Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan spreads lies, whines about "Islamophobia," tries to frighten U.S. away from stopping Iran's nuclear program

Aslanartwork.jpgNice artwork, Reza


UPDATE: Kamala, who wrote an excellent review of Aslan's book, How to Win a Cosmic War, writes: "To Aslan's statement 'No American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America,' I wonder what he'd say about this guy. Also, Aslan said that 'Rauf was simply calling for a system in which Islamic law courts settle matters of family disputes among the Muslim community.' Don't know if you've read Rauf's book from 2000, 'Islam: A Sacred Law.' On p. 58, he writes, 'And since a Shari'ah is understood as a law with God at its center, it is not possible in principle to limit the Shari'ah to some aspects of human life and leave out others.' Oops!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we continue to expose Reza Aslan's pseudo-moderate deceptions and positive presentations of jihad terror groups, the gutter-minded adolescent, used to being fawned over by the useful idiots in the mainstream media, continues to show that he is feeling the heat -- and clearly, I continue to be on his mind to a point that is downright creepy.

But it is understandable. While hapless Leftist pseudo-journalists continue to swallow his nonsense, he is being exposed at Jihad Watch as he never has been before. To recap: Aslan has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad and Hamas -- that is, with some of the most barbaric and genocidally-inclined adherents of Sharia. He has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon," recalling the useful idiots and fellow travelers who used to praise Stalinist Russia and even Hitler's Germany for their social services apparatuses.

Also, Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council, a group that genuine Iranian pro-democracy forces regard as an apologetic vehicle for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus it was no surprise that in a piece about the trouble Iran's Thug-In-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is facing at home, he offered not one critical word about Ahmadinejad's genocidal antisemitism, or the regime's persecution of non-Muslims. Instead, he praised certain domestic policies of Ahmadinejad. Yes, and Hitler built the autobahn.

"Is Islam 'Worse' Than Any Other Religion?," by Arnie Cooper for Miller-McCune, December 3:

Consider Pastor Terry Jones’ aborted Bonfire of Korans, Newt Gingrich’s remarks comparing organizers of lower Manhattan’s Islamic cultural center to Nazis, and Oklahoma’s pre-emptive strike against Shariah law and you can see why the term “Islamophobia” in vogue after 9/11 has re-entered the national lexicon.

Of course. It's all Terry Jones' and Newt Gingrich's and Oklahoma's fault. They're spreading "Islamophobia." It doesn't seem to occur to the illustrious Arnie Cooper that it's actually Mohamed Mohamud who is spreading "Islamophobia," if it really exists at all. Nidal Hasan is spreading "Islamophobia." Faisal Shahzad is spreading "Islamophobia." Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad is spreading "Islamophobia." Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is spreading "Islamophobia." Muhammad Atta and Anjem Chaudary and Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza and Abu Bakar Bashir and Zawahiri and Zarqawi and bin Laden are spreading "Islamophobia." Islamic jihadists, murdering in the name of Islam the world over, are spreading "Islamophobia."

For insight on this, Miller-McCune.com spoke with Reza Aslan. He’s the 38-year-old religious scholar, born in Iran but raised in the places like Oklahoma and California, who has been educating westerners on Islam’s place in the world ever since the release of his 2005 bestseller, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.

And this month, Aslan’s latest book, Tablet and Pen: Literary Landscapes from the Modern Middle East, appears. The anthology of poetry and essays is another of his attempts to reframe misguided perceptions of the Middle East....

Yep. A few good poems and we will forget all about all that jihad terror and Islamic supremacism. Here is one of my favorite poems, by Reza Aslan himself.

Miller-McCune.com: Among certain segments of the U.S. population, anti-Muslim sentiment seems to be increasing. What’s happening?

Reza Aslan: I think it’s not just that anti-Muslim sentiment is increasing; it’s that these beliefs are becoming increasingly mainstream thanks to fringe characters like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who six months ago were considered so radical that they never would’ve been involved in any kind of legitimate discussion or public debate about the role of Islam in the United States.

Aslan would like his luckless marks to believe that, but unfortunately for him, it isn't remotely true. Ordinarily I wouldn't call attention to any of this, but since Aslan is lying, I have to correct the record. He says that I am such a "fringe character" that six months ago I never would have been involved in any kind of legitimate discussion or public debate about the role of Islam in the United States -- yet I've written two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

I've led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community. My work has been translated into Spanish, Italian, Czech, Danish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Finnish, and Bahasa Indonesia. I've discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. I've appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews's O'Reilly Factor, the Sean Hannity Show, Fox and Friends, and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on hundreds of national and local radio programs.

I've been a featured speaker at Dartmouth College, Stanford University, New York University, Brown University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, the University of Rhode Island, DePaul University, the College of William and Mary, Texas A &M, Washington University of St. Louis, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and many other colleges and universities.

And yes, hardly any of that was done in the last six months. So while I am uncomfortable calling attention to my own accomplishments, it is necessary in this case, because Aslan is practicing the Alinsky tactic: "'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.' Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)" I know what he is doing, and he knows what he is doing. And so it is necessary to stand up to it, and to point out that I am not remotely the marginal fringe character he describes me as being, because by saying this, he hopes to make it true.

