Preorder the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist?here.
Comments
gravenimagesays
The man who wasn’t there: Muhammad in the full light of history
………….
Very funny cartoon! All too apt.
mortimersays
For some reason, scholars today don’t want to be beheaded by berserk Muslim fanatics and college boards of directors don’t want their campuses blown up by jihadists.
The censorship of serious scholarship about Mohammed that we see is called ‘THE HECKLER’S VETO’.
– “A heckler’s veto is an IMPERMISSIBLE content-based RESTRICTION on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an ANTICIPATED DISORDERLY or VIOLENT reaction of the audience.” – Justice Dolores Sloviter
James Lincolnsays
mortimer,
In the UK, a heckler’s veto is described as a “breach of the peace”.
But you knew that already…
gravenimagesays
True, Mortimer and James.
LBsays
I must say, Mr. Spencer, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the memes around your book. Do keep them coming because humor is the silver bullet against islam and leftism that are plaguing our society. As a veteran of the 2016 Great Meme Jihad, I salute you good sir.
mortimersays
The above title (‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’) seriously applies to Mohammed. It looks more and more that Mohammed was invented without children so that no one could claim to be in his dynasty. A man without male heirs would be unable to contest other dynasties.
Mohammed was a historical as Robin Hood or King Arthur … 99% legend.
That doesn’t follow. Aquinas wrote about Muhammad based on what Islamic texts say he said and did. That’s important to know and write about, because Muslims believe those texts. But that doesn’t make those texts historically accurate.
Actually, Mr. Spencer, it does follow when applied in this manner of reasoning: The attempt to prove that Muhammad did not exist is the same approach that Atheists/Evolutionists take to claim that the Genesis Account of Creation is fake news. Just because the Judeo-Christian faith teaches Creationism and Jews and Christians believe the Book of Genesis does not make those texts historically accurate, in the view of Atheists. Back to the existence or non-existence of Muhammad: Islam incorporates misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament in order to establish itself as an accepted world religion. If Muhammad, aka Qutham, did not exist, then who is originally responsible for the ideology of Islam which most historians agree began in the 7th century as a belief system bent on world domination and as a counter to supersede the Judeo-Christian faith? No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.
gravenimagesays
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Actually, Mr. Spencer, it does follow when applied in this manner of reasoning: The attempt to prove that Muhammad did not exist is the same approach that Atheists/Evolutionists take to claim that the Genesis Account of Creation is fake news.
Just because the Judeo-Christian faith teaches Creationism and Jews and Christians believe the Book of Genesis does not make those texts historically accurate, in the view of Atheists.
……………………….
Actually, Spencer’s book *asks a question*. The idea that one should not even be allowed to ask a question re Islam is mandated in Shari’ah law–are you saying that we have to adhere to the brutal demands of Islamic law?
Then, Jews and Christians are not violent if anyone questions Genesis or any other part of the Bible–in fact, pious Jews and Christians have investigated such accounts themselves. Are you unaware of this?
More:
Back to the existence or non-existence of Muhammad: Islam incorporates misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament in order to establish itself as an accepted world religion. If Muhammad, aka Qutham, did not exist, then who is originally responsible for the ideology of Islam which most historians agree began in the 7th century as a belief system bent on world domination and as a counter to supersede the Judeo-Christian faith?
……………………….
Actually, it is just the texts and tenets of Islam that claim that Muhammad existed at this time. Are you claiming that we accept what Islam demands without question? If so, why not accept all the savagery of Islam?
As for who invented the Muhammad legend if he did not exist historically, there are several posibilities, including later Arabian and other Middle Eastern rulers, as well as folk legends.
Your implication that it is impossible to invent characters–including those who may later be accepted as historical–is simply not borne out. There are figures such as King Arthur, Pope Joan, Robin Hood, Prester John, William Tell–none of whom actually appear to have existed–although, as in the case of Robin Hood, they were sometimes linked to other historical figures who actually did exist.
More:
No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.
……………………….
Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.
gravenimagesays
Thomas Aquinas, as Robert Spencer notes, based his view of Muhammad on the texts of Islam–this does not prove his historicity. And Aquinas lived in the 13th century–not the 7th century–he did not observe Muhammad or his supposed contemporaries directly.
