I just did a segment of the Laura Ingraham Show, debating Dr. Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society. I didn't get the chance to give prior notice here, but I understand it will be broadcast again later today.
A few observations: I pointed out that every school of Islamic jurisprudence teaches that it is the responsibility of the Muslim community to wage war against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Dr. Omeish in response said that yes, Islam must be spread all over the world, but the primary way to do this was through preaching. I responded, referring to the hadith Sahih Muslim 4294, that Muhammad commanded preaching first, but warfare against those who rejected the message. Dr. Omeish said this was a misrepresentation of Islam, but offered no supporting evidence for his position.
A little while later Laura Ingraham referred to the case in Malaysia where Lina Joy, a convert to Christianity, is having such a hard time, including death threats. I explained that this resulted from the traditional Islamic death penalty against apostates, and quoted Muhammad's dictum, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." Ingraham then asked Dr. Omeish if Sharia indeed mandated death for apostasy. He said flatly that it didn't, whereupon I said, "He's lying!" but I don't know if my mic was on.
Dr. Omeish offered no evidence for his position. Here is evidence for mine:
1. Muhammad legislated for his community that no Muslim could be put to death except for murder, unlawful sexual intercourse, and apostasy: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari 9.83.17). He said flatly: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57).
2. Muslim governments and people seem to understand this well. Here are some recent pertinent news items -- leaving aside the famous Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan:
Wave of arrests of Christian converts from Islam for apostasy in Egypt
Malaysia: Mufti urges action against apostates from Islam
Pakistan: Woman Raped for Leaving Islam
Pakistan's top cleric: “if a state is truly Islamic” it would have to kill the apostate
Nigeria: Pastor faces arrest for harboring convert from Islam
Qaradawi endorses death penalty for apostasy
Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family
I would, of course, be happy to debate Dr. Omeish at greater length. If Dr. Omeish or his representatives are reading this, you can reach me at director@jihadwatch.org.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for this guy, or any other Muslim speaker to debate you fully, Robert. They can't beat you, and they know that.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the good doctor, Robert. You'll probably debate him again openly....
.....when pigs fly!
Sorry, DCWatson, jinx!!
'He's lying'. Congratulations Robert. Cut through all the pussy-footing precious time wasting that characterize these discussions. We need more in-the-face direct confrontation in these so-called 'debates'. Get them while you can, given the time constraints and controlling nature of the medium whereby everything is reduced to soundbites and superficiality.( I assume this is a TV show?).
Set them up to lie and then pounce. This should nudge the average couch potato ( or pasive listener) into some semblance of life and perhaps spark some interest in the true nature of the treacherous and deceitful ideology we are contending with. The lying must be confronted and challenged. Enough is enough. Keep up the good and valiant work!
I've just noticed it is a radio show but the same applies.
...."Dr. Omeish in response said that yes, Islam must be spread all over the world, but this the primary way to do this was through preaching."....
Well, if they want to spread their message worldwide, we want to spread our message worldwide too: they build mosques here, we build Churches and Temples, Dojos and Terreiros in Saudi Arabia.
It's simple, it's called Freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
"All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others."
It took me about 20 seconds to find that. Surely Ms. Ingraham can afford a fact checker (or do it herself during commercial breaks) so as not to leave these issues seemingly unresolved for her viewers.
Esam Omeish, the president of the Muslim American Society, acknowledges that MAS has been influenced by the "moderate school of thought prevalent in the Muslim Brotherhood" and makes no effort to refute the effort that MAS has in mind "the goal of an Islamic run state under sharia law in America that is controlled and directed by a caliphate."
That is their Quranic given objected and they will try to sell it by taquiya and all of the niceties that they can possibly draw from the Quran, and the hadiths to what they call the gullible and naive people of America. They clearly believe they are much smarter and cunning then the American Psyche is.
Tell the truth and shame the devil. Keep fighting the good fight!
