Showing posts with label Robert Spencer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Spencer. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Great Country, But Wants Sharia Law

June 02, 2015 Blasphemy Laws , Jihad Watch 0 Comments
Video: Minneapolis Muslims Prefer Sharia, Want Blasphemy Laws In US

 By Robert Spencer, May 29, 2015, Jihad Watch



 Read the full story: www.jihadwatch.org

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com 

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Well, She's A Dem--And It's Primary Season!

May 24, 2015 ISIS , Jihadwatch.org 0 Comments
Clinton Appears To Rule Out US Ground Forces To Fight The Islamic State

By Robert Spencer, May 24, 2015, JihadWatch.org

“But at the end of the thought process that I engage in … this has to be fought by and won by the Iraqis.” This assumes that the problem of the Islamic State is one that only involves Iraqis, and is simply a question of who should govern Iraq. Hillary is completely ignoring the fact that the Islamic State considers itself to be at war with the U.S. and the West, and has vowed to sow mayhem in the streets of this country.

Ground troops in Iraq would be disastrous and self-defeating if they became another Wilsonian nation-building exercise draining this nation’s resources. But the Islamic State will not be beaten without them. Destroying it and getting out would set the global jihad back considerably. But it looks as if under our next President, the caliphate will continue to grow, and to plot to murder as many Americans as possible.

“Clinton appears to rule out return of ground forces in Iraq,” by Ken Thomas, Associated Press, May 22, 2015:

Read the full story: www.jihadwatch.org

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Meanwhile in Africa...

August 31, 2014 Boko Haram , Jihadwatch.org 0 Comments
Nigeria: Islamic Jihadists Behead Six-Year-Old Boy Because He Was Christian

By Robert Spencer, Aug. 31, 2014, Jihadwatch.org

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4)

This reads like the story of a Roman martyr from the second century: “Boko Haram beheaded six-year-old Christian boy, group reports,” Christian Today, August 28, 2014 (thanks toThe Religion of Peace):

It was revealed this week that Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram beheaded a six-year-old boy on June 1 because he was a Christian.

The attack occurred in Attagara, Gwoza district, Borno State – a predominately Christian community, according to Voice of the Martyrs.

Over 100 militants descended upon the village, slaughtering men, women, and children.

Boko Haram has kidnapped and killed Christians and Shiite Muslims across Borno and Yobe States in an increasingly deadly campaign to establish an extremist, Sunni Muslim reign.

The assault on Attagara occurred as Sunday church services were beginning, according to Voice of the Martyrs (VOM). Boko Haram slashed the villagers with machetes, and fired upon them with assault weapons.

One villager, Sawaltha Wandala, was arriving at church for the second service when he saw children being massacred. One six-year-old boy had been slashed and thrown into a ditch, but he was alive. Wandala picked him up and was carrying him to a hospital in Cameroon, when he was stopped by five of the militants.

Read the full story:  www.jihadwatch.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, June 13, 2014

Decapitated Heads Of Policemen And Soldiers Line The Streets Of Mosul As ISIS Imposes Sharia --W's fault, right?

June 13, 2014 al-Qaeda , Jihad Watch 0 Comments
via Daily Mail
By Robert Spencer, Jun. 12, 2014, Jihadwatch.com

“So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike necks…” (Qur’an 47:4) But of course any Muslim who takes such a verse at face value is misunderstander of Islam, unduly influenced by greasy Islamophobes. Somehow this aggressive organization of misunderstanders of Islam has been able to gain sufficient support and power to wreak havoc in Iraq.


