Mohamed Elibiary wants a retraction and an apology. Answer: No.

From article...My activism, which is designed to bring Muslims into the mainstream, calls upon...

Bring Mahoundians into the mainstream of what? I thought Islam 'was the mainstream', and every other stream was polluted with kufr...he can't mean into the mainstream of American life...that's unIslamic...I mean, we got beer, cigarettes, and lap dancers in the mainstream...those are haram...well there might be an exception or two for lap dancers, but tobacco and booze are out...Somehow I don't quite believe his 'activism', is quite like he presents it...

This whole episode puts me in mind of a great scene from the movie "A Guide for the Married Man" where Joey Bishop is caught red handed by his wife in bed with another woman. He calmly gets up telling his wife repeatedly that what she is seeing is not happening. He is so convincing she doubts her own eyes and leaves with him thoroughly baffled.

"There was never a threat to him [Rod Dreher] and his superiors at the DMN and FBI who reviewed the email chains also found no threat." -- Mohamed Elibiary, quoted above

I like the way he describes the FBI reviewing "the email chains." Isnad-chains, forsooth, and the FBI experts now likened, inadvertently of course, to muhaddithin.

I would be interested in a transcript on what Elibiary spoke about...probably something about continuing Islam's "struggles" to become the one and only religion....

Yeah! Way to stand up this bully! Dollars to donuts, he's too cowardly to appear on Bill O'Reilly with you! (then again, considering that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia owns 7% of EVERYTHING at Newscorp, we can't be guaranteed that "Fair and Balanced" won't censor itself like the Prince has bragged about being able to do with it)

But if anyone wishes to learn about their opponent, they must listen, or they'll remain ignorant and make mistakes that cost them in their struggle to defend their values and views."
(Elibiary's defense)

The Eman is right on if he was talking about the population of the US understanding Islam and its Jihadist, globalist intent of consuming all nations, cultures, values and religions under the domain of their moon and star supremacist ideology. However, I doubt this was what he was talking about. Let me see the transcript of his talk and I bet it sides with the very supremacist intention defined above.

A thorough demolishing by Spencer of this Elibiary character. And yes, there's a hell of a lot of projection here by Elibiary. It's the standard modus operandi of both Muslims and the Left.

I have clicked on, and read seriatim, just now, every one of those listed in the article above, those to whom Robert Spencer has in the past issued invitations to debate, and have been impressed again with how, in discussing them, he holds up for close inspection their various efforts at deceitful apologetics on behalf of Islam.

As a little guide, I suggest that the list above be broken down, and its members assigned to five distinct classes not mentioned in, nor consonant with, the system of Karl von Linne (that's Linnaeus to you and me), but taxonomically useful nonetheless:

The taqiyya-and-tu-quoque Defenders of the Faith (Afzaal, Ahmad,Badawi, Khan, Mohammed, Rehab, Safi and Safi)

The venal variety (Esposito, Norquist)

The dopey self-promoters (LeVine, Armstrong, D'Souza)

The spiritual-seekers-attracted-by-Islam-and-now-teaching-the-subject (Ernst)

The simply cracked(Crane)

It's an impressive demolition job, the one performed by Robert methodically, slowly, over slow time -- read around in that list for yourself, and see if you don't agree on its usefulness, not least for those in the American government who might want a guide as to how to pierce the nonsense and lies -- plausible nonsense, sometimes plausible lies -- of those who are the tireless, even relentless, apologists for Islam. It takes an equal, or superior, relentlessness to uncover the wiles and guiles, and that is what you will find, if you choose to click, as I did, on every single one of those names.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to lie down. From that effort I'm plumb tuckered out. It takes stamina to go through the list. Imagine the stamina it took to compose all of those critical analyses.

What makes Mohamed Elibiary so angry and offended about being associated with the great Ayatollah Khomeini, who to this day is revered by millions of devout Moslems?

Could it be some of the Ayatollah's writings? They disgusted and offended me, so why should they not also disgust and offend poor Mohamed?

*** 33:51 ***

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.

*** 33:28 ***

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.

*** 33:21 ***

And then there was the infamous fatwa about how marrying 9 yr old girls was legal. That one was fun for tens of thousands of pedophile Persian Moslem Men, all of them devout.

Whenever my husband or I have been asked to speak at an special event honoring a person or event, we have ALWAYS been given the SUBJECT'S NAME or the EVENT to be honored!!