Go here for some later show time options for Laura:
http://web.brocktoon.net/talkradio.php
8-10pm listen 77WABC (New York City, NY)
12-2am listen WNRI (Woonsocket, Rhode Island)
-XRDC
Oh thankyou so much all of my liberal friends are going to "love" this. I Have been e-mailing friends many of the articles here to ensure they are properly informed. I do my small part to spread the word if the media will not inform we must.
Thanks, Robert, for exposing yet again the two faces of mohammedism. Appearances on these TV and radio talkshows are quite helpful, but the time allotted is not always sufficient to hammer the message home. There is a need for a series of documentaries to demonstrate fully the failures and wickedness of mohammedism, in both an historical and modern-day context. I hope there is a film producer reading JW who sees the same need and will step forward to help get the truth out to as large an audience as possible. In the current political and social climate, the ratings for such a project would be through the roof.
"I explained that this resulted from the traditional Islamic death penalty against apostates, and quoted Muhammad's dictum, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." Ingraham then asked Dr. Omeish if Sharia indeed mandated death for apostasy. He said flatly that it didn't, whereupon I said, "He's lying!" but I don't know if my mic was on."-Robert
About 6 years ago I heard David Horowitz make a very astute observation about liars. He was debating (on radio)a woman who was lying, and Horowitz directly called her a liar. She was silent. Then David said that every time he has ever called a real liar a liar, they were either silent or gave some not authentic response to the charge. He said that when one calls an honest person a liar that one can be sure they will become truly angry and give definite evidence that they are telling the truth.
I'll bet Dr. Omeish was silent or indignant when Robert called him a liar. I'll bet he gave no specific evidence (chapter and verse so-to-speak) that he was telling the truth.
"I explained that this resulted from the traditional Islamic death penalty against apostates, and quoted Muhammad's dictum, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." Ingraham then asked Dr. Omeish if Sharia indeed mandated death for apostasy. He said flatly that it didn't, whereupon I said, "He's lying!" but I don't know if my mic was on."-Robert
About 6 years ago I heard David Horowitz make a very astute observation about liars. He was debating (on radio)a woman who was lying, and Horowitz directly called her a liar. She was silent. Then David said that every time he has ever called a real liar a liar, they were either silent or gave some not authentic response to the charge. He said that when one calls an honest person a liar that one can be sure they will become truly angry and give definite evidence that they are telling the truth.
I'll bet Dr. Omeish was silent or indignant when Robert called him a liar. I'll bet he gave no specific evidence (chapter and verse so-to-speak) that he was telling the truth.
Well done Mr. Spencer. I would have asked that in addition to pointing out the obvious references to apostasy, you might consider going to the heart of the matter, that is, the only real defense I have seen argued (as Reza Aslan attempts do to): that the apostasy crime was only supposed to last during "times of war" when the Prophet (peanut butter and jelly) had no choice but to ordain such a thing. And secondly, that Mo spared the life of someone (how prophet like of the prophet). Obviously, doing so is possible only after establshing that the crime is clearly part of the Sharia. With respect to the defense I mentioned above, you might ask where the evidence is that such is the case with respect to apostacy? And if it is truly only applicable during the time of war, why are there are few (if any) mullahs, muftis and imams that hold that view?
Of course, much of this depends on having sufficient time to debate. In the US, debates are brainless sound bytes anyway. In such a case, you would never have the opportunity to pummel the 'defense' against apostasy as you could in an open debate.
Robert, Hugh--
A suggestion: several times you've written imaginary speeches that you suggest the President could give to address the Jihad/Islamic threat.
What I'd find interesting is to see an imaginary speech that you'd like to see American Muslim leaders give... one that balances truth and anti-jihadism with their tricky predicament of representing a large community that identifies itself as Muslim.
Bravo,These debates are the only means, where civilized people can engage in to open the minds of even educated muslim, who are trapped in the literalist interpretation of Kuran. Many Many thanks to the host to allow Robert to participate. It is such a rare occurrence that we have to thank a radio host for doing her job. I hope Paula Zahn would learn something.
