Thursday, November 17, 2011

Whitewashing Islam: 20 Errors on 20/20 (ABC News)

58 comments:

Kim said...

Dang I love this video. Good job for exposing those "moderates". I was going to do a video like this myself but I was too lazy.

Kim said...

Although I do disagree with some of the things you said.

David Wood said...

Kim said: "Dang I love this video. Good job for exposing those 'moderates'. I was going to do a video like this myself but I was too lazy."

Indeed. I feel strange sometimes, because I don't believe in Muhammad, and yet I find myself defending Islam quite often against the reinterpretations of liberals and moderates. I don't defend Muhammad's teachings as true, but I defend the truth about his teachings.

The Purple Marquise said...

David this was really fantastic! And Kim, so you are indeed a terrorist sympathizer and a radical. All your posing as a so-called "moderate" and your indignant whining about the "misrepresentation" of Islam by people on this blog was fake as we all expected!

Foolster41 said...

Kim: So in other words you're not a "moderate" but a true Muslim who believes in subjugating for all times non-believers?

If so then you've just admitted to be a traitor to the US and the west, willing to carry out violence against non-muslims. Please leave the west or turn yourself in to the nearest police station or mental hospital.

I'm curious what you disagree with. You don't say, and so it hardly is a refutation of what he says. If you have facts, present them. Otherwise you are either a liar or a coward.

@David Woods: Great video. The line about Scooby snacks made me laugh out loud. Also the "hammer and Nails" analogy is very apt.

Tharun Cheriyan said...

i look forward to BBC hehh

The Purple Marquise said...

You see David, I think one of the reasons that the Western secular Media and secular intelligentsia are so susceptible to such blatant and glaring errors with regards to understanding Islam is because they themselves are very areligious people and are Biblically illiterate and don't take anything that is in it seriously, and therefore cannot conceive of the notion that some people can read their holy book and actually decide to let the book itself determine their values rather than inserting their own values into the text of that book.

They also make the mistake of thinking that most people in the world HAVE the same values as they do to begin with and therefore inevitably will insert those same values into the text while reinterpreting it as they wish.

And last but not least since they never really read the Bible and all they "know" about it is just hearsay they think that the Bible is also FULL of violent verses left and right, but then they think: "See? Christians and Jews are mostly not violent, so they must have ""reinterpreted" those verses in a peaceful way."

What they fail to understand is that we never arbitrarily "reinterpreted" any "violent verses"! The verses in the Bible are clear and they limit their own application!

On top of that, granted that there are a few violent verses in the Old Testament, but the rest of both Old and New Testaments are dedicated to make sure that the believers will learn a code of ethics and world view which will stop them from being violent and callous with human life and limb.

Non of that is true about Islam and Quran! It is not because of the goodness of our hearts that we Jews and Christians deliberately and arbitrarily decide to either reinterpret or brush under the carpet those violent verses! The Bible itself by both its context and its teachings leaves us no other choice.

But In the case of Muslims if they want to remain peaceful and law abiding they have no choice but to brush those verses under the carpet or totally arbitrarily and without any reason and contrary to all evidence pretend that they mean something else than what they actually plainly say. So we are left at their mercy, so to speak to do these mental gymnastics if they so wish!

If they are Westernized enough they just might do us a favor and pretend that those verse never existed or meant something different, but we can never securely count on that!

What if a Muslim decides to let his religion inform his values rather that force his values acquired elsewhere on his religion? Wouldn't that make his religion quite superfluous to him? Would he be able to cope with the nagging cognitive dissonance? And for how long? How many generations will be able to withstand this distortion?

And what if they wake up one morning and say (like so many of them already do) that they cannot bare this dishonesty anymore and they want to be faithful to their prophet's teachings and actually let those teachings shape their values rather than the western culture? Wouldn't that make Muslims in effect a ticking bomb? A moderate today can become a radical tomorrow!

That's why I think the fostering of a "Moderate Islam" is a misguided enterprise to start with because it is based on nice-sounding lies and I wish Westerners wake-up and stop trying to nudge Muslims into a so-called "moderate interpretation" of Islam and attack the head of the snake head-on instead! And that is what you are doing on this blog so bravely and brilliantly and I want to thank you for that!

WhatsUpDoc said...

Another classic by David. Great job.

David I have a suggestion, can you please combine three of your classic videos.

1 Sermon in in a Chruch with Nabil
2 First burn the Quraan day in history
3 This video.

Pleas combine in a DVD for my and my friends listening pleasure.

Autograph it and offer it for sale and include my name on the list.

Kim said...

Nah. The most annoying Muslims are the ones that call themselves moderates and start to rehash every part of Islam to westernize it.

I absolutely hate that.
Stick to the original teachings, Islam doesn't need reform. It is what it is and it is beautiful just like that.

GreekAsianPanda said...