As for my colleague Pamela Geller, before six months ago she had been featured several times on the Joy Behar Show, Fox's Hannity and Red Eye, and other shows, and had conducted interviews over the years with people such as John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye'or, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Steyn, Steve Emerson, Christopher Hitchens, Natan Sharansky and many others. A "fringe character." Sure.

Aslan continues:

After all, Pamela Geller, [executive director of Stop Islamization of America] who invented the phrase “mosque at ground zero,”...

Note Aslan's contempt for the American people: does he actually expect anyone to believe that 70% of Americans oppose the Ground Zero mosque because Pamela Geller fooled them into thinking that an Islamic "community center" somewhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero was actually a...Ground Zero mosque? In reality, while Pamela Geller has led the national resistance to the Ground Zero mosque, the American people didn't need her to tell them that the Burlington Coat Factory building that will be torn down to build the mosque is part of the attack site, as the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes crashed into its roof and fell five stories to the basement. The building is thus an essential part of Ground Zero itself, which will greatly enhance the mosque's symbolic value in the Islamic world as another triumphal mosque, a la the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (the grandest cathedral in Christendom for a millennium, converted to a mosque in 1453, now a museum), and thousands of others throughout the Islamic world. And as for its being a mosque in the first place, Daisy Khan admitted that long ago, although she, like Aslan, lies about it now.

...insists that President Obama has declared jihad on America...

Gee, where would anyone get that idea? See here -- not for the Egyptian Foreign Minister's statements, but for the March 2009-June 2010 timeline.

...and Robert Spencer [director of Jihad Watch] claims that 85 percent of all mosques in the U.S. are preaching violence and extremism, which has been debunked. I think the Department of Homeland Security would like to know where he gets his information. It’s sort of like having a member of the KKK in the middle of a legitimate discussion about race in America.

Actually, I never said 85%. It's 75 to 80%. Where did I get my information? I will be happy to supply it to the DHS. It comes from three separate studies -- Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani's in 1998 (summarized in his testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999 that 80% of American mosques taught the "extremist ideology"), the Center for Religious Freedom's 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project's 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule. I challenged Aslan two months ago, on October 4, to provide any evidence that any of these studies had been debunked by anyone. He has not done so, and cannot do so.

Aslan also retails his usual talking points:

M-M: How did we get to this point?

RA: Part of the reason is the economy. In times of economic distress, it’s natural for people to look for scapegoats, and the current victims for this recession happen to be Mexicans and Muslims. As I often say, God help you if you happen to be a Mexican Muslim in this country right now.

Yes, it's all because of racism and poor economic times. Never mind all those Islamic jihad plots. The Portland Christmas tree jihad bomber? The Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer? The Detroit airplane jihad underwear bomber? The Times Square jihad car bomber? The Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer? Pah! God help you if you're a Muslim Mexican!

More from Reza:

Part of it also has to do with war fatigue. We have been engaged in two wars in the Middle East for a decade. We were just told by the president of the United States that one of those wars in now over and a lot of Americans are wondering what we actually got for the trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of deaths that resulted.

On that I actually agree with him.

I also think that for a decade we’ve been discussing the possibility of homegrown attacks by Muslim Americans and for 10 years nothing had happened until the past year when we had two attacks back to back, one by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood and the other one the attempted Times Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad. I think the true headline here is that in this time frame we’ve had just two attempts, but nevertheless, the fact that they came back to back has raised more suspicions.

Note how many he leaves out. Not only the Detroit airplane attempt, the Arkansas shooting, and the Portland bomber, but also the North Carolina jihad plot, the Sears Tower jihad plot, the Toronto (yeah, I know, Canada doesn't count, eh, Reza?) 18 jihad plot, the Fort Dix jihad plot, the JFK airplot plot, and on and on.

M-M: And this includes suspicions about the president.

RA: It’s not a coincidence that the same polls that show that 50 percent of Americans have a negative perception of Islam also show that 20 percent of Americans think that Barack Obama is a Muslim. That’s an 8 percent jump from a year ago.

And more interestingly, amongst Republicans that number is almost 40 percent. In fact, there is a direct correlation between whether you agree with President Obama’s domestic policy with regard to health care and financial reform and whether you think he’s a Muslim. The more you disagree with his view, the more likely you are to believe that. That proves that Islam has become sort of a receptacle in the U.S.; it’s become “otherized” in the sense that anything that’s foreign or frightening or exotic is immediately tagged with this label of Islam.

It actually isn't "almost 40 percent," it's 31% -- the actual number of surveyed Republicans saying they thought Obama was a Muslim. Anyway, Aslan here is apparently saying that "anti-Islamic sentiment" is rising because people think Obama is a Muslim, and they don't like Obama's policies, and so they blame Islam for them. Once again, he is insulting the intelligence of the American people. If large numbers of people believe Obama is a Muslim, it is because of his hostility (unprecedented in a president of the United States) toward Israel, his unwillingness to do anything effective about Iran's nuclear program, and his indefatigable dedication to coddling and appeasing the Dar al-Islam, even to the point of absurdity, as when he told NASA's chief that one of his primary responsibilities would be -- not space exploration! -- making Muslims feel good about the alleged scientific achievements of the Islamic world.

And the idea that people find things "foreign or frightening or exotic" and label them "Islam," well, sometimes even what Reza Aslan says is simply too absurd for comment. But of course he is trying to give the impression that opposition to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is just a rescrudescence of nativism, and he will get to that presently.

