aiding the Iranian Nuclear program;  Sharia Coke is taking over the world, it is defamation of Judaism and Christianity for Islam to include Moses and Jesus as Prophets of Islam;  Pamela Geller is a Holocaust Revisionist who claims that Hitler and the Nazis adopted Jihad;  Not only is Obama a secret Muslim, but according to Pamela Geller,  “Obama is bringing his jihad to Illinois…Obama’s treachery is breathtaking;  Pamela Geller calls for the nuking of Mecca, Medina, and Tehran;  Pamela Geller promotes a genocidal videoPamela Geller shows sympathy towards white supremacist;  Screenshot of Pamela Geller’s post on June 25th wherein she posted a video claiming that Muslims engage in bestiality;  Pamela Geller left speechless when called out for drawing a picture of the Prophet Muhammad with a pig’s face.

More serious than Geller posing in a pic with Mitt Romney is the insidious nature of Romney’s ties with the Islamophobia movement. Romney’s senior foreign policy adviser is none other than former Bush era UN Ambassador John Bolton.

One can only hope that in tonight’s debate the moderator questions Romney about his ties to radicals and inclusion of Islamophobes like John bolton on his staff. Gus from Little Green Footballs has compiled an incisive compilation of the ties between Bolton and Geller.:

Exhibit C: Mitt Romney Campaign Senior Foreign Policy Adviser John Bolton and Pamela Geller

Romney foreign policy adviser with hate group leader Pamela Geller in numerous meetings.

About John Bolton:

John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948) is an American lawyer and diplomat who has served in several Republican administrations. Appointed on a recess appointment, he served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006. He resigned in December 2006, when the recess appointment would have otherwise ended, because he was unlikely to win senate confirmation.

John Bolton and Mitt Romney

Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), frequent op-ed contributor to the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, Fox News Channel commentator, foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and of counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office…

The reader should be reminded of the connection between Anders Breivik and Pamela Geller. There is also a connection between Anders Brevik and Robert Spencer.Tommy Robinson’s hooliganism and right-wing extremism is notorious and too extensive to cover here. You can however find many articles covering his organization, the English Defence League, which has been covered extensively at LGF including his connection to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

There is no vast conspiracy at play here. However, it should be disturbing enough that the senior foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney, John Bolton, has the ear of anti-Islam extremist, Pamela Geller. Her connection with the EDL makes this plainly obvious. This my friends is the post-modern conservative movement, where we find odious characters in the Republican big tent whose lives are intertwined; in this case from Mitt Romney to Pamela Geller; Tommy Robinson (EDL), Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller; and most importantly, the close relationship of John Bolton and Pamela Geller.

Update I: Michael Elwood reminds us that another Islamophobe, Walid Phares is also a part of the Romney’s inner circle,

John Bolton isn’t the only Islamophobe in Romney’s inner circle. His main Middle East advisor is Walid Phares:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/walid-phares-mitt-romney-lebanese-forces

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011102673018375864.html

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Michael Elwood

    @Chameleon

    “Really? I must have completely missed that part.”

    Well, she tried to defend her views. . . for a while. I give her credit for that. A lot of the high profile Islamophobes won’t debate even to the small extent that she did (for many of the reasons you outlined in your post). I agree with you that we should keep trying to get them to debate anyway.

    Coincidentally, someone responded to my comment on Kunwar’s Telegraph blog. But I couldn’t respond because I’m having trouble logging in. I don’t know if that’s by accident or design. :-)

  • Chameleon

    @Michael,

    Although it is definitely unusual, I wasn’t too surprised by that article coming out in Pakistan. Secular criticism of Islam is quite alive and well in Pakistan from what I hear. It just doesn’t come out much in the press.

    You said, “Give Bonnie credit. She believes enough in what she says that she came here and tried to defend it.”

    Really? I must have completely missed that part. I did not express any doubt regarding her true beliefs because her beliefs are simply not relevant in a debate about Islam. What is relevant is that she could not formulate a single coherent argument, the meager “facts” she did have were crushed into oblivion, and she refused to engage a single person in any debate to test her convictions. Sorry, I cannot give complete cowards any credit, nor can I give a bimbo any intellectual credit for reckless logic and irrelevant facts. She did not come here to “defend” anything. If she did, she would not have run away as soon as someone challenged her.

