A Disappointing Evening with Daniel Pipes and Salim Mansur

So two academics, an artsy “freedom fighter” and a priest walk into a synagogue… The setup that night resembled an old bar joke, but the outcome wasn’t that funny.

The highly-anticipated panel discussion with Daniel Pipes on the issue of Islam and Islamism missed the point. He and the other two participants – Prof. Salim Mansur and Father Raymond de Souza – along with the moderator Fred Litwin (from the Free Thinking Film Festival) delivered a presentation more fitting for an “interfaith dialogue” event than a discussion where most of the people showed up looking for answers to pressing political problems.

islam-vs-islamism-1

Father de Souza, Daniel Pipes, Salim Mansur, Fred Litwin

 

It was hard to figure out their position on Islam, however, the panel was united in its displeasure with Pamela Geller as a person with supposedly extreme positions. When you criticize someone, who is doing some real work and taking daily blows for it, you are usually expected to offer a better course of action.

None of the panelists offered anything better. Don’t get me wrong – they all had good intentions and were well prepared, but there wasn’t much of practical use for their views. This post will be critical. When somebody is criticized, the most common comeback is that their words have been taken out of context. In anticipation of that I recorded the presentations of Daniel Pipes and Salim Mansur and you can see them in their entirety here (Daniel Pipes & Salim Mansur).

The audience sensed that they were receiving inadequate answers. After all, theorizing about the possible evolution of Islam on the day when in London two Muslim savages beheaded a British soldier in broad daylight is not the best way to address the threat of Islam or Islamism.

The lively discussion and the concerns of the people who showed up at the event were the most interesting part of it. That was when real issues were brought up and that video is much more interesting.

pipes-raza-mansur

Daniel Pipes with Raheel Raza

 

In his opening statement Fred Litwin set the tone of hostility for the evening attacking the “wrong” way to deal with Islam. The culprits were Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller. Their actions led to “horrible” side consequences like banning circumcision and kosher slaughter. They are definitely not good, the good people are in the panel.

Daniel Pipes admitted in the beginning that the issue of Islam is controversial and emotional. We cannot ignore the recent attacks in Florida and London. The problem is how to respond. There are different approaches; some fight the radical extremism, others, like Geert Wilders consider Islam to be the enemy. In his movie he linked every appalling practice of Islam with a specific verse from the Koran. A third view is to deal specifically with the foreign Islam as a main enemy.

According to Pipes, Islam can be reformed and become moderate. Can the Muslim leaders make the coexistence possible? Yes, Islam can change, everything human changes including religion. There are many examples – the US constitution, it’s an important document, but you can’t understand the USA by only reading the constitution, the same applies to Islam, the Koran and the hadith.

The concepts of jihad and the place of women in Islam have all changed. It’s not enough to look at documents; you need to look at Islam itself. That religion has changed over time and continues to change. Since the 1960s had been enormous changes in Islam, much for the worse. But if Islam can get worse, it can get better as well.

Sharia is the key to the language with which Islam influences public life. It puts many demands on the Muslims, for example the jihad war against non-Muslims which now is not applied universally. The Koran calls for limited taxation, which now few countries can afford. The prohibition of interest is impossible – without it businesses and banks can’t run.

These are all compromises, which had to be adopted by Islam. There are two directions in the Muslim countries – one is westernizing, the other Islamization. Ataturk in Turkey in the 1920s changed the country through westernization. But in the 1970s resistance appeared, which eventually brought in Erdogan. Turkey is returning to Islam.

In other countries they decided that Muslims are not successful, because they don’t apply sharia properly. In fact they borrowed the idea of returning to something stable and correct from Mussolini and Lenin. The first big success of that trend was the Khomeinist revolution, which inspired Islamists over the world. Islamism could also be non-violent – Erdogan was elected several times.

Many old ideas still exist in Islam – there is slavery in Mauritania and Saudi Arabia and some leaders find it normal. Their banks deny they charge interest but that’s deceptive – they are charging service fees. We have to support the positive changes. Some clerics declared female genital mutilation contrary to Islam. It will take many decades to make those changes permanent. We should resist both violent and peaceful Islamism and support the reformers.

Everybody in the audience was wondering what Mr. Pipes’ point was. Other than demonstrating his knowledge on the issue, he didn’t have any definitive position. Islam in his view was an amorphous entity that could take both good and bad shapes and no one knew when the new change would occur. His lecture offered no answer to the question what the ordinary people could do protect themselves. Those doubts resurfaced later when the audience asked quite a few inconvenient questions.

