Now Reading
30% of Republicans Want to Bomb Agrabah

30% of Republicans Want to Bomb Agrabah

Public Policy Polling asked 532 Republicans some questions.
From these questions, they found that 46 percent support a national database of Muslims, 53 percent think Islam should be illegal, 28 percent think the Japanese internment camps were okay, 54 percent want Muslims banned from entering the United States and, get this, 30 percent believe we should bomb Agrabah.


Yes, Agrabah: The city of mystery and enchantment, the site where one of Disney’s greatest animated classics — and one of my favorite films — took place. The fictional site.
All of the other results were unsettling but that is to be expected. The results of the Agrabah question helped the Republicans reach a new level of absurd.

To the 57 percent who were not sure, its okay. You guys were more rational, opting to think the matter through, take a more diplomatic course. Schedule talks with the Sultan maybe? Check where Agrabah actually is?
But the 30 percent, come on. How ignorant are you all?
This poll is telling me two things about the 30 percent:

See Also
abdul razak ali arthan ohio state

  1. You are willing to bomb any “Arab”-sounding place.
  2. You have never seen the movie Aladdin.

You guys must really dislike those “A-rabs.”
Well, you know what they say down in Agrabah: A fool off his guard could fall — and fall hard.

Image: YouTube

View Comments (112)
  • Great work. Good writing. Funny. I am glad that you found this the appropriate article to unleash your human and sarcasm on (and not the directly Islamic doctrine/culture themed posts). Much appreciated.

  • Thanks for bringing attention to this. Pathetic, but not surprising. I’ll be sure to add this question to my arsenal, “So do you think we should bomb Agrabah?” whenever someone starts spouting their anti-Muslim & racist rhetoric.. Sadly I’m guaranteed to get some answers in the affirmative, but at least discussions like these can be an important teaching tool. People hate to be called out on their ignorance, but I’ve found it at least forces them to deepen their research & further their thinking beyond the blind & mindless acceptance of the current anti-Muslim hysteria.

      • Hi, Mike I’m assuming? That’s a bit of a broad question. What do I think of the application of Sharia law in countries like Saudi Arabia? What do I think of its application in European countries? What do I think of the possibility of introducing Sharia courts in the U.S? What do I think of Sharia on the whole? You would have to be more specific. For example, what are your thoughts on Halakha & the Beth Din here in the U.S?

        • Yes a very broad question. Let me narrow it for you. What do you think of the hadd punishments?
          As for me I can answer your question without needing clarification. I’m against it.

          • In one breath you ask what I think of Sharia as a whole, with the next you ask my thoughts on the hadud specifically.. As interpreted by which doctrine? Either way, your questions are still too broad for a short reply that doesn’t derail the OT. I’m not trying to be intentionally avoidant or to obfuscate here, it just seems to me that you are looking for a black and white response in a sea of grey.

          • No that was two breaths. Two different replies actually. But let’s try to make the gray more white. Or more black, whichever you prefer. Do you support the lashing of people? Is that specific enough. Or will you obfuscate with the reason for the lashing? It is a simple yes or no question.

          • You’re right, I apologize because I received the second response before the first. Yes, that is a question specific enough to be answered, and my answer to your question is no. To be more specific, I don’t condone the execution or abuse of any people, under any circumstances.

          • so we agree, the koran is wrong. and many hadiths even worse. the draconian punishments found in sharia are bad. good. so how about the inheritance laws? you know 4:11, the male shall have the portion of two females. good or bad law?

          • “so we agree, the koran is wrong.” Well that’s a bit of a blanket statement, and one I don’t recall agreeing to. If you were to say that the interpretation of the Quran by some Islamic groups, some of their subsequent accepted hadiths, and ways in which Sharia is interpreted and implemented by them is draconian and unjust, I think we would be in agreement. As for your question in regards to inheritance.. Patrilineal succession is hardly unique to Islamic society. It’s still quite common in the U.S., in practice if not in name. I would say that our own practices regarding inheritance more closely resemble the passage in An-Nisa than the rules outlined in the OT (Numbers 27). You asked specifically if I think it’s a ‘good or bad law’ though. Not sure how I am in a position to pass total judgement on a religious doctrine that has no implications for me. From what I understand, it was written in part to ensure women were guaranteed a part of the inheritance while simultaneously acknowledging that men would carry the bulk of financial burden as the sole providers for their families. Right, wrong, or a matter of context? What might be well intentioned and beneficial to many, might be distorted and used to subjugate others.

          • “To be more specific, I don’t condone the execution or abuse of any people, under any circumstances.” so it is wrong when it advocates for the death penalty. it is not a blanket statement when you take context into consideration. as in, what we are taking about, the hadd punishments and sharia law. but i will do my best to me as extremely specific as i can in the future. so let’s start with this one. is the koran wrong when it says an eye for an eye…a life for a life?
            let’s get this straight and then we will go on to tackle the rest.

          • I can only guess at the context in which a statement is made. What I won’t do is agree to a statement made in the absolute when my agreement might be taken out of context. It’s a weapon that some like to utilize in otherwise civil discussion. “To be more specific, I don’t condone the execution or abuse of any people, under any circumstances.” That is my personal position on the death penalty. It’s not a majority opinion here in the U.S. There are passages in the Quran which seem to explicitly condone the death penalty, while others would seemingly condemn it. It’s a contradictory nature which I think we would agree exists in most religious texts, and the interpretations widely differ from scholar to scholar. The ‘eye for an eye’ in 5:45 is covered in Sharia by Qisas. The death penalty is not necessarily condoned for Hudud offenses.

          • So you disagree with the death penalty, but you can’t say a book that calls for the death penalty is wrong in doing so? Very strange logic you have there lukie.
            So are you willing to say 24:2 is wrong?

          • Let me try to clear up any possible confusion. What you are implying are absolutes. The concepts of right and wrong are often presented as absolutes, and are usually anything but. Disagreement is quite different. 24:2 expressly applies to believers. As I am not a believer, I would recommend you ask one.