    When I challenge someone, I don’t usually expect a rebuttal, because I know that the only thing that protects them from their fear to engage is their own idiocy; and even bimbos have a few working brain cells. But that is not the point. In spite of this predictable response, we must continue to issue “in your face” challenges to Islamophobes, again and again and again. Why? Because it accomplishes at least four important objectives:

    1) It firmly puts our flag on top of the mountain of Truth about Islam, which forces leading Islamophobes to come to us if they want to retain credibility with their zombie following about what Islam really says;

    2) It very publicly crushes the fundamental Islamophobe argument that the only good Muslim is one who is ignorant of his or her religion, particularly when leading Islamophobes run away in absolute fear from Muslims who are clearly NOT ignorant of their religion and who issue “in your face” challenges at an extremely low threshold of proof (e.g., “show me just ONE verse” when they claim hundreds of such verses exist, as Bimbo Bonnie did above);

    3) It forces Islamophobes into a very costly no-win scenario: either be completely humiliated intellectually in a debate, or be humiliated and very publicly degraded by refusing a seemingly trivial “in your face” challenge, like Bimbo Bonnie just did for the record above by her cowardly silence and by her self-proclaimed scholarly idiocy for all to witness; and

    4) Perhaps most important of all, it inspires other Muslims who are not as strong in their faith and who are less familiar with these vicious attacks against Islam and the alleged verses in question that there is nothing to fear from these vacuous fools with their grossly inflammatory claims, and that Muslims need only arm themselves with the Truth about Islam, since the facts and logic are truly on their side.

    The last two objectives are also the reward that I most enjoy for my efforts. For example, with respect to the third objective, when Bimbo Bonnie refused to debate me, I forced her to completely humiliate herself primarily because of my “in your face” challenge, since how else could she possibly pass up a chance to crush such a seemingly trivial challenge? What was immensely satisfying to me is that she very publicly admitted to being too stupid to know enough about the Quran to debate it, even though her entire website and all her hate-filled rants are premised on the alleged violent injustice that is everywhere in the Quran! That is what is called getting completely owned, and if she ever wants to reclaim what she just lost, she will have to come back here to get it. That is another reason I continue to predict that she will be back here again, not to “defend” any position, but to fulfill her sadomasochistic need for some more brain spanking. I will be waiting to deliver just what she deserves and exactly what she secretly wants.

  • Michael Elwood

    @Chameleon

    Thanks, bro. Sorry for the late response. I was watching the Bulls beat OKC. Anyway, you can issue all the challenges you want but they’re not going to respond. They know that they can’t defend their nonsense. Robert Spencer actually introduced Kunwar’s article by saying:

    “Kunwar Khuldune Shahid is quite wrong when he says: ‘Every single religion has a violent streak. Every single one of them orders violence and killing in one form or the other for the ‘non-believers’. Islam is unique in that regard. However, the rest of this piece is amazingly honest, and all the more extraordinary for having appeared in a Pakistani publication.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/pakistani-columnist-dont-blame-the-taliban-blame-islam.html

    Give Bonnie credit. She believes enough in what she says that she came here and tried to defend it. I don’t think Robert Spencer believes half the stuff he says. That’s why his punk-a** would never post in the comments section on Loon Watch (even though he boasts that he’ll debate anyone, anywhere).

  • Chameleon

    Michael,

    Excellent fact-filled and logically coherent analysis, as usual. Only a fool or — I can only hope — a sadomasochist like Bimbo Bonnie would attempt a rebuttal to that.

    Like you, I have laid down the challenge many times for someone — anyone — to show me just ONE murderous kill order in the Quran, ONE verse that permits violence except in direct response to persecution and oppression as a matter of self-defense for the protection of the state or to restore basic law and order. Such a standard is not only the most universally ethical theory of modern warfare, but 100% in agreement with the most cherished of American values, unlike the flagrantly hypocritical and un-American love-cult ideology that others espouse. I am still waiting … and waiting… on that ONE verse.