“‘They lined the streets with the decapitated heads of police and soldiers’: Iraqi refugee reveals the horrors of the jihadi takeover as Baghdad vows to fight back,” by Jill Reilly and Kieran Corcoran, Daily Mail, June 12, 2014:
The decapitated heads of policeman and soldiers are lining the streets of Iraq’s second biggest city, a displaced Iraqi woman has revealed today. 
Speaking from a refugee camp to which she fled after jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (also known as ISIS) invaded the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, the woman told of the horrific treatment meted out to those who do not bow to their rapidly expanding rule. 
It would appear the occupation of Mosul was made easier by the fact a reported 30,000 soldiers fled, leaving behind tanks and firearms as just 800 fighters approached. 
Less than 24 hours later the oil-rich city of Tikrit was captured by the militants, who then turned their attentions to the capital as it pushes ahead with its aim to overthrow the western-backed government as part of its goal to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border. 
As jihadists now march on Baghdad after capturing swathes of northern Iraq male supporters of the government turned out today to enlist. 
The recruits will expect to fight back against the ISIS militants, who impose a brutal brand of Islamic law in their territory, characterised by amputations, beheadings and crucifixions. The refugee woman, speaking to the BBC, told how decapitated victims’ heads were in placed in rows – a trademark, trophy-style execution which ISIS favours. 
Government forces have so far managed to stall the militants’ remarkably rapid advance near Samarra – a city 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad – and are now bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul. Some 500,000 residents are estimated to have fled, which still leaves a civilian population of 1.3million behind….
Read the full story:  www.jihadwatch.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Syrian Female Refugees On Sale On Facebook; Women Sold In Mosques --If they were lesbians, Hollywood might care

May 25, 2014 Hollywood , Human Trafficking 0 Comments
Syrian female refugees
via Jihadwatch.org
By Robert Spencer, May 23, 2014, Jihadwatch.org

“Among the announcements was one publicizing ‘refugee girls of all ages and religious confessions’ to satisfy all applications from Sunnis, Shiites and Christians in a climate of growing religious polarization.”

While Christians may be among the buyers, this practice has justification in Islam: there is the allowance of sex slavery (the “captives of the right hand,” Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50), and also the idea of temporary marriage. As this article says, “Weddings are mostly just a means of having sexual intercourse with a virgin and subsequently divorce her in just a few days with everything taking place ‘legally.’”

This is an established Shi’ite concept that is also prevalent among some Sunnis. We have seen it taking place among Sunnis in Egypt, and it is also rising among Saudis, even though Sunnis ostensibly reject it.

Shi’ites justify temporary marriage, mutah, by their reading of Qur’an 4:24:

And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content by marrying them, give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty hath been done. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

They see in this marriage as something contracted by means of payment (“give them their portions”) for a specified time by mutual agreement.

Read the full story:  www.jihadwatch.org

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 18, 2014

5 Sharia Atrocities for Jay Leno and Ellen DeGeneres to Protest --While they're at it...

May 18, 2014 Boycott , Ellen DeGeneres 0 Comments
 Sultan of Brunei
By Robert Spencer, May 18, 2914, PJMedia.com

Opposing Sharia is fashionable now. According to Fox News, “the Beverly Hills Hotel just lost two more big-name clients, Clive Davis and Jeffrey Katzenberg, because its owner is introducing an Islamic Shariah-based penal code in the oil-rich East Asian country of Brunei. Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah announced last week that he would push ahead with the criminal code that would eventually include severing of limbs and death by stoning for people who are gay or commit adultery. The Sultan – through the Brunei Investment Agency – owns the Dorchester Collection luxury hotel chain, which manages the Hotel Bel-Air and The Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles.”

It wasn’t just Davis and Katzenberg: “the Feminist Majority Foundation also relocated its Global Women’s Rights Awards, co-chaired by Jay Leno and his wife Mavis, that had been scheduled for Monday at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Leno and actress Frances Fisher joined protesters at the famous hotel speaking out against the Sultan.” Fox noted other “outraged stars,” such as Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry and Richard Branson.