Though I do agree that Sharia law is intolerant toward unbelievers (Jizya, the contents of the Pact of Umar, etc.), you don't seem to understand that though it is intolerant by today's standards, the policies regarding unbelievers were considered tolerant by the standards of the time, and therefore the lands under Dar al-Islam were relatively "cosmopolitan". Under Emperor Justinian's reign and afterwards, for example, Christianity was the only religion allowed in the Byzantine Empire. This eventually happened in western Europe under Charlemagne, too, somewhat later. In Islamic lands, there were definitely disadvantages to being a non-Muslim, like having to pay money to be able to practice one's faith and being game for slavery (apparently, Muslims were only allowed to have non-Muslim slaves or something), but they didn't usually completely outlaw other religions.

Other people take the opposite route as you, thinking that because Islamic conquerors were tolerant in comparison to others at the time that Islamic lands were equivalent to Asoka's India. But Asoka didn't demand extra taxes from non-Buddhists; he didn't discriminate against non-Buddhists. In my A.P. world history class, our teacher started teaching us about Islam and all the early Islamic empires by showing us P.B.S.'s documentary. I'm no historian, but it became increasingly apparent to me that anything Muslims every did bad was either:

A. Not mentioned at all.

B. Mentioned, but with a positive spin.

So when Muhammad came to Mecca with his army, the narrator was all like, "Oooh, he didn't kill everybody like everyone else in the ancient world would have done, and he didn't force anyone to convert, even though the Meccans had attacked him first. [Cue dramatic, heroic music.] He smashed all the pagan idols, thus destroying the disunity among all the Arab tribes and uniting them under Islam!"

Personally, I don't find that particularly amazing, since Muhammad had quite a different objective than any average conqueror in the seventh century; if he's trying to spread a religion, he can't just kill all the potential converts. A student in my class suggested that smashing all the pagan idols at the Ka'ba was akin of taking away any other alternative but Islam, so it was essentially force being used. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Plus, my textbook says that Muhammad did force the elites to convert. I pointed out to my teacher what our book said that the documentary omitted, but he responded that historians disagree on the fine points of what exactly happened.

When Muslims (Turks? I don't remember) were kidnapping Christian children from their Christian parents and forcing them to be Muslims? [Shows happy line of adorable children holding hands and being led by a gentle Muslim teacher through a lovely garden.] "They took some children from Christian families and provided them with care and an education and raised them as Muslims."

There was no mention of the Jizya, no mention of the fact that only non-Muslims could be slaves in some parts of the Islamic world, no mention of Muslims plundering and raiding the crap out of people, no mention of Mahmud of Ghazni, nothing.

When the savage, blood-drinking Mongols came into the picture, destroying Persia and massacring its population (which was indeed awful and brutal), the professors in the video were acting all amazed that the Mongols in Persia eventually converted to Islam and suddenly became civilized. They forgot to mention that as soon as Ilkhan Ghazan converted to Islam in 1295 and most of the Mongols of Persia with him, there were large-scale massacres of Christians and Jews. Very civilized. Very.

P.B.S. literally refuses to acknowledge any negative thing Muslims ever did.

David, when you get to the P's, you should check out P.B.S.'s documentary and see if it's worthy of exposure and correction.

minoria said...

Hello GreekAsiananda:

Where to begin regarding the documentary?Ok,I only go by what is in the KORAN:

1.It says a MUSLIM MAN can have a MUSLIM WOMAN as his SLAVE.The film said none of that.

ALSO it says a MUSLIM MAN can have another MUSLIM MAN as his SLAVE.Here are the citations:

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/09/25/in-the-koranmuslim-men-and-womenbesides-being-equal-in-good-deedsare-also-equal-in-that-they-can-be-the-slaves-of-another-muslim/

And of course he can have FOUR WIVES and also have sex with his SLAVE GIRLS,to who he is NOT MARRIED, at the SAME TIME and it is NOT ADULTERY:

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/11/16/the-muslim-slave-woman-and-adultery/

Why didnt the film talk about THAT?
It was the SIN of OMISSION.

aaron said...

@GreekAsianpanda problem is when religion is used for a idealology of state. It is used as a form of control instead of seeking spirituality and i would not classify it as religion anymore. And if the rulers knew the scripture well they should know to love our neighbours as we love ourselves

Foolster41 said...

Kim: Ah, yes, Beautiful fascism. If you belong to the master religion that is.

What's wrong with subjugating some non-believers and maybe roughing them up and killing them once in a while if they get out of line? After all, their just infidels, amiright? Sick, Kim. Please leave the west now, or report yourself in, or commit yourself to a mental institution. You think I'm kidding or using hyperbole. I'm not, I mean it. You need mental and spiritual help.

D335 said...

welcome to the twilight zone of answeringmuslims.com

where we can see, Kim, David, the pro and contra islamic sharia are in the same level of understanding regarding sharia as reported by the ABC.

the magic of false reporting by the ABC,... brings you all together ^^.

jonnykzj said...