    Likewise, I have laid down the challenge for anyone to show just ONE contradiction in the Quran, including between the so-called “peaceful” vs. “violent” verses. In every case, without exception, all have utterly failed or, more often than not, ran away with their tail between their legs, like Bimbo Bonnie. The entire basis for “abrogation” as nullification of Quranic verses is nothing more than a factually baseless innovation propagated by a coterie of mullahs on various politicians’ payrolls to validate their exercise of oppressive power. Without this phony doctrine, the value of the mullahs to interpret (via fatwa) what part of the Quran still applies and what part doesn’t would no longer exist, and they would be out of a job. In effect, their entire livelihood depends on their personal damnation of parts of the Quran that they must completely disagree with, and on a malevolent vulgarization of other parts of the Quran that they partly agree with, all for the sake of their own profit.

    Another fatal error that devious mullahs and Islamophobes alike make is treating historical documents as equivalent to the Quran, especially when the interpretation of those documents depends, as it often does, on the inclusion, omission or translation of a singular word transmitted through a singular long chain of narrators over centuries. One such word can sometimes transform the meaning of a hadith or other narrative to something that is completely opposite in meaning; and sometimes it provably does when the very same “authentic” hadith is narrated elsewhere without that same word. How could such a narration ever be equivalent in force to the Quran? It simply can’t. That is why the Quran is referred to with great respect as the Holy Quran — validated not just by contemporaneous written documents, but by the “wisdom of the crowds” via massively scaled and cross-checked memorization — and why hadiths are just called hadiths. I have yet to hear anyone in my entire life refer to hadiths as Holy Hadiths.

    And what is even worse is elevating Sira (like those twisted references in the article) to the level of hadiths, let alone to the level of the Quran. The Sira (which is overwhelmingly from Ibn Ishaq or Hisham, which are essentially the same) have little or no historical authentication, and there is not even a single reliable copy of Ibn Ishaq’s work available – just fragments by secondary authors referencing his work. Even Ibn Ishaq said he made no real attempt to validate his sources and simply recorded just about everything he heard regarding the early Muslim community. Finally, with respect to the events related in the Sira, the context is very often omitted to explain or justify what happened and why, thereby providing only fodder for Islamophobes to fill in the “why” and “what really happened” blanks.

  • Michael Elwood

    @Watcher

    I posted the comment below on the Telegraph (the comment was garbled though):

    Isn’t the all-knowing-native-informant-who-heroically-spills-the-beans-about-what-Islam-really-teaches shtick getting old? Kunwar says, “The Taliban have defended the attack on Malala Yousafzai according to their scriptures and history.” Then, without any sense of contradiction he says, “Of course if you’re looking for a command that orders the killing of every 14-year-old school going girl who is inspired by the leader of Dar-ul-Harb, you won’t find one. . . .”

    There’s a reason Kunwar ignores Islam’s scripture and spends the rest of his article citing extra-scriptural sources. Not only does the Quran not command wanton killing of anyone, it prohibits it and repeatedly emphasizes the sanctity of life:

    6:151 Say, “Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty – we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.”

    17:33 You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.

    2:190 Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors

    4:94 O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, “You are not a believer,” seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

    Kunwar says, “. . . .but what you will find are quite a few historical precedents.” Then goes on to give a grand total of TWO “historical precedents” (both of dubious historicity)! Meanwhile, the Quran tells Muslims to ignore those who insult their religion (not kill them). The Quran says:

    6:68 If you see those who mock our revelations, you shall avoid them until they delve into another subject. If the devil causes you to forget, then, as soon as you remember, do not sit with such evil people.

    Concerning Muhammad, the Quran says:

    3:159 It was mercy from GOD that you became compassionate towards them. Had you been harsh and mean-hearted, they would have abandoned you. Therefore, you shall pardon them and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them. Once you make a decision, carry out your plan, and trust in GOD. GOD loves those who trust in Him.

    Kunwar says:

    “And if we’re playing the authenticity game, how many of the apologists realise that the first ‘authentic’ biography of the Holy Prophet was written in 828 AD by Abd-al-Malik bin Hisham – a good 196 years after his death? Again, strictly from a neutral historian’s viewpoint if you’re allowing for a gap of two centuries between the events actually taking place and their first reliable narration, that slashes a question mark over the accuracy of pretty much anything you care to conjure up from Islamic history – violent or otherwise.”

