Comedy Gold From M. Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University

Spencer: M. Cherif Bassiouni strikes back

Updates from Fitzgerald:

M. Cherif Bassiouni, Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus and President Emeritus, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University, has responded to my email posted here with the 1,000-word email that follows. You will note that nowhere in it does he resolve the contradiction in his statements about Islamic apostasy law that I asked him about in my email to him. I’ll address that in more detail below.

More Comedy from Islamistan:

Scientists in Japan microscopically confirmed islam is the “correct religion“-

Pakistan Daily Press News Agency/via ZIP

Dear Mr. Spencer, Thank you for your email of 8/13/09 in response to mine. You had asked for permission to print my letter, but you went ahead and did it without my permission so, obviously, you are no longer seeking my permission. After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering. Through my 45-year career in International Criminal Law and Human Rights I have regrettably, all too often, seen the harmful consequences of what you manage to engender. Goebbels and others in Nazi Germany brought about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, the war in the former Yugoslavia (1991-95) had many religious undertones between Serb-Orthodox and Catholic-Croats, whose religious animosity producing violence goes back to 1915, and then, we have Christian-Catholic Hutus killing between 500,000 and 800,000 of their co-religionist Tutsis in Rwanda. It all started the same way, and all too few people spoke up against it. Having investigated war crimes in the former Yugoslavia for the United Nations, monitored human rights in Afghanistan also for the U.N., and done work in Iraq, funded by the U.S. government, I can tell you in all three arenas of conflict how pernicious religious hatred and misunderstanding is. That is why I speak up against your hate-mongering. I don’t know if this communication will have any moderating effects on your anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim stances. Usually persons who have extremist views are beyond the reach of reason, good sense, and good faith. They are too imbued with their own self-righteous views and are all too often blinded by their hatred or animosity towards others to act in ways that most people consider reasonable and decent. Mr. Spencer, I am not a polemicist. If you find out about me through public sources, you will discover that I have spent my life fighting for what is right, even at the risk of my own life in many situations. Hate-mongering, incitation to hate, various forms of religious, ethnic, national intolerances have, in my experience, only produced violence and harmful results. I don’t know what you are up to, why you are doing it, and for whose benefit, but everything I read tells me there is something wrong in conducting such an extremist campaign against Islam and Muslims. What is that intended to accomplish other than radicalization and polarization? Is that in the best interests of relations between Americans who have different faith-belief systems? Is that intended to arouse anti-Islamicism in America for certain political purposes? If any of these are the case then whatever I or anyone else may have to say to you will not have much effect. By the grace of God, I continue to believe in the best in human beings, and I hope that the best in you, and those who follow you, will prevail over the worst that is reflected in the work that you are doing. I firmly believe that there is one God who has created one humankind and that we are all members of the same human family. This God, who is the beginning and end of everything, the One described in the First Commandment contained in the Hebrew bible and the Old Testament is, in my opinion, the same God described in the Qur’ān. All three Abrahamic faiths, as well as other belief systems, conceive of a single humankind, making us all brothers and sisters in this humanity. There is no superior or inferior human being and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise. History has always demonstrated that when that occurs, it is the beginning of the rationalization for genocide and crimes against humanity. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers. Consequently there is something unique in what you are doing and in your mission, which not only sets it apart from established inter-religious practices, but which also calls into question the motives, purposes and goals of such an undertaking. Fortunately there is only you and your group in the world doing such a thing and, hopefully, you will not be able to do much harm to your fellow human beings, whether in this country or elsewhere. As to your invitation to a debate, I have never engaged in oral debates, particularly when it clearly appears from both your website and your publications that the goal would not be to obtain a better understanding of whatever the issue may be. Concerning the merits of the issue of apostasy, Islamic law has a long history and it is rather complex. In the course of 14 centuries there have been many differences among scholars as to almost every aspect of law, theology and religious practices. Similar differences exist in Judaism and Christianity as well as other faith-belief systems. Different cultures also see things in different ways. And, in time, many perspectives change. My views on apostasy have been made public since 1983, in the U.S., and in the Muslim world. They include my understanding that apostasy in the days of the Prophet meant, essentially, high treason in the equivalent modern significance. There were different views on the matter between the late 7th and 12th centuries. Since then, Ijtihad, which means making the effort to think (much as the word jihad means making an effort) has been stopped by theological fiat. As a result, not much progressive thinking or corrective interpretation has been made to show that the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones. The Qur’ān’s overarching principle enunciated in chapter 2 is that there can be “no compulsion in religion.” That doesn’t make me “deceptive” nor does it make me an “apologist.” These are two terms you have used to describe me, which are defamatory. (Whether you see fit to publish a retraction or apology will demonstrate your good faith.) In any event, this concludes our written exchange, but I will be glad to meet with you personally whenever you are in Chicago or if our paths cross elsewhere. In order to avoid any further polemic, I will stop with this communication, though I still hope that this message may have a positive effect on you. Sincerely, M. Cherif Bassiouni

I responded in haste with this:

Dear Professor Bassiouni:

Your a priori assumption that I am engaged in a campaign of “hate,” when I am careful in every respect to be scrupulously accurate in what I write about Islam, forecloses any possibility of fruitful dialogue. It is not “hate” to report accurately on how Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence against non-Muslims, and I think you well know that. If you want actual “hate,” go to those who kill unbelievers and oppress women in the name of Sharia. Your efforts would be much more fruitfully directed against them than against me, who am simply trying to defend the equality of rights of women with men, freedom of speech, and other rights denied by traditional Sharia.

Robert Spencer

But there are a few more observations that must be made about Professor Bassiouni’s extraordinarily abusive, defamatory and arrogant email.

1. “Thank you for your email of 8/13/09 in response to mine. You had asked for permission to print my letter, but you went ahead and did it without my permission so, obviously, you are no longer seeking my permission.” Quite so. My emails have been published all over the place — usually selectively, with key edits — while I published Professor Bassiouni’s in full. When I have protested against this, the email publishers have explained that I am a public figure, and hence my opinions and writings are a matter of public information, and that if I believe what I say in my emails, I should stand by it. Fair enough. No less should be expected of Professor Bassiouni.