@ALL CHRISTIANS

I think i just found the answer to "Does Jesus support GUN OWNERSHIP?"
Many pacifists say Jesus said if someone slaps u on one cheeck give him the other etc n say tht hence not even self defesne is allowed. On the other hand Jesus did say to sell their clothes N BUY A SWORD. Other verses inc him COMPLIMENTING A SOLDIER FOR H(IS FAITH. Ill show u the site with references in a minute BUT BEFORE THAT HERE IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THZE CHEEK ISSUE. OVER THERE JESUS IS ASKING US NOT TO RETALIATE AGAINST INSULTS. YES a slap on a cheek cant kill anyone. It is AN INSULT and as everyone knows Christians r champions of free speech. NO INSULT can lead us to harm u INFACT we cheer the insulter on n then when he/shes out of power we rebuke with words. Heres the site now:
http://stephenewright.com/God_Guns_blogpost.htm

infidelophobic said...

Muhammed is the "False prophet" of the book of Revelation. Allah does not exist, for it is a deity derived from Baal, and even Kim knows Baal does not exist. The Qur'an is a hoax, and the Mahdi will be destroyed by Mashiach.

D335 said...

@JohnyKZJ

Jesus for guncontrol, big stuff. At least I can help to entertain,..

Do you remember the 80's series?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM

In 2011, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by the Michigan court for a crime they didn't commit,.. these men promptly escaped from a local security stockade into the dearborn's underground, today still wanted by the government, they survived as soldier of Christ.
If you have a problem,
if no one else can't help,
and if you can find them...

maybe you can hire,....

The Acts 17....

"taaaaa taa raaaaaaa taaaaaaaaa, "

Pierre_Picaud said...

Dear David,

Can you tell us which translation of the Qur'an you are citing here? It is so much more plain and straightforward than the ones I have.

I found the BBC teaser at the end sooo tantalising as I'm in the UK!

Thanks,

Pierre

The Purple Marquise said...

@GreekAsian Panda:

You were right in most of your comment and I really commend you for being so knowledgable for your age and so brave to speak your mind in the class.

But I want to disagree with you on one point. You mentioned that the Muslims were more tolerant of "other religions" than say Justinian or Charlemagne who were Christians.

There is several BIG differences between these categories which in my opinion make it like comparing apples and oranges.

1. Muslims were foreign occupiers of non-Muslims lands which didn't belong to them and of course they couldn't have converted everybody over night. They usually killed and forcefully converted lots of people in the wake of their attacks but after that when they had to govern they usually had to deal with a rebellious and unwilling population who resisted them and they had to walk a fine line in order to keep them under control.

You must understand that for many many many years after Islam conquered the lands that now we think of as Muslim land, Islam WAS THE MINORITY RELIGION! So Arabs were an imperialist colonialist minority who had to keep their empire intact. So for practical reasons they had to give at least some level of toleration to the indigenous people whose lands they conquered and Arabs had to govern successfully.

2. Still it depended on which religion you had under Musli-Arab occupation. The toleration was not universal. If you happened to be a Hindu, Zoroastrian or African animist you were killed or enslaved without mercy. In my native country of Iran Zoroastrianism only survived in very small and isolated pockets in the deserted areas of the country. Most of them had to run to India for dear life.

Hindus too until much much later were not considered as Dhimmi minority since their religion too was not part of the "Ahl Al Kitab" or "people of the book". In fact they were idolaters and their life and property was fair game. Millions died as a result. Only After Moghul dynasty came to power and had to govern most of India they found it more practical to consider Hindus also "people of the book".

....To be continued

The Purple Marquise said...

@GreekAsianPanda: Continuation....

3.You hardly can commend Muslims for "tolerating" Dhimmis since they actually were their cash-cow and golden goose! They became rich out of the exorbitant Jizya that they were extracting out of these Dhimmi communities. That's what enable them to finance their constant Jihad and lavish lifestyles.

So their supposed "tolerance" was hardly a favor to the indigenous population. In fact the rate of conversions because of the Jizya toll was so high at some points that the Muslim rulers had to ban conversions at least for a while because their revenues were dropping so dramatically!

And eventually after several centuries the indigenous religions weakened and declined so much under Dhimmitude that there was not so many left to pay the Jizya and that had a very important role in the decline and eventually fall of the Muslim Empire. So why are we praising them for not killing the goose that laid golden eggs for them?! That was hardly "tolerance" and "open-mindedness"!

Non of the above applies to Charlemagne or Justinian. Their anti-non-Christian laws were put in practice in their OWN native countries while Christians already were in the majority. And they were not collecting any Jizya! I am not approving of their intolerance, but in fact their situation and motives were very different than the Muslim-Arab Imperialists.

But I think the biggest and most important difference between the Muslims and Christians in this regard is that Muslims were actually faithfully applying the teachings of their religion when they were imposing the yoke of Jizya and Dhimmitude on the conquered non-Muslim people, but anytime that Christians have done any act of intolerance they were acting totally against the teachings of Jesus. So Christians gradually and eventually corrected their course and became a very tolerant society, while Muslims even till today in 21st century remain as savage and intolerant as they were back in the dark ages!

mkvine said...