This Hollywood outrage against Sharia oppression is refreshing and welcome, but it is a bit out of focus. Brunei is not the first country to implement Sharia. Nor is it the only Muslim country stoning adulterers, amputating thieves’ hands, and systematically oppressing women, gays and non-Muslims. The sultan of Brunei isn’t implementing some eccentric form of Sharia that has never before been seen in the world. What he is implementing is essentially the same as that which has been in place for years wherever Sharia is fully implemented, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and (mostly) Pakistan.

So for consistency’s sake, here are five recent Sharia outrages that Jay and Ellen and the rest may wish to protest as well:

Read the full story:  www.pjmedia.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Hollywood's Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott: Sharia Or Islam?

May 15, 2014 Archbishop Desmond Tutu , Articles by Larry Elder 0 Comments
By Larry Elder, May 15, 2014

The Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the sultan of Brunei, is a ghost town.

The sultan recently imposed Sharia on the citizens of this small country in Southeast Asia with a population of less than 500,000. The law includes the punishment of death for any who engages in the "crime" of homosexuality or adultery. Jay Leno, one of the celebrities attending a rally in front of the hotel, said: "It's people being stoned to death. Hello!"

Meanwhile, Bill Maher, another member of the almost-all-Hollywood left, discussed the kidnapping of mostly Christian Nigerian schoolgirls by a radical Muslim group. But, Maher added, "There's no mention here of connecting this to the religion, which is always what I am seeking to do because I think that's the elephant in the room." Maher, unlike the Hollywood lefties protesting the hotel, insists Islam itself, not merely Sharia, is the issue.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born critic of Islam. She, too, argues that Islam itself mandates a second-class status for women. She restricts her objection not to Sharia, but also Islam itself. She thinks reform may be possible, but receives death threats and is the subject of a Fatwa -- a religious decree that, in her case, commands that she be killed.

Hirsi Ali was recently invited to speak at Brandeis University, where she would receive an honorary degree. But after Hirsi Ali received the invitation, the Council on Arab Islamic Relations sent Brandeis a list of "offensive" things Hirsi Ali said about Islam. Brandeis retracted her invitation. The University called some of Hirsi Ali's opinions "inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."

Brandeis had no problem bestowing an honorary degree on playwright Tony Kushner, who admits he has "a problem with the idea of a Jewish state." And Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke at Brandeis despite having characterized Israel as an "apartheid state." Brandeis' tolerance of a variety of opinion, apparently, doesn't apply to those critical of Islam.

Robert Spencer, author of "Onward Muslim soldiers," ought not wait for an invitation to speak at Brandeis. He, too, argues that Islam itself is the issue: "There are millions of peaceful Muslims ... but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. ... As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place. ...

"When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle -- it means 'struggle,' literally -- it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that's true. But it's not the only meaning of jihad or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means -- this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule."

Hollywood's reluctance to raise the question about Islam's treatment of women is also about money, or more specifically the use of Arab oil money to help finance movies. Matt Damon's anti-fracking movie, "Promised Land," was financed by Image Nation Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media, the state media company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

But there's an even bigger reason why Hollywood refuses to address whether Islam itself needs reform -- President George W. Bush.

In making the case for the invasion of a Iraq, Bush said, "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth." Bush viewed Muslim and Arab women's apparent acceptance of their second-class citizenship as akin to the Stockholm syndrome, rather than a matter of free choice. Bush hoped that a "free and peaceful" Iraq would provide a "dramatic and inspiring example" to the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Hollywood scoffed at his "cultural elitism" and his embrace of Western values of social, political, economic and religious freedom and equality of human rights.

But how long can Hollywood ignore the injustice Brandeis displayed toward the brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali? How long can the Hollywood left avoid the broader and more profound issue of the suppression and subjugation of Muslim and Arab women? The moral relativists of Hollywood may have to make a moral judgment about culture and values.

That means choosing sides.


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Islam: A Religion of Peace? Part II

May 14, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , Islam 1 Comments
By Larry Elder, May 14, 2014

My last column contained excerpts from my 2003 interview with Robert Spencer, author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. He makes the case that violent Islam stems from a straight reading of Islamic religious texts, and that moderate Muslims need to face up to and repudiate this so that true reform can take place.