Hey, ya'll!!Come over here to this here funeral and give the eulogy.
Who among us would not be so be bold as to ask, "FOR WHOM DID THE BELL TOLL THIS TIME"???

Apparently M. Elibairy would not be bold enough to ask.

Sigh.

HA! Even when I have give a lecture on costume, I have some idea of WHAT it is that my audience wants to know about costuming... COSTUME construction, fabrics, pattern making, historic or modern, WHAT?. A speaker has to define his subject. Do research or bring props, slides etc.

Can you imagine being asked to come to an event honoring somebody or some Historical or social event, as a speaker, at which your OWN name is listed on the posters, and you have absolutely NO idea what they want you to speak about????

Why would a person agree be there and to speak to the audience and NOT ask "WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK ABOUT"??

And WHY would the sponsoring group fail to let a speaker know what they expect of a speaker???? That would be ignorant beyond belief!

Did M.Elibiary get there and say to himself:

"Oh, golly, oh gee, Guess I will have to "wing it" here on this speech!!"

Just think.... IF he was so OFFENDED to be there and offended by the person who was being honored, why did he NOT just pick-up his junk and haul a$$ outta' there???

Did he get paid $$$ for speaking???

If paid to speak, did he declare it on his income tax???

Mohamed Elibiary claims that his threat to Rod Dreher --
"Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe" -- was taken out of context.

Here is the context restored (the context is all located outside the bracketed & bolded text):

"[Expect] that when [someone], let us say customers for example, all prefer pecan pie, the owner of a bakery is probably not going [to put a banana] cream pie in the window, any more than a normally attentive gas station attendant would insert the gas pump nozzle [in your exhaust pipe]."

You're welcome, Mohamed Elibiary.

Hesperado,
I will second the accuracy of your restoration. Bad, bad and naughty Mr Spencer for not checking his sources. I also know for a fact that Mohamed Elibiary did not arrange himself to go the above mentioned august gathering of minds. It was Modem Elderberry, the unofficial representative of the Socialist Workers Party based in London who was booked to appear. The half deaf printer of the poster misheard the name as given over a crackly British phone line.

Mo Elibiary just happened to passing the Islamic centre, saw the poster and just like anyone curious enough to meet someone sharing the same name, popped in to have a look.
And then, like the scene in the Third Man, found himself, an embarrassing imposter, uttering inanities on stage.

"I didn't know where I was or what I was doing, but at least some kind gentleman gave me money for it." he admitted to me afterwards in the pub.

Looking at that growing list of apologists unwilling to debate Mr. Spencer perhaps at some point a sort of group debate would be in order. Let the lot of them take him on at one time. They would feel strength in numbers and perhaps be willing to engage that way. We still know of course who would come out on top. There would have to be some sort of itinerary stepping through the various fallacious arguments of each participant one by one but perhaps they could be grouped into general themes wiping out several arguments at a time while allowing each participant who had made the argument some time to attempt to obfuscate or claim that what they said is not really what they said.

"I have been asked whether, if I had realized before I spoke that the event honored Imam Khomeini, I would have left immediately. I don't know.
.......................

Oddly, I have never once heard anyone refer to Khomeini as "Imam Komeini" unless they respected the man and his grotesque work and ideas.

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/les-crimes-dhonneur-dans-lislam-videos/

Les crimes d’honneur” dans l’Islam

Combien d’innocentes doivent encore mourir pour que nous ouvrions les yeux sur une réalité présente même en Europe : la multiplication des crimes d’honneur.
Est ce juste une coîncidence si ces crimes se passent au sein des communautés musulmanes? Si c’était quelques cas isolés, mais là, vraiment, il faut être de très mauvaise foi pour ne pas admettre le lien entre Islam et ce genre de punition. L’Islam prône toujours au 21e la lapidation des femmes et des hommes adultères, la pendaison des homosexuels. rien à voir avec la “culture”, c’est écrit dans le Coran, c’est la loi, et il faut qu’ils y obéissent. La loi Shariah. Oui, celle là même qu’ils veulent imposer en France et dans les pays occidentaux. Réveillez vous avant qu’il ne soit trop tard.

'"I have been asked whether, if I had realized before I spoke that the event honored Imam Khomeini, I would have left immediately. I don't know..."

