Two steps forward, one step back. I have heard now that Jihad Watch is available in most sites where I had learned last week that it was banned, but it is, I'm told, still banned in other places -- including Wright Patterson Air Force Base (only as of last week), and Marriott Hotels (where the ban apparently applies to company computers, not to those of guests).
A thought experiment: if I pointed out that Catholicism considered contraception sinful, which led some (but not all, or even a majority) of Catholics to eschew contraception, would this be "hate speech"? Would it mean that I hate Catholics? Would I be a "Catholophobe" (there's a new one)? If I noted that Buddhism focuses on attaining a spiritual state, a state of consciousness, and not on building a kingdom in this world, would that be a statement of hatred for Buddhists and Buddhism or a statement of fact?
Likewise, when I take note of the fact that jihadists can and do point to Islam's teachings of warfare against unbelievers in order to make recruits and justify their actions, it is not an act of hatred. It is a statement of fact. Nor is it an act of hatred to ask peaceful Muslims to acknowledge the existence of these traditional teachings, and work toward some new way they can be understood in order to minimize their capacity to incite violence. This is actually a rather commonplace observation that follows naturally from an awareness of the martial traditions that are deeply embedded in the Qur'an, the life and teachings of Muhammad, and the rulings of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
But imagine if the leading Catholic groups in the country maintained that there was no Catholic prohibition on contraception, and anyone who said there was must be an anti-Catholic bigot. That is the state of unreality that prevails in the public discourse today, keeping the problem of Islamic jihad from being discussed in many fora -- and getting this site banned in various places.
But not all are quietly agreeing to wear the intellectual straitjacket that is being thrust upon us, and for that I am grateful. Bruce Thornton, author of Greek Ways, writes:
Common sense tells us that Khomeini and the other modern jihadists know their own faith and its doctrines, and are speaking squarely in that tradition, as can be documented from the Koran, Hadiths, and subsequent Muslim theologians, jurists, and other commentators.... All these sources tell us that jihad indeed is the imperative to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed, who said in his farewell address: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.'"Modern jihadists, then, aren't "heretics" or "fanatics" who have "highjacked" the "religion of peace" in order to compensate for their neurotic "humiliation" at Muslim backwardness. Bin Laden and his lieutenant Aymin Al Zawahiri have issued many writings that define their terrorist war as a traditional jihad, backing up their argument with numerous references to Islamic theology and jurisprudence. In a few weeks The Al Qaeda Reader will be published, Library of Congress researcher Raymond Ibrahim's translation of the most significant Al Qaeda treatises, many of which have not appeared before in English. This promises to be one of the most important books since 9/11, a critical resource for accurately understanding the motives of Al Qaeda. These writings, especially those intended for Muslims, ground the war against the West squarely in the Islamic tradition of jihad: "Zawahiri's writings," Ibrahim notes, "especially are grounded in Islam's roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran, the Sunna of Muhammad, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema [past and present commentators and interpreters of Islamic belief and practice]."
Even the killing of women and children is argued for on the basis of that same tradition, which provides traction for rationalizations based on Islamic military weakness, sophistic definitions of "innocence," and the oft-repeated injunction to kill all infidels. This interpretation may be erroneous, but the mere fact that it can be argued for at all, and accepted by many Muslims, is itself significant. And such an interpretation is possible because there already exists the doctrine of jihad, which glorifies and justifies violence against non-believers. This helps to answer the obvious question why other ex-colonial peoples supposedly "humiliated" by their failure to keep up with the powerful West have not resorted to terrorist violence.
Again, it beggars belief that a Zawahiri or a Khomeini is distorting his faith's traditions and dogmas, particularly when millions of Muslims world-wide agree with those traditional interpretations. Are we to think those millions don't know their own religion? That they are dupes of manipulators and distorters? Or is it rather the case that they know very well their faith and see Bin Laden et al. as traditionalists attempting to restore to Islam the doctrinal purity that fueled Islam's remarkable conquests? Perhaps this agreement with the so-called "Islamists" explains the dearth of protests against these presumed "distortions" on the part of all those "moderate" Muslims we keep hearing about.