In his presentation Father de Souza observed that the majority of victims of Muslim terrorism are fellow Muslims. It is a war within the Islam, a theological struggle. After quoting several politicians discussing the expansion of radical Islam, he said that the best solution is to work with those in the Muslim world who want to change the minds of the dangerous people.

Commenting on the now famous speech of Pope Benedict, in which he mentioned Islam (and Muslims rioted over it), he said that the speech was distorted. The Pope asked the question whether it is possible to justify religious violence. That boiled down to the nature of god in Islam. Despite the initial violent reaction, later Islamic scholars wrote a letter concerning the issues he raised. Then the king of Saudi Arabia organized a conference with Muslims, Jews and Christians, although he couldn’t do it in his country. It had to be held in Spain with the help of the Spanish King.

I am not sure if Father de Souza realized the dark irony of the situation. The Muslim “understanding” of the Pope’s message was limited to organizing an interfaith conference in Europe, because the filthy kafirs, Christians and Jews, can’t be allowed into the citadel of the Muslim barbarism. And he considers this “progress”. It’s no wonder that Christians in many countries feel betrayed by the cowardly behaviour of their clerics.

The presentation of Prof. Salim Mansur focused on defining the difference between Islam and Islamism. Are they the same? The answer has an immense implication about understanding the Muslim world. Islamism is a fascistic and totalitarian ideology, regardless of how Islamists are dressed or educated.

Islamism is about power. Its purpose is the establishment of a sharia state, a theocracy. The Muslim Brotherhood has such goals.

At the same time Islam is a faith tradition with a message to worship one god and live truthfully. It began under Mohammed as a spiritual quest. Islam can’t be reduced to political ideology. Islamism in its current form is promoted by the Saudi Wahabism with the oil money. Islamism glorifies violence.

The West needs to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. If we consider them the same that means the West is at war with the whole Muslim world and you can’t engage with them. On the flip side Islamists have a similar view and consider everybody infidel.

Islamism is a perversion of Islam. The west should support those Muslims that fight against Islamism.

I understand that (at least nominally) Prof. Mansur is Muslim. He wants to defend his religion. However, it is very difficult to tell the difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam has always had political aspirations; it always boasts that it offers the perfect solution to all moral, social and political issues. Islam is never willing to play the second fiddle in a society – it can sense any weakness and exploit it mercilessly to achieve its goal of domination. Prof. Mansur himself acknowledged in his book on multiculturalism how the western liberal democracy is targeted by such movements. Maybe someday Islam would limit itself to the activities of worship (like most other religions) but it looks like it may take many decades to see that change.

islam-vs-islamism-2

Questions from the audience

 

I don’t know if the panel expected everybody in the audience to agree with their mushy positions, but the people present had their own opinions and they were not afraid to express them. Thinking people have that nasty habit to see through bullshit and call it.

That became painfully obvious to the panel when the Q&A session started. The hostility was rekindled by the moderator Fred Litwin, who found it necessary to ask the first question and it was again about Pamela Geller and the way she sees Islam. This part of the post covers the events in another video, which shows exactly how things went on (that’s in case somebody blames me that I take statements out of context). You can see it here.

Again, the panel was unanimous. Daniel Pipes flatly stated that she was wrong. His example was Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood wanted power but they were confronted by the people and failed. (That was a lame argument – in a Muslim country where the majority of people are backward and uneducated, with no perspective of developing any economy, the support for theocratic parties will always be strong).

Salim Mansur said that she and her supporters were wrong – she raises theological questions, but only Muslims can resolve those theological questions. Who is Pamela Geller to decide how those problems will be resolved? The pendulum swings toward the Islamists, but it will swing back because the Islamists have nothing to offer. Father de Souza echoed Mansur’s statement saying that you cannot offer an answer to a theological problem unless you have knowledge of theology and she doesn’t.

That was sad to watch – three respectable men trying to diminish what a brave woman tries to do to deal with the threat of Islam, all of them hiding behind some questionable theory.

The audience obviously didn’t buy those arguments. A woman asked the panel how they can dismiss Pamela Geller’s work, when she has done so much to defend the victims of Muslim violence (like the victim of honour killing Aqsa Pervez). Besides, Geller doesn’t deny the fact that Islam may evolve, but she is dealing with Islam now, isn’t there anything important in what she does?