Hey there, gravenimage. Please see my response (above) to Mr. Spencer’s comments. Thanks
gravenimagesays
Thank you, Mike. I replied to you above.
Kephasays
Robert Spencer presents a credible case for the denial of Muhammad’s historicity. However, Uncle Kepha remains convinced that Muhammad ibn Abdullah was a historical person–even while refusing to recognize in him a prophet of God.
It is highly possible that the Qur’an represents a re-worked Arian lectionary and rests on a Syriac base. It is just as likely that Islamic doctrine did not truly gel until after the days of Muawiya. It further seems that the Sana’a Quran manuscript is a palimpsest with an underlying text that differs from the overwriting, suggesting alterations in the text of the Qur’an. The coins from the earliest Islamic period showing a ruler holding up a cross is also intriguing.
However, such things as the story of Muhammad taking Zaynab from his adopted son are things which have the ring of truth. As for the Qur’an being garbled, even in Arabic (but, possibly more intelligible when read in the light of Syriac), that does nothing but prove that Muhammad’s thought and language were less than clear. It does not disprove the existence of a successful Arab warlord forging both a state and a religion.
Perhaps the story of Muhammad and early Islam gives us a picture of a society and written language in its formative stages; and the charismatic figure, no matter how deluded or demonic, who gave them shape.
The reason why the world is silent on Islam is that Islam teaches others in the most effective way possible: through actions. If you criticize it, its followers resort to violence and vilification. Everybody, except a few, has been taught and tamed. The time has come to deliberately provoke Muslims and keep on provoking them until they learn that the response to provocations by words is not violence, but simply having to lump it or reply with words. We need to mock and satirize every aspect of Islam–if we are to live as free societies. Laugh at Islam or die.
Actually, we need to Pray For Muslims. Pray for the 1.6 Billion who are indoctrinated and enslaved into an ideological mindset controlled by fear and that is self-destructive just as much as being destructive to non-Muslim societies. Ridicule and criticism only provokes them to anger. Perhaps they should be “challenged” to question and spiritually examine deeply if what they are being indoctrinated to believe in is really the Truth. Then and only then will Muslims know the meaning of the saying, “You shall know the Truth and the Truth will make you Free.”
kephasays
As you replied to my post, TOTALLY AGREE!
gravenimagesays
David Wood does both–and he and Robert Spencer have worked together.
Again, the insistance that one must show respect for the horrors of Islam makes no sense.
gravenimage wrote, “Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.” Sorry but that’s your conclusion, gravenimage. My point all along is that Islam is an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization AS LONG as it remains a Protected Religion. Mr. Spencer has stated that Islam should NOT be banned because that could result in banning other belief systems. So, Mr. Spencer says to protect Islam as a religion. Then why the effort to discredit the existence of Muhammad ? Would that stop the belief in Islam? He has, however, publicly acknowledged that Islam cannot be reformed, contrary to what other authors like Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, etc., promote. What do you believe, gravenimage? Should Islam be protected as a religion?
By the way, gravenimage, I did not see the “Reply” feature right beneath your last comment to me.
Your conclusion is false. I oppose banning belief systems because I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state where thought police govern what I may or may not say, what books I may own, etc. This has nothing to do with “protecting Islam as a religion.” As I explained to you in our email exchange, if existing laws against sedition, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and more were enforced when Muslims were the perpetrators, a great deal of the problem of jihad terror in the U.S. would disappear, as Sharia adherence and jihad violence often go together. But these laws are not being enforced. It is our societal weakness that is in large part creating the problem.
Thank you very much for your reply, Mr. Spencer. Regarding your comments: “…if existing laws against sedition, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and more were enforced when Muslims were the perpetrators, a great deal of the problem of jihad terror in the U.S. would disappear, as Sharia adherence and jihad violence often go together. But these laws are not being enforced. It is our societal weakness that is in large part creating the problem.”
Agreed. This is where the Freedom of Religion clause is not specific enough. For example, if laws were enforced that deal with the items you listed, Muslims would claim that this literally infringes on their rights of “religious practice” which are acceptable and mandated in Islam.