This is Part II of the interview:

Larry Elder: You cite Koran passages that state Jews, Christians, and non-believers have three choices: conversion, second-class citizenship, or death. When people say these kinds of things are “taken out of context,” you say this simply isn’t true?

Robert Spencer: Yes. They’re dealing from a broad tradition within Islam that mandates violence against non-believers. It’s an unpleasant fact….but…I give abundant testimony from Islamic sources to this effect, and it’s no use denying it. 

Elder: Is there any religion where passages of its fundamental source, like the Bible, have been “repudiated”?

Spencer: Well, not so much repudiated as such, but look at the Old Testament, for example, and you have in Exodus, Chapter 21, directions on what to do if you want to sell your daughter into slavery. Yet Judaism and Christianity both reject slavery today….If you were to confront…a believing Jew or Christian with that passage and say, “Why aren’t you buying and selling slaves?” they would say, “Well, that had its time and place, but we’ve developed beyond that.”...I would like to see the same kind of thing happen within Islam….

Elder: These madrasas where they are teaching the Koran, teaching hatred of Jews, Christianity, and the West—your argument is that they are not corrupting Islamic text, they are teaching actual text.

Spencer: They’re working from very clear Islamic text. Radical Muslims around the world call Jews “monkeys” and “pigs.” This comes from several very clear passages in the Koran that say Jews and Christians are under the curse of Allah, because of their disobedience and refusal to accept that Muhammad is a prophet…God turned them into monkeys and pigs. The fact that this kind of hatred is so deeply rooted in core Islamic text makes it all the more difficult to eradicate. 

Elder: What does jihad—an essential duty of every Muslim—mean?
Spencer: When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle—it means “struggle,” literally—it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that’s true. But is not the only meaning of jihad, or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means—this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.

Elder: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. What percentage subscribes to this violent jihad ideology?

Spencer: It’s difficult to tell. Some people have estimated 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize it’s 100 million people. There are also more disturbing indications. A recent poll in the Palestinian Authority indicated that 71 percent approved of suicide attacks against civilians in Israel. Non-combatants are not to be targeted…but if they are considered to be aiding in the war effort, then they can legitimately be fought. This is the justification that Osama bin Laden used for 9/11, and the Palestinians use for suicide bombing attacks in Israel. 

Elder: If the West hadn’t interfered in the Middle East, if the U.S. hadn’t propped up the Shah of Iran, if we didn’t have troops in Saudi Arabia, if we weren’t supporting Israel, then would this part of the Arab world have it in for us?

Spencer: They might not be as stirred up as they are, but there’s no doubt that they would have it in for us, nonetheless. You’re talking about a group of people that gets their intellectual justification from passages such as…the prophet Muhammad saying, “I have been commanded to fight against people until they confess that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Messenger.” The Muslim world took that seriously and acted it out for centuries. Before there was any Crusade, they overran Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and the rest of the Middle East, which were all Christian lands before the Muslim conquest. For centuries, they continued to press into Europe from the west and the east, into Spain and France until they were stopped, and on the Eastern side up to Vienna, where they were ultimately turned back….

No Islamic sect has ever repudiated the doctrines of violent jihad that the radicals are using today. The radicals see themselves as continuing a conflict that’s gone on for 14 centuries, that doesn’t ultimately have anything to do with the causes that you named. It started long before they ever existed and will continue long after they are solved.

 Related:  Islam: A Religion of Peace? Part I  

 Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Islam: A Religion of Peace? Part I

May 13, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , Islam 0 Comments

By Larry Elder, May 12, 2014

 In light of the recent kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls and the boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel due to the Sultan of Brunei imposing sharia law, I think it’s time to revisit my interview with Robert Spencer, author of Onward Muslim Soldiers. Here is Part I. Part II follows tomorrow.