Well Done, I do hope your mic was on... take care
Ingraham then asked Dr. Omeish if Sharia indeed mandated death for apostasy. He said flatly that it didn't, whereupon I said, "He's lying!" but I don't know if my mic was on.
Well Mr. Spencer; I guess I have to knock off a couple of points on your handling of this one.
It doesn't matter though, because you have enough points to your overall score that you are still in the A+ level in my gradebook.
However, I might suggest that rather than say "he's lying!" that you instead ask him directly "are you then denying what Mohammad said regarding the command 'If anyone changes his religion, kill him' as stated in surah ..."
Of course he'll come back with something about how that passage can not be understood in English because of the translation.
Naturally you would come back with: 1. The original arabic is clearly understood to mean exactly what it says -- even in arabic; and
2. converts to islam, who do not understand arabic, are never forewarned by their immams that the passage, or any other passage for that matter, can not be understood in the vernacular (which makes the very notion of "conversion" pointless in the first place.")
Make the SOB dance and let him deny his prophet. Just think of ways to make the immam squirm by throwing questions back to him.
If he wants to deny what the prophet teaches -- he must deny the prophet!
A very dicy and enjoyable joust is waiting to be had!
I raise my glass in a boisterous and hearty toast to the next round!
As per the David Horowitz Doctrine re truth testing: If Dr. Omeish were telling the truth 1)Omeish would have become visibly and truly angry and 2) he would have cited specific places from Sharia Law to demonstrate that he spoke the truth. I've found David's observation to be very astute when testing the truthfulness of another person. If the two aspects of the response to the charge of lying(Omeish, e.g.) are not together, then the person (Omeish, e.g.) is a liar.
Kill the apostate is written in black and white, in the koran, and a case can be brought up with them, that, either they are uneducated about islam, or they are liars. They need to be asked which one they are. And also it would be nice if the moderator would pin one of these guys down on ONE question, instead of letting them rattle on and go off on a tangent.
The trouble with debates on radio is that, aside from the constant interruptions, either for commercials or for assorted breaks of a non-commercial nature, is that one is constrained by time, so much so that seldom are such debates occasions for much more than possibly landing one unforgettable punch, or leaving the audience with one thing to consider that will explode, like a depth charge, the other side's preposterous presentation (as was done the other day with the celebrated rock star and Islamic expert and now top-notch economic analyst, Mark LaVine, when at the end of his absurd flogging, on NPR, of "Heavy Metal Islam" -- his book-length analysis of why a rock band in Beirut matters so very much, someone came in and noted that inshallah-fatalism, and not the terrible Infidels, nor even the terrible local Muslim despotisms, explained the economic paralysis of the Muslim world).
What can one do when one's opponent simply lies, and hopes that some will believe it? Omeish knows, he has to know, that according to Islamic doctrine, those who apostasize from Islam, and do not heed the demand that they return to Islam, can and should be punished by death. He surely knows not only of the many examples cited by Robert above, but of many others that never reached the Western press.
What does one do when someone flat-out lies on your show? What should Laura Ingraham do? She should invite Robert on again. She should play, at the beginning, the question posed by Robert to Omeish, and his answer. Then she should allow Robert the full segment allotted to him to carefully list, one by one by one, all of the cases he cites above, and after each one, play again that little exchange in which Omeish is asked whether apostasy is punishable by death, and Omeish's "No." Again and again and again.
And then let Robert remind everyone of what Muhammad, in the Hadith, in the most authoritative collection of those Hadith (properly ahadith, but now by convention in English "Hadith" for the singular and plural), clearly stated:
"The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari 9.83.17). He said flatly: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57)."
Then ask again, does Dr. Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, wish to rebut in any way either the quoptations, preserved in the Hadith collection of Bukhari? Does he wish to deny the assembled evidence of many cases, in many different Muslim countries, of severe punishments being meted out to apostates, including death in those countires that are most intent on observing, or coming close to observing, the Shariah?