          • that doesn’t clear anything up. that is just more obfuscation. and again with the strange logic. of course right and wrongs can be absolutes. you can’t say I’m against the death penalty, as in the death penalty is wrong. and at the same time say that a law that calls for the death penalty is right.
            so you have no problem with a muslim judge ordering another muslim lashed?

          • Is English your first language? Has anyone ever suggested that you might have some trouble with reading comprehension?
            Wrong: (adj.) 1. not correct or true 2. unjust, dishonest, immoral, or illegal.
            Absolute: (noun) In philosophy- a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
            Hope that helps 🙂
            I find it strange when others find it strange that a person can have personal beliefs, values and experiences, without feeling the need to superimpose them onto the beliefs, values and experiences of others.

          • “I find it strange when others find it strange that a person can have personal beliefs, values and experiences, without feeling the need to superimpose them onto the beliefs, values and experiences of others.” yet that is exactly what sharia means to do.
            so let me see if I have this straight. you are against the death penalty, so if a state in America wanted to execute a 10 year-old retarded kid, you would be like, ‘who am I to say anything’? is that right?
            oh yeah, yes English is my first and only language. and yes, people who speak like politicians and can’t take a stand, even after just taking a stand, question my reading comprehension. it is just more deflection rather than just answering a simple question with a yes or no.
            “Wrong: (adj.) 1. not correct or true 2. unjust, dishonest, immoral, or illegal.” so is it unjust to execute someone?
            someone once said: “To be more specific, I don’t condone the execution or abuse of any people, under any circumstances.” [con·done:
            accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.] so by not condoning it, are you not saying it is wrong? that is the way the English read to me. you don’t condone the Koran’s call for executions. therefore, you are saying the Koran is wrong. is that a bad thing [for you to say that] for some reason?

          • “yet that is exactly what sharia means to do.” “so if a state in America wanted to execute a 10 year-old retarded kid” Sensationalist statements designed to instill fear, spark outrage, and appeal to emotionalism. That is the nature of propaganda. You provide no evidence to substantiate your claims. You have nothing to support your generalizations, only your own opinion and frame of reference. More importantly, you seem to have an awful lot of criticisms to offer up, but I have yet to see you present any solutions.
            “it is just more deflection rather than just answering a simple question with a yes or no.”
            You ask for oversimplified answers to complex questions.
            “you don’t condone the Koran’s call for executions. therefore, you are saying the Koran is wrong. is that a bad thing [for you to say that] for some reason?”
            Furthermore, you attempt to appeal to my sense of democracy while simultaneously demanding that I alter my choice of language to adhere to your viewpoint. You compel me to make inflammatory remarks when I see little reason and logic in doing so. You demand that I answer your questions. Why, to satisfy your own curiosity? Is this a discussion or an interrogation?
            “Wrong: (adj.) 1. not correct or true 2. unjust, dishonest, immoral, or illegal.”
            So we can agree that ‘wrong’ is a very imprecise use of language, a word that has widely variable definitions and interpretations. After all, something can be legal and still be unjust. Without specification, one has to assume that the word ‘wrong’ is being presented in its absolute form. Maybe I am mincing words, but it seems to me that you are just wanting to make me say that the Quran is wrong, and I have to question your agenda in doing so.
            The name of this site is Disqus. As the name implies, I came here for discussion. Why are you here Mike? In an attempt to humiliate and bully those with theological beliefs different than your own? To persuade others of the righteousness of your own value system? If that is the case, and these are your methods, it is little wonder that you’ve been unsuccessful. As my grandmother used to say, ‘you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.’
            Now would you like to have a legitimate discussion about your fears and concerns regarding the implementations of Sharia? Or would you like to put more words in my mouth?

          • let me take this in reverse? what ‘fears’ and concerns regarding the implementations of sharia? what have I said that makes you say I fear anything? take about putting words in someone’s mouth. I took what you said to its logic conclusion. so let me be clear:
            1. sharia is already being implemented. see the Indonesian providence of aceh for the latest to join the club.
            2. I don’t fear sharia in America.
            yes, you catch more flies with honey. but you is going fly fishing. btw, you can catch flies with shit too. this is meaningless.
            “To persuade others of the righteousness of your own value system?” yes. isn’t that the point of a value system? the point of debate, another word for discuss?
            I’m bullying you? lol. you are the one trying to attack me personally and my reading comprehension. I’m just trying to get you to give a straight answer and not avoid and obfuscate as you claimed you weren’t doing.
            “After all, something can be legal and still be unjust” obviously. kind of like executing people. so you want me to change my wording form wrong to unjust. ok. do you think the Koran is unjust?
            “You demand that I answer your questions. Why, to satisfy your own curiosity?” yes I would like you to answer my questions to satisfy my own curiosity. that is why I ask questions, because I’m curios. that is a big part of the reason people discuss things, because they are curios about other’s opinions.
            there is nothing complex about whether or not capital punishment is wrong/unjust.
            I asked the scenario about the 10 year-old retarded kid to try to see if you could even bring your-self to say that is wrong. sorry, unjust. even though you already said you don’t support capital punishment. but instead you give some strange answer about ’emotionalism’.
            “You provide no evidence to substantiate your claims” I don’t even recall any claims? what claims do you want me to substantiate? i’ll be glad to.
            and what problems do you want me to solve? unjust executions? simple, eliminate the death penalty.
            oh yeah, and you mentioned democracy? smh.