    That’s an interesting observation. From the early years of Islam to the present, many Muslims have questioned not only the authenticity but the authority of sources outside the Quran (see Prof. Aisha Musa’s book “Hadith as Scripture”). Ironically, those books may be dispensable to a lot of Muslims, but they’re indispensable to you. Funny, that!

    Kunwar asks, “Does it seem reasonable that something that was supposed to guide man till the afterlife is left to human interpretation – especially when it deals with something as brutally sensitive as killing another human being – and is left so ambiguous such that one can’t even find five of its followers who would agree on every single one of its aspects?”

    Yes, it is reasonable. Why are you blaming your lack of reading comprehension on everything and everyone else? I’d question the intelligence of someone who thinks the verses about killing that I quoted were “ambiguous”.

    Kunwar asks, “If the propagators really wanted to ensure that everything remains contextual, how hard was it to drop a line saying it? (There is no command declaring that: hang on, you can kill the ‘non-believers’ now but make sure you don’t do so in 2012 – when humanity would be aware of the repugnance of the act)”

    That’s exactly what the Quran does, Einstien. For example, critics of Islam love to (mis)quote Quran 9:5. They claim that it is the “sword verse” that tells Muslims to “kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them”. And they claim it conveniently abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran. But they invariably ignore the context of the verse. The verse is DESCRIBING a battle that happened in the 7th century, not PRESCRIBING a future battle. They also ignore the very next verse which says:

    9:6 If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

    If Muslims are told to kill all non-Muslims in 9:5, who are the people being offered safety and security in 9:6? Their ghosts?

    Kunwar asks, “If the propagators really wanted to make sure that the peaceful verses – most from the time at Makkah – last forever, why would they introduce the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace?”

    The “doctrine of abrogation” is dubious. Prof. Aisha Musa says:

    “However, the idea of abrogation here is also problematic. First, because as John Burton and Abu Yousuf al-Corentini have demonstrated, there a number of serious issues related to the question of abrogation itself, not the least of which is that there has never been agreement among Muslim scholars on the existence of abrogation within the Quran, let alone on the issue of specific verses are abrogating and which are abrogated.”

    Kunwar asks why Muslims, “. . . .can never be friends with the Jews and Christians or else they would be one of them?”

    Concerning friendship with non-Muslims, the Quran says:

    60:8-9 GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

    Kunwar ends his rambling article with a magic trick. He pulls the number 810 million from his a** and claims that it’s the number of people killed throughout history in the name of religion. However, I think it’s safe to say that the number of people killed in the name of secular ideologies in the 20th and 21st centuries alone is more than the people killed in the name of religion throughout history.

  • Garibaldi

    The 9/11 truth movement stems largely from good intentions but it has been infested by many conspiracy theories that are wrongheaded and some of which can rightly be described as bigoted. I do think we have to get to the truth of what exactly happened on that day, and I believe as more documents are revealed we will come to an answer.

    Recently, Kurt Eichenwald’s book “500 Days” came out revealing that the Bush administration had been repeatedly and consistently warned about the threat from AlQaeda attacking within the USA. The Bush administration was more concerned with Iraq and Saddam Hussein than Bin Laden and non-state actors like AlQaeda. They were obsessed with invading Iraq and ignored/undermined the efforts to act against Bin Laden and cohorts.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/12/500_days_author_kurt_eichenwalds_new

  • DrM

    @watcher
    I just checked Kunwar Khaldune Shahid’s twitter page..and surprise surprise, he’s making real nice Spencer :

    “@jihadwatchRS Thank you so much sir. I’d be glad to write for Jihad Watch, I’ll email you a piece soon.”