Is it just me, or does Jonnykzj always bring up issues that have nothing to do with the topic? It seems like he's trying to divert our attention from Islam. For example, in another post, he asked about denominations, in another post he talks about God's omniscience, in this post he talks about "gun ownership." Why not comment on the actual post for a change?

D335 said...

@Pierre_Picaud

hello there Picaud,

I simply open Quran.com and voillaaaa,
... note one of David's presentation sura and compare it to the 6 available translations in there.
i.e. error #1. Quran 3:110

Muhsin Khan
You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind;

and I find Muhsin Khan.

some other trans are Sahih Onternational, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali (son of a gun ^^), shakir and dr. Ghali.
Translation may differs a bit, but the meaning stays the same.
You can readily open all 6 trans in Quran.com if you are unable to read Arabic and comparing it to all 6 trans.

(I can't read arabic letters, but I get some of the transliterations)

D335

goethechosemercy said...

Jesus said, "Love your enemies; bless those who curse you."
He did not say, "Submit."
And so we don't submit.
We fight.
Happily.

Tatersalad said...

The case for banning Sharia Law in America:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/the-case-for-banning-sharia-law-in-america/

Mike A Robinson said...

Xclnt video! It is odd that the segment of American society that Islam will attempt to eliminate first, if Muslims gained control of the US, would be the cultural progressives and liberals. one would think, just for self-protection interest, that the liberal media would accurately and clearly expose the beliefs of Muslims.

Kim said...

Ya. Tell that to Moses in your Bible. Ya I'm sick.........................................Ya whatever.

jonnykzj said...

@ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE REFERENCE OF MUHAMMAD'S ORIGINAL NAME BEING "QATHEM"

Ive been trying to contact Christian Prince in regards to his book but havnt got a response. One topic in the Book is where it is discussed that Muhammad's original name was "qathem" BUT ive never found any reference for that claim. CAN anyone of you please provide me with the reference. Thanku.

sheik yer'mami said...

I think there are still a lot of misconceptions about the jiziya.

The Jiziya is not a tax as we know taxes; it is a method to utterly exploit, humiliate and impoverish the kafirs.

It is the muselmanic method to extort and appropriate the wealth of the kafirs, systematically, first their wealth and their houses, and finally their children. The strongest sons are taken away to be raised as muslims, to become jannissaries, to later fight their own people in the name of allah.

And the girls are taken for the harems of the emirs and sultans, in the case of Spain, (al Andaluz) the Christians had to agree to deliver 100 fair skinned virgins with 'rosy cheeks' and bright eyes annually.

The more you know, the more horrific the whole thing becomes.

Nakdimon said...

Well I posted a comment on the ABC website to this video. Let's see how long it will take for them to remove my comment.

philip.zhao said...

Diane, do you have "tempting eyes"? When do you think you will wear a burka ?

Nakdimon said...

LOL my comment is gone already. HAHAHAHAA. You guys should go and try posting the link to this video and see for yourself how long your post will last. Here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/islam-questions-answers/story?id=11747416

My Two Sense said...

Hey GAP - Not that you probably care, but I take back what I initially said about you. You are coming along and presenting a more well thought out argument. So while I might not completely agree with you I do respect your stances.

andy bell said...

This video is what we on the street would call.......

EPIC PWNAGE!

Welcome to Fantasyland!!!!!!!

Nice one. I'm not so ego maniacal that I can't give David his props.

ICA said...

David, would it be ok if I included your blog on my list of Recommended Sites on MidnightWatcher's Blogspot?

Baron Eddie said...

I can refute all your points easily ...

1. Islam is peaceful
2. The sky is blue
3. Have anyone seen my dog?
4. The bible says blah blah blah
5. Mahmood is my friend where is he
6. I know she is 9
7. I like Falafil
8. I can not believe it
9. Yaafoor ... where are you?
10. He said night not fight
11. It is a weak Hadith
12. You can pay your Jiza now with easy payments ...
13. United Islamic States of America
14. Quran alone
15. buy 3 get the 4th free
16. Allah loves you
17. No, it does not say kill
18. She was raped, so what ...
19. check www.PeacefulIslam.com/AlMisyar
20. see number 1.

Pierre_Picaud said...

@D335

Thank you! Most excellent advice!!

Tarquin Wallaby III said...

Great piece keep them coming. Looking forward to your BBC item.

Neil said...

Please tell me that you sent this video to ABC.

David Wood said...

ICA,

You're free to do anything you want with our blog.

John 8:24 said...

To sneaky Kim:

You threw a number of allegations in the last few posts but when you were exposed you just ran away!

Here are a couple of questions that you ran away from answering:

1) Me - So, Kim, this woman is suddenly not extreme now? Why the change of heart? If you admire her so much and happy at this, is there any Islamic terrorist activity that you find extreme? What is extremism then? Why shouldn't that make you a supporter of terrorism?