          • “what ‘fears’ and concerns regarding the implementations of sharia? what have I said that makes you say I fear anything?” Ok, you don’t fear Sharia. It seemed to be a subject of concern for you as you’ve mentioned it numerous times now and implied that you are opposed to it. If my assumption was false, I apologize.
            To address your points individually:
            1. I am aware that Sharia is being implemented in many countries, with various interpretations. The laws range broadly from those covering capital offenses, sexual crimes, crimes against state, and civil matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. Some countries are governed entirely by these laws. Others have Sharia courts separate from their secular courts. Other’s courts only deal with the civil cases of Muslims. My point is, there is no singular way to define Sharia.
            2. You don’t fear Sharia in America. Neither do I.
            “yes. isn’t that the point of a value system? the point of debate, another word for discuss?” Discussion and debate are not the same. All debates are discussions, but no, not every discussion needs to be a debate. To debate means to discuss two opposing arguments. Are we debating? If so, I’m unsure what it is we are debating. From what I’ve gathered, you seem to think we are debating capital punishment. I’ve already told you that I oppose it, though you won’t seem to accept this answer. I’ve been attempting to debate Sharia with you, but you continue to reply with generalizations that I’m having a hard time responding to without more specification on your part.
            “I’m bullying you? lol. you are the one trying to attack me personally and my reading comprehension.” I never claimed that you were bullying me, Mike. I was referring to your interactions with others on this site as I have seen them. You are right, I have criticized you and opened myself up to criticism in return. I am not afraid of criticism.
            “I’m just trying to get you to give a straight answer and not avoid and obfuscate” What is it that you think I am avoiding or obfuscating? I have tried to answer your questions. Have you considered that maybe I just don’t view these issues and how to resolve them in the same way that you do?
            “kind of like executing people.” That is what I was alluding to, yes. “do you think the Koran is unjust?” Let me be clear. You are asking me to interpret religious doctrine that I do not adhere to, when the very people who adhere to it and have been learning it for most of their lives, are not in unanimous agreement on how it can be interpreted. When the Quran is interpreted in a way which causes human suffering and death, yes, I believe that to be unjust.
            “that is why I ask questions , because I’m curios. that is a big part of the reason people discuss things, because they are curios about other’s opinions.” There is nothing wrong with asking questions. Curiosity is admirable. What I take issue with is when others present a demanding nature, and turn what I would like to be a discussion into an interrogation.
            “there is nothing complex about whether or not capital punishment is wrong/unjust.” That is the ideal. You and I are already in agreement on this matter. Try convincing someone who disagrees and tell me it isn’t a complex issue.
            “I asked the scenario about the 10 year-old retarded kid to try to see if you could even bring your-self to say that is wrong.” I had previously stated my position regarding the death penalty. Responding to your hypothetical scenario is redundant. We do not execute children or special needs people in our country. Doing so would be illegal, immoral and unjust. Of course it would be wrong. Can we please address real issues, affecting real people?
            “what claims do you want me to substantiate?” “yet that is exactly what sharia means to do.” -referring to my statement about impositions.
            “and what problems do you want me to solve? unjust executions? simple, eliminate the death penalty.” If it were as simple as that, why hasn’t the death penalty been abolished? How do you propose to do so? You don’t have to convince me. What are you doing to convince others? You completely misread the message I was trying to convey about right and wrong. Our ideals are not universal truths. It is not enough to tell someone that you think they are wrong, or that an act is immoral and unjust. You have to be able to substantiate your claims and provide compelling evidence. If you want to change people’s thinking, you have to give them incentive to change, and not alienate them process.

          • 1. no duh.
            2. yes we are debating. we are debating if the Koran is wrong for calling for the death penalty. 2. is very long, I’m going to add more number
            3. bullying – who have I bullied?
            4. obfuscating – you are obfuscating in saying you are against the death penalty, which implies you think it is wrong, yet afraid to say the Koran is wrong for calling for it.
            5. how do I propose to eliminate the death penalty. start with eliminating religious law.
            so can you at least say, without reservation, without caveats of unanimity and all this other non-sense you are spewing. that lashing people is wrong?

          • “I was referring to your interactions with others on this site as I have seen them.”
            Allow me to diagnose him for you. His interactions, repetitions, tangential out of context unfocused mind…typical of brain damage, perhaps a lesion in the frontal lobe.

          • Luca, he is not unintelligent – regardless of anything that anyone else might say. I think he’s more mis-focused (judgement call on my part) than misguided, however. He doesn’t seem the type to take advice (so, he can’t be guided all that easily), but to charge full ahead on his own terms. He and I blab with one another with reasonable frequency. He does mean well. He does irritate others. He does get others to think.
            I’ve just broken one of my own promises to myself. I don’t like speaking of others. I do like speaking with others. Pardon my judgment – this last statement is meant more for Joey than it is for you.
            Take care.

          • ” He does mean well.”
            Really, Mr. HSkol…?
            He is the most vile, obscene, detestable shameless person I have ever come across in my life.

          • I don’t say that as an insult to another, nor to his benefit. Though an atheist, I’m not incredibly relativistic (this might have something to do with my upbringing); but, in these regards, I am rather relativistic. I think he really does mean well on his own terms, which are suspect not only to you but to me as well. Nonetheless, I believe that he does mean well – again, in his own terms.
            “Joey” knows that I wish to break him of his Islamophobia. I’ve directly stated that to him in the past. I cannot give up on that – though my aim may be futile. Does my take make sense? If not, I’ll gladly hear you out.

          • No you don’t make sense to me. Illogical and servile in fact. He has no Islamaphobia. He has brain damage. A lesion of some sort, tissue damage in the frontal lobe. If you had some medical back ground I’d give you my analysis, diagnostic reasoning.

          • Thank you for your replies. For my own good, I believe I shall refrain from discussing others. I’d much prefer viewing and trying my best to simply understand others and why they draw the conclusions that they do about life, beauty, the world, etc.
            I’ll speak with you soon again. Take care.

          • Regarding your seeing him as vile and so forth, I understand that, really. I may even agree with you on many of your points. Either way, from that ever pesky “try to understand others” point of view that I carry as my foremost earthly burden, I don’t believe I’ve misspoken from my own vantage point. At worst, please let us simply disagree here. I’ve intended no disrespect nor insult to those impacted by such thoughts, honestly.