M-M: In the debate over the cultural center in lower Manhattan, critics of the Imam, Feisel Rauf, say his real goal is to establish Shariah law in the West.

RA: This view is so idiotic that it’s barely worth responding to. No American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America. There are two countries on the planet, on the entire planet, that have Shariah in their penal system, and that’s Saudi Arabia, our greatest ally-a country that, by the way, owns most of lower Manhattan and a great deal of Wall Street -- and Iran, our nation’s enemy. That’s it. Two countries on the entire planet. [Some states in northern Nigeria, however, have instituted Shariah for their Muslim citizens.] The declarations made by people like Newt Gingrich about how we need to pass federal laws to prevent something from happening that no one has asked to happen, is again the rankest kind of political deception. Rauf was simply calling for a system in which Islamic law courts settle matters of family disputes among the Muslim community.

Rauf has said that America is Sharia-compliant, and has never explained that he had no intention of bringing the political and supremacist aspects of Sharia to the U.S. If he has, I challenge Reza Aslan to produce the quote.

M-M: But what about the notion that Shariah is incompatible with democracy because of some of the draconian punishments for adultery, sexual offenses, etc?

RA: There is no single thing as Shariah. If you are talking about penal codes, then yes, of course it’s incompatible, which is why only two countries in the world allow it. But if you mean Shariah as it informs family law -- marriage, divorce and inheritance -- then it’s no less compatible than the dozen or so Halacha courts throughout the entire country that allow observant Jews to have a religious outlet for such issues.

The claim that "there is no single thing as Shariah" is yet another borrowed talking point that Aslan trots out in this interview. (In fact, the entire interview is made of questions that elicit answers from Aslan's standard talking points -- most of what I am writing in this post I have said before, in response to Aslan saying these same silly things before. Clearly this interview was a set-up from the beginning. I wonder how quickly Aslan would start weeping if he ever faced hostile journalists the way Pamela Geller and I do on a routine basis.)

Anyway, Islamic apologists in the West routinely insist that Sharia is so multifarious and complex that it is impossible to say definitively what it says about any particular issue. They say this when non-Muslims bring up uncomfortable matters such as stonings and amputations. In reality, the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib) agree on about 75% of all questions (including those uncomfortable bits about jihad, dhimmitude, the death penalty for apostates, stonings, amputations, etc.), so it is not at all illegitimate to speak of Sharia rules -- as Reza Aslan must know.

Aslan concentrates in his response largely on the aspects of Sharia that make it appear commonplace and non-threatening -- marriage, divorce, inheritance laws. He knows, of course, that those aren't the aspects of Sharia that make people concerned about it (although polygamy and divorce by a single word at the whim of the husband are indeed matters of concern, or should be, for feminists and everyone concerned about human rights).

If you can have one in this country, you can have the other, but the notion that that has anything to do with penal law, or the imposition of Shariah on America is utter bullshit and it’s used solely as a fear mechanism, as if the American Muslim community is clamoring for a law that allows them to stone adulterers. It’s a boldfaced, idiotic lie. There’s no place for a rational discussion with people who bring up such ridiculous notions.

Aslan's playbook: set up a straw man, knock it down, and then say there's no discussing matters with people who advance such ridiculous notions. Well, of course, I have never said that "the American Muslim community is clamoring for a law that allows them to stone adulterers," but I have no expectation that Reza Aslan will be ever be willing to engage in rational discussion on the actual issues involved regarding Sharia and American law. I don't think he is capable of it.

M-M: This isn’t the first time a religion has been singled out in this way.

RA: Yes. In [the Oct. 7, 2010] New York Times, there’s a really brilliant, beautiful piece about the 200th anniversary of St. Peter’s Church. About 200 years ago, when they were trying to build this church in lower Manhattan, which is about as far from ground zero as the Islamic community center would be, the exact words and phrases, the exact violence, the exact demonstrations that we see now, were being waged against its construction. There was this notion that the church was not a place of worship, but a means for the pope to extend his dominance over the United States and that the Catholics inside couldn’t possibly be true Americans because their loyalty has to go to the pope. There was this huge protest which resulted in some violence and deaths when a bunch of Protestants showed up to protest what they saw as an evil service taking place inside the church, which was actually Christmas Mass. It’s not a coincidence that we’re hearing the exact same stuff now about Muslims in this country that we heard about Catholics in the 19th century and that we heard about Jews in the early 20th century.

Here again, Aslan is not engaging in any real analysis or actual thought; he is just repeating talking points that we have heard before from the likes of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison and Nicholas Kristof, among many others. Christopher Hitchens ably took apart the central claim being made here: "'Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,' Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like."

Anyway, later on Aslan says:

[...] There's nothing strange or unusual in the slightest about what's taking place in Islam and what's taking place in other religious traditions. If you wanna talk about the problems you see in the Middle East, you have to talk about the sociopolitical factors that play as much if not a greater role in these conflicts as any religion does. But Islam doesn't have a monopoly on the use of religious violence. The I.R.A. are Catholics, the Kach and Kahane movements in Israel that were eventually banned and disbanded, and even the radical settlers in Gush Emunim, those are Jews, the Tamil Tigers are Hindus, the Japanese organization Aum Shinrikyo are Shinto. All of these people have used terrorism and violence to achieve their goals.