Invite Dr. Esam Omeish to make a statement. If he cannot tell the truth, if he persists in lying about this major doctrine in Islam, a doctrine which essentially denies freedom of conscience, and demonstrates the collectivism, the hatred for individual freedom, that is at the heart of Islam, then he should not be listened to by any Infidel, on any subject, ever again. And all those talk-show hosts or others who might be tempted to have him on should be made aware of this Big Lie, the goebbelsish lie, offered to yet again fool those Infidels whom he holds in such obvious contempt, for he has no notion that they, those credulous fools, might actually dare to study the texts of Islam, might dare to find out for themselves what Islam says about apostasy.
Those days are over. Not because our government has instructed us -- it hasn't. Not because the press has been so wonderful about explaining what Islam is all about -- it hasn't. Not because departments of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies are full of people willing to tell the truth about the doctrines of Islam, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, which it inculcates or promotes or emanates.
No, it is because having realized the discrepancy between what Muslims say and do, and what they and some of their non-Muslim apologists claim Islam is all about, simply has become too great to be ignored, and is no longer ignored, and it will be impossible to stop Infidels from finding out. It must be a hellish prospect for Muslim propagandists. After all, the texts of Islam are right there, just waiting to be read, merely a click away on the Internet. It is only a matter of people reading them. It is only a matter of finding out what the wored "dhimmi" means, and the word "Jizyah," only a matter of reading, say, the growing literature on the status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, over 1350 years (and the same kinds of mistreatment can be found today, from Hindus in Bangladesh to Christians in the Sudan and Egypt and Iraq).
What can they do? Imagine that you are a Muslim, trying to prevent a few billion aroused Infidels from reading the very texts (well, mainly the Qur'an, but not the more off-putting Hadith and certainly not the full biography of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil) at the very same time as you are trying, in your campaigns of Da'wa (the Call to Islam), to present to a subset of those Infidels -- the carefully targetted economically and psychically marginal -- passages from those texts, especially the Qur'an, in order to gather new recruits for the Army of Islam?
Quite a problem. So far the campaigns of desinformatsiya, disinformation, have been going smoothly because too many people were willing to deny the obvious, willing to avert their eyes, willing to grasp at assorted straws ("poverty" and "American foreign policy" being the two most obvious) and to promote impoossible remedies (the "moderate Muslims" who would supposedly be our allies and do battle against those immoderate Muslims) and of course, that other impossible dream, the "Reform of Islam."
Omeish, Esam Omeish, has had his comeuppance. He did it to himself. He lied so brazenly, so completely, about something so easy to refute, instead of pulling the usual "well, I'm not sure about that" or "I am not familiar with that, let me look in to it" or any of the other absurditites that Muslim apologists, confronted by the truth and wishing at all costs not to admit to it, offer up and manage to satisfy, so they think, at least some in the endlessly credulous audience of Infidels.
Not any more.
The evidence is there....and yet it still amazes me when people CHOOSE to ignore it.
Islam is not a religion of peace....
It is an ideology of hate....
Period.
I just read on Gatewaypundit.com the Indonesian goverment is planning on killing by firing squad the three Christians that are acused of teaching in the presence of muslims kids in sunday school, even though the teachers made the muslim kids parents sign permission slips.
This is the same Indonesian goverment that OUR State Department says "allows religous rights" and "is a democratic and moderate state".
This is the same Indonesian goverment that has released the muslims, imans, and participants that executed the Bali bombings.
Obviously, our State Department does not care and is not listening, so my question is, are there Christians in Indonesia and Malasyia that are preparing for the muslim surge to wipe them out? And if so, is our State Department arming them and preparing them for their survival?
For those in the Bay Area, Laura Ingraham is replayed on KNEW AM 910 at 9:00PM PST.