          • I did not say unintelligent. Brain damaged, a medical diagnosis not meant as an insult.
            He is not misguided. I have known and observed him for long. He is a high school dropout. A drunk, given to drugs and prostitutes…a debauch by his own admission and on record.
            He hates Islam, Muhammad, Muslims and the Qur’an. Fat gut ugly, obese but certain type of women hanker after him and stalk him using all kinds of rouses…

          • Luke, I am just curious and hope you would not mind my asking: Are you a Christian named after the Gospel of Luke or a Muslim simply using it as an avatar?

          • I so wish to say, “Luke, I am your father …”, but I’ve not spoken with him – so, that would be way too out there. (I’m in a silly mood [a couple very much needed days off from work], and it’s rather serious here, so I won’t bother. I expect you might not mind my comic interjection.)

          • Ha, ha, h…!
            Serious in what way? A little levity is always healthy and you are always welcome. It lightens things up.
            I recall when our dad took us kids to see ‘Star Wars’. Mom thought they were toys…and we need be able to see through that. But she liked Yoda’s character…being a philosophy major and all that, I guess.
            As I said you are welcome. I learn from you. Here, I was just browsing. MuslimGirl is going places. Loonwatch Loons are going to suffocate in their little coterie of anti-Islam bigotry…wagoned up in their xenophobic circle.

          • Your mom is a woman that I share a heart with – except that Darth Vader (with Han Solo very close in rank) is my favorite character in the series.
            Honestly, there is nothing whatsoever to learn from me – I’ve nothing to teach. I’m happy that you might learn who I am as one small piece of this grand world, but that is all that I have to offer … nothing at all beyond that. 🙂

          • I learn from observation. And I never forget. You have character. That is big in this hypocritical lying World. A rarity nowadays.

          • Thank you. You are far too kind to me. I learn from you as well – do know that. If I did not, you wouldn’t see me around at all. To be continued for quite some time. Peace be upon you.

          • Learning is mutual…for the aware and open fair minded. I am learning right now from the interactions on this page. I am sure you are too. And I am learning from your silent observation, too.
            Thanks and Peace.

          • Glad to ‘meet’ you as well. I saw Episode 7 the other day and had mixed emotions, so your response is timely. A reminder of better days.

          • I don’t mind your question. If I had to put it into terms, I suppose that I’m agnostic. My name is Luca, and I’m actually a woman. Mike just assumed that I am male.

          • Agnostic is good. Your take down of Loonwatch’s Special Attack Dog Mike was impressive. So I thougtt you may be Muslim. A lot of knowledge is required, both sides of the fence, to do that in short order, the way you did to his baiting…and still stay balanced on top.
            I can see his tag team partner Loonwatch mod is back on playing the good cop/bad cop routine in their combination assault on Muhammad and the Qur’an…ironic !
            Thanks for your reply Luca. I appreciate it.

          • It’s not always comfortable to sit on a fence, but it tends to provide the best vantage point.
            I’m new to this site and haven’t made my way over to Loonwatch yet, but I am curious so will have to investigate.

          • Sitting on a fence is precarious…but an advantage if you want to check both sides, which side is greener.
            Loonwatch is a secretive suspicious paranoid anonymous site spreading dubious divisive hateful propaganda; appearing to a newbie as a Muslim site…but is anything but Muslim. Intellect is low grade.
            Nary a Muslim in sight. Pretenders, essentially a small coterie of foul mouthed, racists, bigots, hypocrites and misfits. Any dissenting opinion is snubbed. After a while you get the message that they have circled their wagons and going around in circles. Home of old unhappy people, losers in life.

          • I think you overestimate my ability, but thank you for your kind words of support. I have enjoyed reading yours and HSkol’s commentary here and elsewhere.
            Peace be with you.

          • Not at all. I am going strictly by what you have demonstrated here. Scalpel precision, differential diagnosis, exposition.
            Especially embarrassing for me for it took me a while to unravel, disentangle his mangled thinking and step back from it. Some who should know better are still tangled…unfortunately deeply, emotionally.

          • “I had hoped to avoid him
            He trolls. No one can avoid him. Some even, pursue him, stalk him unashamedly…in obsessive sexual innuendo.
            You were smart. Even lucky. You preempted him. I got sucker punched, slam dunked. It took awhile for me to realize that he was not put altogether…missing part, bolt or screw lose.

          • Being neither a glutton for punishment, nor interested in anyone other than my wonderful fiancé, you need not be concerned for my part. Meaning no offense, I cannot speak to the character or intentions of another who I have had no previous interaction with.
            As for Mike, his methods remind me of a sociopathic individual I once had the misfortune of being subjected to- gas lighting, manipulation, intimidation, humiliation, etc. Such individuals often care far more about their own sense of self-righteousness and superiority than they do about the people they purport to aid and the injustices they ‘seek to end’.

          • “He is a mad troll .Thanks for pointing his hypocrisy”
            He is not mad but may appear to be so to the layman. And he is not hypocritical though he may appear so.
            I could add memory defect, repeating questions even when they have been answered a number of times (‘Perseverating’), tangential digress to the insignificant but missing the profound and obvious, impaired learning, missing cues subtle differences, loss of cognitive skills), marginal pseudopsychopathy.
            These are symptoms.These aberrations and borderline personality defects that you have noticed as mad and hypocrisy, as have many others, are the result of brain damage, to put it simply in layman’s terms.
            In medical terms/diagnosis they can be attributed to a lesion or lesions on the frontal lobe, a portion of the brain fundamental to humans. The frontal lobe is the control center of the personality. It makes us rational, logical and human.
            Frontal lobe is the largest lobe of the brain, evolved last and separates humans from animals. In no other part of the brain can lesions cause such a wide variety of symptoms: The frontal lobes are in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, social/sexual behavior.[The psychopath, the drunk, the debauch are a few examples of this brain defect in humans].
            I could go on but this should give you an idea of the problem he has and causes. He should see a neurologist [Brain Specialist].
            I stopped responding to him a while back because of his profane vulgarization and abuse of MuhammadPBUH. He has a tag team partner in his attacks on Islam’s Prophet and the Qur’an in Ilisha of Loonwatch but that is another story…!