M-M: But many people differentiate Muslims from all these other groups as being worse. Why?

RA: It's because Islam is considered the "other" in America and Europe.

No, but because Islamic texts and teachings contain exhortations to violence and supremacism; Jewish and Christian texts and teachings do not. For details, see here. That is, see there if you're interested in the facts. If you want smooth lies, Islamic victimhood-mongering and finger-pointing, libels of freedom fighters, and feeble bully-boy mockery, see Reza Aslan.

Meanwhile, in a recent column, Aslan, tool of the mullahs, spreads conspiracy theories about the U.S. and Israel killing Iranian nuclear scientists -- for which he doesn't have a shred of evidence -- and tries to frighten the U.S. off of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities:

If that is true and Monday's assassination attempt of Iranian nationals signals a shift in U.S. or Israeli strategy toward Iran (perhaps emboldened by what the recent WikiLeaks dump shows is growing Arab government support for a harder line toward Iran's nuclear program), then we may be entering a new and extremely dangerous phase in the nuclear standoff with Iran--one that could quickly get out of hand. The head of Iran's nuclear program, Ali Akbar Salehi, sounded a dire warning to the U.S. and Israel. "Don't play with fire," he said. "The patience of the Iranian people has its limits. If our patience runs out, you will suffer the consequences."

Reminds me of the Nazi sympathizers during World War II who warned that America would falter in trying to assault Hitler's Fortress Europe.

The ace artist Bosch Fawstin has given Reza a real Islamic tie, featuring his poem:

Resa Aslan 4 JW.jpg

| 68 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

68 Comments

| Leave a comment

The one thing that has blown away Rezas charge that obama talk to iranian thugs, is the information that came out of wikileeks, you see most of the arab ME countries all want irans nuke program destroyed, Israel never comes up first with these muslim states to the US! ALL Arab States ask US to smack down Iran!!! So Reza you are a blow heart and we are onto you!

".......who six months ago were considered so radical that they never would’ve been involved in any kind of legitimate discussion or public debate about the role of Islam in the United States."

This is so laughable!!! How many times has Robert offered to debate Reza Aslan in public and been ignored or refused?

I would love to see Robert shred this little pissant into pieces. I have no doubt that he would end of screaming and crying like the little nancy-boy he is.

How this guy ever ended up on the NY Times bestseller list is beyond me. Then again, it's the NYT.

Ima

Hi Robert,

One would think that, by constantly referencing you and Pam as both the putative creators of Islamophobia (a word, by the way, which perhaps should only be uttered with a reminder that it was coined by Muslim Brotherhood front IIIT:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/how-the-term-islamophobia-got-shoved-down-your-throat.html
thanks Abdur-Rahman Muhammad) and ridiculing you incessantly, he's inviting an inevitable public confrontation and debate.

At the very least, one would expect that the people interviewing Azlan would start giving you two a chance to reply. I'm sorry I may have missed it -- has that happened yet? Have even one of these "journalists" done that? It should happen all the time as a matter of course but has it happened at all?

Thanks,

Jim

ima,
you re damn right, get this pseudo-intellectual,this erm.. legend in his own mind:-), to the debate, and quick.
i cannot stand his simpering drivel excuse for supposed lucid interviews for much longer.
if it happens, i hope i don t reach for the sickbag as quick as i do reading his nonsense, how they interview
this guy with a straight face is beyond me.

Saudi Arabia, our greatest ally ...

If by "our," Aslan means American Islamic supremacists, that makes sense. But since 1973, when the Saudis first throttled America's economy with an oil embargo in revenge for our rescue of Israel from Arab destruction, right on through the ensuing decades with their campaign of Wahabbist mosque construction in our country, with their generation of all but a couple of the 9/11 perpetrators, and with, to this day, their status as the major financiers of Al-Qaeda and other Sunni terror groups, they have shown themselves to be not our greatest ally but one of our most malign adversaries.

And in case you didn't catch the hint, our leaves you out, Reza Aslan.

Reza Aslan is so stupid, a dangerous taqiyyah clown
(3:28, 16:106)

Brave Robert Spencer :-)

http://newstime.co.nz/video-mr-sina-you-are-a-true-light-towards-islam-the-real-islam-no-sugar-coating.html
Video: Mr Sina you are a true light towards Islam,
the real Islam (no sugar-coating)

Peeweey Herman stands a much better chance of knocking out Mike Tyson than this weasel asaln has of scoring a single argument point against Robert Spencer.

I believe his attempts at defaming Robert and Pamela primarily stem form the fear of knowing how easily either one of them can bring reality and truth to bear against his quranic fantasia he wants us to believe in.

Aslans descent into adolescent verbal brawl is a psychological devise prompted by his terror of having to suffer public humiliation and exposure if ever he allowed himself to respond or debate someone who is informed about islam and not held back by the, MSM-PC paradigm.

I'm not sure why, but Reza reminds me of Alan Colmes...
Talks a lot, talks fast, says nothing...

And both are annoying clowns!!!

I think Reza Aslan must be insane.

Which explains everything.

There shouldn't be any Islam in the United States, Muslim. Go live in your own countries! You have 57 of 'em!

I believe Aslan to be a clear and present danger to the United States. He should be deported back to whatever Islamic ****hole he came from.