No, it is we who are the dupes of distorters, all those apologists, propagandists, and Western useful idiots who obscure the truth of Islam and its history. And they are successful: Washington Times columnist Diana West, writing on July 6 about Robert Spencer's important web-site jihadwatch.org, reports that "very ominously, Mr. Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he's 'never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once.' These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government." Why? "Some Internet providers deem the factually based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be 'hate speech.'"
This is the pass that we have come to: facts about the motives of an enemy sworn to our destruction are censored as "hate speech." This betrayal of the truth demonstrates perfectly the West's self-loathing failure of nerve that confirms the enemy's belief in his spiritual superiority-- and his ultimate victory.
And here is an editorial in the Washington Times, "Unblock Jihad Watch":
In the last few weeks, e-mails began trickling to Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer that his Web site had been blocked on the senders' office computers as "hate speech." The same blocking was also happening in some instances against the site memri.org, a translator of Arabic-language media. The sites are being blocked by private firms such as General Electric and JPMorgan Chase, plus a few state and local government agencies, whose filtering services had somehow decided the sites were "hate speech.""Hate speech" exists on these sites, all right, but not the kind that filters should be blocking -- not as long as there exist doubletalkers who say all the right things in English but breathe anti-Western fire in Arabic. These sites shed much-needed light on this phenomenon, and as long as private firms are allowing political content on office computers, they should not be duped into blocking some. How they got blocked in the first place is a story of political correctness run amok. But it is also a story of what happens when citizens speak out in opposition.
First, the good news. Over the last four days, blocks have been lifted at Fidelity Investments, Whirlpool and a handful of other major companies, Mr. Spencer reports, following a wave of complaints by users. The complaints trigger a corporate reality check, which causes some to reconsider. "People need to realize that this kind of filtering is politicized, just like anything else. Leftists will be willing to use filtering services" just like any other medium, Mr. Spencer says. Various and sundry pro-Islamist Internet opinionists slap the "hate speech" label repeatedly, hope it sticks and sometimes, it does. But with a counter-campaign, their work can be undone.
The other piece of good news is that federal agencies, especially the ones we'd most like to read such material, have not been duped. The sites are available on computers at the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and the State Department, according to our correspondents. Whether they are actually read there is a separate matter with a likely depressing answer. But at least the material is available.
We don't doubt that the corporate blockers do their blocking in many cases unwittingly through politically unsavvy filtering services which in turn find themselves on the receiving end of various political campaigns. All these companies simply want to avoid social or political controversy.
But it is not really possible to avoid taking a position here, irrespective of these firms' rights to block whatever they choose to, as long as the policy is fair and consistent. Essentially, these firms must either block all political speech -- and we would counsel strongly against this heavy-handedness -- or they would need to allow a wide range of material through, with only very obviously pornographic or incendiary material being blocked.
With any other approach, firms will be caught in the type of politicization that Jihad Watch and MEMRI know all too well. It does not serve anyone's interests.
lt would be quite logical that someone at Homeland Sercurity would be reading this site. if the average Joe on the Street can read this, surely someone of inteligence would be using this site. With information of JW going to these companies, and even thought blocked for a small time, the unblocking and education is well worth the headache of unblocking. Good news all the way around Robert!
No doubt Jimmi Catta and Al Saud Prince Turki and Grover Norquist are behind the ban.
Keep em stupid and in the dark, eh Ibrahim ?
Those whom the "gods" would destroy, they first make blind.
God bless the West.
The benefit of publicizing the banning will be greater than the benefit that would have occurred if the site were universally accepted and the banning never happened.
The truth is discomfiting.
Good, this will attract more attention to JW.
Keep up the good work!
"Likewise, when I take note of the fact that jihadists can and do point to Islam's teachings of warfare against unbelievers in order to make recruits and justify their actions, it is not an act of hatred".-Robert
Re: gag rules
One day what you are saying will be considered ho-hum obvious. You will get a laugh when you hear people say, "Spencer did not accomplish anything, he merely pointed out the obvious".
