CAIR is so bent on defaming me that it has resorted to lying about me on national television, endorsing ludicrous libelous screeds full of fevered fictions fashioned by felons, and siccing its lawyers (who also defamed me) on a group that dared to have me speak even before I had said a word.
And now we have this from CAIR’s “American Muslim News Briefs” for today. In it, CAIR asks me some questions. Unlike Ibrahim Hooper, who hung up on me when I tried to ask him questions, I will answer them:
ROBERT SPENCER’S WEBSITE SUPPORTS EXPULSION OF EUROPE’S MUSLIMS – TOP
QUESTIONS FOR ROBERT SPENCER:
1. IS IT ‘JIHAD WATCH’ OR ‘DER STÃœRMER’?
It’s Jihad Watch.
2. WHO IS THE MYSTERIOUS ‘HUGH FITZGERALD’?
Vice President of the Jihad Watch Board and Jihad Watch columnist.
3. DOES ROBERT SPENCER CALL FOR A SIMILAR EXPULSION OF U.S. MUSLIMS?
Since Hugh Fitzgerald did not call for the expulsion of all European Muslims, but only raises the question of what is to be done about — as you can see from the excerpt below — “jihadists and Sharia supremacists,” the question itself is manipulative and leading, rather like “When did you stop beating your wife?” Hugh hasn’t done what they say he has, so I can hardly do something “similar.” In any case, no, I don’t support the expulsion of U.S. Muslims.
Here is the excerpt CAIR quotes from Hugh’s article:
In 1970 there were 15,000 Muslims in the Netherlands. There are now one million. They are causing now, and they have caused, a situation for the indigenous Dutch (and of course for other, but non-Muslim immigrants, such as Vietnamese Buddhists, Hindus from India and even Indonesia, and Chinese of Confucian or Christian or other persuasion) that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would be without that quite unwelcome, quite unnecessary, and deeply dangerous Muslim presence. That presence is one that the Muslims themselves recognize as being one behind what they are taught to regard, and most do regard, as enemy lines, the lines of the Infidels.
Those countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands that pride themselves on their easygoing tolerance ought to realize that it is a false tolerance, even a diseased tolerance, to continue to tolerate in one’s midst a permanent danger to real — i.e., Western — tolerance. Western tolerance is based on the Western enshrinement of individual rights. That does not include tolerating those who cling tenaciously to a doubly totalitarian Belief System, that offers a Complete Regulation of Life, and a geopolitical plan that justifies, by any instruments available and effective (and not merely qitaal, or combat, or its variant “terrorism”), the removal of all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam everywhere, and everywhere a situation where Muslims rule.
Benes and Masaryk were wise, tolerant, advanced statesmen, two who belonged to an older and better educated generation. They had no hesitation in implementing the Benes Decree(s) of 1946, and in banishing the Sudeten Germans who had proved to be such a threat. For them, for the Czechs, Germany lay prostrate, but they were not about to take another chance. And no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral — save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war.
Why should the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, and the other countries of Europe not recognize a similar permanent danger in their midst, in the presence of jihadists and Sharia supremacists? And if Germany was prostrate in 1946, the world of Islam is hardly prostrate today. Rather, it feels itself stronger than ever, thanks to that ten trillion dollars in OPEC money received since 1973, along with all the aid, a disguised Jizyah, that is received, almost as tribute, by Muslim states and nascent statelets that have no oil or gas, but are able to count on the foreign aid that the Infidels provide.
Study the threats, and the intelligent response to recognized threats, in the not-so-distant past.
And now, since CAIR is asking questions, I have a few questions for CAIR:
1. Hugh wrote that the presence of jihadists and Sharia supremacists was a danger to non-Muslims in Europe, and that in recent memory a Western government had used expulsions without genocide or international opprobrium. This was presented in the manner of question, not a recommendation — he nowhere says about the Benes Decree, “Let us do as they did.” Does CAIR want jihadists and Sharia supremacists to remain in Europe? If so, for what purpose? Does CAIR wish to state on the record that a nation has no right under any circumstances to expel those whom it has determined are a risk to national security?
2. Hugh wrote that European countries should recognize the danger of jihadists and Sharia supremacists in their midst. But CAIR mischaracterized this in its Defamation Brief as a call to expel all Muslims from Europe. Is CAIR then saying that all Muslims are jihadists and Sharia supremacists?
3. Hugh referred to the Benes Decree, which was a post-World War II step by the government of Czechoslovakia to expel ethnic Germans from the country, as part of attempts to ensure that there would be no recrudescence of the Nazi exploitation of those ethnic Germans — which had led under Hitler to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the loss of its sovereignty. The Benes Decree was not protested or condemned by anyone — not the UN, not the US, not the Soviets. Is CAIR thus putting itself on record as opposing postwar anti-Nazi efforts by the Czech government? And if so, isn’t that ironic in light of CAIR’s defamatory attempt to link Jihad Watch to the Nazis, above?
4. The expulsion of large numbers of people for national security reasons, and large-scale population exchanges, have numerous historical precedents. The Benes Decree was just one of many post-World War II dislocations of peoples. Another was the massive population exchange of Hindus and Muslims that accompanied the creation of what are today known as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Does CAIR oppose the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh? Does CAIR oppose the later expulsion, in all cases for stated reasons of national security, of 400,000 Palestinians by Kuwait, more Palestinians by Libya, and one million Yemenis by Saudi Arabia? Does CAIR believe that the UN and international human rights bodies were wrong not to oppose or condemn most of these large-scale measures?
Then there were the expulsion of Egyptians by Iraq; the expulsion of Moroccans by Algeria and Algerians by Morocco; the expulsion of Egyptians (as well as the already mentioned Palestinians) by Libya when Libya and Egypt were at loggerheads; and any number of smaller, unreported expulsions. Arabs have behaved this way toward non-Arab Muslims, moving them about at a government’s whim, and subjecting them to pressures that would cause them to leave the country. Look at what happened to the non-Arab Kurds of Iraq, about whom not a single Arab Muslim state or spokesman uttered a syllable of sympathy. Look at the mass murder of the black African — i.e., non-Arab — Muslims of Darfur, with, again, not a syllable of sympathy. Not a single expression of horror by the Arab League or any Arab state or Muslim Arab group. Would CAIR care to make such an expression?
5. What is the exact nature of CAIR’s relationship with the terrorist group Hamas? Is there active collaboration between the two organizations? What did Ibrahim Hooper mean when he said that CAIR doesn’t support Hamas and Hizballah publicly? Does CAIR support them privately? What is the nature of this support? Does this have anything to do with CAIR officials’ repeated refusal to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups?
That should do it for now. Once you get those done, Ibrahim, feel free to ask me more questions, and I will cheerfully answer them. I may also have a few more for you.