Gosh! How impressive. There sits Reza in pensive mood under a pictorial contradiction that ramifies endlessly: there is a weapon, a masked man and yet, and yet, ... the word PEACE is inscribed there in the bottom left hand corner.

What can it all mean? There are so many interpretations possible? Of a certainty, the master, Razor-ass, can explain everything to us knuckle-dragging infidels.

Or, could it just be Razor-ass trying to distract our attention from the fact that he's sitting on a pile of cushions so that he can get his empty head into the shot.

This guy is worse than a clown, he's a perfumed fart!


..."he is being exposed at Jihad Watch as he never has been before."

Good on you, Robert! Keep on telling the truth by exposing this Reza "RAT" Aslan character for the dangerous lying creep that he is ...

And the RAT'S choice of artwork is very telling - showing a woman in full obedience to evil islam. Yeah, and what's with the rose at the tip of the rifle? What is THAT suppose to symbolize? IMO, the artists overall message is this: if *all* women got with the islamic program, then we can FINALLY have peace. If that's the message, then what a pack of lies. There can never be peace if women are suppressed and portrayed wearing table lines. This piece of sh** art is very oppressive towards women, and it actually sends a message of hate - not peace. The "artist" is clearly a misogynist lowlife.

The word HATE should be printed in the lower corner, not PEACE ...

And I guess the rose is suppose to soften and sweeten the violence visibly present towards women in this artwork - that is, if you want to this dramatic and hateful filth, artwork. Sorry, but we can see right through the lie that I think the rose is suppose to represent - the rose only serves to accentuate the lie.

..."there is a weapon, a masked man and yet," ...

A masked man? No, I think that's a woman wearing some type of niqab, or head scarf ...

"wearing table lines"

small correction: wearing table LINENS, not lines ...

Well, since a phobia is a fear of something, I don't think too many Americans are Islamophobes. I hate Islam, I don't fear it. Obviously, any nutcase that would profess belief in a religion that was founded by a mass murdering psychopath can't be in possession of all his marbles. Which means there are a lot of looney tunes in this world.

I don't think the dhimmis in the Army and the FBI were paying attention when Robert was giving his seminars, judging by their reactions to acts of jihad.

http://newstime.co.nz/islam-religion-of-peace-and-culture-of-violence-talk-show-tacheles-on-phoenix.html
German counterpart to Reza Aslan
is "designer beard" Aiman Mazyek
the Chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany,
http://zentralrat.de

Reza Aslam seems to be an American version or copycat of Tariq Ramadan. Portraying themselves as reform Muslims, the Martin Luthers of Islam, but at the same time advancing Sharia and the slow peaceful Jihad.

They are however both like the Cheshire cat: Raising philosophical points that annoy or baffle the gullible but when examined by logic the cat disappears gradually until nothing is left but its grin.

And after killing the cat now Robert Spencer is chasing the grin. ;-)

How can Islam be reformed according to Reza Aslam? :

“Contrary to popular perception, Islam is a religion firmly rooted in the prophetic traditions of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Aslan begins with a vivid account of the social and religious milieu from which the Prophet Muhammad arose. The revelations that Muhammad received in Mecca and Medina, and which were recorded in the Quran, became the foundation of a radically egalitarian community, the likes of which had never been seen before.

Soon after the his death, the Prophet's successors set about the overwhelming task of defining and interpreting Muhammad's message for future generations. Their efforts led to the development of a comprehensive code of conduct expected to regulate every aspect of the believer's life. But this attempt only widened the chasm between orthodox Islam and its two major sects, Shiism and Sufism, both of which Aslan presents in rich detail.

Finally, No god but God examines how, in the shadow of European colonialism, Muslims developed conflicting strategies to reconcile traditional Islamic values with the social and political realities of the modern world. With the emergence of the Islamic State in the 20th century, this contest over the future of Islam has become a passionate, sometimes violent battle between those who seek to enforce a rigid and archaic legal code on society and those who struggle to harmonize the teachings of the Prophet with contemporary ideals of democracy and human rights. According to Reza Aslan, we are now living in the era of "the Islamic Reformation."

(Quoted from the most positive review by one of the gullible displayed on Aslans home page).

Let us analyze the following perception of Islamic evolution:

“Their efforts led to the development of a comprehensive code of conduct expected to regulate every aspect of the believer's life. But this attempt only widened the chasm between orthodox Islam and its two major sects, Shiism and Sufism, both of which Aslan presents in rich detail.”

In early Islam the grand philosophical and theological schism was not between its major sects - that was mostly about power - but between orthodox irrationality and the rationalists, inspired by Greek philosophy. It was a heated battle, an intellectual drama over the role of reason, raging from the 8th to the 11th Century. As we all know the side of irrationality won. The deformed theology that resulted produced the spiritual pathology of Islamism, and a deeply dysfunctional culture.

The orthodox irrationalists closed the Muslim mind almost a millennium ago and it is this intellectual suicide that created the modern Islamist crisis.

Philosophy and dogma, civil law and divine law, are always hard to reconcile. But in the Islamic world the tension between them has taken on a special character, since it involves a conflict between two rival interpretations of the Qur'an.

On one interpretation, that of the Mu'tazalites, the Qur'an was created by God at the moment of its revelation. It therefore stands to be interpreted in terms of the circumstances in which it was revealed, and of God's purpose in revealing it.