Islam: A Religion of Peace? Part I
by Larry Elder


A “religion of peace,” says President Bush about Islam. But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, argues that what we call “Islamic extremism” stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts.

On November 10, 2003, I interviewed Spencer.

Larry Elder: Is Islam a religion of peace that’s been hijacked by Islamic extremists, as George W. Bush says?

Robert Spencer: There are millions of peaceful Muslims…but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core text of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history, and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts….As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted and we are naïve in the extreme if we don’t recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.

Elder: Have some translations of the Koran taken out the more extreme statements?

Spencer: The only Koran that really matters is what’s in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah…was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can’t be separated from the message. The fact is that what’s in Arabic is very clear…but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers.

…You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses….When you read Islamic theologians themselves…you find they actually confront this problem directly….Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements—where you see peace in one place and violence in the other—you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones—but you won’t hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups.

…What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large…has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see…moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad which the radicals are using to justify their actions.

Elder: You write, “Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the [Koran]: conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death.”

Spencer: Correct. This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So…whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society…[but] mandate just the opposite—that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they’re not allowed to hold authority over Muslims.

They must pay a special tax called the jizya which is referred to in the verse you mentioned….Their humiliation and inferior status is enforced with numerous other regulations, still part of Islamic law, and liable to be enforced by radical Muslims and who want to gain power and institute Islamic law.…Anybody who is concerned about human rights would be resisting and be happy to join in the War on Terror.

Larry: So, when the President says that Islam is a religion of peace, is he saying that because it’s a politically correct way of phrasing it so that people don’t get the impression that we are at war against a religion?

Spencer: Your guess is as good as mine in terms of what the President is thinking….He’s aware that radical Muslims are trying to make this into that kind of a war…and he’s trying…to keep that from happening.…The problem with what he’s saying is that it’s misleading. If it’s followed through, it might hinder law enforcement efforts against radical Muslims who are operating in the United States…and it could have very serious consequences.

Elder: What should he say?

Spencer: I think he should say nothing. As Pat Robertson said, he wasn’t appointed the Chief Theologian of the United States…he doesn’t have to tell Americans what Islam is all about. All he has to do is fight against the enemies that are threatening…our freedom and our continued life in the United States.

Related:  Islam: A Religion of Peace? Part II

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 26, 2014

FLASHBACK: What YOU Need To Know About The 'Religion Of Peace,' Part II By Larry Elder

April 26, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , Islam 0 Comments
By Larry Elder, Dec. 1, 2003

Last week's column contained excerpts from my interview with Robert Spencer, author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West." (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR. ) He makes the case that violent Islam stems from a straight reading of Islamic religious texts, and that moderate Muslims need to face up to and repudiate this so that true reform can take place.

This is Part II of the interview:

Larry Elder: You cite Koran passages that state Jews, Christians and nonbelievers have three choices: conversion, second-class citizenship or death. When people say these kinds of things are "taken out of context," you say this simply isn't true?

Robert Spencer: Yes. They're dealing from a broad tradition within Islam that mandates violence against nonbelievers. It's an unpleasant fact . . . but . . . I give abundant testimony from Islamic sources to this effect, and it's no use denying it.

Elder: These madrasas where they are teaching the Koran, teaching hatred of Jews, Christianity and the West — your argument is that they are not corrupting Islamic text, they are teaching actual text.

Spencer: They're working from very clear Islamic text. Radical Muslims around the world call Jews "monkeys" and "pigs." This comes from several very clear passages in the Koran that say Jews and Christians are under the curse of Allah, because of their disobedience and refusal to accept that Muhammad is a prophet . . . G-d turned them into monkeys and pigs. The fact that this kind of hatred is so deeply rooted in core Islamic text makes it all the more difficult to eradicate.