2. All the business about my sowing “hate” — by reporting on how jihadists commit violence and justify violence by pointing to Islamic texts and teachings — is the same old tired game of defamation that CAIR and others play so often. It is a game of deflection. Imagine someone in 1942 saying that Churchill and Roosevelt were sowing “hate” by pointing out Nazi atrocities. Which side do you think such a person would have been on? It is not fostering “hate” to expose the terrible cost of Islamic law and to call for self-examination and self-criticism among Muslims. But Professor Bassiouni’s reaction shows why there is no such self-examination and self-criticism among them.

3. “All three Abrahamic faiths, as well as other belief systems, conceive of a single humankind, making us all brothers and sisters in this humanity. There is no superior or inferior human being and certainly it is against any belief in God and moral/ethical values to dehumanize a person or demonize a person for his/her beliefs or otherwise.” Professor Bassiouni is quite right, of course, that there is no superior or inferior human being. Yet Professor Bassioni’s own Qur’an teaches that the unbelievers are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6) — and Muslims around the world act upon that assumption in myriad ways every day. What is he doing to stop them? Anything? Or does he become concerned only when an unbeliever dares to point out that Qur’anic statement, and the manifest fact (just scan Jihad Watch on any given day) that Muslims act upon it?

4. “To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any organization having a campaign similar to yours aimed at discrediting a major religion and its followers.” Of course, I have no such campaign. If anyone is discrediting Islam, it is the Muslims who — all in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic teachings, murder, maim, stone, burn, and threaten others. Once again we see an Islamic spokesman taking umbrage not with those Muslims, but with non-Muslims who dare to point out that it is happening. We have seen this before in the case of Geert Wilders, who was accused of “linking Islam with terrorism” in his filmFitna. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and his other detractors conveniently ignored, of course, that it was the Muslim hate preachers depicted in the film who had made that link, not Wilders.

5. “There were different views on the matter between the late 7th and 12th centuries. Since then, Ijtihad, which means making the effort to think (much as the word jihad means making an effort) has been stopped by theological fiat.” How very interesting!In 2007, in discussions with Islamic apologist Ali Eteraz, I was called an ignorant Islamophobe for pointing out that the gate of ijtihad was closed. Will Eteraz now call M. Cherif Bassiouni an ignorant Islamophobe? Time will tell!

6. In the email to Professor Bassiouni that I published here, I pointed out his contradiction in claiming that “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law” and then saying: “I and a number of other distinguished Muslim scholars have long criticized the views of the four traditional Sunni schools.” Why does he oppose the views of the schools if Islamic law doesn’t mandate death for apostasy? In the letter above he clarifies this by saying that “the interpretations which took place after the Prophet’s death were not the correct ones.” Very well. That means that the four madhahib — schools of jurisprudence — misinterpreted the Qur’an and Muhammad when they codified the death penalty for apostates.

Thus if he had said that “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law when that law is properly formulated,” or that “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death according to the Qur’an,” or even “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law rightly understood,” there would have been no contradiction. But to say that “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law” is false and misleading, because Islamic law flows from the schools, and as Bassiouni himself acknowledges, the schools mandate death for apostates.

Thus it was completely reasonable of me to call his statement “deceptive,” as Professor Bassiouni has himself indirectly confirmed its deceptiveness in his latest email.

7. “That doesn’t make me ‘deceptive’ nor does it make me an ‘apologist.’ These are two terms you have used to describe me, which are defamatory. (Whether you see fit to publish a retraction or apology will demonstrate your good faith.)”

I just explained why his statement was deceptive. As for “apologist,” the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word as “one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.” It’s defamatory to say that he writes in defense of something? Also, for someone to liken me to Josef Goebbels and genocidal African tribesmen and then claim that it is I who am defaming him is…rich.

My invitation to debate still stands, but as you can see, M. Cherif Bassiouni, despite his immense learning and many honors, is, like his coreligionists at CAIR and elsewhere, unwilling to stand and defend his faith against my alleged attacks upon it. I suspect that that is because he, like Honest Ibe Hooper and Brave Ahmed Rehab at CAIR, knows full well that everything I say about Islam comes not from me but from the mouths of Islamic clerics and the words of Islamic texts, and they can’t stand the thought of Infidels discovering that fact.

41 thoughts on “Comedy Gold From M. Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University”

  1. Spencer says “I am careful in every respect to be scrupulously accurate in what I write about Islam”. He is absolutely correct.

    He is scrupulously accurate in ensuring the selective partial quotes are correct. That, of course, makes no difference, benefit in quality or telling factual information if the context is carefully avoided.

    Constantly bringing up repeated questions of similarity even though answered in good faith, “but the Qur’an says in Sura X the following” even though he very well knows the context is to a 7th century battle or event. Spencer’s objective is obvious, trying to push the worst light whilst carefully being “scrupulous” in accuracy of the quote to then claim in full smug supreriority that he has not lied and those quotes are 100 per cent correct.

    In the end, M. Cherif Bassiouni and the academic world is correct in that Spencer is simply a hate-mongerer.

  2. “Scientists in Japan microscopically confirmed islam is the “correct religion“

    Very interesting stuff , Japanese scientists .
    Worth discussing in more detail – if the year 700AD
    ever comes back , I’ll give you a call .

  3. ” Usually persons who have extremist views are beyond the reach of reason, good sense, and good faith. They are too imbued with their own self-righteous views and are all too often blinded by their hatred or animosity towards others to act in ways that most people consider reasonable and decent. ”

    This is from baseliar’s email to R. Spencer ( pbuh)
    The man is as false as water .
    Just read this couple of sentences above – could ANYONE reading these sentences not think of a certain middle eastern cult’s followers ?
    Pull the other one !

  4. You sure have a boner for Spencer, Solkhar.

    Why not just prove him wrong on Islamic grounds instead of primitive smears, dumb ad hominem attacks, “out of context” rubbish and false accusations of “hate?”