Thus, enforcing the laws, as you suggest and as should be done, would then, in effect, infringe upon and ban Muslims from practicing what their religion preaches. This is the problem which should be viewed as a Clear and Present Danger. As long as U.S. laws that deal with the items of concern are not enforced and Islam is not identified as an Enemy Threat Doctrine, then Islam freely operates in America and other countries as a protected religion.
gravenimagesays
Hear, hear, Robert Spencer!
gravenimagesays
Mike Ramirez wrote:
gravenimage wrote, “Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.” Sorry but that’s your conclusion, gravenimage.
……………………….
Not really. You wrote, above:
“No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.”
This implies that Robert Spencer does not address Islam being a threat, and nothing could be more mistaken.
Your implication that Robert Spencer refers to Islam as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion”–which you even put in quotes as though directly citing his words verbatim–is simply not true. In fact, Spencer has debunked this claim many times.
To think that acknowledging that Islam is a religion–which it clearly is–is the same as lauding it as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judism and Christianity is just untrue.
More:
My point all along is that Islam is an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization AS LONG as it remains a Protected Religion. Mr. Spencer has stated that Islam should NOT be banned because that could result in banning other belief systems. So, Mr. Spencer says to protect Islam as a religion.
……………………….
The idea that our laws against Jihad and Shari’ah are not being enforced because of the First Amendment is quite a leap–and something that you seem to consider axiomatic. This makes no sense. The FIrst Amendment has *never* guaranteed all forms of worship as you appear to believe–for instance, neo-worshippers of Baal could not burn infants in brass idols, nor could neo-worshippers of the Aztec gods rip out the hearts of rival tribespeople. In the same way, the idea that the First Amendment automaticcally makes Jihad terror and imposing brutal Shari’ah law on is is quite mistaken.
Then, the idea that we should–I suppose, you do not really say–destroy the First Amendment for Islam is, I believe, a complete mistake.
Really, changing our laws, values, and even the meaning of our words for Islam is not a good idea. Instead, we should be *enforcing* our laws and values, *not* destroying them for this foul creed.
More:
Then why the effort to discredit the existence of Muhammad ? Would that stop the belief in Islam? He has, however, publicly acknowledged that Islam cannot be reformed, contrary to what other authors like Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, etc., promote. What do you believe, gravenimage? Should Islam be protected as a religion?
……………………….
Again, this book *asks a question*. You have never said why we should not be allowed to question Islam–save that Islam itself does not allow such questioning.
The idea that this can only be allowed if it automatically ended Islam in and of itself is bizarre. Firstlyy, this is not something one could know the affect of ahead of time–then, it also places all the emphasis on Islam and what it allows. Personally, I don’t think that we have to pay attention to what Islam demands one way or another. In fact, upholding our own civilized traidtions of opening *every* issue to questioning is more important than kowtowing to the demands of Islam, and also does more to defend our own values against Islam.
More:
By the way, gravenimage, I did not see the “Reply” feature right beneath your last comment to me.
……………………….
This posting system indents every time a reply is given–but only for the first few replies. After than, one just clicks on the last “reply” to reply to any subsequent comments. If it is unclear which comment is being addressed, you can just note, say, that the reply is for (poster x’s) comment from (time and date). This is not complicted.
Sorry, gravenimage, but when I specified “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity, it was not intended to be quoting Mr. spencer but in reference to how Islam has been described in generalities -that Islam is an Abrahamic faith (religion) that believes in the same God. I have referenced Catechism 841 of Vatican Ii which claims that Muslims believe in the same God but I note that “Allah” is NOT Yahweh. Perhaps you have read articles by Muslim Apologists that refer to Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
In regard to questioning Islam, again, I have posted CAIR’s statement that says questioning Islam is not Islamophobia and my research, prompted by the events of 9/11, is titled “Questionable Teachings of Islam: One Billion People Deceived.” So, I am not saying that we shouldn’t question Islam and sorry if it came across that way to you. http://www.Starman3000.com
I believe.that Muslims should be challenged on what they believe but noted that to ridicule would provoke them to anger.. Also, and most important, to pray for Muslims.