          • He seems to be interested more in muslim women and she always stalks them.You are wrong in one aspect as no women stalks oldfatmike but he stalks them continiously

          • The only woman who stalks unashamedly and wants him is Ilisha of Loonwatch…but she is not a Muslim. So it matters. Even so it was a little difficult for me to digest but that is another story I get to for you one day.
            The other one is Aajay, mother of six. A sex hungry Saudi locked up in four walls by her husband so no loss there.

          • Sorry i erroneously wrote she instead of he.I wonder how one could stalk a fat grandpa.I think you are worried unnecessarily elcid.He is such a filthy troll who goes on posing questions and infuriates even a snail

          • Some old hurts. I don’t worry. I am not the worrying kind. I try to see the world objectively. Yet emotions seep in, occasionally. That comes with being human irrespective of how much self disciplined you are. Read my comment on his mental state.
            The info on them was sent to me by a tired party. I still have to verify and cross check the details. I will fill you in time or point to where you an satisfy your curiosity and learn from the mistakes of others. One can’t read or write a book in one sitting.
            You compose yourself. You have not lost any thing. You have a way to go. Build yourself up physically, emotionally, intellectually…make and invest a buffer of assets, cash for hard times as they come in every life. Be prepared for them…not if but when they come.
            Take care.

          • Who is ilisha?He is obssesed over u as he tormented me thinking me as elcid.He told me it is u who stalks illisha.

          • You are opening old wounds for me. Its a long story. Complex, complicated because it is in real life. But I find you intelligent, curious and essentially equitable and fair in judgment. Your behavior comes through as rational, reasonable…cool!
            You are not hard core cynical as most are on the Internet. I sense you as honest, polite, and straightforward. I think you deserve an answer deserving of that. I am considering how to go about it. I will try to summarize it for you, the best I can.
            I will give it to you step by step in bits and pieces as I find the time. I am traveling a bit, internationally. Will be more open when back in the US.
            I will also respond to your other queries below. I will appreciate if you allow me sometime to compose myself for this ordeal. Very intimate and personal to repeat it in public. I will get back to later.
            Thank you.

          • Ok fine elcid.As u told me i was brutally honest and straight forward.I think we should do something about that filthy old joey.I was unable to tolerate his trolling

          • You are doing fine. He is not worth your time. Never throw stones at a piece of shit…it can splash back and soil you.
            You are not a Muslim so I can’t tell you to be patient. You are not a Christian so I can’t tell you that God works in mysterious ways. And since you are not Hindu telling you about Karma would be pointless.
            You are an Atheist so I can tell you that what goes around comes around. But you already know that.
            And if you are worried about Nasreen then don’t be. She is smart, aware, adult. And Muslim girls are bullet proof against such scum and shit bags. So don’t worry. You have long way to go. Stay strong.

          • I wonder you correctly spotted my should be a doctor.ya i get angry when he stalks her and thanks for praising her.I too got tired of him as he never gets angry or feels ashamed.I would follow ur tips.You resemble me elcid.Intensely emotional,Honest and straight forward

          • Whatever his agenda…he is loathsome and impotent against Muslim girls. They don’t do shit bags. I promise.

          • The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. English interpretation of Quran 24:2
            Please show me where this verse prescribes the death penalty.

          • ilisha, what are you doing out from loonwatch? good to see ya. I’m a bit surprised y’all didn’t run a story on the mosque burnt down in Corsica?
            anyway, I didn’t say 24:2 prescribes the death penalty. 5:45 does and so does 5:32:33. have you read the entire exchange? lukie said: “To be more specific, I don’t condone the execution or abuse of any people, under any circumstances.” he now wants to twist and turn what ‘wrong’ means. it reminds e of Clinton saying, ‘it depends on what your definition of is, is’. so he is somehow against the death penalty, but not willing to say the Koran is wrong for prescribing it, strange but true. so now I was moving on to the ‘abuse’ part. so you don’t go with Muhammad assad’s translation? he says zina here applies to adulterers too? what is that you are quoting? sahih international?
            so you are for the lashing of fornicators?
            stoning adulterers?

          • No, 5:45 and 5:32 do not prescribe the death penalty.
            Am I in favor of lashing convicted adulterers living in, let’s say a khilafah under Sharia? Yes, I am.

          • so what does a ‘life for a life’ mean? if not the death penalty? and what does, ‘unless it be for murder’ mean?
            so you would lash a fornicator and an adulterer? shouldn’t adultery be worse than fornication? why did you translation say [unmarried]? you don’t think the hadiths where muhammad orders adulterers stoned are accurate? or are they abrogated by this verse?

          • but aren’t the errant views the one’s outside the torah, not the quotes from the torah. why did Muhammad call for the torah when charging the jew and the jewess with adultery?
            if there is no death penalty in sharia, the Koran and sunnah, then why the hell do so many muslims think there is?
            the followers of earlier revelations are the muslims who don’t change the torah. the errant views are the innovations the jews came up with. bidah if you will. name a single Islamic scholar who claims there is no death penalty in sharia?

          • I don’t know the reference to Muhammad calling for the Torah regarding adultery, but if the accused were Jews, that would make sense. Jewish law for Jews. Okay. So what does that have to do with applying Jewish law to Muslims?

          • that a prophet would use a bad law makes sense to you. judge not by their errant views, yet he does it. so why does every madhab say there is a death penalty in sharia if there isn’t? and why does Muhammad order people stoned to death time and time again?