  5. If the Qur’an is the word of Allah and has existed unchanged since the beginning of time [according to the musselmen], then why does it refer to particular battles and make pronouncements that are only relevant for a limited situation? Why does the context matter if this Qur’an is supposed to apply for all people for all time and yet somehow is also relevant for only some people for some time? Where does it say that the prescriptions are limited to those situations that Solkhar claims it to be only relevant to?

    Is the Qur’an a book of eternal guidance, or is it a compilation of excuses for the behavior of a 7th Century arab warlord?

  6. So what are you trying to tell us Solkhar that the Koran is JUST a seventh Century HISTORY BOOK. Because if thats what it is it has NO relevance at all in the 21st Century. So come on HYPOCRITE what is it the ACTUAL timeless word of God and full instructions for mankind for ALL time or a 7th Century HISTORY BOOK. It CANT be both at the same time and you cant flip and flop what it is just to suit whichever argument you are currently having. You CRETIN. Mohammedans just dont get LOGIC.

  7. Realist, Solkhar is a role-player, playing a game on this site and others; he claims to be liberal, but reveals himself to be deeply committed to the “fundamentals” of islam, and openly hostile to Christianity and God’s plan of salvation and eternal life.

    In Solkhar’s own words, from Solkhar’s World …

    [In trying to gauge how bad it is, I played a game. Joining many forums and blog-sites under differing names and personas I role-played the conservative, someone from outside the west, as a westerner-liberal, European, Australian, American and so on, all with a little bit of truth or half-truths of my own real persona; to test the reactions. I was simply amazed at either the lengths agenda based groups and individuals will get as well as the narrow-mindedness that exists out there. Certainly I was mostly debating (or arguing) with a minority and my goal is to the more articulate blog-owners and websites, but still it was rather a shock.]

  8. More from Solkhar the role-player. It seems that he will happily use
    different names and personas on many forums and blog-sites, but has
    no tolerance for someone he accuses of doing the same.

    The islamic shape-shifter is intriguing to watch in action:

    [I can tolerate such fools except for one thing, when this so called poster cuts and pastes endlessly making out he is one thing and then another. He claims to be a Syrian and an expert in Islam and a reader in Arabic but in others he clearly shows he has no understanding of the language. Also he picks and choses only those versus that suit the argument whilst carefully sidestepping the whole verse or those around it that clarifies the real meaning. He also quotes English translations of the Qur’an that is not supported by Islamic Schools and scholars, thus ensuring all of you readers gets the worst representation. This I find fraudulant and dangerous if not down right evil.]

    Fraudulent, dangerous and downright evil?

    Islam, to a tee!

  9. The links to my own blog was open for anyone to see. I certainly spent time before writing the blog trolling various blogs and forums to learn why people say what they do, it was a great learning experience.

    After starting my own blog to begin showing what I learnt, it became necessary to no longer play that game, thus use the one name (certainly not my own) but representing myself avoiding just enough identifying information that would make my name/address/work at risk.

    Mullah Lodabullah somehow thinks that I am a jihadist and “openly hostile to Christianity” which is a rediculous assumption, I wrote in another thread exactly my views of the Prophet Issa (Jesus) of whom I must not only respect but consider one of God’s Prophets, even remarking how both He and Adam were special. I have nothing against Christianity, in fact those good Christians under Islamic teachings will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all good Jews and good Muslims at the Gates of Heaven, so how you think I am openly hostile, is rather far-fetched and with questionable motives.

  10. Gharkad and Realist

    Gharkad, you started your comment incorrect, the Qur’an is believed by Muslims as being the word of God/Allah, that is correct but not “since the beginning of tem. It was writen in the 7th century.

    If read correctly it certainly is a guid to all situations but if you take it for what it is not, then you will always get it wrong. “Realist” is one such person as is the blog-owner as well.

    The Qur’an is written and in three “fashions”, a Message, a Historical Account of the time and Examples. That those who do not understand, do not want to or have an agenda to attack it will of course consider everything to be the Message or read it as if it an Instruction – which it is not.

    When I see the Historical Account, as someone who studied and loves history, I see the reality of the time and the events and I see for example the Prophet Mohammed as a strong and determind War Leader giving the correct war commands. Thus at times he said “Kill them all” a normal and typical war instruction over millenias of battle, and if read in the context of it being a historical event, the references by agenda-based far-right wingers such as Spencer saying that it is an instruction for Jihad against enemies of Islam is basically mute – if not a load of crap.

    But if you actually read the Qur’an in the correct context for what it is, you will find amongs those historical events direct examples and Messages. In the same Surah that has those references to those horrible battles for survival against the armies of the Meccan Pagans, you will see were the Prophet Mohammed said clearly that “God loveth not tha agressor” and later “God loveth not the oppressor” which is a clear Message, not only refering to that time but for all time. Anti-Islam propgandists like Spencer of course never ever quotes that.

    So now that you know better, “Realist” needs to remove his very active hand from inside his shorts and try to begin those first steps of turning into the name he uses.

  11. Solkhar,
    Since you don’t seem to be working from the same page as your co-religionists: that the Qur’an is uncreated and existed before it was passed to Mohammad as a recitation, then I’m not sure what more discourse would achieve. Either you are guilty of bid’ah by claiming that the Qur’an recitation was created in the 7th Century, or you are being disingenuous in claiming that, ‘it was written in the 7th Century’, so as to give the casual reader the impression that it was not believed by musselmen to have existed unchanged since the start of time and only passed on to Mohammad during his lifetime. This distinction is important in trying to work out whether musselmen believe the nastier parts of the Qur’an (e.g. 9:5) are still relevant, operative and to be carried out. I really don’t care how you choose to interpret the Qur’an and ahadith, since it doesn’t matter: all that matters is now your co-religionists behave towards each other and the infidel, and they justify it with references to these documents.

  12. * Mullah Lodabullah somehow thinks that I am a jihadist …

    Really, Solkhar? How did you connect those dots? Do you equate a deep commitment to the fundamentals of islam with jihad?

