WATCH VIDEO: MSNBC Panelist Says ‘Allahu Akbar’ NYC Jihad Attack Was ‘Anti-Islamic’

25

Here we go. In the wake of every jihad attack, the enemedia’s first and foremost job is to scrub and whitewash Islam, and make sure no one thinks that jihad is anything but wonderful. This is ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

“MSNBC Panelist: ‘Allahu Akbar’ NYC Terror Attack Was ‘Anti-Islamic’ [VIDEO],” by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, October 31, 2017 (thanks to Inexion):

Story continues below advertisement

MSNBC contributor Malcolm Nance stated Tuesday that the suspected Islamist terror attack in New York City was an “anti-Islamic” attack.

Nance stated, “It is evil. What it is is you’re seeing the physical manifestation of a cult ideology. And what you’re seeing is not Islam, whatsoever. None of this is condoned, including the sacrificing and getting yourself killed at the end of a terrorist attack. None of that is Islamic, it’s anti-Islamic. And what you’re seeing is these people have created a belief system in which mass murder, as we saw on 9/11, and as we’ve seen all throughout the Middle East, they kill more Muslims than anybody else.”…

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave
Dave
6 years ago

Is Nance dissembling, or is he ignorant of the Koran, or is he just stupid?

Mahou Shoujo
Mahou Shoujo
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

“Stupid” seems to describe him fairly well.

Liatris Spicata
Liatris Spicata
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Dave,

You seem to assume that the three categories you list are mutually exclusive. It is possible to be a stupid, ignorant liar, you know. Just sayin’

Daniel FX Dravot
Daniel FX Dravot
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Yes.

edD
ed
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I’ll take (D), all of the above.

Sunshine Kid
Sunshine Kid
6 years ago
Reply to  ed

Just remember that all Democrats have the ‘D’ attached, which stands for Disturbed, Deluded, and Deplorable. This means that all Democrats are “3D”.

turkeychoker
turkeychoker
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

He probably knows his audience is. But who are they? The ones who keep his ratings somewhat acceptable.he don`t care about us,we`re the deplorable s.

joc22D
joc22
6 years ago
Reply to  Dave

I believe all 3

Andy
Andy
6 years ago

MSNBC seems to be on a mission to prove all blacks are morons!

Ziggy46
Ziggy46
6 years ago

This guy is either and apologist, naive, deluded or most likely, an absolute imbecile. Not unlike the MSM’s talking-heads asking, “what was this guy’s motive?” Doh! De Blasio without his Quran in hand attempted to sound tough, along with Cuomo both did a fine impression of Dumb and Dumber. The Democrats, Schumer, in particular, will try their best to make political hay out of this heinous terrorist act. This is the end result of the Democrats, the parasitical left and the judiciary’s never-ending attacks on Trump’s policies. They would rather grasp a power-base than keep America secure.

Glyn Morgan
Glyn Morgan
6 years ago

Imbecilic and moronic are only two one word descriptions applicable to this gentlemans rant. President Trump seems to have every idiot in America trying to tell him how to do his job. This guy , whatever his job is does not have the brains to give advice to or tell anybody what jihad is all about . He probably hasn’t even read any part of the unglorius Quoran Just another islam apologist, willing to say anything to garner some support for his future ambitions ,whatever they may be.

Mahou Shoujo
Mahou Shoujo
6 years ago

Malcolm Nance is an imbecile, trash like him are what give blacks a bad name. How stupid can these “contributors get”? The fool know nothing about contemporary society and absolutely nothing about islam. ” None of this is condoned, including the sacrificing and getting yourself killed at the end of a terrorist attack”. That is the uneducated opinion of a hack who has no clue about islam or the qur’an. ”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair.
We shall fight as long as we live.
We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet.
We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains.
We have mutilated every opponent.
We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam.
We will fight until our religion is established.
and we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
6 years ago
Reply to  Mahou Shoujo

R U sure your translation is accurate? R U sure the word “fight” shouldn’t be more really accurately translated as hug? Sarcastically speaking that is.

BEVERLEY HUGHES
BEVERLEY HUGHES
6 years ago

The more they say “Its nothing to do with islam” the more pill popping red pillers pop up.

Ichabod Crain
Ichabod Crain
6 years ago

They just make this stuff up, or they have heard it somewhere and think it sounds like a virtuous thing to say. What idiots, who never make the slightest effort to learn what Islam is.