          • I think this is a no-win situation. If Muslims allow Jews and Christians to follow their own laws (as they did even in more recent times in the millet system), then that’s wrong. But would it be right to impose Islamic law on them? I suspect that would have been criticized too.
            I never said there was no death penalty in Sharia. I addressed the verse you posted. If you think the Qur’an prescribes the death penalty, then please show me where.
            As for the hadith and the madhabs, they are secondary souces and as such are not universally accepted. All of the scholarly opinion I have ever read agrees that the Qur’an is supreme, and differs only in the weight they give to secondary sources. All you can say is some subject of Muslims agree with this. The Quran and ONLY the Quran is the primary and universal source of Islamic doctrine. As such, if you can’t make your case using verses from the Qur’an, I’m going to disregard your assertion.

          • [2.178] O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

          • I should first state that I don’t have a huge problem with the allowing the death penalty as an option for murder. We have the death penalty for certain crimes in America, which is obvioulsy not under Sharia. Nevertheless, there are some considerations here, which I will share from two perspectives.
            First someone who says this does NOT prescribe the death penalty, in a view that seems in accordance with commentary from Muhammad Asad, can be found here:
            You can search for 2:178. In response, you can point out that scholars have said otherwise. Here is another view:
            Muslim jurists argue that these and other mechanisms demonstrate that Sharia law’s preference is always to forego the qisas punishment and to adopt alternative forms of punishment or a settlement between the convicted murderer and the victim’s next of kin. If there is no next of kin, only then can the state act as prosecutor. If the victim’s family takes this course of action, an alternative discretionary (ta‘zir) punishment can be enforced (usually imprisonment). The system of victim forgiveness and restitution was established by Sharia law as a means of achieving justice without losing another life. According to the Quran, whoever is given a sentence of qisas and is spared death has a chance to repent and resume life in society.
            “If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith
            you were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is
            better for the patient.”
            (Quran 16:126)
            “The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto [in degree]: but if a person forgives and makesreconciliation, his reward is due from God: for[God] loves not those who do wrong.” (Quran 42:40)
            The above Quranic verses, as well as others too numerous to cite here, encourage the victim’s family to pardon the offender. Thus, according to the Quran, in the case of murder, justice can still be achieved without recourse to the death penalty….

            Since you’ve implied Muhammad was liberal in parceling out the death penalty, this also seems relevant:
            Sunni jurist Shaykh Mansur Ibn Yunus al-Bahuti (d. 1641 CE) included a chapter on pardon in qisas cases in his influential Islamic legal text, still used today in Egypt and other Muslim countries, entitled Kash al-Qina‘ (6 volumes). He wrote:
            “There is legal consensus [i.e. among Muslim jurists] that it is permissible to pardon [the guilty party] in qisas cases and that this option is better [than the application of qisas].
            This is supported by the Quranic verse 2:178:
            “And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy
            from your Lord.”
            He goes on to cite a famous hadith narrated by a companion (Sahaba) of the Prophet Muhammad and recorded in major Sunni collections of hadith:
            “Whenever a qisas case was brought to the Prophet Muhammad, he would always order that the guilty party be pardoned.

            So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

          • so are you going to let the pagans go by their own laws? interesting that you often talk about things not being a binary, yet that is your two choices? how about everyone going by the same [good modern] law?

          • And We ordained for them in that [Torah]: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and a [similar] retribution for wounds;61 but he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone thereby for some of his past sins.62 And they who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed – they, they are the evildoers!
            61 See Exodus xxi, 23 ff., where details of the extremely harsh penalties provided under
            Mosaic Law are given.
            62 Lit., “it shall be an atonement for him”. The Pentateuch does not contain this call to
            forgiveness which is brought out with great clarity not only in the Qur’an but also in
            the teachings of Jesus; especially in the Sermon on the Mount: and this, read in conjunction
            with the following verses, would seem to be an allusion to the time-bound quality of Mosaic
            Law. Alternatively, the above admonition may have been part of the original teachings of
            the Torah which have been subsequently corrupted or deliberately abandoned by its followers,
            whom the Qur’an accuses of “distorting the meaning of the revealed words” (see verse 41 above).

          • sorry I forgot the link, that might have made it more clear. that is from Muhammad asad’s translation and explanation of the Koran. you can find an electronic copy at USC.

          • I’ve read his explanation, which makes it clear that this was decreed in the Torah. This is a restatement, not an edict. Stating, “This is what the Torah says” is not the same as saying, “This is what you need to do.” That seems obvious to me. In fact, the surrounding verses in that chapter make it clear to me it is a REFINEMENT of the prior law, not a command to follow it “as is.”

          • so what is the REFINEMENT? the elimination of the death penalty? NO, the addition of the OPTION of forgiveness. so the death penalty is still prescribed.

          • First, the refinement from the Torah to the Qur’an is clearly explained by Asad. How did you miss that?
            Second, as I have clearly demonstrated, NOT EVERYONE AGREES that the Qur’an prescribes the death penalty. I have PROVEN this absolutely by posting an opinion that states it DOES NOT.
            However, I would agree the majority opinion is that the Qur’an does allow the death penalty for crimes such as a murder. Lashes are prescribed for those convicted of adultery, which as far as I know is not in dispute.
            So keeping in mind there is no absolute consensus, I acknowledge your point. And again say SO WHAT? I don’t view this as a problem.

          • well first the adultery thing is in dispute. most muslims and all four major madhabs say you stone an adulterer, not lash. lashing a fornicator is not in dispute. so on that we all agree, the Koran calls for lashing people.
            I didn’t miss the ‘refinement’. the refinement didn’t ban the death penalty, obviously.
            of course not EVERYONE is ever going to agree on anything. there are almost always outliers. I’ve even seen people argue against the lashing of the 24th surah with the retelling of the story of lot’s wife cursing god, when lot became sick. lot told god he would lash her 100 times for her blasphemy if he recovered from his sickness. he recovered and then didn’t want to lash his wife. but he didn’t want to break his word to god. so he picked 100 blades of grass and ‘lashed’ her with that.
            “Lashes are prescribed for those convicted of adultery, which as far as I know is not in dispute.
            So keeping in mind there is no absolute consensus, I acknowledge your point. And again say SO WHAT? I don’t view this as a problem.” SO WAHT? I think you are WRONG. but thank you for finally telling the truth. it was like pulling teeth, but that is often the way of disqus.

