Thursday, August 9, 2007

Welcome to readers of Jihad Watch and Foehammer’s Anvil

Hello everyone and thank you for reading my little blog The best way to read this blog is to start reading from my first post The Pseudo Rev Who is a Fraud. And be sure the read the comments as well.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice work, as always.
Sutter is squirming today, whining that he has, "been alerted by one of these hate mongers that they are going to attempt to further distract people from the facts by using the old logical fallacy tactic of “ad hominem”, i.e., attacking the author instead of addressing or trying to refute the facts as published." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Apparently another blogger(Chrisy Li) is stepping in.

p.s If you don't mind, I would like to know more about your personal history with sutter. How did he come to fasten on you as a "weird hate-monger"? (Feel free to tell me to MYOB!)

Exposing Sutter said...

I hooked up the phony "Rev about 18 months ago, I was posting on a web forum that has the most racist anti-Semitic I had ever seen. There was a well known
poster there, Jan van Helsing a notorious anti-Semitic whose books are banned in several countries in Europe posted there. I joined his and his buddy in crime Dann Dobson’s
HateWatchUSA
and
Down_with_Antisemitism
looking for some help and guidance. I didn’t find any; they were really worthless when it came to arguing with the anti-Semites. We had a falling out because my views over Islam, CAIR and more specifically the flying imams and Morris Dees and the
Southern Poverty Law Center
. It public you can read yourself as it was cross posted to Down_with_Antisemitism. It stared around the end of December of 2006. I left his HateWatchUSA group and both he and Dobson were kicked out of all the other groups.

Parker said...

Fair enough, but Mr Spencer has yet to respond to this:

http://muslimmethod.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/a-response-to-robert-spencer-and-others/

Muslims have continuously denounced terrorism time and time again, but people still try to portray all of us as supporting it. Stop trying to make us all into a monolith

Exposing Sutter said...

Parker I forwarded what you posted to Robert Spencer his response:
"This is absurd and false. I have never said or written that all
Muslims support terrorism."

I suggest you go and *read* what Robert Spencer has written before making untrue accusations.

And you would be smart not to believe what that pathological liar Sutter writes. It's mostly fiction from a very sick mind.

Parker said...

@ exposing

I must say that I am very surprised that he is admitting that and it is a positive first step to not try to smear all Muslims as evil. It would be nice if he would rebuke those who post to his website and align themselves with him. My site is FILLED with anti-Jihadee articles that is often ignored by people like Mr Spencer.

[Further he claims that he does not call for the internment of Muslims but aligns himself with Michelle Malkin who has called for it and others. Why does he have a link to Debbie Schlussel and several other bloggers who clearly says that all Muslims are evil? But I digress]


However, it would be nice if he would respond to the rest of the post in the link since he has certainly claimed on several occasions - as you well know - that Muslims have not refuted the extremists on religious grounds. The post in the link does so. Would he be fair enough to admit that Muslims have refuted the extremists on religious grounds are ARE fighting against them? Will he admit that Muslims ARE fighting these people EVERY DAY?

I suppose he will not respond, but let him know that his arguments have been refuted with taped lectures and articles all provided on the link. If he wants answers, then let him listen to these lectures and read these articles.

His argument is: one can not be a good practicing Muslim and NOT be a Jihadee because Islam at its core is evil. We have refuted this argument time and again and it serves certain people better to make people think that Muslims are silent on terror as has been said ad nausem

Let him (or anyone else) respond to the post or stop claiming that Islam has no answer to terror.

I invite YOU to *read* the post and the links in the post and my other posts before judging me

Anonymous said...

You are missing the point Parker.
Spencer does not deny that there are individual and idiosyncratic moderate Muslim interpretations of jihad, and dhimmitude. The problem is that none of those interpretaions are big movements. I know he has spoken favorably of a group in favor of secular islam that met in FLorida last year. I think you are responding to a caricature of Spencer, or are perhaps blaming the messenger for the jihadis'constant embrassment to Islam.

Exposing Sutter said...

Thank you anon for your insightful post. I note that Parker also posted more fabrications about Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel both of whim I read daily. I don't see anyone say that individual Muslims can be more moderate.

