***UPDATE*** Conan has taken down the tweet: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/11/conan-obrien-called-racist-after-tweet.html

Funny. The main criticism against Dearborn is that the city has no respect for people's right to free speech. Nick says that no such problem exists, but assures Pamela that if she ever tries to speak in Dearborn, he will shut her down, because people don't have a right to share unpopular views in Michigan! On the plus side, if Pamela's opponents are this incoherent and oblivious, she doesn't have much to worry about.

"Within the limits of decency"??? In the following passage, one of the pagans of Mecca points out two alternatives for Muhammad. If Muhammad is victorious over the Quraysh, he will be remembered as the man who slaughtered his own tribesmen. If the Quraysh are victorious over him, Muhammad's followers will abandon him. Think about Abu Bakr's response: "Urwah went to the Prophet and began speaking to him. The Prophet spoke as he had spoken to Budayl. Then Urwah said: 'Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate [i.e. exterminate] your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.' Abu Bakr said, 'Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat! Would we flee and leave him?' (History of al-Tabari, Volume 8, p. 76) Al-Lat was a goddess worshipped by Urwah. Notice that Abu Bakr responds to Urwah's reasonable comment with an extraordinarily offensive insult against Urwah's religious beliefs. Would you call this "within the limits of decency"?

Do you really not see your inconsistency, Omar? Christians believe that Jesus is God. So when you claim that he was merely a prophet, you're blaspheming according to Christianity (not showing respect, as you suggest). And yet I've never met a Christian who would say that it should be illegal for you to say that Jesus isn't God. So if you get to deny that Jesus is God, then I get to deny that Muhammad was a prophet. If you want to make it illegal to deny the Muslim view of Muhammad, then, to be consistent, you should call for the Qur'an to be banned, since it denies the Christian view of Jesus. But you won't call for the Qur'an to be banned, because tolerance is always a one-way street in Islam. You want to tell everyone else what they can and cannot say, but you have no intention of following such laws yourself. BTW, you might want to check your history if you think that Israel enslaved anyone in ghettos.

Where does the subway ad say anything about people who are "opposed to Israel," Omar? It specifically refers to those engaged in a WAR against Israel. Did you even bother to watch the video? I address the "Straw Man" fallacy at the beginning. If you can't criticize Pamela based on what she actually says, maybe she isn't saying anything wrong.

Yeah, he played an acoustic version of "She God Legs" for Pamela!

I feel a video brewing.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." ~Margaret Thatcher

I just sent everyone on the email list my "Three Stages of Jihad" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Government statistics show that in the Aston district of Birmingham, Pakistanis are the largest ethnic group, and Islam is the most common religion: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/02/nine-year-old-british-student-aaron.html

People like Arsalan Iftikhar only get away with spouting nonsense because they know their readers are clueless about Islam (and groups like CAIR want to keep them clueless). According to Iftikhar, the terrorism in Qur'an 3:151 was a penalty for attacking Muslims. But the rest of the verse refutes this deception: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers)." Why are the unbelievers going to be terrorized? "Because they joined others in worship with Allah." The terrorism is a penalty for not accepting Islam. Iftikhar's short commentary betrays his utter ignorance of the historical background of the Qur'an. He doesn't even get the battle right, claiming that the passage refers to Badr, when anyone remotely familiar with the context knows that it refers to the Battle of Uhud. And yet Muslims like Iftikhar get to write articles for Newsweek and CNN--Muslims who are completely ignorant of the Qur'an and Islamic history and who will gladly invent things in their desperate attempts to defend Islam. I should make a video about this guy.

Sheer hypocrisy. GELLER: "Jihad is violent and destructive, so I condemn it!" JCUA: "Speaking out against Islamic violence is wrong and immoral. Hence, we speak out against Pamela Geller and her WORDS." If it's perfectly acceptable to condemn Pamela for her words, one would expect it to be far more acceptable to speak out against suicide bombings, slaughtering children in their homes, etc. But for some reason, the opposite is true. Pamela is roundly condemned for objecting to the most violent and destructive ideology the world has ever seen, and her critics don't seem to understand that, if it's wrong to criticize people you disagree with, no one should be criticizing Pamela when they disagree with her!