What is it with Muslims that they can't write a straight ENglish sentence? Does rote learning of 7th century Arabic do something incurable to the human brain? The only good bit is the last three words. I don't know either, how we permit these galahs to take up positions of influence in any Western country.

Several things should have made, and I suspect have made, many Infidels now quite suspicious, as they should have been all along, of plausible "deradicalization expert" Mohamed Elibiary.

The first is the long list of those who have smiled plausibly, said things in a blend of taqiyya and kitman that allow them to win friends and favor among the more ignorant and unwary Infidels, while being true to Muhammad's "war is deceit." Think of all those Muslim clerics who appeared at various Interfaith Healing racket gatherings, the big flurry of them coming just after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and how many of those people suddenly skipped the country, and went back to Egypt or Yemen or Saudi Arabia, once it waa discovered what they had actually said in the past, or even in the better-monitored present, to fellow Muslims. Many are now keenly aware of the role of deceit in Islam, and know what taqiyya is, and what kitman is, and how

The second is the widespread -- and growing -- realization that the word "religion" simply will not do to describe the Total Belief-System of Islam, with its politics and geopolitics.

The third is an awareness that word "deradicalization" needs to be looked at closely. We are expected to trust – and not only trust but in some cases pay handsomely (why Muslims should be paid for persuading other Muslims in this country not to be full of murderous hatred for Infidels and to support, or take part in, terrorism is a question that deserves to be pondered) -- Mohamed Elibibary.But has anyone, has the government, been allowed to tape him, when he gives his “deradicalization” courses or lectures, to see exactly what it is he says, what appeals he makes? He cannot base himself on the Qur’an and Hadith, nor on the example of Muhammad. He knows perfectly well what the texts inculcate, and he knows that the only kind of “deradicalization” is that which does not attempt to deny the texts and tenets of Islam, but only to appeal to the self-interest of Muslims, telling them that right now they are too weak, that they live in a land where non-Muslims still rule, and they must do nothing to endanger their position, must obey, for now, the law of the land. But implicit in all this is the clear understanding that what Muslims wish for, and what they certainly do not oppose in Muslim-dominated lands, is best achieved in ways other than terrorism, achieved, in fact, in the kind of sly pursuit of strengthening the Muslim position in this country in order to pursue the goals of Jihad through other means, and the best exemplar of this, as he himself must realize, is none other than Mohamed Elibiary himself. And that is what Robert Spencer has been demonstrating, and it is that which so maddeds Elibiary, and makes him worried that he might lose his gig, taking in large sums for his “deradicalization” efforts.

So why not put him to the test? Why not have every one of his “deradicalization” sessions,whether it is through lectures to large numbers of Muslims, or writings, or sessions, one-on-one, with particularly hard cases, and then have others, in the security services, people who will by now have made themselves familiar with the texts (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) of Islam, both tape every one of his sessions, his “deradicalization efforts” and then study them, analyze them, see what is really going on, and just how useful Mohamed Elibiary is to the government, and how useful he is, in a different way, to the pursuit, using methods under the radar, of the same goals that those using terrorism are pursuing – to wit, the spread, and dominance, of Islam.

But those doing the analysis have to be well-prepared, have to be sufficiently familiar with the texts of Islam, and the history of Islamic conquest, so as to be able to make out the language of Islamic allusion, that which is used routinely among Muslims, and that is also used in the West, because it has been assumed – not without reason—that Infidels generally lack the knowledge to grasp the kind of taqiyya or kitman that is being practiced, the sly and oblique ways to make reference to certain events in Muslim history (as Arafat would mention “Hudaibiyya” to reassure Muslim audiences that he had not intention of ceasing the Jihad against Israel). Mohamed Elibiary, a practitioner and past master of taqiyya, no doubt has been receiving large sums from various government agencies for his putative "deradicalization" efforts, and these are sums he wants to make sure keep coming. So put him to the test. If he refuses to have his efforts taped, and available for study and analysis (to see what is really going on) then we will know just what he is up to. Go ahead. See if he dares to come up with some story about how “taping” would “interfere” with his efforts. See what arguments he puts forth to “deradicalize” members of his audience, and what, in the end, that really means. See how Mohamed Elibiary turns out to be merely a cleverer, because form frusta, of the disease for which he claims to be the cure.

Muslims really hate it when the truth about Islam becomes known by infidels...

Errata Sheet:

For "form frusta"
Read "forme fruste"