    I knew he was a crappy low class writer but Shahid’s eagerness to write for Geehad Watch confirms my suspicions about his credibility. Imran Khan’s words come to mind :

  • DrM

    @Watcher,

    Wrong, anti-Islamic troll. That “article” has no merit whatsoever. It would take an article thrice as long to correct the errors in it. Nothing new whatsoever, just the same old Orientalist lies we’ve all heard over and over again, and refuted. That’s why it’s doing the rounds in the western propaganda circuit as a “brave” write up. The Pakistani Express Tribune is the trashy mouthpiece for Pakistan’s rabidly anti-Islamic, notoriously corrupt, pro-western “liberals.” These same “liberals” have more blood on their hands then the Taliban, but hey I doubt a worthless hack like Kunwar Shahid has the honesty to check THOSE numbers.
    The grand hypocrisy being that these same gutless scum don’t have the backbone to utter a word against Anglo-American TERRORISTS who have murdered tens of thousands of men, women and children.
    They are crying crocodile tears for Malala Yousefzai. It’s all drama to extend the occupation of Afghanistan and continue destabilizing Pakistan. If a US assassination drone had killed her, western state media would never have highlighted her plight, she would have “collateral damage.”

    Spare us your the rest of your paranoia. Come election day, America will “elect” another criminal to power. Doesn’t matter it’s Obama or Romney. I won’t be voting for obvious reasons. A nation of sub-literate morons with a dysfunctional political system deserves what it gets.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold CriticalDragon1177

    @Watcher

    Islam is not the enemy, and there’s no sign that Obama has “helping Islam” as one of his major goals as president, anyway.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @Nevermore, thank you for saying that :)

  • Watcher

    To me Romney and Geller are in the same league as the journalist who wrote the following in ‘Pakistan Today’ after the attack on 14 year old Mahala:

    – Quote

    Let’s finally address the elephant in the room
    Which ideology can possibly justify killing a 14-year-old school going kid? That is the question being asked by the ‘moderates’. The Taliban claim that their ideology does. The apologists of that ideology claim that the ‘monsters’ have got it all wrong, and continue to castigate the ‘beasts’, while ensuring that no fingers point towards the ideology. It’s about time we finally addressed the elephant in the room, instead of pointlessly condemning violent acts without discussing their roots.

    – End Quote

    Source: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/15/dont-blame-the-taliban-ii/

    Obama is if it comes to Islam either a coward or an accomplice, I suspect the latter.

  • Nevermore

    “Just because Nevermore thinks that the government is lying now while the Truthers think that the government has been lying for awhile doesn’t give Nevermore the right to tell SGP to shut up.”

    I could have handled myself better, admittedly. You’ll have to excuse me getting exasperated at what I see as a closed issue. I was going to drop it with Stephen after he posted earlier (which was more polite than it could have been). I will never convince him and he, certainly, will never convince me otherwise.

    I’m sorry for my childish passive aggressive behavior, especially when no one else was acting that way but myself.

  • Awesome

    @ AJ

    The other one is me – a proud 911 Truther here!

    – While I don’t believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, I also don’t associate myself with the “9/11 truth movement” either, because of all the nonsense that it has become infested with. There are more than enough reasons to doubt the official 9/11 conspiracy theory without having to resort to even more ridiculous ones.

    The facts:

  • http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @CD and Nevermore,

    It’s not the issue of what evidence you find compelling or what the Truthers find compelling. I am not trying to start a 911 debate here. Just because Nevermore thinks that the government is lying now while the Truthers think that the government has been lying for awhile doesn’t give Nevermore the right to tell SGP to shut up.

  • Nevermore

    @AJ, Stephen Parker: Except that CriticalDragon, and the videos he posted, are exactly right. By denying that al-Qaeda members destroyed the Twin Towers, what do you hope to accomplish? If the United States blindly hates Muslims as much as you say, then it wouldn’t matter even if you could ‘prove’ (and I use the word very loosely here) that bin Laden and his lackeys didn’t order it. Do you two deny that there was an attack in New York City in 1993 by al-Qaeda? Or was that also an inside job by the Clinton Administration and Israel?