    * … “openly hostile to Christianity” which is a rediculous assumption

    You truncated my statement … “openly hostile to Christianity and God’s plan of salvation and eternal life.”

    Not so ridiculous, given your dedication to “allah” and the koran,
    which states: “The Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. Allah confound them! How perverse they are!” (Sura 9:30)

    It is not a Christian assertion that “the Messiah is the son of Allah”.
    It is more likely a Christian assertion (mine, anyway) that “allah”
    is not the God of the Bible, “allah” being a satanic counterfeit, like
    Gaia, Shiva, or any of his other sockpuppets.

    It is Jesus Christ’s assertion that “I and the Father are one”, in
    John 10:30. I accept this statement as being true.

    Your false god “allah” and his false prophet Mo may consider me to be “perverse”, and seek to confound me, but God has so loved me, in spite of my many heinous sins, to send His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for my sins – to take the punishment due to me.

    He remains willing to do the same for you, Solkhar, if you will allow him to.

    This is the invitation in the Revelation of Jesus Christ (the Son of God) that you reject:

    The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Revelation 22:17)

    Take a drink, Solkhar – there is no charge, no promises of seventy two black-eyed virgins – just salvation and eternal life, the greatest gift of all.

  13. I will not be drawn in to your attempt to search for converts on this blog-site which is your obvious reason for being here. Your quoting from misinterpreted/mis-translated/man-handled religious texts and the claims of a “son of God” are in fact two of the three reasons why I left Christianity in the first place.

  14. As for your comments about Jihad, the references to Jihad in the Qur’an which is my only source of Divine Inspiration, refers to Jihad in two aspects only – those in the historical references to the events at the time and the remark that if your faith is attacked, its defence is an honorable task. Thus I have absolutely no problem in declaring those that say they are on some holy jihad (not the lower-case) as being incorrect and condemnable. I am supported in this view by the the heads of he Al-Azhar and Al-Quaaraouine Universities – two of the five main Schools of Islam (Cairo and Fes) whom stae that there were only two accepted and recognised Jihads in history so far. The first as mentioned in the Qur’an against the attacks and attempts to destroy the new Islam by the pagans of Mecca. The second in response to the 11th century declaration by Pope Urban II of a Holy Crusade against Islam. In fact the subsequent Crusades did not have a Jihad accepted afterwards as they considered that automatic based on the first one.

    Thus, the demands for an officially sanctioned Jihad by Yassar Arafat, Saddam Hussein and others including Osama Bin Laden have not been supported and thus you get the hypocrisy of some like OBL who is not himself a cleric, declaring it himself. That is how you can distinguish what is a radical splinter group.

    Therefore the term Jihadi in my part means heretic or misguided militant whom is nothing less than a criminal.

    1. Solkhar sez:

      “Therefore the term Jihadi in my part means heretic or misguided militant whom is nothing less than a criminal.”

      Tell that to the billion lunatics who went apeshit over a few innocuous cartoons, who brought us Koran rage, pope rage, teddy bear rage and who kill and maim thousands every day in the name of profit Moe.

      One hand clapping doesn’t make a sound, Solkhar! How many troops do you have who cook Islam like you do?

  15. That is actually your problem blog-owner, you simply things and then react on that which is fine on a chalk-board but in doing so you fail to grasp the dynamics and thus the solutions and you alienate everyone in the process because you avoided (on purpose or not) the stakeholders involved.

    Thus the defending of the Qur’an in violent ways over cartoons is a reflection of the education level of those involved, the influence of the ultra-conserative clerics pushing them, the habits of the individuals based on how they learnt to behave to certain issues, cultural issues, how it was done in the “old country” and so on and so forth. Almost nothing to do with jihad.

    The Teddy Bear was done in a country with a legal/education systems run by ultra-consevative clerics…. most of the Muslim World laughed at the Sudanese Authorities for allowing that punishment and did not understand the reaction given.

    Your assertions are again, saddly wrong, dangerously simplistic and frankly speaking a wank.

    1. Solkhar, I’m so happy we can agree on something:

      “Thus the defending of the Qur’an in violent ways over cartoons is a reflection of the education level of those involved, the influence of the ultra-conserative clerics pushing them…”

      Yes, Solkhar. Very much so. And why would that be? Why are more than 70% of Muslims illiterate, stoopid and poor if not for Islam? That’s why they are a mortal danger to humanity and civilization. Get it?

  16. Do you consider this to be “misinterpreted” or “mistranslated”,
    Solkhar, and if so, how?

    The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Revelation 22:17)

    Your world is ending, Solkhar; those who follow the false prophet
    are doomed, in accordance with the prophecies that you claim are “misinterpreted” and “mistranslated”.


  17. * Your quoting from misinterpreted/mis-translated/man-handled religious texts and the claims of a “son of God” are in fact two of the three reasons why I left Christianity in the first place.

    Are you sure you ever were redeemed by the precious shed blood of
    Jesus Christ, or was it just another role-play, Solkhar? How about
    your “conversion” to islam; real, or role-play? Solkhar would be a
    great user name for playing Legend of the Red Dragon, or Starquest
    and other RPGs.

    I am not the judge, but I have doubts that you ever “joined” Christianity, let alone left it. Was it real, or was it fraud?

    The Lamb will know the answer to that, and whether your name
    ever was written in His book of life.

  18. Blog-owner, now I understand why your posting like this, you simply have no idea of history, culture and politics – your history already has proven to stink no-end and obviously you have failed the rest. Want a history/politics/cultural lesson?

    Firstly, the industrial revolution ensured that global dominance was in the hands of the Western nations because of the military machine they could muster as well as the immediate improvements in wealth and thus education.

    On the other side of the fence, the majorithy of Muslim countries were not a part of that and were all eventually became either dominated by or completely taken over as colonies and administrative territories. It is known facts that in all these cases, the wealth of these locations were stripped by the controlling western nations, a western-oriented but still struggline middle-class was created and borders that were politically created was enforced.

    After WWII the independance movments of these nations was by the middle-class that was in fact creations of these colonizers and on release of these nations, often corrupt-puppet regimes were installed and they ensured the lucrative trading pacts and contracts with the former colonizer. In the cases were there was conflict, those nations either were taken over by political radicals or those beginning to side with the increase of the Cold War.