The problems does not lie with individuals Muslims but with Islam itself. Because there is no such thing as moderate Islam. The myth of
the 'moderate' Muslim


Parker I suggest you take your criticisms up with Robert Spencer himself.

Anonymous said...

A comment to Parker - whose website I checked out but I'm not going to post there since an email address is required. You cite the "covenant of security" as an Islamic prohibition against waging jihad in one's host country. Two points about that: 1) Muslims can reside in the host country under a 'covenant of security", while still waging jihad against other countries and 2) the covenant of security can be revoked given any perceived provocation against the Muslim community. Omar Bakri revoked the "covenant of security" with Britain after Britain instituted anti-terrorist legislation. In fact, theoretically the covenant of security could be revoked were the host country merely to resist the spread of Islam and Sharia law.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/307

Try again.

Caroline

Parker said...

@ exposing

I would love to take this issue up with Mr Spencer himself, but he has not responded to my post. He usually responds to posts about him that are at times very silly, but has chosen to ignore my post which contains Islamic refutations of the extremists that he has been demanding for so long. Only silence from him and a red herring answer to you while ignoring all EVIDENCE that I posted.

If he is honest, then let him listen to it.

I ask you all that if you say that all Muslims should not be wiped out then what should be done with them?

If Islam is irredeemably evil, then what should be done with those who practice it?

If Islam is irredeemably evil - as in the link you provided - and the Muslims can't be bargained with, then what other alternative is there besides wiping them out?

I see Spencer et al continuously talking and posting about the massive problem of Muslims, but what should be DONE about this problem if we should not be wiped off the map?

What is the POLICY solution that you are calling to?

What should Bush and other Western leaders do to solve this problem? They scream each time a gesture is made to a Muslim, so what should be done?

When I read these things about "myth of moderate Muslim" and such, I can only think they they are calling for Muslims to be wiped out.

It's kinda like that movie Independence Day. Once the President found out that the aliens could not be reasoned with and that their goal was extermination, then there was only one way to deal with them.

Likewise, what is the logical conclusion of saying that the religion (and thus those who practice it) is irredeemably evil and basically subhuman?

Do you see how I can't separate the two?

Parker said...

@ Caroline

If you read my website as you claim then you will see the REFUTATUON to the criminal Omar Bakri is posted there. Why are you trying to portray me as someone who supports Bakri? This is a LIE. Go look at my site and SEE that I do not support that criminal in any way shape form or fashion and NEVER have.

So Omar Bakri is wrong. He is wrong. He is wrong and he is a criminal. DO NOT put us all in the boat with him.

Lady Predator said...

I can't help the way you think Parker but I believe as Auster does The west need to separate ourselves from Islam.

separationists affirm the following:

* Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

* But we cannot destroy Islam.

* Nor can we democratize Islam.

* Nor can we assimilate Islam.

* Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Anonymous said...

Parker - calm down. I wasn't for a minute suggesting that you were a supporter of Omar Bakri. I am quite sure that you are indeed trying to be honest about your understanding of Islam here.

The only "refutation" I can see at your site regarding breaking the covenant of security is Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Ubaykaan's, citation of (what i presume is) a hadith:

“Do not betray even those who betray you.”

Is that what you're referring to? If so, I'd have to do quite a bit of googling for the context but from what I know just about Muhammad breaking the treaty of Hudaibiyah, I'm not buying it. I would also have to know the context of that hadith in the context of Muhammad's statement that "war is deceit" (which certainly implies a betrayal of trust - wouldn't you say?)

As the Pipes link indicates, certainly Muslims can have a pact of security with infidels. My question to you is - under what circumstances would you consider it reasonable to break that pact? Never - based on that one hadith? Or are there circumstances in which such a pact could be broken and if so, what would those be? What if the infidel state refused to permit any practice of Sharia law whatsoever, including permitting criticism of the prophet, or not allowing the country covered by the pact to take part in jihad at all? Would that revoke the covenant of security?

I'm going to need a little more information than the one hadith you cited to make a judgment about whether or not and under what circumstances, a covenant of security could legitimately be broken according to Islamic law. If I'm missing the bulk of your post related to this issue, however, please provide a link so that I can find it.