          • I have always told the truth on this matter. The problem is that you flatten all nuance, and Sharia is nuanced. The TRUTH about Sharia doesn’t lend itself to simple “yes” or “no” answers. Yet if anyone tries to explain the details, you imply they are waffling or indulging in apologetics. Even when you asked about lashing and I simply answered with a YES, you have gone on belaboring the point. You could just take YES for an answer. Yes, I agree with the punishments that people in the West often view as harsh, and I don’t care about whether or not you or anyone else approves.
            As for the punishment of stoning, I don’t think it’s well supported. The Qur’an is clear and it’s the primary source, and I don’t agree with the loopholes used in an attempt to apply harsher penalties. In any case, it’s extremely difficult to prove adultery in Islam, and for very good reason. The point is to maintain a social order, not to micromanage the private affairs of individuals, with the ultimate goal of preventing society from devolving into the kind of destructive moral cesspool we see in modern-day America.

          • I try to flatten nuance because you use nuance to deflect and not answer. I said the Koran prescribes capital punishment. rather than saying: “yes but, and then explaining the ‘nuances’, you challenged me to prove where the Koran prescribes this. call me crazy, but to me that is a denial of my original point.
            you said lashing for adulterers after having posted a verse from the Koran that said you lash [unmarried] adulterers. certainly that leave open the stoning of [married] adulterers.
            but yes, I take your yes, that you support lashing as truth. I guess we will have to see if lukie thinks that is abusive or not. don’t hold your breath.
            obviously the point of all laws is to maintain social order. draco wanted to maintain social order too.

          • But it DOES NOT prescribe capital punishment. The nuance actually matters. A prescription is, “If someone commits murder, put him/her to death.” The Quran DOES NOT SAY THAT. It allows for a range of punishment, stating a preference for forgiveness over harshness. That simply is NOT the same as outright “prescribing” the death penalty.
            I asked you to show me where the Qur’an prescribes the death penalty. That’s all. Why should you not be required to provide evidence of your own assertion? You were citing a verse that does not apply.
            Again, on adultery I have been quite clear. I said I AM FINE with flogging as a punishment. I agree it is prescribed and I never tried to say it means something other than flogging. But the harsher punishment comes from an interpretation of hadith, which I have already explained are not universally accepted. That is a fact, and furthermore, I don’t find that argument in favor of a harsher punishment convincing.
            I’m not sure why you assume your opinion matters to me. As if I’m timid regarding your accusations, and therfore have an incentive to waffle, misrepresent or even lie. I don’t. If the Qur’an outright said that the punishment for adultery was death by stoning, I would acknowledge that. I never apologize for what the Qur’an says. Not to anyone and not under any circumstances. The fact most Westerners consider part of it to be at odds with their “values” means nothing to me. In other words, I simply have NO INCENTIVE to balk at your “challenges.”

          • ok, what is it? I will re-track the word prescribed. how about, allows? the Koran allows for the death penalty? how is that? or the Koran doesn’t outlaw the death penalty? I’m not this nuanced. I don’t mince words like this. sorry, I’m not a lawyer. one option is to put people to death, right? can i say that?
            I’m glad you don’t balk at me challenges. strange thing to say, coming from you, but i’ll take you at your word.

          • I don’t know why that’s a strange thing to say. A lot of people who challenge me seem to assume I’m going to try to appease them. I’m not sure why, but they do.
            As such, I like to be clear in stating my policy is zero appeasement.

          • no, I don’t expect you to appease me. I find it strange that you say you don’t balk at my challenges. you do know this is mike, right?

          • Of course I know you’re mike. I’ve never balked at your challenges under any name. I’ve gone round and round with you for days.
            You get banned because you’re obstinate and annoying. Not because people can’t adequately address your challenges.

          • my apologies. I shouldn’t have used the word finally there. you have always been honest about your pro-lashing stance. I meant that to apply to your admittance to the prescription of the death penalty in the Koran. at least I think you have now concided that point? with of course the refinement and nuance of forgiveness as an option.

          • If you accept the nuance, why do you continue to make use of the word “prescribed”? Allows, not prescribes. It isn’t a trivial difference.
            Let me say, again, that I have always been honest about ALL of my views with regard to Islam. In recent years, I have actually shifted toward a MORE HARSH view than I had in previous years, though I have been consistent in saying EXACTLY what I believe without attempting to appease anyone. That you can count on from me.

          • ok. I realize this response was in between my retracing of the word prescribe and now, but fyi [to pull a lukie and mince words]:
            (of a medical practitioner) advise and authorize the use of (a medicine or treatment) for someone, especially in writing.
            PLEASE NOTE: authorize the use of.

          • Leave them to their own devices. I am praying that Krishna Murti walks in. If he is not still banned from here. This would be his show…!

          • Nah, I’ve got to greet Ilisha. She really does matter a lot to me. Please, you and she have your disliking of one another if you will or must. I’m Switzerland (neutral) in those regards.
            If I drive you mad as I speak with her, whatever.
            If I drive her mad as I speak with you, whatever.
            I’m keeping it real for my own (selfish) sake these days. Please understand.
            (Cool, I made a new hashtag.)