    During the cold-war, nations were forced to side with one or the other and the amount of military and money that was ploughed into these nations ensured corruption that resulted in such tyrants as the Shah of Iran and many others. Either way, money was spent on military, an increasing gulf between upper/middle class and the poor whom got nothing and especially not money for education.

    In the last 30 years things changed, the Cold War died, the money dried up for those upper class and the Iranian Revolution created the first of the horrible marriage between radical Islam and revolutionary militants. The result created a prescendent for every extreme cleric to look for a revolutionary militant suiter and that was the start of what the situation we have now in. Thus the pooer remained poor and any chance of a good education and getting themselves out of the backwardness that exists has been gutted with religous madmen allowing only mosque-based madrassas in some cases.

    Having said all that, there is a split of some sorts. Some nations have though remaining poor have kept clear of this mess, the last King of Morocco ensured a tough and severe rule of law but in doing so did not fall like his neighbour Algeria into coups, communist experiments and the like. Algeria is still rocked with a mess, the people are by far poorer and suffering even though that nation has oil (Morocco does not) and technically speaking is much richer. Not that you can notice it. I go there every other month for work and the contrast is shocking.

    Tunisia has also stayed away from the mess and the quality of life, the more moderate tennants and practices are also evident. Note that the Maghreb region are not Hannafi, Shi’te but Maleki Muslims following the Al Quaraouine School version and that I think is also a difference.

    The facts of history are brutal and blunt, the gulf between poor and rich nations remains the same and to single out that they are Muslim is misguided, considering that almost the entire of Africa, South and South East Asia, Pacific and Central America are dirt poor with low levels of literacy etc. Not all, of those are as you are well aware (I presume) of are Muslim.

    Before you attempt to say that I now blame the West for the poverty and causes of radicalism in the Muslim World, I do not. History is something that cannot be blamed, it is a fact and the clock is not able to be rewound. The West did what it did as that is human nature and politics and I am sure the reverse would have happend if the industrial revolution started in any other part of the world.

    The other point is that along with that industrial revolution, the wealth increased and the chance for liberal values being explored and exploited comes along with it and thus a peverse happening occured by the affects of colonialism. The imposition of Western values into societies not willing, able or capable of taking them during these periods of control, ensured that the liberalism in the west DID NOT take hold there, because liberalism in values and faith has to come from within. Thus a side affect of colonialism is to in fact increase conservatism.

    Moderate liberalism in Islam was there and growing in the 1950’s to the 1970’s, Egypt and Syria had a revolution of the arts, stage and theatre but most of all via music such as Omm Kulthum ( whom even has had influence on some western artists). This even reached the masses. School of thought were at that time changing and there were more conferences held about liberal views than before or later.

    But the revolution in Iran changed it all. I wrote on 24 June in my Blog about the causes and effects from it, if you wish to read it.

    1. Lets have more of that, Solkhar!

      Is that the kind of history they teach in Morocco?

      “the industrial revolution ensured that global dominance was in the hands of the Western nations”-

      Tell us please, Sokhar: why, if Muslims made all inventions and discovered America and Australia why didn’t Islamic countries have an industrial revolution?

  19. Solkhar, your concept of jihad is obviously false and meant to mislead. I just wonder why that is?

    Muhammad, the false prophet you worship, (Allah, from ‘Al-ilha’ is the pagan moon god of the ancient desert Arabs and Muhammads alter ego) said “war is deceit”. He (Muhammad) also said “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against all people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet..”

    That doesn’t mean peaceful coexistence, Solkhar. That means open ended warfare until the world is Islamic. That means jihad forever and that’s how your co-religionists understand it. That is the correct interpretion and you will find that if you oppose it your ummah will make mince meat out of you.

    The correct understanding of jihad and Mohammedanism you can find here.

    The verse from Qur’an 33:22 gives some evidence about the existence and evolution of suicide bombers. According to Qur’an, it is impossible to be a peaceful Muslim.

    “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [the special tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

    The words mean what they appear to mean. The noted Qur’an commentator Ibn Juzayy says that Qur’an 9:29 is “a command to fight the People of the Book.” Another respected mainstream Qur’an commentary, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, notes that when 9:29 says that Muslims must fight against those who “follow not the Religion of Truth,” it means those who do not follow Islam, “which is firm and abrogates other deens [religions].”[1]

    All four principal Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools, agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared that “it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[2] Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, explained that the aim of jihad was “that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[3]

    The other schools echo these teachings. The Hanafi school stipulates, “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to convert to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them . . . the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”[4] Likewise, the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) taught that once infidels refuse the invitation to convert to Islam, “war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”[5]
    In other words, “Let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

    A Hanafi legal manual explains that the fight against unbelievers can sometimes take non-violent forms: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Sharia, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah [in the path of Allah] by nafs [spiritual struggle], finance, tongue or another.”[6] Indeed, in traditional Islam, jihad bil sayf (jihad with the sword) or combat (qitaal) is only one means of jihad. Other forms of jihad include jihad bil mal (waging jihad by means of one’s wealth); jihad bil lisan (waging jihad through persuasion); jihad bil yad (waging jihad by taking action, but not necessarily arms, against injustice).

    But all these various forms of jihad – both violent and non-violent – are directed toward the same end: the Islamization of the world and the imposition of Islamic law over unbelieving societies. Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), an internationally renowned Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, explained in his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam that Islam had embedded within it an expansionist and supremacist imperative:

    The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. . . . The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.[7]

    Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book . . . is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes, “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.[8]

    But you know all that, Solkhar. Generally, Muslims know that. Why do you deny it?

    Why do you pretend you can cook your own personal little Islam that opposes the rest?

    Are you an apostate?

  20. * Are you an apostate?

    Or just another role-play. In this “game”, he may lose his head, for
    real. He has little to fear from you and I, despite his song & dance routine about hate site & vilification, but I would be watching my
    back from other, less “enlightened” muslims, if I were him.