Pipes’ reply was shockingly snobbish – he simply dismissed her again saying that the members of the panel are not students of Pamela Geller. That definitely wasn’t met with applause by the audience.

A friend of mine asked an excellent question about Salim Mansur’s statement that Islam started as a spiritual religion. How could that be true, if Mohammed was a very successful warlord, who conquered many peoples, he was not just a spiritual person?

Mansur replied with an example from a Kurosawa movie where the same event is seen by the same people in several different ways (he probably meant “Rashomon”). Mohammed in his century established one of the most successful societies outside of Europe. Mohammed is not responsible for what happened later as the Jews are not responsible for the end of the Roman Empire. (That was totally unconvincing – no amount of verbal equilibristic could change the fact that Islam was established as a political ideology with expansionist goals and remains the same even today.)

The inconvenient questions didn’t stop. Another attendee observed that the Nazis wouldn’t have been able to achieve their goals without the willing participation of the Germans. Isn’t that what Pamela Geller is talking about when discussing what is going on in the mosques?

Prof. Mansur finally descended from his theoretical pedestal and faced the reality saying that he has talked for a long time about the same things. Not only Pamela Geller sees that, many people have noticed it. There is recruitment going on at mosques and very little is done about it. Multiculturalism makes that easier for the jihadis. Even Muslims have concerns about the same things. Mansur finally took the strong position he displayed last month after the plot to bomb the VIA Rail was uncovered (you can read and see what he said here.)

Even though Pamela wasn’t there, she obviously couldn’t get a break. Fred Litwin started to bash her again – the reason he puts down Pamela, he said, is not because she fights Islamism, it’s because she goes one step further. If you read her blog and Robert Spencer’s writings, you’ll see that she wants a confrontation with Islam. Both Spencer and Geller criticized the Pipes article about the distinction between Islam and Islamism.

Another attendee asked a question about what is to be done, we are dealing with violent jihadis, whose number is huge, even if their percentage among Muslims is small, we don’t want to become collateral damage.

Pipes again gave a strange response, offending the person who asked and the audience, and then said that we have to support Muslims who fight Islamism.

Here Litwin decided to educate the audience by sharing his encounters with “moderate Islam.” For a time he worked for Intel in Singapore and took trips to Malaysia and Indonesia. He noticed that Islam in Malaysia is different. Islam is very diverse. He had no problem being Jewish in Malaysia. Muslims in Malaysia or Indonesia were not Islamists.

It was kind of him to provide the perspective of the wealthy Western tourist. He sounded as pathetic as a TDSB multiculturalism specialist lecturing a bunch of 5-graders in Toronto. Visiting those countries is not like living there. In Malaysia the Muslims are barely a majority, but they are as pushy as everywhere else – just listen to the two large minorities that keep the country going, the Chinese and the Hindus. They pay more taxes than the Muslims and are regularly harassed when they don’t “respect” the Muslim customs.

Recently a Japanese company making mayonnaise was harassed by the Malaysian government to change its logo in order to do business in Malaysia. The logo depicted a doll with tiny wings, which the Muslims considered an angel.

The whole issue is as demented as the Muslim riots over cartoons, but to Litwin that may look like a reasonable moderate Muslim demand. I have seen Fred Litwin on the TV stating that he is homosexual. There is nothing wrong with that in Canada, but it is very, very wrong in Muslim Malaysia. Anwar Ibrahim was a powerful member of the government a few years ago. His career was destroyed and he did time in jail, accused of being a homosexual. If a government minister is treated like that, could Mr. Litwin imagine what would happen to an ordinary Malaysian homosexual? Or even better – what would happen to Mr. Litwin, if he picks up a guy in Malaysia and gets caught? I am sure his concept of Muslim moderation would change overnight.

In Indonesia the persecution of Christians has never stopped (they don’t have local Jews to persecute). In 1997, during the crisis, the moderate Indonesian Muslims exterminated thousands of Christians. And maybe I should remind Mr. Litwin what the Muslims did in a night club in Bali a few years later…

 

This is the problem with people like Fred Litwin – they sound impartial and respectful, but actually they treat their audience like a bunch of ignorant idiots willing to believe anything.

The last round of the argument was started by a guy who had a very simple question – where are the moderate Muslims? What happens in the Muslim world is shocking – if let’s say 10% of the Christians are violent, there will be huge outcry. Churches and governments would be condemning the violence. That doesn’t happen in Islam, where the extremists are supposedly 10%.