Kim - No answer.

2) Me - If dying as a martyr is admirable and this is for Allah's cause, where do you in principle disagree with Robert Spencer - who says the exact same things and you called him a loon?

Kim - No answer.

2) Me - And where do you get this most ignorant claim that Mary was 11 years old when she gave birth to Jesus?

Kim's answer: "Almost everywhere I search it tells me she was between 11-13 years old"

Royal Son's question: "Kim, give me the sources of this age that you draw from."

Kim - No answer.

simple_truth said...

jonnykzj said...

" @ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE REFERENCE OF MUHAMMAD'S ORIGINAL NAME BEING "QATHEM"

Ive been trying to contact Christian Prince in regards to his book but havnt got a response. One topic in the Book is where it is discussed that Muhammad's original name was "qathem" BUT ive never found any reference for that claim. CAN anyone of you please provide me with the reference. Thanku.

The following Prophet Muhammad's real name was Qathem will get you started. It has the name of the Islamic scholar he is quoting.

I do question this assertion a lot since I don't seem to find much information on it. Maybe you can find out more and perhaps get a chance to ask Christian Prince yourself.

D. Collaric said...

@Kim:

You do know that your allah claimes that the Old Testament and the New Testament are HIS words! Revealed by his messengers, so what is the punishment for those who are against allah?

But don't worry I would not trust any "profeet" who admitted to have mistaken shaitans words for allah or who claimed to have been at a none-existing jewish temple in Jerusalem.

Michael Heffron said...

Thanks for the Video, David. It was very compelling and I also wil send the link to ABC news. I would like them to respond to it.

I actually worked with a guy from Lebanon during my time at a call center. I was enjoying my lunch by myself and he came to sit down and give me his views oh why what Muslims in the middle east were doing was justified (death to Israel, etc.). I paused for a second and responded,"If you believe so strongly in fighting Israel why are you sitting here at a lunch table in the USA where you are safe? Why don't you go back to Lebanon and fight?". Needless to say he immediately got up and left the table. About a week later he disappeared from the call center. I guess maybe I made him feel badly and he went back to Lebanon. Who knows. I love the way he cited,"What would you do if the American Indians rose up and wanted their land back?". I guess he thought that was a very strong point he could make. I just looked at him puzzled at the time.

Take care. I'll definitely follow your site but of course Ill follow up doing some research myself. I think people tend to place too much faith in one person's ideas or opinions and I like to be well informed as possible.

Michael Heffron

jonnykzj said...

@D335

Oh you might actually have a point there. The A-Team in fact never kills the bad guys but only disarms them. ALSO I remember an episode where Hannibal Smith kisses a Bible at the end.

GreekAsianPanda said...

@ The Purple Marquise,

Thanks for the response.

Yes, I find it likely that the relative toleration of non-Muslims in Islamic lands had at least something to do with practicality rather than benevolence. I would like to point out, though, that Muslims did embrace aspects of the cultures they conquered. When they conquered parts of Byzantium, Muslims began studying the Greek classics and using Greek science and math. When they conquered parts of Gupta India, they took Indian science and math, too, and when they conquered Persia, they adopted Persian administrative techniques. In my opinion, this would suggest at least a little sincerity in their toleration, even if they did exploit the dhimma.

I once asked my history teacher how much the Jizya was, and he said it was something like 15% of a person's income. That's a lot of money from a lot of people, and coupled with the fact that the Arab overlords sometimes limited the number of people who could convert (like you mentioned), money does seem to have played a role. While reading point #3 of your response, I was thinking, "Well, if they killed all the non-Muslims, they could have just taken their money and gotten even richer that way -- no need for the Jizya and relative tolerance," but then I remembered that in many Islamic lands, only non-Muslims could be slaves, and there was a high demand for slaves, so in addition to the non-Muslims collectively being a cash-cow, they were also a slave-cow.

I have to disagree with other parts of #3, though...

"Non of the above applies to Charlemagne or Justinian. Their anti-non-Christian laws were put in practice in their OWN native countries while Christians already were in the majority."

But Roman and Byzantine emperors went on military expeditions to increase their power. In Justinian's case, it was to take back the parts of the Roman Empire that had been lost, so his "anti-non-Christian" laws would apply in those places, too. In the case of Charlemagne, he used military force on people as he expanded Carolingian power, such as on the Angles and Saxons of England. Granted, his campaigns were somewhat political, but still, he compelled people forcefully, outside his realm, to join Christianity and didn't tolerate any other religion. So I don't really see much of a difference.

"And they were not collecting any Jizya!"

Nope, they just killed people.

"I am not approving of their intolerance, but in fact their situation and motives were very different than the Muslim-Arab Imperialists."

I disagree (see above), but I'm glad you don't approve.

"But I think the biggest and most important difference between the Muslims and Christians in this regard is that Muslims were actually faithfully applying the teachings of their religion when they were imposing the yoke of Jizya and Dhimmitude on the conquered non-Muslim people, but anytime that Christians have done any act of intolerance they were acting totally against the teachings of Jesus."