  21. Blog-owner, you have done another Spencer-Twisting excercise, you make a comment accusing the poverty of Muslim countries on Islam and when I answer and explain your lack of knowledge of hisotry and politics you say nothing but do the twist to another subject – Jihad.

    Then you quote http://www.petitionsonline as some credible evidence. What is the most ludicrous is that you quote historical references as instructions even though the subject has been repeated over and over again – more examples of the twisting to just propogate and not debate or discuss intelligently.

    All five schools do not claim there is a Jihad nor do they sanction them – but somehow you do, which only means that you support the terrorists and radicals, not the Muslims. The rest of your quotes is either from radicals, those apposed to Islam or events in various histories and taken very much out of context. Pretty piss-poor academic value – rather for the rubbish bin or agenda-based rubbish blogs.

    I think the most rather amuzing item is your quoting the Islamic Lawx Professor Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee whom is amongs the most distinguished Hannafi Legal Experts. He referred to how things were perceived in history and in the same document referred to it first as a perspective of changes and interpretations, and of course you cited that example as evidence of today and named him as supporting your view. In fact he would be the first to condemn your quoting him out of context and find your entire line as not only hypocritical, factually incorrect but also malicious smearing.

    1. Here we go again, Solkhar:

      Instead of actually refuting the evidence based on Koran, Sira and hadith, on 1400 years of Mohammedan history and behavior, you find fault with the link. I could have linked to the University of Southern California instead, and the canonical texts are the same. Nothing changes. The evidence stands, the link I posted is convenient because it has all the nasty bits in condensed form. Your bickering doesn’t make them go away or dilute the potency of the message.

      “All five schools do not claim there is a Jihad nor do they sanction them”-

      that is just a bald faced lie in the face of the evidence and proves once again that I’m wasting my time with you. All Islamic clerics support jihad as fundamental to Islam. Without jihad, no Islam. You better get an education, Solkhar.

      I’m beginning to believe you didn’t get past 3rd grade in your madrassa!

  22. So now we have the situation that you had no 10 questions, that was a lie, you have confirmed your failure in history and politics. First by distorting it, obviously not understanding its context in comparison to the modern day, and then by failing to acknowledge it when you even ask a question and is given the answer and you change the subject.

    We also have the situation that you constantly squirm your way out of direct explanations/answers with the Spencer-Twist, quoting anything that you can find and worse – misquoting those whom would appose your views when they talk about historical events and views and declare them as valid for now – even though the author did not say that.

    So really the right to ask if I am an apostate is rather worhtless considering that all your words were BS.

    I am fine with my religous beliefs, I am a self confessed liberal with what is known as Sinist views, that is supporting the Qur’an and putting no “perfect with no questions asked” value of the Haddiths. I even support conceptually ideals of Sufism but have not dealt or thought further. In addition, if I support processes as a community, the Maleki School for my part would be the closest to my habits and styles though my introduction to Islam was via a majority Hannafi community back in the early 80’s. I have no problem with explaining that. I also know that my views are probably similar to most liberal moderates, obviously not the clerics as they follow a school to the letter. Certainly most academics not from theological schools are similar to mine. Apostacy is impossible to be claimed against me unless by some extremist state and I have no intention of either living in Afghanistan, Sudan or Somalia and then the subject has to be my public expression of such a view. I travel to Egypt and Saudi at least twice a year, I am known as a strong-liberal moderate and I am treated fine in both countries.

    So really, we must question again, the motives, logic and processes that this blog and its blog-owner expresses. Obviously no list of 10 questions is forthcoming and repetition and avoidance of real issues. Plus of course, it is about the only blog that talks about “a sacred duty for every non-Muslim” and allows an evangalist to prothelitize directly on his blog – even though the owner claims he is not a Christian.

  23. You quoted petionsonline as a credible source.. LMAO! I use the USC link as well, the text you gave is basically fine for quoting the Qur’an, but of course you quoted again out of context.

    If all clerics support Jihad then it would be common knowledge and an issue since Islam started, but it has not. Also all Muslim governments would support it, when none do except for perhaps Somalia and I think we can all say it is not a State at all.

    That you can claim “a bald faced lie” is rather pathetic and it is you, someone who just quotes websites and a relationship with a failed academic who is trying to quote to a Muslim what Islam is – what a joke.

    Jihad is for a start not a part of the 5 pillars of Islam, Jihad is not taught at schools unless in radical madrassas that are outlawed in most countries….. so you are dreaming again.

    So want to talk about education, LMAO, no madrassa for me, educated at Erasmus Uni, ULB Brussels and University of Al Quaraouine here in Marrakech.

    1. How can any quote from the Koran ever be “out of context”, Solkhar? If the Koran is the immutable word of allah for all time and places, then all quotes are equally valid for any situation, are they not? Who are the ‘failed academics’ you are referring to if not the Mohammedans who have taken over our universities to corrupt free enquiry and the free exchange of ideas to replace it with Islam- indoctrination and da’awa? You just confirmed in another post that the condensed ayat and hadith from the website I linked to are fine, but now you’re back bitching about the website that posted them?

      You should explain to your co-religionists that jihad is not one of the 5 pillars, because they teach that jihad is the pinnacle, the crest of Islam and that without jihad there is no Islam. So why are you so obsessed to lie and deny about it? Are you afraid that too many infidels learn the truth since you are religiously obliged to pull the Islamic wool over their eyes and ears?

  24. Sheik, why do you put up with this? Noting but ad hominem attacks, defamation and crap.

    Sulker is as hollow as a tin drum. He knows nothing about history or Islam, and contributes nothing but manure.

    1. Patience, doctor. Patience Solkhar.

      I take it that the above is your best shot, Solkhar?

      Well, perhaps you can give us your thoughts on this:

      From Jihad Unspun: The True Meaning of Jihad
      Jihad Unspun is a radical Muslim website that defends Osama bin Laden and others like him. Yesterday it posted an explanation of jihad, “The True Meaning of Jihad” by one Sidik Aucbur, which differs considerably from the peaceful version presented at UCLA last week by CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush.
      (Thanks to Jean-Luc.)