    And no, I don’t have to accept whatever the government says about its abuses in Gitmo or its discriminatory policies (well, this is at a state level, not a federal one) from the NYPD. Why should I? Those grievances are documented – with actual proof. I’ve yet to see evidence of any kind for the supposed ‘inside job’ that 9/11 was. But since you and Stephen have basically called me a sheeple, AJ, I don’t think there’s too much point in continuing this conversation.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold CriticalDragon1177

    @AJ

    Its not a matter of blindly trusting the US government. I see no compelling evidence that anyone other than those nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists carried out the nine eleven attacks. Also every claim made by 9/11 truthers that I have ever heard has been debunked.

    @Stephen G. Parker

    I find it to be an extraordinary claim that the Israeli government somehow got Mossad to carry out nine eleven, especially since if caught, they would turn the United States from an ally into an enemy, and most likely they would get caught. At least one of the people that I know who has debunked nine eleven truth conspiracy claims multiple times, and he’s an anti Zionist, so he’s not doing it, out to defend Israel. If Mossad did it, he’d have no reason to deny that. He goes by the name Representative Press on Youtube. In fact he does a pretty good job of explaining why denying that Al Qaeda carried out nine Eleven actually does more harm than good, and he shows us how in particular it harms the Palestinian cause.

    What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t

    Is THIS why David is confused about 9/11?

    9/11 Charlatans EXPOSED Denying Building 7 Damage

    9/11 Charlatans EXPOSED Denying Building 7 Damage

    We don’t need to resort to conspiracy theories like the anti Muslim “counter Jihad,” and I know you came out and specifically said that you weren’t speaking for Loon Watch, but it doesn’t make you look good if you endorse it, and its utterly baseless. Plus I think if the evidence was really so great that Mossad carried out nine eleven, that any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, a story debunking the claim that Al Qaeda carried out nine eleven would have been featured on Loon Watch by now, because it would be debunking one of the major talking points of the anti Muslim movement in the west.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @SGP,

    “I am not the only Loonwatch COMMENTER who unhesitatingly denies the ’19 Muslim Terrorists’ fallacy.”

    The other one is me – a proud 911 Truther here!

    @Nevermore, if you want us (the 911 Truth movement) to accept the US Government’s story about 911 as the truth then I expect you to not contest the US Government over anything else whether it’s Gitmo or the NYPD surveillance over Muslims or the drone attacks or Peter King’s hearings – everything is done because Muslims are terrorists and they deserve that. Accept that!

  • Thinker

    To “barenakedislam”

    The Verse 9:5 is NOT a general and ‘open-ended’ command of warfare, the Historical Context and Background make it abundantly clear that 9:5 is EXCLUSIVE to that Time.

    “The verse, therefore, can by no means be generalized to refer to all disbelievers. Such an interpretation is not confirmed by scholars of Qur’anic interpretation. It would be both contrary to the intent of the verses as well as disastrous for the security of both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens and nation-states”. http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/04/16/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/

    Hence, Q. 9:5 is restricted to the Pagans (not Jews and Christians), it applies ONLY to the Combatants (2:195, 22:39) who FOUGHT the Muslims first. Notice it doesn’t say Jew or Christian, the only TYPE of unbelievers who fought Muslims were COMBATANTS. The non-combatant disbelievers were UNHARMED, the Quran upholds PEACE with them (8:61, 60:8) and ONLY commands FIGHTING in self-defense.

    The Ayat 9:5 only mentions PAGANS (mushrikeen), not Jews and Christians! There are no “Arab pagans” today so logically 9:5 is obsolete! The Quran NOWHERE calls Jews and Christians “mushirkeen”, we have NOTHING wrong with applying Q. 9:5 in the CONTEXT of war. What happens during war? Zakir Naik explains:

    “This verse is quoted during a battle. We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: “Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them”. Today if I say that the American President said, “Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them” without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. Similarly in Surah Tawbah chapter 9 verse 5 the Quran says, “Kill the Mushriks (pagans) where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Quran is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Tawbah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. (http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php)

    There are SIMILAR verses in the Bible to Q. 9:5, however, the CONTENT is much worse. Q. 9:5 is restricted to the COMBATANTS whereas the Bible directs KILLING women, children, and babies. IT commonly says “Show them no mercy”, “Leave nothing that breathes” and “Utterly destroy them”. The fact that Muslims DID NOT follow Q. 9:5 after the Prophet’s death (only necessarily) shows that Q. 9:5 is NOT a general command. IT is isolated to a Time-Specific event! The extremists are invoking the War passages of the Quran but misapplying them, the target is completely wrong. The Quran doesn’t allow KILLING of women and children (See 4:90, whereas the Bible does, Ps. 137:9) but “Islamic extremists” are targeting civilians.