Robert
I like your solo appearances on radio, rather than a debate style - Muslim apologists are as bad as Marxists when it comes to debates. Also, if they do take callers, those callers should be ones who draw attention to probing aspects of what we cover, such as Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacy, Islamic attitudes towards Liberal constituencies, like athiests, women (let alone feminists), gays, animals (interesting to animal-rights activists), etc., so that people on the Left, who are more likely to be either ignorant or dhimmis, can decide to pick our side in this conflict.
All the radio hosts you've appeared on so far are good. I'd make an exception for Michael Medved - whenever he has you on, all he takes for callers are psychotic Muslims, with the result that nothing new is learnt in course of his show. I know that you try to take all invitations that you get, but do make it clear to him that there are aspects of Jihad that need to be covered on his program, such as the truth about Muhammad.
Another suggestion - if someone in your office can compile transcripts of as many of your public appearances as possible, and put them on a separate page on this website for future reference, as well as any newbies who come here all the time, that would be well worth it.
alaskan1000:]
If you have or URL or some more inclusive info on this (firing squad for teaching Christianity) can you please post it here ASAP.
Regards
Mackie
"Not any more."-Hugh
True-and if somebody called you a liar re that, you would become very angry, and we would all be reading pages and pages of refutation (with numerous chapter-and-verse note references)to prove you are telling the truth.
Hugh, I once read that Voltaire wrote Candide in a few weeks. I'll bet you could do something like that.
A Handbook for Debaters (Islamic) certainly exists. It consists of all the wiles and evasions and mistatements and tu-quoque (Zionists! Americans in Iraq! Stealing Our Oil! and so on) that have been used, that come so naturally, to societies where, as one Christian informant who spent the first 40 years of his life in Haleb told me, a Muslim will not even trust his own brother to enter his house when the man in the family is away, where one lives in a miasma of rumor and fear and mistrust, and where the most implausible things are believed, as why would they not be, when one is raised in a society suffused with an attitude entirely inimical to free and skeptical inquiry?
But no such Handbook for Infidel Debaters exist, nor a handbook for those who conduct radio programs.
Perhaps one can suggest that a few basic points should be raised, and answers -- clear answers -- demanded of any and every apologist for Islam who wishes to appear on any show.
These should focus on several matters:
1) The division of the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Passages from the Qur'an, stories from the Hadith, should be in possession of the radio talk-show host, or interviewer, so that there will be not mere silence, or a mere expression of "that isn't true" or "that can't be true" but rather, so that a point-by-point offering of the textual evidence can be presented.
2) The duty of Jihad, called by some the Sixth Pillar of Islam, and when it is a collective and when an individual duty (quotes at the ready), and what the goal of Jihad (to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule) is constantly dinned into the minds of listeners. Furthermore, Infidel debaters and talk-show hosts should have ready a list, taken from Muslim sources, of the varied instruments of Jihad: qital or combat (including what can reasonably be described as terrorism), the "money" or "wealth" weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest (have figures on the size of Muslim families, on the demands made by the Muslims within the Lands of the Infidels for changes to the Infidel legal, political, and social institutions, and also figures on the growth of Muslim populations in the Western world since, roughly, 1960 or 1970 -- broken down by country). And don't forget to include the triumphalist remarks about conquest through demography, made by everyone from Boumedienne at the United Nations in 1974, to a mild-mannered Pakistani accountant writing an article in the newspaper "Dawn."
3. Ask the Muslim interlocutor about the figure of Muhammad, and about the description of him as "uswa hasana" (a phrase used three times in the Qur'an, twice in relation to Abrham, once about Muhammad), or "al-insan al-kamil." Ask if he, Muhammad, is indeed regarded as the Perfect Man, whose behavior, whose words and deeds, are a model -- the Sunnah -- for Muslims to emulate, and emulate in every way. If that is conceded, then proceed to list some of the things with which Muhammad is associated: the Khaybar Oasis attack, the decapitation of the Banu Qurayza, the seizure and enslavement of women, the murder of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, the marriage and sexual intercourse with nine-year-old Aisha, and so on.
In no time at all, that Muslim spokesman will be spluttering. "How dare you? How dare you bring up these things? I'm leaving. I'm not coming back."