Thanks, gravenimage, I appreciate the discussion.
gravenimagesays
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Sorry, gravenimage, but when I specified “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity, it was not intended to be quoting Mr. spencer but in reference to how Islam has been described in generalities -that Islam is an Abrahamic faith (religion) that believes in the same God. I have referenced Catechism 841 of Vatican Ii which claims that Muslims believe in the same God but I note that “Allah” is NOT Yahweh. Perhaps you have read articles by Muslim Apologists that refer to Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
…………………….
Yes–this is a common Muslim claim–and one accepted by some ignorant dhimmis, as well. Robert Spencer has debunked this many times, though, as have other Anti-Jihadists–the vicious “Allah” has almost nothing to dio with the loving God of Judaism and Christianity.
More:
In regard to questioning Islam, again, I have posted CAIR’s statement that says questioning Islam is not Islamophobia and my research, prompted by the events of 9/11, is titled “Questionable Teachings of Islam: One Billion People Deceived.” So, I am not saying that we shouldn’t question Islam and sorry if it came across that way to you. http://www.Starman3000.com
…………………….
If CAIR *really* believed this they would take it up with their violent coreligionists, rather than slinging Taqiyya at the credulous Infidels. Then, CAIR regularly tries to shut down speech opposing or even questioning Islam.
I have skimmed through your book, and will read it when I have time. So far it looks good–thank you so much for the link.
More:
I believe.that Muslims should be challenged on what they believe but noted that to ridicule would provoke them to anger.. Also, and most important, to pray for Muslims.
Thanks, gravenimage, I appreciate the discussion.
…………………….
Note that even questioning Islam enrages pious Muslims. Robert Spencer is always measured, and yet gets constant death threats. Your belief that you can walk a line and not incur Muslim anger is unfortunately mistaken.
I agree with the rest of your points, though.
I have also appreciated our conversation here–thank you.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
gravenimage says
The man who wasn’t there: Muhammad in the full light of history
………….
Very funny cartoon! All too apt.
mortimer says
For some reason, scholars today don’t want to be beheaded by berserk Muslim fanatics and college boards of directors don’t want their campuses blown up by jihadists.
The censorship of serious scholarship about Mohammed that we see is called ‘THE HECKLER’S VETO’.
– “A heckler’s veto is an IMPERMISSIBLE content-based RESTRICTION on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an ANTICIPATED DISORDERLY or VIOLENT reaction of the audience.” – Justice Dolores Sloviter
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
In the UK, a heckler’s veto is described as a “breach of the peace”.
But you knew that already…
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer and James.
LB says
I must say, Mr. Spencer, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the memes around your book. Do keep them coming because humor is the silver bullet against islam and leftism that are plaguing our society. As a veteran of the 2016 Great Meme Jihad, I salute you good sir.
mortimer says
The above title (‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’) seriously applies to Mohammed. It looks more and more that Mohammed was invented without children so that no one could claim to be in his dynasty. A man without male heirs would be unable to contest other dynasties.
Mohammed was a historical as Robin Hood or King Arthur … 99% legend.
Mike Ramirez says
Pamela Geller apparently thinks Muhammad existed because Saint Thomas Aquinas thought as well during his time:
https://gellerreport.com/2021/07/here-is-what-saint-thomas-aquinas-says-about-mohammed-and-islam.html/
Robert Spencer says
That doesn’t follow. Aquinas wrote about Muhammad based on what Islamic texts say he said and did. That’s important to know and write about, because Muslims believe those texts. But that doesn’t make those texts historically accurate.
Mike Ramirez says
Actually, Mr. Spencer, it does follow when applied in this manner of reasoning: The attempt to prove that Muhammad did not exist is the same approach that Atheists/Evolutionists take to claim that the Genesis Account of Creation is fake news. Just because the Judeo-Christian faith teaches Creationism and Jews and Christians believe the Book of Genesis does not make those texts historically accurate, in the view of Atheists. Back to the existence or non-existence of Muhammad: Islam incorporates misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament in order to establish itself as an accepted world religion. If Muhammad, aka Qutham, did not exist, then who is originally responsible for the ideology of Islam which most historians agree began in the 7th century as a belief system bent on world domination and as a counter to supersede the Judeo-Christian faith? No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Actually, Mr. Spencer, it does follow when applied in this manner of reasoning: The attempt to prove that Muhammad did not exist is the same approach that Atheists/Evolutionists take to claim that the Genesis Account of Creation is fake news.