Daniel Pipes responded by pointing at the moderate Muslims in the room (Raheel Raza, Tahir Gora, Salim Mansur). There is a strong faction of them in Ontario. We need to find and help them all over the world. (Frankly, that was far from convincing and the person who asked didn’t buy it.)

He said that was wonderful but that’s not the point. We are told there are many moderate Muslims and that appears not to be true.

Finally, Pipes, visibly irritated, made his final estimate – Islamists are 10-15%, the moderates are 1-2% and the vast majority are in between. The domination by Islamises is regrettable.

That wasn’t comforting either – a large passive Muslim mass that can be easily won by the Islamists, if they offer them enough goodies is a very real threat.

R. Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, once said that there is only one Islam. And this is the only thing he said, with which I fully agree. The scholastic discourses about Islam and Islamism are meaningless. It’s all about Islam. Islam is a doctrine with built in violence (jihad). Aggression and mistreatment of the others is part of its nature.

The only way to deal with it is to curb its political aspirations, which will bring destruction to the West. That means limiting the powers of all Islamic organizations in the Western countries. Islam would be much less dangerous if it really gets limited to the mosque. We can hardly afford to wait for it to evolve into something more docile. Its bloodthirsty “warriors” would do everything to stop that evolution.

But putting Islam in its place, as one of the many cults existing in the West, won’t be an easy task. It will require courage and a lot of work to repair the damage caused by the multiculturalism.

 

© 2013 Blogwrath.com

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Comments

  1. Fred Litwin says:

    Just a few corrections. I lived in Singapore and my job was pan-Asian and so I spent a lot of time in Malaysia and Indonesia. I took my boyfriend to both Malaysia and Indonesia and I can assure you I was more than a just a rich tourist. Malaysia is 71% Malay, and I am well aware of the situtation of the bumiputra. Believe me, I could give a lecture on the topic. I also worked closely with many Malaysians both in our office in Singapore and in our offices in Kuala Lumpur and at our factory in Penang.I was never scared of picking up a guy in Malaysia, believe me. The whole Anwar Ibrahim trial (and I was in Singapore for this whole episode) is more related to the perceived threat to Mohathir (who was a raving lunatic).

    I am not saying that Malaysia is a perfect liberal democracy – it isn’t. But, the practice of Islam in Malaysia is very, very different from Arab Muslim countries. And, they also face an Islamist threat in two of their provinces.

    i could go on and on about Malaysia and I haven’t even begun to talk about Indonesia.

    I was also in Hong Kong for the currency crisis and i know exactly what went on in Indonesia. Afterall, I knew all of the people in our Jakarta office quite well. The riots were more ethnic than religious – chinese vs. Indonesian Malays – similar to earlier riots in Singapore in the early 60s and in Malaysia in 1969. These were ethnic clashes, and not religious.

  2. moray watson says:

    If the “moderates” are 1 to 2% of the population of islam, that does not make them moderates, it makes them extremists.

  3. Sean says:

    So, it sounds like three dhimmis and an islamic appologist held a propaganda meeting to spread their lies about the great numbers of moderate muslims and what a great religion Islam really is. Humbug. Even these odious cretins, when pushed could only estimate “moderate” muslims at 1-2 percent of the muslim immigrant community. That means 99 percent of them are “radicals”.

    Well I suggest that there are no “moderate” muslims or “radical” ones. There are only Muslims and then there are apostates. As for the three “moderate” muslims in the room? Who really knows if they are just apostates or if they are Islam’s front line PR soldiers, here to lie to the stupid dhimmis.

    Either way, the bottom line is the vast majority of muslims are a clear and present danger to the west. They should not be allowed to immigrate or even visit western countries. If we have to suspend the extension of rights to this group, and summarily revoke citizenship without due process, then that is fine, it is a small price to pay to save our society.

    Deport all muslims now. Isolate and blockade their native countries. Ban all trade with them, all transfer of technology, all aid in any form. Criminalize their pseudo religion. Do it now. Isolate them and let them wage their war against each other, and if they do not evolve and instead ready themselves for an external war, mercilessly wipe them out with a nuclear strike.

  4. Gary Paquin says:

    Thanks for your report. The so-called moderates discredit themselves by attacking Geller. The percentage of Nazis in WW II Germany was probably under 10% and history has recorded what this small number of dedicated fanatics accomplished. It is true, the majority of “uncommitted” sheep will mobilize if fear and perks are applied judiciously.

  5. SarahSue says:

    Thank you for this informative article.