Caroline

Parker said...

Lady Predator said: * Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

A couple of points:

#1 - That plan sounds fair enough and I would not even oppose such a thing except that I don't see how to implement it where converts - especially blacks - are concerned. The entire argument is built upon the logic that there are no native born indigenous Muslims that would have no place to go.

Anyone that has been to a place like Philadelphia or Newark knows that nearly every Black American extended family has a Muslim in it (son, daughter, nephew, cousin, etc). Many black families are even up to half Muslim now.

Point is that this policy would only work if we are talking about a bunch of immigrants like it is in Europe. However here in the US this would separate lots of families as Muslims are very intertwined with the black community in places like Philly. Not to mention the white and Latino Muslims as well.

#2 - With the above in mind, how do you keep people from converting after the separation? You would have to make it illegal. Again, that would be America's prerogative, but I suspect that a lot of American non-Muslims would not like that.

Because this plan is ultimately unworkable, allow me to extend the logic...

* Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

* Muslims can not be reasoned with

* But we cannot destroy Islam.

* Nor can we democratize Islam.

* Nor can we assimilate Islam.

* Nor can we separate ourselves from Islam

* Therefore since we have superior firepower, we must develop the will to wipe out the Muslims

You find an answer to the convert problem and you may be able to make that work. Otherwise, people will come (and have come) to the conclusion above.

Parker said...

If so, I'd have to do quite a bit of googling for the context but from what I know just about Muhammad breaking the treaty of Hudaibiyah, I'm not buying it.

The Pagans of Makkah broke the treaty first. This is one of the biggest things going around right now that Muslims can just break treaties on a whim. Not true

I would also have to know the context of that hadith in the context of Muhammad's statement that "war is deceit" (which certainly implies a betrayal of trust - wouldn't you say?)

The meaning of that is that on the battlefield you can use tactics to fool an enemy. The context of that hadith was that they were making the dust bigger to make their numbers appear larger. This is tantamount to a 'flea flicker' in football or a fake in basketball. If you can make your enemy on the battlefield think you are coming one way but you are coming another way, etc. This is the meaning of it, and not to engage in stealing, deceit, and fraud as the Khawaarij have taken it to mean.

That is why I have posted the lectures on my blog. If you listen to them, you will see the context very clearly and it does not mean that a Muslim can engage in fraud and call it "war".

you said:

My question to you is - under what circumstances would you consider it reasonable to break that pact?

If it becomes too hard or illegal to practice my religion in this country (which it is not, even though many may hate it) then I would simply try to leave in peace.

Much of this about pacts is at the level of the ruler. It is like me asking you if you would break a pact between the US and China.

Could an individual person decide that he thinks that Muslims should not be here and begin to try to deport them himself? Can a person round up illegal aliens and send them back to their countries himself?

What if the infidel state refused to permit any practice of Sharia law whatsoever, including permitting criticism of the prophet, or not allowing the country covered by the pact to take part in jihad at all? Would that revoke the covenant of security?

No it would not and guess what? I am currently living under those circumstance and have for all my Muslim life in peace. There is no Shariah law here in the US and criticism of the Prophet is permitted here NOW. Nothing changes.

The fact still remains that I am living in security in this country and benefiting from the roads, the police and fire services and other things that every other American citizen benefits from. They have not declared that it is illegal to be Muslim. If such a day comes then it is upon me to simply try my best to leave the country for one where I can practice my religion. End of story.

There is no insidious plot here. I have LOTS of non-Muslim family that love me and I love them. I am not trying to plot against them or you or my neighbors or my fellow citizens. I was born and raised here as was my father, grandfather, great grandfather and beyond them. This is my home and I love it.

Again, when you try to make us out as some hive minded monolith, you lose the hearts and minds battle. You are not going to convince my mother, uncles and aunts of it and they will see through it. They changed my diapers, watched me grow up and know me as an adult and they love my children. We laugh and talk together over a good meal. I visit them and they visit me.