      In Onward Muslim Soldiers, I recount how American Muslim spokesmen often blame Western scholars — “Orientalists” — for inventing the notion that jihad has anything to do with war, while radical Muslims simultaneously blame “Orientalists” for creating the idea that jihad is a peaceful spiritual struggle! Likewise Ayloush asserts that “the image of long-bearded men carrying machine guns is media-produced,” while Aucbur, coming from an opposite perspective, says that “it should not surprise anyone that the West will try its utmost to distort the meaning of Jihad from the minds of the Muslims.” How are the wicked Westerners distorting jihad’s meaning? By saying that it’s peaceful:

      There is no doubt that the effort to distort the true meaning of Jihad intensifies during a crusade against a Muslim nation. The styles vary, whether it is from Tony Blair who says, “Islam is a religion of Peace”, or whether it comes from his followers in the Muslim Council of Britain who argue that “Jihad is only about struggling against our desires.” . . . [I]t is clear that there is a concerted effort made by the Kuffar to destroy the true meaning of Jihad. All in all this line of discussion is a red herring, placed there by the Western governments in order to divert the Islamic agenda of discussion.
      Aucbur understands that this war on terror is an ideological struggle, even as he caricatures the Western notion of freedom:

      It should be understood that what makes a nation are the ideas it upholds as sovereign. In the West the ‘maximising of the pleasure’ is the predominant idea, whereas in Islam the ‘worship of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala)’ is the most prominent and fundamental idea.
      Aucbur is ready with Qur’an verses to support his position — and playing on the religious sensibilities of young Muslims, of course, is a fundamental way that radical groups get recruits:

      “O you who believe, fight those who encircle you (close to you geographically) of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you” [TMQ At-Tauba: 123]
      That’s Sura 9 (At-Tauba, or Repentance), verse 123 of the Qur’an.

      Aucbur also quotes a common hadith that is found multiple times in the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable:

      The Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
      “I was commanded to fight the people until they say ‘There is no god but Allah’.”

      And so what is jihad in Aucbur’s understanding?

      It is a consensus from the scholars of Islam that Jihad is, “fighting the kuffar to remove the obstacles in the way of making Allah’s (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) word the highest”, note here that there are two distinct points, the action is “Fighting the kuffar to remove the obstacles”, the reason “making Allah’s (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) word the highest”.
      Aucbur quotes more Qur’an (4:95, 9:41, and 61:11) against the idea that jihad is “just fighting our inner desires.” Here for (relative) brevity’s sake is 61:11 only, and his conclusion:

      “That ye believe in Allah and his messenger, and that you strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah with your property and your persons; that will be best for you if ye but knew” [TMQ As-Saff: 11]
      It is clear from the above verses that the meaning is to fight and to attribute the linguistic meaning in this context is incorrect.

      Then he invokes each of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence, to one of which virtually all Sunni Muslims belong, to support his point:

      It has been agreed upon by the classical scholars that the Shari’ah meaning of Jihad is to fight and kill the kuffar:
      · Hanafi school in the book “Badiia as Saniia”
      · Maliki school in the book “Manhal Jaleel”
      · Shaffi school in the book “al Iqnaa”
      · Hanbali school in the book “al Mughni”

      What about the greater jihad/lesser jihad distinction that American Muslim spokesmen are so fond of quoting?

      Some will go further and place the Shari’ah meaning, i.e. fighting and killing lower than that of the linguistic meaning i.e. struggling against ones desires. They quote the following hadith:
      “I have returned from the small Jihad (Jihad Asghar) to the big Jihad (Jihad Akbar)” the Sahaba enquired “what is the big Jihad?” the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) said “the Jihad al nafs (inner desires).”

      We cannot accept this hadith as it is a fabricated one.

      He goes on to argue against it also on other grounds, including that it contradicts other statements of the Qur’an.

      Is jihad merely defensive? Sorry. Aucbur invokes Muhammad against this idea:

      Moreover some will say that Jihad was only defensive; this is incorrect. A quick study of the Life of the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) shows us something different:
      The Battle of Mut’ah was instigated by the Muslims against the Romans the Muslims were 3,000 faced against a Roman army of 200,000.

      The Battle of Hunayn was inevitable shortly of the Muslims had conquered Makkah.

      The Battle of Tabuk was also instigated to finally destroy the Romans.

      We see from the ijmaa (Consensus) of Sahaba, that they too instigated Jihad, through As-Sham, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and North Africa. Moreover, the status of Martyr in Islam is of the highest, so how can it be that Jihad is reduced to anything lower that that.

      After the careful invitation to Islam, the Muslims are forbidden from forcing the non-Muslim to embrace Islam as Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) said “there is no compulsion in the deen”. However, Islam came to ensure people live under the system of Islam as the dominance of Islam is the purpose of Jihad, without it, Islam would perish, as Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) states,

      “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance And the religion of Truth, so that it may dominate over all Religions even though the Pagans detest it.” [TMQ As-Saff: 9]

      To “live under the system of Islam” means just that: domination. It means the institutionalized legal oppression, discrimination, and harassment of dhimmitude.

      This is the war we’re in.

  25. Actually, lets go one step further Blog-owner – your reputation is now on line and on notice – Give me a quote from the official notices, fatwas or declarations from the Five Schools of Islam that declares that there is a currently a Jihad. In fact go and find when any of the Schools has declared a formal Jihad?

    Note that quotes from individual clerics from any institution or radical splinter groups do not count, they are not the Five Schools.

    Twisting and changing the subject will not count, your reputation is now on the line. Avoidance on any ground will certainly be considered a cop-out.

  26. So you have embarassed yourself because you could not come up with your so-called proof, from the most basic of requests that were based on your so called but total BS truths.

    Just more twists and the traditional propogandist method of not answering or debating but saturating with countless cut & pastes…..

    Truelly pathetic and a consumate failure.

    1. There is never any proof, Solkhar.

      Mohammedans didn’t do 9/11, 7/7, Bali 1 & 2, Beslan, Madrid, Moscow, Mumbai, etc etc. it was all the Mossad, the CIA, George Bush, da Jooozzz…. hahaha!