----------------------
The reactions to JW and Spencer remind me of the reactions to William Lloyd Garrison's anti-slavery Liberator Magazine of the 19th century. Garrison was so effective in his critical analysis re slavery that "gag rules" were instituted in congress (partly because of him) and elsewhere to silence people like him. (Former president John Quincy Adams fought the "gag rules" in congress.) John C. Calhoun and others wanted Garrison style critical analysis banned from the public square (they were effective in the Old South) and endeavored to ban such literature from the post system because it created "divisions" and was "agitation". Now Garrison's point of view appears so reasonable, his critical analysis exactly truthful-obvious.
I guess it's true that "the more things change, the more they remain the same". But no amount of gag rules will change the truth. Truth is not relative. 1 + 1 = 2.
Any word on how the site is being blocked from these places. Web Washer seems to have cleaned up its act, so is it some other software, or what?
I think this blocking of JW has turned out as a blessing in disguise.
The net effect is journalists and editors have wrote about it, more people are aware of JW's existence, more people are aware that JW exposes Jihadic tendencies in Islam and it has made more people think about Western values and what we hold dear.
I e-mailed "The Washington Times" and commented "Great Editorial - Unblock Jihad Watch!"
I also said how I believed I had a hand in Fidelity Investments reversing their censorship as I e-mailed them saying I would never do business with them if they continued in their policy of blocking JW.
The 'ol hit 'em where it hurts - pocketbook. Or, do you think FI just suddenly realized the immense importance of Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch?(snicker!)
Chalk up one big victory to Jihadwatch!
And freedom of information.
Certainly anyone that objects to the content of jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch is welcome to comment on what they specifically object to, however they should be prepared to validate their argument against this site with other commenters.
Yesterday FOX News invited people to Email or send in videos' with any questions that they may have for presidential candidates. The question that is formost in my mind.
Question: --When I go to the polls,I want to vote for a president who has a working knowledge of the Islamic religion,the Qu'ran and a understanding of its Ideology. If you want to be President, do you think this is a very important knowledge and understanding to have in this dangerous world?
Robert Spencer continuously points out that the mandates to Jihad violence, Jew-hating, the orders to deceive the unbeliever ("War is deception"), etc., are all direct orders from God as taken down by Muhammad in the Quran. The Quran (unlike other religions' holy books) is not considered "inspired" writing (it's not like the book of Joshua), but is allegedly direct dictation from God, and is therefore much less open to interpretation.
The chronologically last order in the Quran is not good news for Unbelievers. That's a fact. Yet, many Muslims pretend that that is not so by quoting "peaceful" passages from the Quran that they know are abrogated by later ones that mandate violence against anyone who resists Islamic domination. Many Muslims quote abrogated passages to dodge the truth and fool the unbeliever. (The Quran is set up longest verses to shortest, but what counts in terms of mandate is the chronological order of the verses. For example, wine is considered good in one passage, but the permission to drink alcohol is abrogated by a chronologically later passage.)
All this is a big problem for many Muslims and non-Muslims. The Jihadists can turn to "moderate Muslims" and say: what don't you understand about a direct order from God? The moderates are left like Jackie Gleason in the Honeymooners saying "hummana, hummmana, hummana" and have not a leg to stand on. Everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim ,have to face the facts on this, the truth of this. 1 + 1 = 2.
That's what Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are about. We must all face the facts on this.
I loved the logic of the artical. Khomeini knows more about Islam than John Dean or Cindy Shehan. Then why would anyone listen to the multiculural left.
It was the Mariott Hotel where the terrorists stayed in 2001 with a Saudi minister.
Maybe they just want to appeae their attackers.
Jerusalem Posts-
I think the Marriott hotels are owned by the Mormons. Don't go in any caves (Joseph Smith, Muhammad, e.g.). It can cause God to talk to you. I wish God would stop talking to guys in caves and get on CNN, Fox, etc. and clear things up once and for all.