This is the side of American Muslims people like yourself unfortunately don't see or hear about. And this is what makes me upset about Robert Spencer, Coulter, LGF, Malkin and others. They want to present this picture of the wild eyed irrational medievalist (which I admit DOES exist and scares me too) as the typical Muslim. I am sure that they believe this, but they don't see what I see.

It will be hard to convince Aunt Betty that her nephew Rasheed who works an honest 9-5 every day to take care of his family is actually trying to kill her

Anonymous said...

Parker: "The Pagans of Makkah broke the treaty first."

A flimsy excuse. Muhammad had a lot of flimsy excuses which all together added up to an aggressive agenda which Muslims, in their self-denial about the aggressive nature of Muhammad's violence, call "defensive" jihad. I’ve addressed that issue in some detail here:

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/3171.aspx

But even if one were to take your spin on it - that the Meccans broke the treaty first - what happened to your hadith, "“Do not betray even those who betray you.”? (could you give a reference for that hadith as well so that I could establish whether its even one that is considered to have a solid chain of narration)

Jesus was betrayed and he died on the cross for it. Muhammad saw conspiracy and betrayal against him everywhere and he retaliated with violence, as e.g. when he had poets assassinated. So wherever that hadith comes from, its pretty ludicrous considering the actual sunnah of the "prophet".

Re "war is deceit", you say "The meaning of that is that on the battlefield you can use tactics to fool an enemy."

According to Islam the entire non-Muslim is dar -al-harb. That makes the whole world a battlefield. (I could cite a bunch of hadiths about that as well). Islam is permanently at war with dar-al-harb until it falls under islamic rule, which means that Muslims could justify deceit (i.e. betrayal) on such a "battlefield" as long as the purpose of the deceit is in furthering Islam's aims.

“Much of this about pacts is at the level of the ruler. It is like me asking you if you would break a pact between the US and China.”

Are you in favor of reinstituting the caliphate? If that were to occur, as a Muslim would your loyalty lie with the U.S or the caliphate?

“No it would not and guess what? I am currently living under those circumstance and have for all my Muslim life in peace. There is no Shariah law here in the US and criticism of the Prophet is permitted here NOW. Nothing changes.”

The sunnah of the prophet was to lie low when he was powerless. As he gained power he became more aggressive. Many Muslims follow that example. The push for shariah law becomes more of an obligation when Muslims are in a position to actually make it happen. You can see that pattern all over the world today. Muslims become much more aggressive in pushing their demands as the Muslim population approaches 10-15% of the population. We’re a ways from that in the U.S. so far.

“This is the side of American Muslims people like yourself unfortunately don't see or hear about. …..They want to present this picture of the wild eyed irrational medievalist (which I admit DOES exist and scares me too) as the typical Muslim.”

Parker – you were born and raised in a Judeo-Christian society in which Muslims are a tiny minority of the population. If we don’t see “the wild eyed irrational medievalist” here presently, its because we’re all still living under the US Constitution, which respects the civil rights of Muslims and also obviously respects the civil rights of all non-Muslims. But look around you at the Muslim world. Look at how they actually treat their non-Muslim minorities. Look also at how they treat their “progressive Muslims” like yourself. You’re getting a totally distorted picture because of the circumstances you live in. Just wait. But of course then, if we all wait, it will be too late. You will either be forced to be more “wild-eyed” than you care to be, or you may well be labeled a kaffir and treated like the rest of us kaffirs.

Why can’t you see this? Why can’t you see that Islam only seems benign and harmless to you because you are living as a progressive person in a progressive society that respects your civil rights and respects the civil rights of all religions. It disappoints me that so many American blacks have jumped on the islam bandwagon. Don’t you know anything about the long history of Arab slave-trading against blacks? Don’t you know about the genocide in Sudan? Don’t you care about the fundamental injustice of dhimmitude? Or are you going to claim that dhimmitude has nothing to do with Islam and that under Sharia law non-Muslims are treated equally?

It isn't all about "terrorism" you know. The end goal of terrorism is merely the institution of Sharia law, which denies equality and civil rights to non-Muslims. You're certainly not going to deny that are you? And if not, then how can you, as a black American, subscribe to a religion which denies the civil rights and freedom of conscience to someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs? Don't you think that's morally wrong?

Caroline