On the Ash'arite interpretation, the Qur'an is uncreated, being coeval with the Almighty, his eternal word that owes nothing to the contingencies of life in Muhammad's war-torn Arabia.

This dispute is particularly illuminating, since it suggest how very difficult it will be to secure, in our dealings with the self appointed leaders of the Sunni and Shia communities, the kind of flexible interpretations of the faith that would permit the growth of a real and lasting tolerance towards those who reject it.

The problems in Islam must be solved on the level it exist, and that level is philosophical. What so called reformists like Ramadan and Aslam are trying to make us believe is that sharia law can be modified by taking the most barbaric elements out of it making it compatible to the principles of Western law.

In a French television debate in 2003 with Nicolas Sarkozy, Sarkozy accused Ramadan of defending the stoning of adulterers, a punishment stipulated in the section of the Islamic penal code known as hudud. Ramadan replied that Sarkozy was wrong. He said that he opposed stoning and that he favored “a moratorium” on such practices but refused to condemn the law outright. Many people, including Sarkozy, were outraged. Ramadan later defended his position arguing that, because it involved religious texts, the law would have to be properly understood and contextualized. Ramadan argued that in Muslim countries, the simple act to "condemn" won't change anything, but with a "moratorium", it could open the way for further debate.

Islam have had at least half a millennium to find out what went wrong, why their grand civilization lost in every conceivable way to the Western civilization, and now they want a moratorium to find out why their culture became pathological and dysfunctional?

Western man may be gullible and stupefied, but he is not outright crazy.

Islam is always associating itself with instruments of death, knives, swords, rifles, machine guns...Qur'ans...

Damn right dislike for Islam in increasing, Reza, and you're one of the Islamists I dislike most, isn't that just the way, you self-fulfilling prophecy?

I really dislike Islam because of Reza for one, and for another because so-called 'moderate' muselmans like Reza teach their offspring that they are so special they get to issue death treats when they're caught shop-lifting chewing gum and tooth paste, like this bright multi-cultural Turkish hope in Germany. "You report me to police, I make you grave!" http://www.express.de/regional/koeln/ladendieb--15----machst-du-mir-anzeige--mach-ich-dir-grab--/-/2856/4893608/-/index.html

And here we have an article where muslims are complaining about bullies and how to deal with them. Always the poor victims! Note the "inversion" tactics used, another way to play the victim even when you're the perpetrator, the bully.

"Muslims Must Learn the Language of Bullies to Respond to Islamophobia"

http://muslimmatters.org/2010/10/07/muslims-must-learn-the-language-of-bullies-to-respond-to-islamophobia/

The unmitigated gall!

I also recently read an article( which I can't find) that stated that groups (read Cair) that constantly scream islamophobia are encouraging muslims to feel as if they are bullied & discriminated against even if they're not. The constant lying & exaggeration creates a belief in muslims that it's true despite the fact that it's not and therefore to an increase in radicalization.

The poster behind Reza is by Shepard Fairey; the creator of the infamous Obama "HOPE" poster of 2008. Fairey seems to have a thing for strawberry and vanilla color in his work.

Even Shepard is losing 'hope' in Obama though.

I decided to go to Reza's site on Facebook called Aslan Media, Inc. to find out more about what Reza thinks. Several of the posters on that site post disparaging comments about America. I'm trying to defend America, but I could use some help. Will you please "like" Aslan Media, Inc. on Facebook and post appropriate comments. Will you also spread this around. Thanks

Reza was on the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) (or it may be a corporation now), and I heard some of his veiled arguments. Granted, he's a gifted polemicist. But when he ran off several Islamic states as being pillars of democracy... Well, I thought, here's a live wire - the one that the our good mate Robert Spencer rabbits on about.

Then he moved on to the virtues of Hamas. I think even our left-wing ABC was in for a little pang of 'WTF'?

I wrote on the Australian Islamist Monitor comment page about Islam's requirement for 'surrender'. By definition, when you surrender, you become a prisoner. Get it?

Really great rendering, Bosch ...

and I would love to see your rendition of Reza Aslan as the Pied Piper - what a fitting narrative.

Well, since a phobia is a fear of something,

A phobia is an irrational fear of something which makes all the difference! If everyone's fear of Islam is irrational then that means that everyone who fears Islam has some kind of defective pathology of the brain; ie: must be a nutcase.

However, the supremacists and apologists just keep on throwing that word about, never once considering that maybe, just maybe, the whole fear of Islam thing is based solely on reason and evidence. We can read their sacred texts, can witness their actions inspired by those texts and can listen to the jihadis explain why they're carrying out those actions with reference to those texts... simple as. Those, such as RA, are just making bigger and bigger fools out of themselves, as this once tried and tested tactic slowly degenerates with the education of the masses about true Islam.

And yes, hardly any of that was done in the last six months. So while I am uncomfortable calling attention to my own accomplishments, it is necessary in this case, because Aslan is practicing the Alinsky tactic: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Feelings and emotions are the key reagents used in any opinion programming exercise, it is the gun powder that enforces self-censorship, a central construct in any effective Fictive Reality.

Think about it, while Spencer, Geller and a few others are willing to publicly drive a stake in the ground, stand firm and fight the lies, they comprise what, maybe .0001% of the American Infidel population.