Induce the hysteria, just the way an obstetrician induces the contractions. Make those mental contractions begin early in the program. Have the mask of sweet reason pulled off as soon as possible.
Go to it.
It will be most effective.
And surely, many who visit this website could produce such a guide, not only to be made available for debaters and talk-show hosts on radio and television, but for those who simply show up at this or that occasion for "dialogue" at a mosque, or atsome presentation during "Islam Week" at some campus, or at some political gathering, those who, entirely clear-thinking and unintimidated, appear expressly in order to throw a truthful spanner in the lying works.
"In no time at all, that Muslim spokesman will be spluttering. "How dare you? How dare you bring up these things? I'm leaving. I'm not coming back."-Hugh
Yes, indignation is one of the usual dodges of fact and truth.
"Indignation is the soul's defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause. It justifies putting Socrates to death. Recognizing indignation for what it is constitutes knowledge of the soul, and is thus an experience more philosophic than the study of mathematics."
- Allan Bloom "The Closing of The American Mind"-page 71
Infidel Pride are you in the Bay area?
I love DR. Ingraham. She is a very strong, highly esteemed and opinionated Woman. esam omeish could'nt hold a candle to her. Thanks for speaking out Robert. Listen to the DR. Ingraham show if you can.
talking about the death penalty
THE execution of three Bali bombers would not go ahead this morning as scheduled because they intended to appeal, the Indonesian Government said yesterday.
The pending appeal and a delay in the execution of three Christian militants has forced a halt to death sentences being carried out against Amrozi Nurhasyim, Ali Gufron and Imam Samudra.
"We have to respect the rights of the convicts because they have informed us they want to file a final appeal, so the execution cannot be carried out," Indonesian Attorney-General's spokesman I Wayan Pasek Suarta said.
Although delayed by the appeal, the execution of the Bali bombers was not expected to go ahead until three Indonesian Christians were put to death, possibly in days, an Australian police source said.
The Christians, convicted for their part in the deaths of 200 Muslims in Poso in 2000, were to be executed last Saturday but the sentences had not yet been carried out.
Indonesian government sources, contradicting the official line, have said the execution of the Christians for a crime predating the Bali 2002 bombings would need to occur first in order to contain any backlash from sections of the majority Muslim population.
Asian Law Centre director Tim Lindsey said it remained unclear if documents for an appeal, known as a PK or "return review", on behalf of Amrozi, Samudra and Gufron, had been lodged with Indonesia's Supreme Court.
Laws used to convict up to 30 people in the 2002 Bali attacks - including those on death row - have since been struck down as unconstitutional.
Indonesia's Constitutional Court in 2004 ruled the same terrorism law passed after the bombings and used to convict fellow bomber Masykur Abdul Kadir was unconstitutional.
Amrozi, Samudra and Gufron were expected to follow Kadir to have their convictions overturned, but Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan has publicly said any PK appeals could not be based on a Constitutional Court ruling and all existing convictions would stand.
Despite the unpopularity in Australia of any appeal, Prof Lindsey said it would be a travesty if the men were executed on the back of a law that was now unconstitutional. He warned a successful appeal by Amrozi, Samudra and Gufron would undermine the convictions of many others found guilty of the Bali bombings
Gosh! A muslim who lies!!! Who would have thought it? Robert, I wish you would have asked him why islam has no missionaries but only mercenaries. But he would have probably lied about that too.
Here you go Mackie:
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
if you can't link to it, then yahoo gateway pundit.
The lies come so easily to Omeish. I guess Ingraham's next* question should have been "Does Sharia permit the use of deception?"
*Or, perhaps, first.
Maybe I'm a coward, but I'm too scared of getting assaulted, or worse, stabbed. Am I being paranoid?
km
Yep. Although from the times I sometimes post, who could tell? ;->
Mackie:
Here is the article in case the main page changes:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/indonesia-will-go-ahead-with-execution.html
-XRDC
Here you go Mackie:
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
if you can't link to it, then yahoo gateway pundit.
Posted by: alaskan1000
You are a little mixed up on this one the three to be excuted are
Fabianus Tibo, Dominggus da Silva, and Marinus Riwu
The three women teachers are
Dr Rebekka Zakaria, Eti Pangesti and Ratna Bangun were arrested on 13th May, charged under Indonesia’s criminal law with using lies, deception or enticement to change a child’s religion.
For more on this
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/06/politically-incorrect-guide-teaching.html
Robert,
Buddy, three cheers for calling a liar a liar. I'll drink to that.
Now the following:
"Another suggestion - if someone in your office can compile transcripts of as many of your public appearances as possible, and put them on a separate page on this website for future reference, as well as any newbies who come here all the time, that would be well worth it."
Posted by: Infidel Pride
is indeed a very good suggestion. The URL to the transcripts would be very hekpful. Please think about it.
Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
Infidel Pride thats cool, we should get together for some Haram Bay area drinking and eating.
Is there a way to contact you through a less public forum?
I also agree that online transripts and clips of Roberts appearences would be well worth having.
Foehammer has some audio of Robert on the Michael Reagan show.
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/05/not-podcasting-but-next-best-thing.html
Scroll down.
Shoulda axed Dr. Omeish if he does clitorodectomies.
I mean, Dr. Omeish is not one of tiresome geeks with a PhD who goes around calling himself "Dr." is he? You know, like Michael Savage, Condi, and Bill Bennett...
I hate it when that happens.
Alarmed Pig Farmer - my nephew has a PhD and is doing genetic research at the University of Chicago... he avoids calling himself 'Doctor'. He's too cool.
Well done Rob its a joy to hear voices speek against Islam. The lies these "people" spout sicken me.
alaskan1000 says "I just read on Gatewaypundit.com the Indonesian goverment is planning on killing by firing squad the three Christians that are acused of teaching in the presence of muslims kids in sunday school, even though the teachers made the muslim kids parents sign permission slips."
And this is the same Indonesian Government which released Abu Bakar Bashir from prison after serving less than two years for murdering 202 innocent people. But then, they were infidels, and that doesn't matter to these barbaric Muslim savages. And because of episodes like these, plus the fact that they believe they'll go to paradise if they murder us, and their intolerable treatment of other religions are a few of the reasons why I don't donate to Muslims, and why should we donate to these ungrateful scumbags whenever natural disasters strike them.
Dr. Omeish, when I think of something being 'spread', I think of disease.
Catch on. WE DO NOT WANT YOUR DEMONIC RELIGION. Take it back to wherever you came from and keep it for yourself.
What makes me sick is that the Islamists want to FORCE the west to convert. We do not want your foolish religion.
Word of advice. If you do not like living in a country where freedom of religion is practiced for ALL faiths, then pack up your belongings and LEAVE.
l am so thrilled that Robert Spencer was able to go on DR. Ingraham's show. unfortunately l missed it, as while driving l got too far from the local station and missed it. l think we should email Dr.Laura Ingraham's show and ask that Robert go over those details that Hugh expressed. l know l am always sending requests to various radio shows to have Robert and articles from JW. l do think it works. IT does not surrise me that when contronted with proof of the Koran's murderous passages, the good muslim has to lie. How can they seriously believe in this monster Mohammud! Islam cannot survive among educated Westerners and enlightened muslims. To destroy Islam we need to keep educating the non-muslims.
this is off topic, l am finally getting through some of my family, they do understand islam is evil, but they seem to think that if Israel whould just go away, then all peace would break out in the mid east. l am fighting a brick wall, they are not anti Jewish, just that they think it was a mistake for Jews to reclaim their land. that is my stumbling block with two of my stupid older siblings.. yeah the ones with univ. degrees, the most stupid ones in the family! my last word to my one older sibling, is that she is just not ready learn the truth, that really pissed her off.