Just because the Judeo-Christian faith teaches Creationism and Jews and Christians believe the Book of Genesis does not make those texts historically accurate, in the view of Atheists.
……………………….
Actually, Spencer’s book *asks a question*. The idea that one should not even be allowed to ask a question re Islam is mandated in Shari’ah law–are you saying that we have to adhere to the brutal demands of Islamic law?
Then, Jews and Christians are not violent if anyone questions Genesis or any other part of the Bible–in fact, pious Jews and Christians have investigated such accounts themselves. Are you unaware of this?
More:
Back to the existence or non-existence of Muhammad: Islam incorporates misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament in order to establish itself as an accepted world religion. If Muhammad, aka Qutham, did not exist, then who is originally responsible for the ideology of Islam which most historians agree began in the 7th century as a belief system bent on world domination and as a counter to supersede the Judeo-Christian faith?
……………………….
Actually, it is just the texts and tenets of Islam that claim that Muhammad existed at this time. Are you claiming that we accept what Islam demands without question? If so, why not accept all the savagery of Islam?
As for who invented the Muhammad legend if he did not exist historically, there are several posibilities, including later Arabian and other Middle Eastern rulers, as well as folk legends.
Your implication that it is impossible to invent characters–including those who may later be accepted as historical–is simply not borne out. There are figures such as King Arthur, Pope Joan, Robin Hood, Prester John, William Tell–none of whom actually appear to have existed–although, as in the case of Robin Hood, they were sometimes linked to other historical figures who actually did exist.
More:
No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.
……………………….
Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.
gravenimage says
Thomas Aquinas, as Robert Spencer notes, based his view of Muhammad on the texts of Islam–this does not prove his historicity. And Aquinas lived in the 13th century–not the 7th century–he did not observe Muhammad or his supposed contemporaries directly.
Mike Ramirez says
Hey there, gravenimage. Please see my response (above) to Mr. Spencer’s comments. Thanks
gravenimage says
Thank you, Mike. I replied to you above.
Kepha says
Robert Spencer presents a credible case for the denial of Muhammad’s historicity. However, Uncle Kepha remains convinced that Muhammad ibn Abdullah was a historical person–even while refusing to recognize in him a prophet of God.
It is highly possible that the Qur’an represents a re-worked Arian lectionary and rests on a Syriac base. It is just as likely that Islamic doctrine did not truly gel until after the days of Muawiya. It further seems that the Sana’a Quran manuscript is a palimpsest with an underlying text that differs from the overwriting, suggesting alterations in the text of the Qur’an. The coins from the earliest Islamic period showing a ruler holding up a cross is also intriguing.
However, such things as the story of Muhammad taking Zaynab from his adopted son are things which have the ring of truth. As for the Qur’an being garbled, even in Arabic (but, possibly more intelligible when read in the light of Syriac), that does nothing but prove that Muhammad’s thought and language were less than clear. It does not disprove the existence of a successful Arab warlord forging both a state and a religion.
Perhaps the story of Muhammad and early Islam gives us a picture of a society and written language in its formative stages; and the charismatic figure, no matter how deluded or demonic, who gave them shape.
Mike Ramirez says
Totally agree!
OTTER says
The reason why the world is silent on Islam is that Islam teaches others in the most effective way possible: through actions. If you criticize it, its followers resort to violence and vilification. Everybody, except a few, has been taught and tamed. The time has come to deliberately provoke Muslims and keep on provoking them until they learn that the response to provocations by words is not violence, but simply having to lump it or reply with words. We need to mock and satirize every aspect of Islam–if we are to live as free societies. Laugh at Islam or die.
Mike Ramirez says
Actually, we need to Pray For Muslims. Pray for the 1.6 Billion who are indoctrinated and enslaved into an ideological mindset controlled by fear and that is self-destructive just as much as being destructive to non-Muslim societies. Ridicule and criticism only provokes them to anger. Perhaps they should be “challenged” to question and spiritually examine deeply if what they are being indoctrinated to believe in is really the Truth. Then and only then will Muslims know the meaning of the saying, “You shall know the Truth and the Truth will make you Free.”
kepha says
As you replied to my post, TOTALLY AGREE!
gravenimage says
David Wood does both–and he and Robert Spencer have worked together.