This is true, and I wish Christians hadn't suddenly thrown away Jesus' teaching as soon as they gained power. I think the reason Christendom became so intolerant was because it inherited Roma and its policies. The Roman Empire tolerated many religions, but it didn't tolerate religions that didn't "fit in", like Christianity and Judaism, since Christians and Jews refused to pay homage and give offerings to the dead emperors, and Christianity is a proselytizing religion. When Christendom gained the legacy of not tolerating "misfit" religions, it was disastrous because no other religion is true according to Christianity.

Power and Christianity are two incompatible forces, so Christendom has erred too many times to count. The best we can do is be willing to admit our sins and never repeat them.

Richard said...

Kim said...
"The most annoying Muslims are the ones that call themselves moderates and start to rehash every part of Islam to westernize it.

..Islam doesn't need reform. It is what it is and it is beautiful just like that."


Beautiful - such as the over 100
verses in the Quran calling for war against the unbelievers, the commandments of death for apostasy, the inequality between the Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women.

In no fewer than 20 Hadiths Muhammad said that the majority of the inhabitants of hell were women.

The reason he gave for this were three:

1. They are deficient in intelligence (Bukhari 6:301 and 24:541)

2. They are deficient in religion because they have periods, during which they are forbidden to either pray or fast.

3. They are ungrateful to their husbands (Bukhari 62:125)

Unreformed Islam you will find in Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan... veritable paradises on Earth.

Richard said...

But then Muslim minds are also brainwashed and enslaved by their cult.

Here is a prime example:

Female Candidate for Egyptian Parliament Affirms that "Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority"

She believes Muhammad implicitly and unthinkingly.

http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/11/female-candidate-for-egyptian.html

Traeh said...

Excellent video, but I worry a little about how cocky David looks in it. Humor is wonderful. But that doesn't require actual cockiness, which is probably only good in small doses, if at all -- unless the arrogance is not real, but somehow a spoof.

I also question the way he distinguishes near the beginning of the video between "Islam" per se, and Westernized Muslim views of Islam. Islam per se comes perilously close to being a Platonic abstraction people can debate about to infinity. Rather than statements that suggest belief in an abstract Kantian "Islam in-itself," discussion arguably should stay on actual practices and interpretations of Islam around the world and in history. On that empirical basis David could easily show that the majority of Muslims throughout history and today have been in substantial agreement with each other on what they meant by Islam, and that it is very different from what the silly Diane Sawyer and ABC's Westernized Muslims are saying. Focusing on the empirical and logical is what David mostly does anyway, and for the most part brilliantly, and I am only complaining about the very beginning of the video, when he made a statement or two that made it sound as if he claimed to possess authoritative knowledge of an abstract "Islam" in itself.

Robert Spencer refuses to make sweeping statements declaring what "Islam" in itself "really" is, and I think there is perhaps some wisdom in his reticence there. He sticks to what the texts say, but does not pretend to offer any definitive interpretation of the essence of Islam in itself. He shows how particular Muslims and groups of Muslims tell us they understand those texts. I think that empirical approach divests the argument of superfluous burdens at a time when we need maximum efficiency in persuading people.

JohnD said...

i look forward to BBC hehh

Is it going to be a mini series?

Traeh said...

CONGRESSMAN ALLEN WEST CO-SPONSORS THE OPEN FUEL STANDARD BILL, A WAY TO BREAK OPEC's POWER OVER THE U.S. TRANSPORT SECTOR:

By asking your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to help pass the bill H.R. 1687 -- the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 -- you do something very practical to resist sharia and jihad.

The bill currently has 21 Republican and Democratic co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Allen West!. Get your rep to co-sponsor it too!

The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687) would require a rapidly increasing percentage of new cars sold in the U.S. to include a small change that would cost $100 a car. The fix would allow cars to run on any fuel and any mix of fuels (including methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or gasoline). The fix would break OPEC's power over the price of transport fuel. It would create price competition among fuels and increasingly allow drivers to choose at the pump which fuel they want to buy. The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687) is supported by a coalition of strange bedfellows who normally might not agree with each other: former national security officials, environmentalists, military bigwigs, evangelicals.

To see why to support the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687), check out this video featuring Frank Gaffney, Robert McFarlane, James Woolsey, Anne Korin, and others:

America's Fuel Choice: Breaking Oil's Monopoly on the Transport Sector

And check out this website: setamericafree.org

Set America Free is a coalition including Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane (under Ronald Reagan); former CIA head James Woolsey (under Bill Clinton); former secretary of Energy Admiral James Watkins; former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons; Orson Swindle, Former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and Vietnam POW; and others.

See also this website: openfuelstandard.org

You can contact your representative to support the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (H.R. 1687) by email if you go here.

But a thousand times more effective than email is to telephone your representative.

1) Click here to get your representative's phone number.