    After reading Q. 9:6 it becomes CLEAR that 9:5 is NOT general (open-ended), it says “Take them to place of safety”. The Israelites were commanded to do the OPPOSITE…kill them. The Prisoners of War are taken to SAFETY unharmed, the Scholars agree that Jihad has Different layers of Meaning (not “stages”) and Jihad-bin-Saif (Jihad of Fighting) is ALLOWED in self-defense AND when Muslims are threatened OR attacked. The Prophet Muhammad said “The Jihad of the Nafs (soul) is the Greater Jihad” so Q. 9:5 logically APPLIES in the Context of war (battle). The same Muslims following 9:5 today in wartime (Iraq, Afghanistan) also follow 4:75 if they’re TRUE Muslims. IF they STOP fighting then Muslims STOP fighting (4:75) except if they PROVOKE it (22:39). IF a Muslim HARMS a prisoner of war (captured US soldier) he’s deifying the Quran (9:6).

    “Shaykh Yasir Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the “same” situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:”…Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh…”. Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only rulings applied to a very “specific” situation and circumstances. In his book “An Introduction to the Science of the Quran” Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes that:

    “It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of the / these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these “mansookh” (abrogated) verse can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the “Verse of the Sword” in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (Az-Zarqaanee, v. 2, pp. 275-282).

    “These verses were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as ‘terrorist activities’ according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you”, “unless they (first) fight you there” – the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php

    Here’s the Explanation for Q. 9:5, it does NOT abrogate the Peaceful Verses.

    The Verse of the Sword [9:5] and Abrogation

    Imam Suyuti specifically discusses this verse in relation to other verses of peace, patience, and forgiving. He explains that, contrary to what some Imams believed, this is not a case of abrogation but rather of context. In certain situations, the verses of patience and forgiving apply, while in other situations the verse of the sword applies. No verse was completely abolished by another, but rather each has a specific context and applicability.

    [Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]

    This understanding is reinforced by the eminent jurist and legal theorist Imam Zarkashi in his masterful work on Qur’anic sciences, “Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an.” He explains that many commentators of the Qur’an were incorrect in their understanding that the Verse of the Sword abrogated the various verses of patience and forbearance. This is because “abrogation” entails a complete termination of a legal ruling, never again to be implemented. This is definitely not the case with these verses. Rather, each verse entails a particular ruling conjoined to a particular context and situation. As circumstances change, different verses are to applied instead of others. No ruling is permanently terminated though, which is what is entailed by true abrogation.

    He concludes his discussion by saying, “The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.”

    [Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]

    IF the Ayat 9:5 abrogated the former Peaceful Verses, the Caliph Abu Bakr (after the Prophet’s death) wouldn’t have said:

    “You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword. “I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.” (Sahih Bukhari)

    According to the Bible, we find the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Islam teaches (above). IF Q. 9:5 had abrogated the Peaceful Verses — Abu Bakr would’ve simply cited 9:5 and said “Off you go!” On the contrary, Caliph Abu Bakr (the closest companion to Prophet Muhammad who authorized the FIRST Quran in book form) NEVER believed Q. 9:5 abrogated the Peaceful Verses! IT is wicked Islamophobes LIKE YOU who fabricate that. Abu Bakr followed the MORAL Principles taught by Prophet Muhammad and emulated the JUST WAR doctrine of Islam. IN contrast, the Bible’s war-doctrine ALLOWS killing of Women and Children in war. No wonder the Jews and Christians have CLEAR CONSCIENCE when deducting Laws from their Bible (the Genocidal Texts). The Islamic war-doctrine is vastly superior to the Bible.