Michael Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
6 years ago

I think I know what he was trying to say, but he said it stupidly, and Ms. Geller was right to call him out on this.
Saying that ISIS is “anti-Islamic” because their main victims are other Muslims, is like saying that the beheadings of Catholics by Protestants (and of Protestants by Catholics, let’s be equal-opportunity here) that were common 400 years ago, are “anti-Christian” because their main victims are othe Christians.
The Protestants felt Catholics were “un-Christian.” Catholics felt the same way about Protestants. As a result, they both killed each other — as well as, of course, Jews, and heretics, and pagans. Basically, they were all making a “no true Scotsman” argument, which is a logical fallacy.
Nance’s position is that “no true Muslim” would support ISIS, because bla bla bla…. but the truth is, SOME of them do, and even if those ISIS supporters are not the majority (statistics are scant), they DO call themselves Muslims, they DO worship in mosques where preachers call for jihad from the pulpits, and so on. It does not make them any less Muslim to say that most of their victims are Muslims, or that many if not most Muslims disagree with and reject the ISIS philosophy. The Shi’ite jihadists sponsored by Iran see the Sunni jihadists of ISIS as their mortal enemy, and vice versa. They are both still jihadists. All of this remained unsaid in Nance’s stupid comment.

created4elD
created4el
6 years ago
Reply to  Michael Jacobs

@Michael Jacobs- Christianity (whether Protestant or Catholic) does not have a doctrine to kill the heretic. So killing of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa is not Christian at all but anti-Christian.

However, Islamic doctrine mandates the killing of heretics. In the eyes of the Muslim killing a Muslim, the Muslim who is doing the killing views the Muslim who is being killed as a heretic and thus a non-Muslim. This is very Islamic. (Quran 4:89, 9:11-12, 2:217, and others, as well as Sahih Bukari 52:260 and many other haddiths)

As for Shiite versus Sunni… see my above paragraph. Each view the other as a heretic and thus should be killed. For the Muslim, there is dar al Islam (the world under control of Islam) and dar al harb (the world that is resisting Islam and thus at war with Islam). All non-Muslims and heretic-Muslims are mortal enemies of the “true” Muslims that must either be killed or subjugated.

Michael Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
6 years ago
Reply to  created4el

With all respect, sir — and I assume you are looking at this through a Christian believer’s eyes, given your handle — you are absolutely wrong. Exodus 22:18 teaches, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” You may protest this is an Old Testament rule, but the Old Testament IS part of the Christian Bible, and was indeed relied upon by Church authorities in conducting ecclesiastical witch-burnings all through the Middle Ages, right through the Salem Witch Trials in the 17th century. This is a firm part of Christian tradition. And saying “that’s not Christian” just means you are committing the same “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy that Muslims do when they protest that ISIS and other violent jihadist terrorists are “not Islamic.”

Further, it is a naive mistake to look only to the TEXT of a religion’s holy scripture to determine what they hold as doctrine, without looking also at what its scholars and clerics interpret that doctrine to be, and put into actual practice. This is true not only of Christianity and Islam and Judaism but any other as well.

I’m not saying Christians today burn heretics and witches. Far from it. But that’s the whole point. Christianity — at least, most parts of it — has moved beyond the stark, violent, literalist interpretation of bloody violent commandments in the Bible and we no longer see Jews or Christians stoning adulteresses, for instance, or plucking out the eyes of someone who injured somebody elsse’s eye — assuming anyone ever did any such thing, and that “an eye for an eye” wasn’t ALWAYS a metaphorical, poetic command instead, to pay the BLOOD PRICE as compensation for damaging another, just as modern tort law requires the at-fault party to do in a car crash.

I understand your desire to defend your religion, and to repudiate its long-ago history of violent literal enforcement. I’m just also asking you to understand that there are some, and need to be more, Muslims who feel the same way about THEIR religion. Those are the ones we need to encourage and support, as allies, against the violent jihadists. It is the jihadists who are the enemy of civilization, not to tar with a broad brush ALL Muslims without differentiation.

IzlamIsTyranny
IzlamIsTyranny
6 years ago
Reply to  Michael Jacobs

Dishonest dimbulb, muslums in Soddy Barbaria have executed women and men for practicing witchcraft and sorcery in the 21st century.
They also don’t allow Jews in their holey kingdom.

Michael Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
6 years ago
Reply to  IzlamIsTyranny

I’m perfectly aware of that, Mr. Tyranny. I’m not here to offer any excuses for atrocities being committed in the name of Islam. But why does that have anything to do with recognizing that, at least in the 400-year-ago past, Christians did exactly the same thing, in the name of Christianity? In either case, saying “That’s not TRUE Islam” or “That’s not TRUE Christianity” is a logically fallacious, “No True Scotsman” type of argument. Do you even know what we were talking about? While calling me a liar, do you have any interest whatsoever in pursuing the truth, or simply offering “alternative facts” favoring your (Christian, Western) side that are equally propagandistic? I should think a “true” seeker of justice and truth would examine the evidence, no matter where it led. Oh, gee, there I go making that “No True Scotsman” argument myself! I guess you are a seeker after truth, after all!

created4elD
created4el
6 years ago
Reply to  Michael Jacobs

@Michael Jacobs – I understand how you read Exodus 22:18. And I understand that this was used to justify many atrocities. But if you step back and understand who this was being stated to and where it was to apply and then understand the message Jesus had regarding a Christian passing judgment on someone they considered undesirable then you should see the reason why today’s Christians do not kill witches or heretics. It is because doing so goes against the Bible’s overall message.