2) When you get to that website, just put your zipcode in the box, hit enter, then images of your representative (and your two senators) will appear.

3) Then click on your representative's picture, and several tabs will appear, including a "contact" tab.

4) Click on the contact tab and you'll see phone numbers for your representative.

If you telephone, politely ask the name of the staffer who handles flex fuel issues or energy issues, then ask to speak to that staffer. Politely tell the staffer you support passage of the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011, HR 1687.

And have a look at this page: How to Influence Your Representative

hollysdad said...

Out freaking standing. I laughed so many times and slapped my knees. What a joke for ABC. I'm not an expert like this guy but I know enough about the Koran to complete b.s. when I see it.

C said...

The look on Diane Sawyers face were she is staring in intense awe at this Dawahist tell a bold faced lie about Islams inter-faith paradise after the death of Muhammad was priceless. ABC should change their name to Al Arabiyyah TV better yet Al Huda.

Cl Edwards

Zolly said...

I must post in two parts? Here is part 1 of 2 then...

ustice John C. Bouck wrote the following document approximately a year before dying of cancer

ISLAM – AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MOVEMENT – NOT A RELIGION

1. Introduction
This posting argues that Islam is not a religion as defined by western democratic countries. Many non-democratic mid-eastern countries call it a religion. However, nothing compels western democracies to agree with that definition. In fact, Islam is an anti-democratic political movement masquerading as a religion using features of fascism and communism. Al Queda and the Taliban are its barbaric Gestapo/KGB like enforcers.
Many peace loving Muslims probably bear no ill will to citizens of western democracies. But, within Islam’s political movement are leaders and followers who seek the end of democracy by violent means. It is not up to the western democracies to cull the jihadists from the non-violent Muslims. That is up to the Muslims themselves. Failing to do so, suggests that every Muslim is a potential jihadist unfit for work in government or the military.
2. Islam - an anti-democratic political movement
Here are several differences between anti-democratic Islam and religions in western democracies.
(a) Separation of church and state
Islamic law developed by Islamic religious leaders regulates the day to day life of Muslims including, politics, economics, banking, family matters, etc. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. The unelected theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law and religion are one.
Roman Catholicism has some similarities to Islam since adherents supposedly subscribe to Papal infallibility. But unlike Islam, that Christian religion accepts the principle of separation of church and state. As well few western practicing Catholics accept Papal doctrine about birth control, censorship of reading material, priestly celibacy, etc.
Most western democracies believe in the separation of church and state. This means that government lacks legislative authority in the realm of individual conscience including religion since government has no right to intrude on that personal "liberty of conscience."
b) Anti-democratic fascism, communism and Islam
Fascist and communist political leaders are appointed without contested democratic elections. So are the top Islamic leaders who are called Imams.
Western democracies elect their political leaders by popular vote.
c) Anti-democratic law making by fascist, communist and Islamic Imams
Unelected fascist, communist and Islamic political leaders rule by decree or edict, rather than through laws made by elected legislators.
Western democracies enact laws made by popularly elected legislators. No one is above the law.
d) Anti-democratic law interpretation by fascist, communist judges and Islamic Imams
Fascist and communist judges interpret the laws in accordance with directives from their political leaders.
Islamic Shi'a law believes that Imams are chosen by God to be perfect examples for the faithful and to lead all humanity in all aspects of life. They also believe that all the Imams chosen are free from committing any sin and have a status directly parallel to those of a prophet, infallibility which is called ismah. These leaders must be followed since they are appointed by God.
Judicially independent judges in western democracies interpret the laws enacted by elected legislators without any influence by political leaders.
e) Anti-democratic suicidal practices by the Islamic political movement.
In World War II the Japanese fascist government encouraged suicide Kamikaze pilots to sacrifice their lives for Japan. Islam encourages its believers, including children, to sacrifice their lives for the cause of Islam.
Western democracies consider such conduct to be a crime because they value the life of every human being.

Zolly said...

Part 2 of 3...