  • MrIslamAnswersBack

    @Barenakedislamophobes Why is it that you bigot idiots always ignore that this verse Qur’an:8:12

    “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers

    Clearly is God talking to the angels saying HE,God himself with instill fear in their hearts . You posted it yourself >> “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message”. Allah is talking to the angels not to Muslims. And why did you mis-translate it. Its says ‘I (Allah) will cast terror/fear into their Hearts. INTO THEIR HEARTS , its not ordering acts of terror like you idiot bigots claim. LEARN TO READ.

    2nd this tired old claim that the peaceful verses are abrogated is totally FALSE!!! There is no evidence what so ever from any direct statement in the Quran that those verses were abrogated. There also is NO EVIDENCE that Muhammad said all the peaceful verses were abrogated. Nothing else matters if such claims are not backed up with proof from Allah or a statement from Muhammad. So you fail. Barenakedbigots!!

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    @ Porker:

    Actually, I have a Master’s degree, just like Spencer. Except of course my MA is actually in a relevant subject. Not to mention that I can actually read Arabic and other languages, meaning I am capable of understanding primary sources, something Spencer is unable to do. And I’ve been overseas. I’ve spent time in Muslim countries. I’ve seen Islam in practice. What academic credentials does Spencer have? A single paper in a peer reviewed journal talking about Monophysites? That’s… nothing.

    As for the bum licking, no thanks. I mean I’m as open minded as the next guy, but I’m really not into THAT sort of stuff. Particularly if it involves some hideous goblin like creature like Spencer, Geller or the like. I do have (some) standards!

  • rookie

    “You are nothing compared to even Mr.SPENCER who is a scholar and writer of many books…”.

    This site has made huge impact worldwide as it is being used as a source in many languages all over the world on destroying hate-filled speech, distortion of facts and Islamophobia in the past few years.
    For many years hundreds of hate-sites went on spreading lies-unchallenged.

    Now that they face challenge, they yell and whine like little girls.

    It is interesting that this coward does not show up anymore-and I hoped he would leave a comment concerning a lie that CriticalDragon highlighted – Ikea Masjid – another lie spreda by genocidal site BNI!!!

  • Nilufer R Sage

    I seriously challenge the anti-Muslim posters to produce one piece of proof that does not have ties with someone who is in it for the money.

  • Chameleon

    More squealing from Piglet, the self-proclaimed terrorist.

    What is wrong, little piggy, are you feeling a bit depressed about one of your pathetic heroes getting completely owned on Loonwatch and then running away like a coward? It looks like your BipOLar DISorDer is back with a vengeance. Don’t worry, she’ll probably be back – in spite of her trembling fear to engage us – twitching once again like a loopy drug addict with more histrionics, unable to formulate a single proper argument or rebuttal to support her bare naked claims. She is following the pattern of a classic sadomasochist. She simply can’t help herself from being intellectually humiliated again and again and again.

    Do you actually think the terrorist-linked Spencer is any less scared of us? He has been challenged many times and has refused, in spite of his fatuous open challenge to debate anyone. He too is a spineless coward, a wimp — respected only by the most repulsive, bigoted mind sewage trolling through the stench-filled gutters of his hate sites. He is absolutely terrified that we will dismantle his highly profitable hate machine one piece at a time, argument by argument, in a very public and humiliating fashion. Spencer is just a terrorist-linked dimwit. He is intellectually vacuous and weak, a complete academic reject, and nothing more than a bimbo with a beard.

    Please do convey that message from me to your fearful leader. And, for the record, we hereby challenge him and all his zombie minions – again – to debate us, anytime. Come one, come all.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Lord Hawhaw another echo chamber of hate .

    Sir David

  • LORD Pork

    @ Sir.David: I would advise you to see the film:INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS,If you Intellectual eye sight is 20/20 which I doubt very much.That short trailer tells it all.You don’t need to read after that the ‘FAKE BOOK’called quran by a ‘FAKE PROPHET’who was an ‘IMMORAL BEDUOIN’according to MUSTAFA KEMAL,father of Modern Turkey.You are nothing as compared to that great leader.You are nothing compared to even Mr.SPENCER who is a scholar and writer of many books and does not have to LICK MUSLIM BUMS FOR HIS KEEP.By the way,SARCASM is the LOWEST FORM OF WIT.

Powered by Loon Watchers