    I am most familiar with Daniel Pipes since I have been reading his articles for years. While I do not disagree with his premise that all people, including muslims, can change, I disagree that we are obligated to wait for it.

    Israel has been waiting sixty-five years for a change. Most of our politicians seem to think that she should be willing to wait another sixty-five years. In limbo, absorbing punishment after punishment.

    I reject the entire premise. Dealing with the way things are is much more realistic than waiting for a change that may never come. Waiting had proven to be a losers game.

    Western culture has a very long history of change and everyone benefited. The muslims could do the same, but they have not. The changes mentioned in the panel discussion do not amount to a hill of beans. The questions I always want answered are: ‘Why should we be so willing to accommodate a group that has caused so much pain and destruction?’ ‘Why is it up to us to accommodate them, when they should be accommodating us?’ After all, we are provably the far superior culture.

    I also get weary of watching the discussions about how not all muslims are bad or terrorists. Who cares? The entire cult is awful. There is not a single part of islam that is worth saving. Yet we have wasted years waiting for that chimera…the moderate muslim with the ability to reform his fellows.

    As for Pamela Geller, she joins the ranks of other attractive, strong conservative women, such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. These women and women like them must be destroyed because they tell us the truth.

    Daniel Pipes does himself a tremendous disservice by rejecting even one of them. What has he ever done that has even a small positive impact on our society?

    I think the reactions of the audience shows that we know more than Daniel Pipes. We know that we are at a crossroads and that we must pick the correct course of action. We have tried many things and they have all failed. Now is the time to get serious and put into action the only viable course left to us. Reject islam lock, stock and barrel.

    Remove anyone that is a muslim or a muslim sympathizer from our countries. All muslims and their supporters must live in muslim countries. If they decide to change, in a day, a year or a century, then we can rethink our policies. In the mean time, we will not be suffering because of them.

    Last, but not least, thank you for treating me like an adult and writing an in-depth article with thoughtful analyzes of the subject matter. Thank you for not assuming that I read at a fifth grade level and that my attention span is five minutes or less.
    SarahSue

  6. Xanthippa says:

    I had attended the Ottawa version of this event, where Dr. Crowley made up the third panelist – and despite my promise to write it up, I am still struggling with how to do it to capture the whole mood.

    The ‘whipping boy’ at the Ottawa event was not Pamela Geller, but Gavin Boby, whom Fred kept putting down. However, Pamela Geller was mentioned and Dr. Mansur closed all discussion of her and her role by saying we that while of course he does not agreee with everything she says, we must make sure all voices, including hers, are heard.

    However, I was disappointed by Dr. Pipes – some of the statistics he quoted were demonstrably wrong.

    The greatest disappointment in Ottawa, however, was Dr. Crowley (of the MacDonald-Laurier Institute) who came with such strong support for limiting free speech, even Dr. Pipes challenged him on it. Dr. Mansur, a free-speech fundamentalist, just looked shocked and shook his head…

    The audience in Ottawa was also clearly not convinced by Dr. Pipes’s performance.

  7. Shobhna Kapoor says:

    Ask one of the speakers to take up Ali Sina’s challenge on Muhammad. Since Pamela Geller, in their view, is not an Islamic scholar, let one of them debate Sina. Was or was not Muhammad all the things that Sina states that he was. Let the debate be televised by Sun News Network.

    1. Andrew Bostom accepted an invitation to debate Daniel Pipes. Pipes refused.

  8. Boy that Q&A was brutal, glad I didn’t attend. Good work Blogwrath.

  9. […] More to come but it can all be seen here at BlogWrath.com […]

  10. David Wood AKA Acts 17 Apologetic, today on EDL radio explained that he had spoken to a muslim who had helped police stop a terrorist attack in the USA.

    The reason he did that was terrorists interfere with the agenda of creating a global islamic caliphate by waking people up to the true nature of islam.

    Someone please tell Daniel Pipes.

  11. Winston says:

    That’s great reporting, thank you.

    I must add that I find Geller’s behavior unacceptable. But I also don’t like Pipes much. Geller seems like a crazy woman, while pipes has given support to Marxist Islamist groups such as MEK. The fight against radical Islam takes more than useless panels. It needs national and global attention. We can not win the war against Jihadis until we realize that it is a war.

    1. SarahSue says:

      Winston,
      I have some things I do not like about Pamela Geller. But as you say, we are in a war. Pamela Geller has done much more than people like Pipes because she is not afraid to be on the front lines. Her speeches are invaluable because she educates people and gets them fired up. I also think that America owes her a tremendous debt of gratitude for stopping the mosque in New York.