Both the media and Muslim propagandists keep telling us that "Jihad" simply means "struggle," and that it often refers to "struggling" against one's own desires. They like to pretend that Muhammad didn't tell his followers which type of "Jihad" he had in mind when he commanded them to wage Jihad: Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’” So the best "Jihad," according to Muhammad, involves bloodshed. This sort of Jihad is so essential to Islam that a Muslim is said to be "deficient" if he doesn't have visible wounds on his body (as a result of fighting non-Muslims): Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.” Indeed, Muhammad told his followers that Muslims who want to live in peace are hypocrites: Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.” For more on the journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) of ABC News, see my video "Whitewashing Islam": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ5Bwj3iTrg

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

In the video, the "Young Turks" seem convinced that Hezbollah invented "Muta" (temporary marriage). The broadcasters acknowledge the obvious, namely, that Muta is a form of prostitution. However, they don't believe that Islam would ever allow such a practice. Now for a healthy dose of reality. Both Sunnis and Shias agree that Muhammad allowed his followers to practice Muta. Shias generally believe that the practice is still permissible, while Sunnis typically claim that Muhammad eventually abrogated the practice. What Sunni scholars fail to mention, however, is that even their most reliable sources are thoroughly inconsistent. Some Sunni ahadith state that Muhammad outlawed Muta, while others declare that the practice was banned by the Caliph Umar, not by Muhammad. Indeed, according to a Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (Sunni Islam's most trusted collection of ahadith), Muta is justified by the Qur'an itself! Consider the following verse from the Qur'an: Qur'an 5:87—O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors. Now let's see how this verse was used by Muhammad: Sahih al-Bukhari 5079—We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Messenger and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry a woman temporarily by giving her even a garment and then he recited to us: "O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." (5.87) Hence, Muhammad quoted the Qur'an to justify Muta! So if Muhammad allowed his followers to engage in prostitution, why do Sunni Muslims today believe that Islam doesn't allow Muta? According to some of Muhammad's companions, it was Umar (not Muhammad) who outlawed the practice: Sahih Muslim 3250—Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Muta, whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. Indeed, Muslims continued to practice Muta until Umar stopped them: Sahih Muslim 3248—Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. But how can Umar abrogate Muhammad's commands, especially when the Qur'an allows Muta? Apparently, Umar's supporters weren't comfortable saying that Umar abrogated Muta. Thus, they began circulating false ahadith, according to which Muhammad himself banned the practice: Sahih al-Bukhari 5115—Narrated Ali: I said to Ibn Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade Muta and the eating of donkey's meat." How does all of this cash out for Muslims today? Well, if a Sunni Muslim is offended at the thought of prostitution in Islam, he can quote ahadith saying that Muhammad put an end to Muta. If, however, a Sunni Muslim wants to have sex with a prostitute, he can quote other ahadith, which say that Muhammad and the Qur'an allow Muta. Islam's teachings, then, depend on a Muslim's preferences! For Shias, on the other hand, there's no such difficulty. Muhammad allowed Muta, so they still practice Muta. Hezbollah is even using it as a recruiting tool. Much like their prophet, they lure people to Islamic terrorism through promises of sex. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/11/hezbollah-using-prostitution-muta-for.html

For more on the unlawful arrests of Christians in Dearborn, a full summary (with videos) can be found here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/dearborn.html

If anyone wants a full summary (with videos) of our experience in Dearborn, we've put one together: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/dearborn.html

Yes, we did a blog post about it. Seems the Gospelophobia in Dearborn has spread to Kansas. To: wood24@msn.com

I had a two-hour debate with Pastor Jones last night on ABN. You can view the debate here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/09/should-quran-be-burned-david-wood-and.html

I'm surprised that CAIR isn't on the news right now claiming that the woman's phones were stolen because of religious persecution and Islamophobia.

I think Brian should pull a Geert Wilders move. Let them take him to court. And then start calling witnesses: Rifqa and a dozen other former Muslims who have been threatened with death; Robert Spencer and a few other non-Muslim experts on what Islam teaches about apostasy; Muslims currently in prison for murdering family members; even a few Muslim sheiks who will admit that Islam calls for the death penalty for apostasy. Break open the books, where Muhammad commands his followers to execute apostates. Point out that Muhammad commanded Muslims to carry out such penalties even against their own family members. The only solution for Muslim bullying is to utterly expose Islam whenever Muslims pull stunts like this.

I was at the rally. Here's some video footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HHvnBO_m2c

Here's a video discussion of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation (and proof that his interpretations are entirely correct): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq4VLhec1RI

I was at the peace rally. Here's some video footage (along with some footage of other Muslim rallies): http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/not-in-name-of-islam-majed-moughni-and.html

Someone should ask to see Rilvan's immigration papers at his hearing.