I have sent an email off to some of the higher up people I know at Wright-Patterson in the administration and the educational departments, asking why Jihad Watch was blocked, and requesting the block be removed.
In it, I stressed the vital importance that our troops be properly educated on the Islamofascists and their motivations; I will keep you abreast of any correspondence I receive from them.
I have sent an email off to some of the higher up people I know at Wright-Patterson in the administration and the educational departments, asking why Jihad Watch was blocked, and requesting the block be removed.
In it, I stressed the vital importance that our troops be properly educated on the Islamofascists and their motivations; I will keep you abreast of any correspondence I receive from them.
This Al Qaeda Reader will be important for us who are interested in finding ways to ban Islam in the US based on our Constitution.
This could be the inroad for legislative action!
I tried to locate link to FOX News where questions are elicited for putting to the candidates but could not locate. If someone finds it, please post.
I did find a link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19679395/
to an MSNBC site with same purpose.
I think it would be worthwhile to have as many people write in to these folks as possible so that we can get the candidates to understand we want to know, and we need to know, the extent to which they have educated themslves about Islam, Mohammed, and jihadist idealogy. I sent my question in. A few more along those lines just might get someones attention
Let our people blog!!!
ps-What those who would block Jihad watch are playing into is the Islamic 20-point plan to conquer the United States by the year 2020-- and #1 on the tactic list to accomplish this conquering of America is to replace America's freedom of speech with hate-crime bills nationwide.
Indeed the very JUSTIFICATION for blocking access to Jihad Watch has been that Jihad Watch is "hate speech."
"Hate speech?" - That's Muslims!
"Behead anyone who insults Islam" - Yep, that's "Hate speech."
darcy-
You are exactly right, darcy. But you have a mind that loves the truth. It's not always an advantage-so be very clever when dealing with scumbags. There is a lot a bumper sticker ("Islamaphobia" crap) out there.
Never allow Muslims to introduce blasphemy laws ... it is the death of your own culture.
I got this from poster 'James Marte'. I copied what he had posted the other day because I thought it was good and to the point. The point I am making with what he said above is that they (the enemy) will use the idea of 'hate speech' as a form of blasphemy laws. Be on your guard!
I do agree that most of the blockings were done stupidly and without any logical reason. Lets hope that JW receives a lot of publicity because of this.
PS I wish I could link back to his comments but the search function on JW seems to be slow or limited to only the articles not the comments
Is it true that United States Military bases are blocking the ability to know your own enemy?
As a three war, combat veteran and proud member of anti-terrorism forces, I am infuriated that our military's commanders are purposly blocking our soldiers ability to educate themselves so that a full knowledge of thier own enemies is unable to be obtained.
I am unable to comprehend this.
pythagoras and darcy are exactly correct and why JW has been banned.
Maybe the companies are afraid of getting their heads chopped off. Wussies......
Freedom of Thought wins another one.
The thought of banning Robert against losing all that Left Wing Bamboozling was just too much to Bear!
Political Correctness takes a big one on the Chin.
They are not shadows from the street lights that spook us anymore. Soothing words no longer bring comfort.
When writing is blocked, you must wander if the banners fear that the literature is true and thus overwhelming? This happens over and over again. Look at the Soviet Union for example.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG..Comments in Tuesday's opinion page 7-10-2007 in San Bernardino Daily Bulletin. Dateline Anaheim California CAIR..
Religious freedom key to peaceful world.
In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines, it is important to remember that democratic nations have an obligation to let all people practice their religions without any intimidation, harassment or discrimination. Freedom to practice one's faith and respect for religious freedom are key to ensuring a more peaceful and tolerant world.
MUNIRA SYEDA
Council on American-Islamic Relations,
Southern California, Anaheim
Commenting on all things Tom Cruise and Scientology. Truly a hard core Infidel in the hard core Jihadist world.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG..Comments in Tuesday's opinion page 7-10-2007 in San Bernardino Daily Bulletin. Dateline Anaheim California CAIR..
Religious freedom key to peaceful world.