f) Anti-democratic hatred of Jews by fascist Germans and the Islamic political movement
Fascist Nazi Germany tried to kill all Jews before and during WW II. So do many Islamic leaders and their followers want to do that today.
Western democracies treat Jews as equals and value their contribution to our societies.
g) Intellectual superiority of Jews over Muslims
There are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Nobel prizes were first awarded in 1901. Since then, Muslims have only managed to win 8 prizes. Five were for Peace; two for literature and one for Chemistry.
Today, there are about 12 million Jews in the world. At least 179 Jews have won Nobel prizes including prizes for Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics. 
Jews have done a great deal for the betterment of mankind. Comparatively speaking, the Muslim contribution is insignificant.
Ordinary Muslims do not have the right of free speech, particularly when it comes to interpreting the Koran. Most western democracies give their citizens the power to interpret the Bible without religious clerical intervention.
Muslim clerics control Islamic thinking through censorship. This robs individual Muslims from expanding their intellect and condemns them to worldwide ignorance. If Muslims were allowed to think for themselves there would be no need for the intervention of Muslim clerics.
That would raise the level of intellect in the Muslim community and make it a contributor to the betterment of mankind.
h) Muslim Women and Islamic headdress
A hijab is the type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women. Most Islamic legal systems define it as covering everything except the face and hands in public. Muslims differ as to how "hijab dress" should be enforced, particularly over the role of religious police enforcing hijab in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
A burka is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body. It is worn over the usual daily clothing and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household. The face-veil portion is also called purdah, a Persian word meaning "curtain".
Both of these publicly advertise their religious beliefs as Muslims.
Western democracies know that the public exhibition of religious belief is divisive. That is why most Christians do not publicly hang large crosses around their necks to advertise their religious beliefs. And, most Jews do not wear their religious skull caps in public for the same reason.
The wearing of a hijab or burka signifies that Muslim women’s’ devotion to their anti-democratic political movement takes precedence over the western democracy in which they live.
i) Women and Islamic law
The study of women in Islam deals with the attitudes and beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women within the religion of Islam. The complex relationship between women and Islam is defined by both Islamic texts and the history and culture of the Muslim world. According to some sources, women are equal to men before God.

Zolly said...

Part 3 of 3, please allow all 3 to be posted in succession.

But that does not square with the many anecdotal stories coming from mid-eastern Islamic states. In some of these states women are not allowed to drive cars. They are sometimes stoned to death for alleged acts of adultery by order of Islamic courts. They can be one of four wives of a man. They can be abused and degraded by men with impunity. They sometimes suffer genital mutilation. They cannot divorce their husbands. If their husband divorces them, they lose their children. Their testimony in Islamic courts is worth half that of their husbands. And so on.
In western democracies women have the same rights as men and those rights are protected by law.
3. Eliminating Islam as a religion in Canadian society
As a western democracy, Canada has the legal right to decide which organization is a religion and which one is not. From the above discussion, it seems clear that Islam is an anti-democratic political movement and not a religion.
If Canadian cities and municipalities declined to define Islam as a religion, it would remove any local property tax benefits that Islam may now have. Islamic Mosques and buildings would be treated as commercial property and subject to municipal taxes based on their fair market values.
Similarly, if federal and provincial taxing authorities found Islam did not meet the qualifications of a religion, monies that Muslims or others pay to the Islamic political movement would no longer be tax deductible as charitable donations.
Unlike Islamist countries, Muslims would have the right to prove in Canadian courts before independent judges that Islam is a religion as that word is commonly used in Canada.
If they lose, they can still carry on as Muslims but with a huge stigma attached. Other levels of government may then seek to marginalize them from our democratic society.
Bottom line:
1. Canada and western democracies can no longer tolerate the acceptance of Islam as a religion.
2. In fact, it is an anti-democratic political movement with overtones of fascism and communism. If allowed to flourish, that will be the end of western democracies.
3. Should western democracies embrace the Trojan Horse of Islam, they will be dragged down to its level of ignorance,

Nakdimon said...

David,

Seeing that this video is very informative and an outright exposure of the Left Media as being perpetrators of Islamo-fascism, isn’t it an idea to get such videos wider into the mainstream via someone like Glenn Beck? Why not contact him and suggest a segment in one of his broadcasts to educate his viewers? Or maybe some short program of 5-10 minutes per week or so, that they can rerun during their broadcasts?

I’m suggesting Glenn Beck because he is probably the only one in the media (television) with a large following who comes out and tells it like it is when it comes to Islam and doesn’t white wash that religion. Who knows what flows from there…

Christian Honkanen said...

It's a shame that ABC didn't employ any research assistants in presenting this segment on Islam. In Islam, the koran is joined with the hadith and the sunna. All muslims must follow these three sources. Anyone in doubt should ask their Imam. If anyone finds an Imam that says otherwise, tell ABC. That would be worthy of an interview. As for the errors on the show, please review the video at: http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=xZ5Bwj3iTrg
Each statement made comes from Islam's own texts. Islam is neither peaceful towards those who practice other religions or tolerant of them. Anyone interested in the front lines of the war on women would profit greatly from the time spent exploring their Islamic faith. If you doubt these truths, read them as I have. It doesn't take long to recognize that Muhammed is not the Prince of Peace, Christ holds that title.

HAQ said...

there are 300 different versions of Bible.
None is direct, all are Narrations of different disciples etc.
Narrations are compiled in different language which were further translated and edited and based on those translations people argue.
where are the teachings of Jesus(UHBP)
you are at first instance should be faithful to the one giving exposition based of translation (after editing and proof reading. then be faithful to the translator and editor. then have faith in the interpreters and those who represents the Bible.
no one in the series is the messenger of God or ally of Father, or son of God.
why one would believe those who are not sent by god or having any authority of God.
it is better to make research so as to find out authentic teachings of Bible, as Bible (original revelation) will be more useful to man kind than the QABALLA or ENHARA or magical instruments being searched by ISRAEL. around AQSA.