Regarding Muslim moderates and reformers like Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan: If one wants to draw an analogy between these two and the principal figures of the Christian Reformation of the 15th & 16th centuries, I think it would be accurate to liken these two to a Desiderius Erasmus. It would not be an accurate and meaningful analogy, however, to liken the two Muslim "reformers" to a Martin Luther or a Huldreich Zwingli. Analogies ought to be useful. That's my two cents.

Reza Aslan: "No American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America."

This is a wildly false claim. It doesn't surprise me that Aslan said this, as such hyperbole is typical from him. In this instance, Aslan is free to work with what is for the most part a blank canvas on this issue, because there do not appear to be statistics on the numbers of American Muslims who want sharia. There is no empirical basis for what he is claiming here, but it is difficult to refute it because there are no studies directly addressing this important issue (or if there are, I've never heard of them) with regard to Muslim Americans. If anyone can cite such statistics, please provide them here. It is also difficult to refute entirely because, while it may be easy to cite some Islamic extremists in the U.S. who do want sharia here, thus easily falsifying Aslan's claim, all Aslan has to do is make a minor adjustment, acknowledging that yes there are a few extremists here and there, but that the vast majority of American Muslims do not want sharia in the U.S.

Without studies directly addressing the issue, we are left to draw indirect inferences from studies of opinions of Muslims in other similar Western democracies, such as the U.K. and Canada, from American Muslims response to other similar or related questions, and from the specific statements of Muslim organizations and individuals.

I suspect that the percentage of American Muslims who want sharia in America is similar to that of Canadian and British Muslims who want sharia in their respective countries, i.e., it is about one third of the Muslim population that wants it.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of Islamic organizations in North America want the establishment of at least some elements of sharia in Canada and the U.S., and anywhere else there are Muslim communities. Islamic organizations within the U.S. call for Sharia to be implemented. CAIR and the MSA are but two examples. CAIR actively supported the proposed introduction of sharia in Canada (as did most other Muslim organizations there), and there is no reason to believe they would support sharia in Canada but not in the U.S. Another more openly extremist group calling for sharia in the U.S. is the so-called Islamic Thinkers society
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=30

Every American Muslim terrorist or would-be terrorist believed himself to be acting in accordance with sharia in regards to jihad policy, and acting toward the goal of bringing non-Muslims under the rule of Islam. Muslims like Reza Aslan, Imam Rauf, and Daisy Khan also want at least some elements of sharia in America--as Aslan himself suggests in his defense of sharia in family law, as Rauf suggests in his comments on limits to freedom of expression, as Daisy Khan suggests in her statements endorsing polygamy--but they engage in so much obfuscation, and never seem to be asked direct questions on the issue. The Muslims who threatened Rifqa Bary also clearly want the sharia law against public apostates to be imposed in the U.S.

There is another sense in which we can gauge American Muslims' views on sharia, and that is by examining their views on arguably the most important element of sharia, namely, the laws against criticizing Islam or Muhammad in public. Most U.K. Muslims want Islam critics, cartoonists, etc., to be criminally prosecuted and punished. This means that most U.K. Muslims want at least this most important aspect of sharia to be imposed in the U.K. and elsewhere. There is no reason to suspect that the majority of American Muslims are dramatically different from U.K. Muslims in this respect. Even if the percentage of American Muslims wanting sharia restrictions on freedom of expression in the U.S. were only a half or third of that of the U.K. Muslims, that's still a large number of American Muslims who want Islamic sharia blasphemy restrictions in the U.S.

Next, there was at least one poll on a sample of American Muslims in Detroit, in which they were asked whether they wanted sharia in Muslim countries. Fully 81% of them agreed, either strongly (59%) or somewhat (22%), that there should be sharia in Muslim countries.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/survey-81-of-detroit-muslims-want-sharia-in-muslim-countries.html
It is reasonable to suspect, then, that at least some of those who strongly wanted sharia in Muslim countries also wanted it in Muslim communities within the U.S.

There is yet more indirect evidence from PEW. Marriage is a matter covered under sharia, including under personal and family law. PEW researchers, perhaps afraid to ask a direct and clear question, used the term "okay" instead of the more meaningful and relevant term "legal," when they asked American Muslims this:

Q. D7 Do you personally think it is okay or not okay for a Muslim to marry someone who is not a Muslim?

Responses (%):
62 Okay
24 Not okay
11 Depends
3 Don’t know/ refused

[My note: the question did not specify the prohibition on non-Muslim male + Muslim female relationship, and did not distinguish between people of the book, polytheists, and non-religious. The 11% for "{it} depends" should be seen in light of such issues].

This suggests that at least some American Muslims may believe that the Islamic law forbidding a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man (i.e., where the man does not convert to Islam) ought to be enforced in America. The data of course don't demonstrate that (because the researchers apparently deliberately refused to ask a clear question), but they do suggest it. But consider this from a study on U.K. Muslims:

“The following is a list of laws that are defined in most scholarly interpretations of sharia law. Please say if you personally agree or disagree with the law mentioned”
“That a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.” Results: 51% Agree, 43% disagree, 5% don’t know/refused.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Living_Apart_Together_text.pdf

Thus, American Muslims may be more tolerant on this issue than are U.K. Muslims, but still, 24% of Muslims saying it's not okay, and another 11% saying it depends, suggests that there may be a significant minority of American Muslims who want this important element of sharia to be followed in the U.S.