          • “Please, you and she have your disliking of one another if you will or must”
            Where did I say I disliked her? Her vulgar profane Gustak a Rasool abuse of Muhammad was offensive to me…as it would be for any Muslim. But that came later.
            You must have a very short, selective memory. You forget that I liked her. In fact I was fond of her. And said so in no uncertain terms. Its all there in the record. How can you deny.
            Your bias in her favor is again surfacing. She dislikes me, maybe because our lifestyles, education, religion and character are exactly opposite of each other. I am a Muslim. And not into casual liaisons.
            She fits in with the likes of Mike as you can observe right here. She followed him here again as Krishan Murti had predicted. He said that she has the hots for him, stalks him all over the Internet. And they got him banned.
            You may have forgotten but I have not. I followed that interaction between them closely. It was perturbing, sad and sorrowful for me. In fact a painful learning experience. She came on to Krishna too. As you very well know.
            Krishna’s totally exposed her double lifestyle and how using her privileges as a moderator she picks up random lovers, as a prvate ‘Tinder’ setup.
            The denouement of her character and addiction to promiscuous casual sex she indulges in secretly, anonymously…since I don’t know when. Krishna investigated and detailed it all right here in this very publication. And she got him banned because he snubbed her repeated advances.
            And don’t you discount the total control of her mind FatGut Mike has on her. He can point anyone, including you, and say he is El Cid and she believes him. You disappoint me in your bias and prejudice…sorry to say so Mr. HSkol.

          • El Cid, I enjoy our times speaking with one another as gentlemen – I really do. Pardon my memory, please. Pardon my appreciation of others that you might find unsavory, please. You may not wish to drop this, but I’d very much like to. Can we keep us to us and leave them to them?
            On a personal note, I find it difficult to maintain friendships (outside of that which I have with my lovely wife) because I enjoy discourse with many “opposing forces”. I simply like to know people and to understand them from my own view. I may be naive; and, damn me if I am. I mean well only – it’s a tough “job”, but it’s sincere.

          • I did not bring her in. You did. As if liking someone in open vulnerable sincerity, honesty and in truth is some how wrong, sinful and a crime.
            And ridiculing, abusing, insulting the most revered beloved personality in the World, Muhammad, is some how sophisticated.
            Those who abuse, slander, ridicule the Prophet of Islam are not friends or well wishers of Muslims. We do not take this lightly. The Carte Blanche I gave her does not cross that line.
            To put it in context: What you would feel should your family suffer abuse in a similar manner…multiply it a thousand fold.

          • I understand your position and intent very well. Don’t you please underestimate me. I may not understand certain type of women but I understand men, all kinds of men, within seconds in real life, may take a little longer in the Internet. I have known you on the Internet long enough.
            You don’t have to apologize…there is nothing to apologize for. You misunderstand. You have not offended me. I am not easily offended. I try to empathiz where another is coming from…even if you tried, it is unlikely that you can offend me. In my mind you remain a gentleman, gentleman to a fault.
            My perplexity was about Ilisha of Loowwatch. How may I have offended her. But it was clarified to me by another person, more knowledgeable and qualified in such matters than I, that women who have a low opinion of themselves, have had unfortunate experiences in life…they tend to hanker after men who degrade them.
            This abuse arouses them. They feel alive, desired, even loved,when physically, psychologically, emotionally, sexually abused, bruised, degraded. One telltale sign is that they tend to be secretive, suspicious, paranoid…and they lie. They lie even when it is of no especial advantage to them and can easily be verified and exposed.
            Why do you think there is so much domestic abuse going around, drugs and casual sex…certain types of women who have a low opinion of themselves, have had poor life experiences, hold themselves in low esteem, not only tolerate but desire it. And find it a defect in anyone who may find them attractive. And high regard for those who degrade them in some manner or another.
            That was my only fault. I held her on a pedestal…as Aajay had warned me that Ilisha was not worth it. That its not all black and white. That I should look for shades of gray in her…
            Please know when there is understanding and an open emphatic mind…there is no offense taken. Ilisha-Mike LoonWatch Combo attack on Islam, Muhammad, Qur’an…is enemy action..!

          • My last reply tonight (I read posts in bits and pieces because of a great many interruptions in my world). I wish to disappoint no one, but I do disappoint many due to my odd and seemingly contradictory methodology in reaching out to others. Please show me my bias and my prejudice. If I don’t see it myself, I may be blind to it – whatever the reason.
            I know Ilisha was/is dear to you. I know you don’t dislike her as a person – my point above was figurative, not literal. I was apparently not clear in my post. Please note as well that you have corresponded with me here where she has not. I will not read anything at all into that. I enjoy interacting with each of you. I’ve lost many friends in life because I don’t exclude as friends those that other friends wish I would exclude. Pardon my curse – not only do I own it, I live by it.
            I do wish you well without compromise. Peace to you.

          • ” Please note as well that you have corresponded with me here where she has not…I will not read anything at all into that. I enjoy interacting with each of you. I’ve lost many friends in life.”
            LETS BE CLEAR:
            #1. You initiated talk with me on this thread, intersected and apologized for it. Totally unnecessary for you are always welcome as I have often said to you. No problem with that as far as I am concerned.
            #2. She has not corresponded with you or anyone else or on the article or said anything about MuslimGirl. She was not here for that. Because she had another motive to be here.
            #3. Ilisha of Loonwatch came here specifically for Mike. She went directly to him and to NO one else. You can review and verify.
            #4. You may recall that Krishna Murti, before he was banned from here at Ilisha’s request, had stated and predicted that she, Ilisha has the hots for fat old Mike, same age both. That she stalks him for a casual liaison…as is her hobby and addiction. There was no incentive to talk to you. You are faithful to your wife and family. Period.
            So whatever point you are making is not well balanced or adequately reasoned. As far as you and I are concerned, this is an open public discussion…that I see you in her corner, justifying the unjustifiable, is disconcerting for me, troublesome and problematic. But that is what discussions are among equals. If you do consider me an equal, at least in human terms.
            BTW I have never lost a friend in life. They are few but they are for keeps. I am not a fly by night one shot quickie. Ilisha knows…else she would be stalking me not that old, fatgut Mike.
            Peace and regards to you and yours.

Leave a Reply

Scroll To Top