Again, the insistance that one must show respect for the horrors of Islam makes no sense.
Mike Ramirez says
gravenimage wrote, “Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.” Sorry but that’s your conclusion, gravenimage. My point all along is that Islam is an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization AS LONG as it remains a Protected Religion. Mr. Spencer has stated that Islam should NOT be banned because that could result in banning other belief systems. So, Mr. Spencer says to protect Islam as a religion. Then why the effort to discredit the existence of Muhammad ? Would that stop the belief in Islam? He has, however, publicly acknowledged that Islam cannot be reformed, contrary to what other authors like Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, etc., promote. What do you believe, gravenimage? Should Islam be protected as a religion?
By the way, gravenimage, I did not see the “Reply” feature right beneath your last comment to me.
Robert Spencer says
Your conclusion is false. I oppose banning belief systems because I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state where thought police govern what I may or may not say, what books I may own, etc. This has nothing to do with “protecting Islam as a religion.” As I explained to you in our email exchange, if existing laws against sedition, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and more were enforced when Muslims were the perpetrators, a great deal of the problem of jihad terror in the U.S. would disappear, as Sharia adherence and jihad violence often go together. But these laws are not being enforced. It is our societal weakness that is in large part creating the problem.
Mike Ramirez says
Thank you very much for your reply, Mr. Spencer. Regarding your comments: “…if existing laws against sedition, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and more were enforced when Muslims were the perpetrators, a great deal of the problem of jihad terror in the U.S. would disappear, as Sharia adherence and jihad violence often go together. But these laws are not being enforced. It is our societal weakness that is in large part creating the problem.”
Agreed. This is where the Freedom of Religion clause is not specific enough. For example, if laws were enforced that deal with the items you listed, Muslims would claim that this literally infringes on their rights of “religious practice” which are acceptable and mandated in Islam.
Thus, enforcing the laws, as you suggest and as should be done, would then, in effect, infringe upon and ban Muslims from practicing what their religion preaches. This is the problem which should be viewed as a Clear and Present Danger. As long as U.S. laws that deal with the items of concern are not enforced and Islam is not identified as an Enemy Threat Doctrine, then Islam freely operates in America and other countries as a protected religion.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Robert Spencer!
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez wrote:
gravenimage wrote, “Your implication that Robert Spencer is denying that Islam is a threat is bizarre and quite false. Citations, please.” Sorry but that’s your conclusion, gravenimage.
……………………….
Not really. You wrote, above:
“No matter who started Islam, Western Civilization is still threatened by that ideology and will continue to be threatened as long as it is accepted as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity. That’s the reality of what needs to be addressed.”
This implies that Robert Spencer does not address Islam being a threat, and nothing could be more mistaken.
Your implication that Robert Spencer refers to Islam as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion”–which you even put in quotes as though directly citing his words verbatim–is simply not true. In fact, Spencer has debunked this claim many times.
To think that acknowledging that Islam is a religion–which it clearly is–is the same as lauding it as an “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judism and Christianity is just untrue.
More:
My point all along is that Islam is an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization AS LONG as it remains a Protected Religion. Mr. Spencer has stated that Islam should NOT be banned because that could result in banning other belief systems. So, Mr. Spencer says to protect Islam as a religion.
……………………….
The idea that our laws against Jihad and Shari’ah are not being enforced because of the First Amendment is quite a leap–and something that you seem to consider axiomatic. This makes no sense. The FIrst Amendment has *never* guaranteed all forms of worship as you appear to believe–for instance, neo-worshippers of Baal could not burn infants in brass idols, nor could neo-worshippers of the Aztec gods rip out the hearts of rival tribespeople. In the same way, the idea that the First Amendment automaticcally makes Jihad terror and imposing brutal Shari’ah law on is is quite mistaken.
Then, the idea that we should–I suppose, you do not really say–destroy the First Amendment for Islam is, I believe, a complete mistake.