      The press has done as much as they could to demonize anyone that stands up and tells the truth. Michele Bachmann tried to point out that the muslim brotherhood had invaded are government and you saw how they attacked her. She was correct, but that did not seem to matter.

      Sarah Palin has been treated so roughly by the press, that I am surprised that she is able to continue. The things said about her family were almost too much to bear.

      The thing is, that this continual and relentless demonizing of anyone that does not carry water for President Obama sometimes rubs off on us. We absorb the message without realizing it. That is why we need to stand together, present a united front and reject anything the press has to say. Their agenda is to mislead and obfuscate.

      United we stand, divided we fall. The press is trying to divide and conquer. They are doing a pretty good job of it.

      That is why urge you, Winston, and people like you to take a second look at people like Pamela Geller. Is your opinion based on what you know or what you have heard? You say that this war needs national and global attention. You are correct. Who has done this more than anybody? Pamela Geller with her subway ads and her speeches. Who has opposed her? People that would like us to believe that muslims do not present a threat.

      Remember the series of ads that CAIR put out called ‘My Jihad’? Have you every seen such a blatant example of taqyya intended to mislead the American people? Of all the patriots in America, only Pamela Geller responded.

      We must stand behind these brave people even if they are not perfect. We do not have enough heroes to pick and chose.

      God Bless America and all our heroes.
      SarahSue

  12. Annonymous says:

    Islam in Malaysia or Asia is not less dangerous than the Islam in Middle East. It is just less obvious. They grouped themselves in an asian malay ethnic group though they frequently exposed their extreme islamic agenda.
    Stopping aid to predominantly islamic countries, whether they are in asia or in middle east would also slow down the spread of islamism.

    1. Ron Williams says:

      Que? Are you saying that we must bow down to an ‘arts’ Ph.D? Means little to me….

      His name is Daniel Pipes, is it not?

  13. SM ISAC says:

    The event was useful for me as it really made it clear that truly reform minded or moderate Muslims, are the fringe minority (1-2%) and 10-15% radical, according to Dr. Pipes’ estimate. For me, these numbers explain why we see hundreds of Muslims and their sympathizers show up at events which can only described as hate-fests, such as “Al Quds Day” or “Anti Israeli Apartheid Week” or speech by George Galloway, the Hamas supporter who received standing ovation (York U) by Muslim majority audience while very few Muslims participate in counter protests or organize anti Islamist campaign.

    I agree that we should stand with a handful of reform minded Muslims who are vastly outnumbered, we should also call out a big lie that the majority of Muslims are “peaceful” or non Islamists. Prof. Mansur said that most of these people are busy living ordinary lives working and raising families, etc.(not in these exact words), Well, guess what. We also have lives.(I’m sure Pamela Geller had another life before 9/11.) We are not funded. We feel threatened by Islamists who live among us. We feel betrayed by the mainstream media, politicians, police, university administrators, etc. who are more interested in preemptive surrender to Islamist demands by stifling free speech. Yes, I would like to think that we and truly reform minded Muslims face the same threats and share the common enemies, and thus stand on the same side. However, it’s not time to be playing “nice” with each other.

  14. Anonymous Coward says:

    The acoustics really sucked. Please fix them. You can only understand the questioners — but you can’t understand the presenters at all!! Get rid of the reverb and echo.

    This is addressed to you whom own/run this synagogue.

    1. admiwrath says:

      You’re right. The amplifiers were not good at all. Salim Mansur even wanted to speak without a microphone, but the people in the back couldn’t hear him.

  15. JR says:

    My blog post on this: http://jr2020.blogspot.ca/2013/05/daniel-pipes-and-salim-mansur.html

    See Fred Litwin’s (GayandRight) comment.

  16. […] Exibit 1: “I am not sure if Father de Souza realized the dark irony of the situation. The Muslim “understanding” of the Pope’s message was limited to organizing an interfaith conference in Europe, because the filthy kafirs, Christians and Jews, can’t be allowed into the citadel of the Muslim barbarism. And he considers this “progress”. It’s no wonder that Christians in many countries feel betrayed by the cowardly behaviour of their clerics.” […]

  17. […] the fraction of jihadists vis-à-vis the Muslim ummah, but Pipes himself has proposed a figure of 10 to 15 percent [15], which yields at minimum a 150,000,000-strong militia out to get us. On the Muslim scale, a […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *