The Jihad of Words


Bill Warner, Stephen Coughlin, Clare Lopez, and Robert Spencer team up to explore how words in Islam are twisted to deceive the Kafir.

13 Responses

  1. Johan Silversson
    |

    The video is not well edited people that are not counter Jihad already will not stay passed the first minutes and listen on. Please re-edit to make it more interesting to listen from start.

    • lynn
      |

      Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I’ve heard said. I don’t think any of them were concerned about anything but the truth of their message.

  2. Hind
    |

    as a Muslim who happens to be an Arab as well, I find the definition of the “innocent” here surprising and very wrong. The innocent doesn’t have to be a Muslim or a believer.
    The innocent is anyone who has done no crime to be punished for. And being a non believer is not a crime for man to decide about.

    And about the book your reading from, could you tell me the name of the author , please.

    Thank you

    • Tmka
      |

      Ms or Mr. Hind: How do we know that you are not just implementing Taqiyya or Katman here? Because the presenters here rely upon text from the Koran and Sharia legal sources.

      Fundamentally, Islam cannot accept separation of religion and state, and intends to convert the entire world or have dominion over the world to implement sharia law. There are Muslim mosques in Rome, the Dome of the Rock sits upon the site of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem: when I see a Roman Catholic church in Mecca, and Muslims embracing separation of church and state, then I’ll believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

      I grew up with Roman Catholic ethical training, but my parents made sure that I understood that I am free to choose my own religion. When I was still very young, and I accepted catholicisim because the priest at mass said that Catholics believed in separation of church and state – from the reading in Mathew where Jesus says render to God what is God’s and to Ceasar what is Caesars. I was already convinced of the soundness of the principle of separation of Church and state, and so when the Priest said this, at it was less than 10 years after Kennedy had been assassinated, I decided I could be and would be a Catholic. I then enjoyed all the cultural aspects of being a Catholic, including Christmas celebrations, midnight mass, fish fries on fridays during lent and so on. But then in 2004, the Bishop in my town said that if I voted for John Kerry, a catholic, then it was a grave sin and I couldn’t go to communion. At that point I realized that the Catholic church had become politicized. As a result, I couldn’t consider myself a catholic at that point, I felt estranged from my religion. This was very difficult, because after a half of lifetime inside the tradition, I was suddenly cut off from the religion. Had I changed? Had the religion? All the old customs I marked the passing of the calendar were now distanced from me. I felt a huge part of my life missing. I was and still am a cultural catholic. I saw Michael Moore, once a seminarian, refer to himself as a recovering Catholic. I would refer to myself as an Avignon Catholic. Now with Pope Francis I have some cautious comfort again in Catholicism, but I am saying this to make the point – I know what it means to separate one from one’s religion is psychologically and emotionally quite difficult. This would be made much worse if all one’s family, friends, society and country even insist upon it. So I am not envious of people who are raised as Muslims. They are trapped in a system. But if they become objectively educated on what their faith really means, who really created it and why, what that person who founded their religion did: deception, banditry, extortion, assassination, murder, genocide, (Mohammed ran Medina like a mafiosa – if you want to get an idea of what that is like watch “Goodfellows”). That’s the reality of the received history of Mohammed (no one knows the actual history), that is who Muslims are expected to follow, then one wakes up to the objective fact that this is terrible religion to be in.

      Muslims of course are in denial of all of this and what it potentially could mean. I understand that, from my difficulties with Catholicism. And I know its way worse for Muslims, because awakening to reality is essentially an act of apostasy, which is subject to the death penalty in real Islam.

      Psychologically, then, I believe the spread of Islam, especially over the Christian areas that it conquored in Syria, Palestine and Egypt in the 7th century, was a result of a mass form of Stockholm syndrome. We know Stockholm syndrome is where captives positively identify with the ideology, or beliefs of their captors. It is psychological submission under a state of capture and terror. Deep down inside, I believe profoundly, that most muslims are trapped into Islam as a function of Stockholm Syndrome. They know killing people for having different beliefs is wrong, and so the religion of Islam must be wrong, but they can’t leave, because they are captives, and so they develop a blind eye to Islam’s deficiencies.

      Keep in mind, Mohammed, after preaching Islam for 12 years in Mecca, only converted about 150 people. It was a deficient religion. It could not thrive on persuasion alone. It only began to thrive with the introduction of coercion at Medina. That was great for Mohammed, but fundamentally undermines the validity of Islam as a religion. Christianity spread without reliance upon coercion for 300 years, until it became obvious that it would soon become the religion of Rome (and areas outside of Rome). In that case the state coopted Chritianity in order to not be left behind. Buddhism spread the same way – without reliance on coercion. Islam can’t exist without coercion. It can’t even stand the drawing of a cartoonist of Mohammed.

      In Western civics, founders of religions are generally revered. You won’t see anyone drawing provocative pictures of Buddha in the west. But politicians must be lampooned. This makes democracy and peaceful transfer of power possible. Mohammed was a founder of a religion, and to that extent he should be revered, but he was also a politician and the founder of a political movement and ideology, and to that extent he is highly subject to lampooning. If Mohammed can’t tollerate being lampooned, then maybe he was not so great after all, right?.

      • Hind
        |

        Mr or Ms Tmka,
        liars may lie all the time, but they wont fool everyone.. and even if they do for a while, it cant last forever.
        I’m not here to convince you, or to learn about my religion from you.

        The thing is that i found the information here very wrong, so i said so. If you want to learn the truth, i believe youll have to work hard on it.

        • Veritas Now
          |

          Dear Hind:
          Have you read Honor Killing by Daniel Akbari. He is a mujtahid capable of performing ijtihad. You know that this means he has advanced education and training in Shariah and is qualified as an Islamic jurist (attorney). He is classified as a Number One Attorney and certified to appear before the Supreme (Shariah) Court of Iran. He covers the same issues Dr. Warner discusses and they are in agreement. He also indicates that Muslims who pretend that Islam considers and treats non-Muslims the same as Muslims are simply lying or ignorant about their own religion. Quranic verses and ahadith advocating kindness compassion towards others are exclusively meant to be applied to other Muslims, not the koffar (unbelievers).

          • Hind
            |

            Dear Veritas Now,
            I cannot say i read this book or even heard of the author. and I’m afraid my knowledge of the Shia laws and ways are not to be counted on. But basically, in social matters as marriage or inheritance, “koffar” are not treated equal to muslims! On the other hand, you might find that some verses from the Quraan state that its not forbidden on muslims who want to marry virtuous non-muslim ladies to do so, if the lady is Christian or Jew ( a believer).

            you wrote he agrees on : “Quranic verses and ahadith advocating kindness compassion towards others are exclusively meant to be applied to other Muslims, not the koffar ”
            and I honestly don’t know what kind of learning he got if he has no knowledge of the prophet’s life .. since childhood I (like many others) was brought up on stories about the prophet Mohammad’s kindness towards even those who ill treated him, like his neighbour in Makkah before going to alMadinah. His kindness towards non believers also shows in the hadith when he order muslims to treat P.O.W. kindly. And in “Sahih al-Bukhari” , there is a touching story about how the prophet himself looked for clothes to put on one of the prisoners of “Bader” battle (who was a non believer).

            And on the matter of “Quranic verses advocating kindness compassion towards others are exclusively meant to be applied to other Muslims” I believe that any one who could read Quraan will know how false this claim is. there is no room for guessing. the language of Quraan is precise when it speaks of :Muslims, ahl al-kitab, moshrikeen or koffar.

            In Quraan God says: “wa ma arslnak illa rahmatan lil alameen” (al-anbiaa verses no.107) which means: we (God) sent you (the prophet Mohammad) only as compassion to the world”

  3. Hind
    |

    I have looked up the book this video is quoting from, with no success. One would think i ought to read it (at least know about it) if it was intended to be read by muslims.

    It would help if the name of the author was shown.

    • AtWar
      |

      Hind, the book is Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik Hardcover – July 1, 1997
      by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (Author), Noah Ha Mim Keller (Author).

      http://amzn.com/0915957728

  4. Beej
    |

    Great work here, and something I definitely want to share. Before I do, though, please edit this by adding some text to introduce Clare when she comes on screen, like you did for the other speakers. Because I first was introduced to this video on FB, there wasn’t any wording under the video like there is when it is seen here, or strictly on a YouTube page; I had to wait until the end credits to find out who she was. I don’t want to do that to my family when I share it on FB. Thanks.

Leave a Reply