If anyone can get a video clip of the piece on youtube or somewhere else I'd be glad to know where it is as we cannot watch this commentator in Australia.
This does not surprise me because remember the real god the Muslims worship is Satan, the father of lies.
The man deserves his own epiphet if you ever have to mention him again.How about Doctor Easam 'pants-on-fire' Omeish?
Laura Ingraham is the WABC talk radio host in the following line up: Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, Ingraham. Not sure why people are calling her "Dr. Ingraham." As far as I know, she's a lawyer. Does she have a Ph.D?
I heard her about a month ago arguing about Islam with one of her call-in listeners, and I got the feeling that Ingraham had been reading Robert and was a supporter. She was saying things about Islam I hadn't heard anywhere else outside the safety of the internet. I'm not surprised she got Robert Spencer on the air.
Anybody have a link to the transcript of the debate?
On another subject, "France and Its Muslims," an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs claims that
But according to the CSA poll,
Does this mean 68 percent of French Muslims support the separation of mosque and state? Or just church and state? And if 90 percent of French Muslims are so supportive of French republican values, how come only 68 percent support separation of church and state, which one would have thought was among the most essential French republican values?
I suppose Spencer's debate opponent might have been lying as much out of embarrassment and shame as out of taquiyya.
I can't remember who to attribute it to , but I seem to recall a quotation "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see".
That's moonbats he's referring to , Right ? The evidence of Islam's true nature cannot be avoided . Only the blind would call it the RoP. They don't even call it that themselves !
Zena,
Tell them that
(a) there already were Jews in Israel and throughout the ME, and
(b) that the European Jews (and Jews from many other locations where they were not safe) post-WWII had to be relocated somewhere, and that
(c) according to groups such as HAMAS, Hizballah, etc., and many of their Islamic predecessors, there is no acceptable location for Jews anywhere on the planet, let alone Israel. In fact, because Muslims originally invaded the area in question and took control of it from the Jews and Christians illegitimately through force (and much bloodshed), then by that standard no Muslims belong in Israel or the Palestinian territories. Also, there were no such people as "Muslims" 1400 years ago. All of Arabia was inhabited by Jews, Christians, Pagans, and other groups, but no Muslims. But the early Muslims conquered Arabia, by Mohammad's orders, through mass-slaughter, terror, plunder, deceit, and expulsions of Non-Muslims. There is no land in the ME that was claimed legitimately by Muslims.
Point out to them that any non-Muslim group living under non-Muslim government in that location, surrounded by Muslim countries, would likely be embroiled in endless conflicts with the Muslim neighbours. That is probably the case, because Muslims are in conflict wherever in the world they, in significant numbers, come into in contact with any other non-Muslim group.
Ask them why they seem to think the Muslims have "the right of return" but the Jews do not. Ask them whether they would like to see the land of Israel ruled under its current system, or under Sharia law.
Traeh; when I posted DR. Ingraham, I was being facetious because I feel esam omeish doesn't warrant that title, but I have respect for Laura Ingraham.
Archimedes-
As I read your comment the thought came to my mind that, in a real sense, the issue in the Mideast re Israel is similar to the Reconquista of Spain after 700 years of Muslim occupation of Spain. What the Muslims object to is the return of the indigenous Jewish people to their land taken from them by the Muslim Arabs.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/spain/sp12thc.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/spain/haxspain.html&h=274&w=283&sz=6&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=qDwdYypcCfaV9M:&tbnh=110&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dreconquista,%2Bspain%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-30,GGLJ:en
Maybe this will give the maps of the Reconquista correctly...
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/spain/haxspain.html
Dr. Omeish show us your stuff and email Mr. Spencer. We all are looking forward to the debate...Come on don't let us down...You know it will be fun for all of us...What do you say? YES!
Dr. Omeish show us your stuff and email Mr. Spencer. We all are looking forward to the debate...Come on don't let us down...You know it will be fun for all of us...What do you say? YES!
Recently, Dr. Omeish wrote a letter to the Washington Post. See THIS.