  27. Aaah, another twist and avoidance. Certainly Mohammed did not do those things, radicals and extremists did. But then you are prone to simplification of everything to justify yourself, though it is an “acedemic no-no” and you constantly change the point to avoid actual debate and discussion, still not being able to answer any questions on your accussations.

    Show me as you insist is the case any of the Five Schools of Islam declaring that Islam is on a Jihad? In fact show me were there has been a declaration of a Jihad in the past. Not even the creation of Israel created a Jihad. Not individuals, but official announcements from any of the Five Schools.

    Becaue you cannot and that is evidence that your postings are just propoganda BS and your reasoning is simply “not serious” and thus you insult your own intelligence and those whom read it.

    Not to mention there was no 10 questions that you pathetically declared that I had avoided……… go on twist and change again.

    1. Solkhar sez:

      “Not even the creation of Israel created a Jihad.”

      LOL! You must be the biggest misunderstander of Islam between Timbuktu and Shittagong!!

      ” there was no 10 questions that you pathetically declared that I had avoided…”

      I never said that, Solkhar. Be patient and stay tuned for question number three. You failed the first two, remember? Forgot already or are you smoking that funny stuff again?

  28. Solkhar, if nothing else, is a refreshing change from the other fakers
    that insist that jihad is “inner struggle”. Now, jihad is unjihad, unless
    declared by one of the 5 schools of islam.

    Like the Hall of Mirrors in sideshow alley, islam constantly changes
    its shape, distorts its image, and can never truly be pinned down to
    anything much – it’s “nothing to do with islam”, “cultural”, or even
    a “race”, when it wants to be.

    When the islamic carnival rolls into town, something wicked this
    way comes…

  29. The Solkhar mirror: “Not even the creation of Israel created a Jihad.”

    The Yusuf Qaradawi mirror: Palestinians have the right to pursue jihad in self-defence against Israel, as do Iraqis against Americans. More controversially, this right extends to the use of suicide bombing.
    (Al Guardian – Monday 17 August 2009 )

    P.S. An international conference on “Rethinking Jihad” will be held at the University of Edinburgh, 7-9 September 2009. For programme and registration details please see [ ]
    (needs the http www things)

  30. “Not even the creation of Israel created a Jihad.”

    LOL! You must be the biggest misunderstander of Islam between Timbuktu and Shittagong!!

    So much for logic on this hate-site.

    I repeat my question to you blog – owner, were is the officially sanctioned and recognized Jihad from the Five Schools of Islam?

    Answer the question first because I will not play your game of twist, turns and avoidance.

    I have a plane to catch, I think we all expect an answer to your pathetic accussations.

  31. “The Yusuf Qaradawi mirror: Palestinians have the right to pursue jihad in self-defence against Israel, as do Iraqis against Americans. More controversially, this right extends to the use of suicide bombing.
    (Al Guardian – Monday 17 August 2009 )”

    Qaradawi is the Muslim equivalent of a television evangalist, what was the value of posting his claims of what a Jihad is?

    The entire point here is that right-wing anti-Islam propoganda wishes the world to believe that there is a united Jihad against the West, non-Muslims, particularly Jews, that the Islamic World united to wage war against Israel and the Jews and it is all BS.

    The reality is something completely different. There are certainly radical extremist groups that do, there are political parties that wish it and even claim it but the reality is still that the Five Schools of Islam have never sanctioned a Jihad since the time of the Crusades. That those who claimed it are doing so on their own, not from these Schools. That no Muslim country has declared a Jihad and they have not the right to do so either, if they did. That Arrafatn the Palestinian Organisations and the anti Israeli groups have all requested it but it has been refused because it did not fulfill the requirements of what comprimizes a Jihad – a collective attack on Islam.

    The propoganda is quite astonishing, for example the impression that the right-wingers wish to give is that Israelis live in an Island and must jump out to Europe or the US to be safe and that they would never travel in the Middle East and North Africa for fear of death. But of course they do not realise that they holiday in Morocco and Tunisia in the thousands. That Israeli Jews of Moroccan origin are not only continuing their relationship back home but some are returning permanently because it is safer over here. But of course the right-wing does not wish that to be told.

    The agenda BS is more than pathetic. Twisting the word of Jihad for their own advantage – to keep hate levels high. The pathetic attempt at being a blog-owner here is the perfect example. He wil not answer the above question because he knows his facts were wrong and he will do what ever to hide it – he will change the subject or simply accuse me of something and bingo – he did not answer it.

    Like yourself, you will quote to ad nauseum radicals and say they represent everyone. You will quote all the horrible examples of radical and militant Islamists and continue to quote that it represents the whole and in the end you may quote correctly phrases and real examples but as a whole – it is BS – because your assumption is incorrect and your motives are very questionable.

    The reality is easy. Most Muslims know that there is great problems in a number of countries, they worry about it and watch it on television just like everyone else and it only strengthens the resolve of it not happening in their part of the world. Then they watch with shock as they here the pathetic rhetoric of right-wing pretend-experts declaring that it is Islam that is responsible and as they watch the Muslims will say to themselves how disgusting and hatefull the accussations are and look at each other in confussion, as now they feel targetted and implicated for nothing. Also they watch on television and read on the newspapers and internet how the radicals in the West are yet demanding more and more rediculous things that are not accepted here and they discuss in depth in the caf̩s of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia Рwhom all have family in Europe Рhow come the West tolerates this crap? Also that some of them that are provoking are known radicals that would suffer punishment for incitement for hatred and subversion back at home (in Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan).

    It really makes you wonder the motives of both those radicals and the radicals from the right on this blog.

  32. Solkar,
    The reality is that vilent extremeism exists in islam because muslims themselves succour it and support it. This history books are full of data which suggest that your understanding of what the majority of muslims think is flawed. As for the motive of those commentating against islam – concern for the general well-being of their society – certainly not racist or hate filled. The same is not true of islamists and their left wing supporters.

Comments are closed.