Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part I)

It all started when Jihad Watch writer Hugh Fitzgerald offered 38 uncomfortable questions that could be used by those who encountered “I’m a Muslim — Ask Me Anything” Islamic apologists. Hugh then gave answers to the questions: 1-6; 7-10; 11-15; 16-23; 24-29; and 30-38.

Now a Muslim named Rizwan Khan, who is a member of the Ahmadiyya sect that claims to renounce violence and is violently persecuted as heretical by Sunni Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia, and which energetically purveys deceptive Islamic apologetics designed to foster ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat in the West, has left a series of his own answers to Hugh’s questions in the comments section. Rather than leave them there unanswered, I decided to highlight them in a series of posts with answers of my own, to show you how slyly deceptive and dishonest Islamic apologists can be.

Several of the questions are poorly formed or based on unfounded assumption; nevertheless, here are brief answers to all of these questions:

1. What is the meaning of Jihad?
Jihad means to strive. The Quran describes only one form of Jihad as the “great Jihad”, which is the Jihad of explaining the message of the Quran. The Quran says, “So obey not the disbelievers and strive against them by means of it (the Qur’an) a great striving.” (25:53) All other forms of Jihad are lesser Jihad to this Great Jihad.
The only permission in the Quran for the lesser Jihad of fighting is in self defense: “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged” (22:40)

Source: for MORE

Moderate Muslims Are Not the Solution to Pure, Authentic Islam

Moderate Muslims Are Not the Solution to Radical Islam
Jan 19 2017 | by Bill Warner

We hear that moderate Muslims are the solution to radical Islam. But when we examine this idea a step at a time, it will not work.
Radical Muslims want Sharia, moderate Muslims reject Sharia

Radical Muslims want jihad, moderate Muslims reject jihad

And so on…

Source: fot MORE

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Confusions of Tony Blair, Part I

Soon after the Muslim terrorist attacks of 9/11, Tony Blair let it be known that he was a great admirer of Islam, and that he had taken to carrying around with him the Qur’an, a book that he claimed he read almost every day. Islam, he knew then, was “beautiful” and the Prophet Muhammad “an enormously civilizing force,” claims that he continued to make on every possible occasion. In 2008, he was still reading the Qur’an “every day” or “practically every day.” In June 2011, he again admitted that “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”

After the killing of Lee Rigby in London in 2013, Tony Blair was certain that “there is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.” The two converts to Islam who hacked Rigby to death and then decapitated him apparently understood Islam differently. But at the same time, Blair said “the ideology behind his [Lee Rigby’s] murder is profound and dangerous.” And what is that “ideology”? It could not, of course, be Islam itself. Blair insisted that while Islam has a “true and peaceful nature“ there is a “problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it… I am afraid that the problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion – and of the relationship between religion and politics – that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it.”

In 2015, Tony Blair was still reading the Qur’an “every day.”

Tony Blair will now admit that this “extremist” strain is more widespread than many think, as long as he can continue to insist, defying the evidence pouring in from all over the world, that Islam itself is “peaceful” and, unlike that dangerous mutant “strain” within Islam (which, we all are supposed to repeat ad nauseam, has nothing to do with Islam itself, even though many Muslims for some reason subscribe to it) is “compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.” He is, thus, stuck with this narrative, believing, or at least pretending to believe, that the real Islam is compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.

Source: for MORE

Was Muhammad Really a Feminist?

Muhammad was a feminist.

Believe it or not, not too long ago the Huffington Post published a column  that made this patently laughable claim.

When I first heard that someone had the gall to write this, I was incredulous, swearing that either the source was mistaken or the article itself was satirical. My intuitions, as it turns out, were wrong on both counts.

The author of the piece, Jim Garrison, insists that Moses, Confucius, the Buddha, and Jesus have nothing on Muhammad as far as advancing women’s rights are concerned, for the founder of Islam “was easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women.” “Arguably,” Muhammad was “history’s first feminist.”

The first thing of which to take note here is that this is not history that Garrison presents to his readers.  It is what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott calls “retrospective politics,” the enterprise of enlisting the past in the service of a present political agenda.  Only this is the worst sort of retrospective politics, for the past that Garrison invokes isn’t even a real past. It is an invented past, a past made in the image of his leftist ideology.

Secondly, while Muhammad’s teachings on women may very well have marked an advance over those of his pagan contemporaries in the Arabic world, only someone who is as theologically as he is historically illiterate could think to rank Muhammad above all other religious founders on the question of sexual equality.

In reality, the Prophet belongs at the bottom of this scale.

As Robert Spencer has noted, the Quran, the Islamic Holy Book that Muslims regard as the incarnation of Allah, affirms the superiority of men over women and commands men “to beat those from whom they ‘fear disobedience.’” It as well likens women to commodities that can and should be used by men as the latter please; assigns only half of the value to the testimony of women that it assigns to that of men; and promotes polygamy, sex with slave girls, and marriage with pre-pubescent girls.  The Quran as well stipulates that the inheritance for male heirs should be double that which it is for females.

And the bulk of those in Hell, Muhammad is said to have remarked, are women.

Source: for MORE

Colonial Expansions Resumed

Beyond the Cusp

The greatest colonial force in the history of humankind is again on the march. This colonial system has expanded reaching beyond the size if not scope of the great European empires of France, Spain, Portugal, England and the rest. This expansionary force has reached beyond the scope of all systems with the exception of Communism and is now ascending as Communism collapses in Europe and Russia. This expansive colonial force is, of course, Islam. Islam is not actually a religion as much as a weaponized political force wrapped in the shroud of an all-consuming religion. Islam is perfectly named and correctly translated to English meaning “Surrender.” That is exactly what Islam requires and Sharia is the force used to demand the complete turning over of one’s existence to Islam. All free will is surrendered. All curiosity is surrendered. All of one’s society and way of life is surrendered. Islam demands…

View original post 2,473 more words