Really, changing our laws, values, and even the meaning of our words for Islam is not a good idea. Instead, we should be *enforcing* our laws and values, *not* destroying them for this foul creed.
More:
Then why the effort to discredit the existence of Muhammad ? Would that stop the belief in Islam? He has, however, publicly acknowledged that Islam cannot be reformed, contrary to what other authors like Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, etc., promote. What do you believe, gravenimage? Should Islam be protected as a religion?
……………………….
Again, this book *asks a question*. You have never said why we should not be allowed to question Islam–save that Islam itself does not allow such questioning.
The idea that this can only be allowed if it automatically ended Islam in and of itself is bizarre. Firstlyy, this is not something one could know the affect of ahead of time–then, it also places all the emphasis on Islam and what it allows. Personally, I don’t think that we have to pay attention to what Islam demands one way or another. In fact, upholding our own civilized traidtions of opening *every* issue to questioning is more important than kowtowing to the demands of Islam, and also does more to defend our own values against Islam.
More:
By the way, gravenimage, I did not see the “Reply” feature right beneath your last comment to me.
……………………….
This posting system indents every time a reply is given–but only for the first few replies. After than, one just clicks on the last “reply” to reply to any subsequent comments. If it is unclear which comment is being addressed, you can just note, say, that the reply is for (poster x’s) comment from (time and date). This is not complicted.
Mike Ramirez says
Sorry, gravenimage, but when I specified “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity, it was not intended to be quoting Mr. spencer but in reference to how Islam has been described in generalities -that Islam is an Abrahamic faith (religion) that believes in the same God. I have referenced Catechism 841 of Vatican Ii which claims that Muslims believe in the same God but I note that “Allah” is NOT Yahweh. Perhaps you have read articles by Muslim Apologists that refer to Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
In regard to questioning Islam, again, I have posted CAIR’s statement that says questioning Islam is not Islamophobia and my research, prompted by the events of 9/11, is titled “Questionable Teachings of Islam: One Billion People Deceived.” So, I am not saying that we shouldn’t question Islam and sorry if it came across that way to you.
http://www.Starman3000.com
I believe.that Muslims should be challenged on what they believe but noted that to ridicule would provoke them to anger.. Also, and most important, to pray for Muslims.
Thanks, gravenimage, I appreciate the discussion.
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Sorry, gravenimage, but when I specified “Abrahamic Sister Religion” to Judaism and Christianity, it was not intended to be quoting Mr. spencer but in reference to how Islam has been described in generalities -that Islam is an Abrahamic faith (religion) that believes in the same God. I have referenced Catechism 841 of Vatican Ii which claims that Muslims believe in the same God but I note that “Allah” is NOT Yahweh. Perhaps you have read articles by Muslim Apologists that refer to Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
…………………….
Yes–this is a common Muslim claim–and one accepted by some ignorant dhimmis, as well. Robert Spencer has debunked this many times, though, as have other Anti-Jihadists–the vicious “Allah” has almost nothing to dio with the loving God of Judaism and Christianity.
More:
In regard to questioning Islam, again, I have posted CAIR’s statement that says questioning Islam is not Islamophobia and my research, prompted by the events of 9/11, is titled “Questionable Teachings of Islam: One Billion People Deceived.” So, I am not saying that we shouldn’t question Islam and sorry if it came across that way to you.
http://www.Starman3000.com
…………………….
If CAIR *really* believed this they would take it up with their violent coreligionists, rather than slinging Taqiyya at the credulous Infidels. Then, CAIR regularly tries to shut down speech opposing or even questioning Islam.
I have skimmed through your book, and will read it when I have time. So far it looks good–thank you so much for the link.
More:
I believe.that Muslims should be challenged on what they believe but noted that to ridicule would provoke them to anger.. Also, and most important, to pray for Muslims.
Thanks, gravenimage, I appreciate the discussion.
…………………….
Note that even questioning Islam enrages pious Muslims. Robert Spencer is always measured, and yet gets constant death threats. Your belief that you can walk a line and not incur Muslim anger is unfortunately mistaken.
I agree with the rest of your points, though.
I have also appreciated our conversation here–thank you.