Spencer: When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle — it means "struggle," literally — it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that's true. But it's not the only meaning of jihad, or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means — this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.

Elder: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. What percentage subscribes to this violent jihad ideology?

Spencer: It's difficult to tell. Some people have estimated 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize it's 100 million people. There are also more disturbing indications. A recent poll in the Palestinian Authority indicated that 71 percent approved of suicide attacks against civilians in Israel. Noncombatants are not to be targeted . . . but if they are considered to be aiding in the war effort, then they can legitimately be fought. This is the justification that Osama bin Laden used for 9/11, and the Palestinians use for suicide bombing attacks in Israel.

Elder: If the West hadn't interfered in the Middle East, if the U.S. hadn't propped up the Shah of Iran, if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia, if we weren't supporting Israel, then would this part of the Arab world have it in for us?

Spencer: They might not be as stirred up as they are, but there's no doubt that they would have it in for us, nonetheless. You're talking about a group of people that gets their intellectual justification from passages such as . . . the prophet Muhammad saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people until they confess that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Messenger." The Muslim world took that seriously and acted it out for centuries. Before there was any Crusade, they overran Egypt, Syria, North Africa and the rest of the Middle East, which were all Christian lands before the Muslim conquest. For centuries, they continued to press into Europe from the west and the east, into Spain and France until they were stopped, and on the Eastern side up to Vienna, where they were ultimately turned back. . . .

No Islamic sect has ever repudiated the doctrines of violent jihad that the radicals are using today. The radicals see themselves as continuing a conflict that's gone on for 14 centuries, that doesn't ultimately have anything to do with the causes that you named. It started long before (these causes) ever existed and will continue long after they are solved.
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

FLASHBACK: What YOU Need To Know About The 'Religion Of Peace,' Part I By Larry Elder

April 26, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , George W. Bush 0 Comments
By Larry Elder, Nov. 20, 2003

 A "religion of peace," says President Bush about Islam. But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West," argues that what we call "Islamic extremism" stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts. (ClickHERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR. )

 On Nov. 10, 2003, I interviewed Spencer.

 Larry Elder: Is Islam a religion of peace that's been hijacked by Islamic extremists, as George W. Bush says?

 Robert Spencer: There are millions of peaceful Muslims . . . but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. . . . As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted, and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.

 Elder: Have some translations of the Koran taken out the more extreme statements?

 Spencer: The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . .

 You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses. . . . When you read Islamic theologians themselves . . . you find they actually confront this problem directly. . . . Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements — where you see peace in one place and violence in the other — you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones — but you won't hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups. . . .

 What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.

 Elder: You write, "Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the (Koran): conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death."

 Spencer: Correct. This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So . . . whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society . . . (but) mandate just the opposite — that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they're not allowed to hold authority over Muslims.

 They must pay a special tax called the jizya, which is referred to in the verse you mentioned. . . . Their humiliation and inferior status is enforced with numerous other regulations, still part of Islamic law, and liable to be enforced by radical Muslims and who want to gain power and institute Islamic law. . . . Anybody who is concerned about human rights would be resisting and be happy to join in the War on Terror.

 Elder: So, when the president says that Islam is a religion of peace, is he saying that because it's a politically correct way of phrasing it so that people don't get the impression that we are at war against a religion?

 Spencer: Your guess is as good as mine in terms of what the president is thinking. . . . He's aware that radical Muslims are trying to make this into that kind of a war . . . and he's trying . . . to keep that from happening. . . . The problem with what he's saying is that it's misleading. If it's followed through, it might hinder law enforcement efforts against radical Muslims who are operating in the United States . . . and it could have very serious consequences.

 Elder: What should he say?

 Spencer: I think he should say nothing. As Pat Robertson said, he wasn't appointed the Chief Theologian of the United States . . . he doesn't have to tell Americans what Islam is all about. All he has to do is fight against the enemies that are threatening . . . our freedom and our continued life in the United States.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,