The context of the writings in Exodus is God’s word to Moses as they were headed out towards the promised land. God called the Jews to be holy. They were headed to a land that was filled with a people who were being judged by God (at the time of Abraham in Genesis 15:16, the Lord explains that He wasn’t ready to pass judgment on the Amorites’ sin yet). So the Law that was given was so the Israelites would not allow themselves to be influenced to sin like the Amorites and Canaanites. And as in the example of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus says the one who is without sin can pass judgement but since none is sinless no one is to pass judgement. So given that Exodus 22 was given to the Israelites as they were going to the promised land and Jesus’ teaching on condemning sinners, it is hard to argue that a Christian should condemn/kill sinners.

“It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.” (1 Cor 5:12 NLT)
According to Paul, judging and what follows as condemning of non-Christians is not what Christians are called to do. Those who would kill a suspected witch or a heretic or a homosexual or an abortion clinic doctor are really going directly against scripture. I mention heretic here because Christians are to judge those inside the church and at some point a heretic is inside the church but the action isn’t to kill the heretic but to treat them as a non-Christian hence they change the status of a heretic as one who is outside the church.

Again, I’m not saying that “Christians” don’t try to use various verses, even today, to justify acts of terrorism, i.e. those who believe in bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors, but this does go against scripture. For them to apply verses in the Old Testament to bomb an abortion clinic and/or kill a doctor performing abortions while ignoring that they should be killing the adulterers, both man and woman, as well shows an inconsistency in how they apply scripture. Their error betrays them as they don’t apply all of the verses to kill more people as well as the fact that they don’t live according to Levitical law which the New Testament repeatedly explains that we are no longer bound to live under. And as in the 1 Cor 5:12, killing for the sake of “upholding” something from the Old Testament goes directly against Christian scriptures.

Seeing what scholars say can be helpful. But it is also important to recognize that a scholar and also “church tradition”, which is something the Catholic church relies on, is not infallible. And in some religions, the use of taqiya to give disinformation so that people outside of the religion would not resist the religion’s spread makes relying on those scholars a dubious exercise.

In the case of Christianity, the progression away from forced conversion and killing suspected witches is a Christianity that is due to a better alignment with scripture I believe this is because more people are actually able to read and study the Bible today than in those days. In many ways, assuming the reliability of Islamic scripture, the growth of what we see as Islamic extremism is an Islam that is adhering more closely with Islamic scriptures. So Christians are adhering more closely to Christian scripture and that results in less violence. But Islam adhering more closely to Islamic scripture is resulting in more violence.

You seem to be under the impression that the issue of Christian violence is due to a literal reading of Christian scripture. What I am trying to express is that your impression is not a correct conclusion to the cause of Christianity’s move away from violence. Hopefully you are able to follow what I am trying to present.

There are heretical Islamic groups in Islam that try to argue that the violence of Muhammad’s time was necessary but doesn’t apply today. But this is an opinion not supported by scripture but out of a desire to not be so violent. It’s not clear to me that these people who use this argument to re-brand Islam as non-violent or non-political are actually sincere in what they express or if they are merely using taqiya in an effort to give an impression that Islam can coexist with non-Muslims. Looking at the 99% of Muslims (essentially all mainstream Sunni and Shii) it is pretty clear that the scripture that they hold as orthodox very clearly justify what we see in many Muslim majority countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) where non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens, homosexuals are persecuted, women and even girls are treated as property, etc. And the belief that Islam is to gain superiority over the non-Muslims, political Islam, is a prime directive.

In other words, to assume that because Christians “progressed” from persecuted to violent persecutor to non-violent therefor Islam can do the same ignores both Christian history and doctrine as well as Islamic history and doctrine. There is a reason why there are so few Christians who justify acts of violence according to Christian scriptures. And there is a reason why a significant group, albeit a minority but even at 10% the number is huge, who “misunderstand” or “hijack” Islam. And there is a reason that all of the “misunderstanders” of Islam misunderstand Islam in exactly the same way. This is not an accident. The last study that I saw regarding what Muslims believe indicates to me that greater than 50% of Muslims actually agree with orthodox islamic teaching which is not a western view of peaceful coexistence but the political Islam that is articulated in the Islamic scripture… everything from blasphemy laws, i.e. anything the non-Muslims say that puts Islam in a bad light is blasphemy even if it is true and even if you are quoting an Islamic imam, to apostasy laws, etc. And the number goes higher if you include those who don’t really want to live under sharia but still want some sharia compliance, such as enforcement of blasphemy laws but not full sharia implementation.