In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines, it is important to remember that democratic nations have an obligation to let all people practice their religions without any intimidation, harassment or discrimination. Freedom to practice one's faith and respect for religious freedom are key to ensuring a more peaceful and tolerant world.
MUNIRA SYEDA
Council on American-Islamic Relations,
Southern California, Anaheim
Commenting on all things Tom Cruise and Scientology. Truly a hard core Infidel in the hard core Jihadist world.
Just out of interest, am I still banned from this site?
Ah, I see, must have been temporary censorship then.
Frank, thank you for that compliment - "You have a mind that loves the truth." Which is one of the nicest compliments I've ever received! Much MUCH more meaningful than "You're pretty," or "What a nice dress!"
Oh, yes, must be on tippy-toes ("clever") when dealing with the enemy ("scumbags"). Never NEVER let your guard down.
The ignorant-of-Islam Americans who never heard of "taqiyya?" - they are entering an arena without weapons, the imbeciles. While the Muslims are all fully armed.
What's the story behind the story?
Who is telling these companies to block JW? Do you smell a rotting CAIR at work? Any insiders who want to share a clue as to the people behind the censor curtain? Any copies of e-mails claiming "hate speech"?
Conspiranistas, here is your chance to uncover a real conspiracy to take away our civil liberties...thruthers for free speech!
from Infidel Brotherhood, quoting MUNIRA SYEDA of
Council on American-Islamic Relations,
Southern California, Anaheim:
"In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines, it is important to remember that democratic nations have an obligation to let all people practice their religions without any intimidation, harassment or discrimination. Freedom to practice one's faith and respect for religious freedom are key to ensuring a more peaceful and tolerant world."
Did he think it would escape our notice, in this statement seeming to endorse religious pluralism, that he specifically said "democratic nations have an obligation..."
Not "nations" in general have such an obligation but rather "democratic nations" have such an obligation. That implies that Islamic nations have no such obligation.
Munira - besides being a snake oil salesman - you're wrong. The beauty of a democracy is that we can change our laws, should we eventually decide to - in order to allow all faiths BUT Islam to freely practice their religion. We haven't gotten there yet but we probably will. Democratic nations have no "obligation" to permit people to practice their faith when such practice would jeapordize the ability of everyone else living within that democracy to freely practice THEIR faiths.
One thing more on topic that I did want to add is that I just adore Bruce Thornton's essays, especially about anything Islam related. I wish he wrote more on the topic. Besides being smart and blessed with an abundance of common sense, the man has just 'got a way' with words.
What is probably behind the ban on JW and similar sites is a response to complaints from Muslim advocacy associations to these organizations (if not at the base filter corporation).
The bottom line is money. They do business in the Islamic world and they have probably done their sums. Take for example Citibank. A Saudi owns it in large part. I would be very interested to find out what is happening there as far as this censorship goes.
Lastly, there is also the possible threat of violence, which cows these people into submission. See for example what happened after the Danish cartoons and how almost no newspapers in the West printed them.
Thanks Caroline for bringing out Munira's slippery SLEAZE. What about his comment "In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines," Most the fuss seems to be about Islam these days. The more we learn about the Truth about Muhammad the more all fellow, so called infidels, SHOULD become Intolerant and Bigoted and Devisive against this so called religion. Otherwise as they proclaim..In Islam only will he find the seeds of future triumph-all other religious, philosophical and political systems will have collapsed. One God, one Book, one Prophet. I would add no free conscience. Of course that's the whole idea.
Infidel Brotherhood: What about his comment "In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines,"...
Good eye IB. I didn't notice that. Think about that statement and how really sleazy that is! No - this is not a world where religion, generically speaking, so frequently makes news headlines! If other religions frequently make news headlines - other religions like Buddhism and Judaism and Assyrian Christians, and Coptic Christians etc, - it is primarily because these are all the victims of the global Muslim jihad.
But that one statement you quoted ought to actually be studied in depth by those wanting to perfect the art of disimulation and propoganda. It's a real piece of work!