I’d love to believe that Muslims can re-interpret the Islamic scriptures and that “Islam” could become mainstream. But there really is no justification to believe that what these Muslims wish to do and expect that what they try to believe is actually still Islam but merely heretical.

Michael Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
6 years ago
Reply to  created4el

An after thought (second reply here) — You make a point that Islam is a triumphalist and supremacist religion whose ultimate goal and desire is to have the entire world converted to its beliefs, or, at least, to have all other religions kowtow to its dominance and be allowed to survive only by the grace of their Muslim rulers.

This is all true; but, do you not realize that Christianity does exactly the same thing? These two religions are both triumphalist and supremacist and therefore both have historically made strenuous efforts to proselytize, missionize, and convert globally.

They did this sometimes violently, sometimes by persuasion or good example, but the point is that both Islam and Christianity have a vision of an ideal future society (the End Times, or Messianic Era) in which the whole world will follow THEIR doctrines, and that will bring world peace once everyone else says, “Oh, yeah, you were right!”

Often, in practice, this means suppression of competing doctrines, as in the Catholic-vs-Protestant or Sunni-vs-Shi’ite conflict — which, whether violent or not at any given time and place, are both true and deeply-rooted anathema to each other in their approach to what each considers the “true” religion internally, as well as in relation to other, non-Christian, non-Islamic religious sects.

created4elD
created4el
6 years ago
Reply to  Michael Jacobs

“Christianity does the same thing?” Do you actually mean people who call themselves “Christian” have done and perhaps still do horrible things? My question to you is do you differentiate what behavior and thinking is biblical versus what is not and using the Bible as the gauge to determine what is Christian behavior or not? If the Bible says not to steal and I steal then am I following the scriptures or going against it? If I go against scripture then am I a Christ follower or an anti-Christ?
Can you cite examples of Christians doing what Muslims do and saying allahu Jesus and justifying their actions from Biblical scriptures? If you are saying that there is a biblical basis for doing the things that you claim, then what verses are these?

You mention what will happen in the end times and that the Muslim end times and Christian end times look the same to you. I can understand that you would think so. They are actually different but I don’t think we need to go down that path. I’d just like to point out that you are making an assumption that I think is mistaken in that you are assuming that the Christian vision of end times is achieved by Christians going out and subjugating the non-Christians. If that were the case, you’d see scriptures commanding that Christians go out and subjugate the non-Christians. But this type of teaching is only in Islamic scriptures. That is what makes Islam unique to all other religions in that Islam isn’t a religion but a religio-political doctrine defining all aspects of life from the way one goes to the bathroom and prays to how they are to go and subjugate the infidels.

As for “suppression of competing doctrines”… Catholics and Protestants have the same core doctrine which is the Bible. The Catholic-Protestant feud was not a difference because of New Testament doctrine because the Catholic and Protestant New Testaments are the same. The real issue between Catholics and Protestants was for political power and as part of that, being able to correct an errant pope who is misusing his powers of authority. Today, a Protestant can get along with Catholics because they aren’t fighting each other for political power and the Catholic church has accepted that Protestantism is here to stay. The debate between them is Sola Scriptura (Scriptures as sole authority) versus man’s traditions having authority to supercede scriptures which includes endorsing heresies such as the concept of an indolence where a person can purchase a way out of purgatory for a dead relative and praying to things that aren’t God such as praying to Mary or other saints which is idolatry.

The Sunni-Shiite conflict isn’t a fight for competing doctrines either. Their fight is also for political power. They use the same Quran. But because they disagree on the succession of power after Muhammad’s death, they have been fighting since Muhammad’s death. And because of this rift between them, they don’t agree on the same haddiths as having authority but there is overlap of some of the haddiths that are accepted as authoritative by both further confirming what I asserted which is that the Sunni-Shiite conflict isn’t about competing doctrines but about succession of power.

Kuffar
Kuffar
6 years ago

The MSM sticks to the talking points no matter how STUPID it makes them look. What a tool.

created4elD
created4el
6 years ago

“It’s a cult ideology… It’s not Islam…” I wish he would articulate what verses from the Quran or haddith disavow killing people or being killed for jihad. Then again, that just might expose him for who he really is. How ________ does one have to be to say that ISIS’ proclamations of what scriptures they use to justify their acts has nothing to do with Islamic scriptures? Or is it that the Isam he is thinking about has nothing to do with Islamic scriptures which is why taking Islamic scriptures to justify your actions has nothing to do with Islam?

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!