Yet more light may be shed on American Muslims' views on another important aspect of sharia, namely punishment of homosexuals, from the American PEW poll mentioned above (note. M = Muslim and GP = general population):

Q B. 2. d
Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society M = 27 GP = 51
Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society M = 61 GP = 38
Neither/Both Equally M = 5 GP = 8
Don’t Know/Refused M = 7 GP = 3

The 61% of Muslims who think homosexuality as a way of life should be "discouraged" may include a significant subset who think it should be illegal. According to the U.K. study cited above, 61% of U.K. Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. Again, American Muslims may be considerably more moderate on this issue than are U.K. Muslims, but still, it seems likely that there is at least a significant minority of American Muslims which wants homosexuality, particularly homosexuality in the Muslim community, to be illegal. That would be another major element of sharia that at least some American Muslims want.

So it is highly likely that at least a significant minority of American Muslims want at least some major element of sharia to be implemented and enforced in the U.S. This includes, especially, the sharia blasphemy laws prohibiting criticism of Islam and Muhammad, which may well be supported by the majority of American Muslims.

Robert -

Take a look at the image here. I promise you'll like it!

Moderate Muslim - or else!
http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/421-moderate-muslim.html

Reza Aslan: "No American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America."

Besides the fact that the above claim is false, it is also misleading. Aslan is attempting to focus attention on what may well be one of the world's most moderate (relatively speaking of course) Muslim populations, i.e., American Muslims, and arbitrarily narrowing the issue to American Muslims' demands in America. But what about other Muslims' demands on America? Indeed, what about Muslims' demands on non-Muslims generally, with regard to sharia? Of course, the entire OIC, which includes all or almost all Muslim countries, demands that non-Muslim countries, including the United States (and everyone else), conform to Islamic blasphemy laws.

Reza Aslan: "There are two countries on the planet, on the entire planet, that have Shariah in their penal system, and that’s Saudi Arabia, our greatest ally-a country that, by the way, owns most of lower Manhattan and a great deal of Wall Street -- and Iran, our nation’s enemy. That’s it. Two countries on the entire planet. [Some states in northern Nigeria, however, have instituted Shariah for their Muslim citizens.]"

This hyperbole is also obviously not true, but it is worth examining some of the counterexamples that falsify it. For example, besides S.A. and Iran, at least the following countries have the death penalty for apostasy: Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Comoros, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Pakistan (via the blasphemy penalty). In addition, other countries such as Egypt have other official penalties for apostasy. Some countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have the death penalty for apostasy in some regions but not nationwide. Countries like Kuwait may reintroduce the death penalty for apostasy, ad hoc, when a particular case arises (e.g., see the Qambar case). Also, Maldives supported at least the implied threat of the death penalty for apostasy in the recent case earlier this year where popular Muslim speaker Zakir Naik verbally targeted a public apostate of Islam; the apostate was likely forced to recant by the authorities. There may be many more Islamic countries that do have the death penalty or other penalties for apostasy which have not yet been investigated. Another consideration is that, as in Pakistan, in any Islamic country a public apostate, who explains his or her apostasy in public, is likely to be seen to have run afoul of Islamic blasphemy laws, which in one form or another are in place in almost every (if not every) Muslim country, even in so-called secular Turkey. All Islamic countries that are in the OIC and signed on to the Cairo Declaration can in theory impose the death penalty for apostasy and for blasphemy, since that document cites the supremacy of sharia. Numerous Islamic countries also have harsh sharia penalties for anyone who tries to persuade a Muslim out of his or her religion. In addition to all of the above considerations, even if there were no official laws against blasphemy and apostasy in Islam, significant percentages of Muslims might be willing to carry out the sharia penalties themselves, if they believe the state is failing to meet its Islamic duties in this regard. Pakistan has both--an official death penalty for blasphemy, and vigilante assassins and mobs who will attempt to kill the alleged blasphemer if the Islamic state fails to do so soon enough. The violent and non-violent actions of vigilantes in Islam is permitted, where the ruler fails to carry out sharia punishments, under the category of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong, which is also a part of sharia and is indeed a duty mentioned in the Quran.

And the above is only a sampling of the sharia implemented in Islamic countries.

Reza Aslan: If you can have one {form of religious personal and family law} in this country, you can have the other, but the notion that that has anything to do with penal law, or the imposition of Shariah on America is utter bullshit and it’s used solely as a fear mechanism, as if the American Muslim community is clamoring for a law that allows them to stone adulterers. It’s a boldfaced, idiotic lie. There’s no place for a rational discussion with people who bring up such ridiculous notions. {brackets added}

Well, the Islamic legal restrictions on publicly expressed criticism of Islam and Muhammad do have to do with penal law. That's what the Muslim countries through the OIC are trying to impose on non-Muslim countries such as the U.S. and on non-Muslims living in Islamic countries.

As for stoning adulterers, that is, basically, no less crazy a penalty than killing apostates, and that is what surprisingly high percentages of Muslims want. In the above cited U.K. study in my first post in this thread, about a third of U.K. Muslims wanted the death penalty to be imposed on people who leave Islam. In a recently-reported PEW study, it was found that
"About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view. Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan.
When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it. In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia* largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries. About three-quarters of Turkish and Lebanese Muslims oppose the stoning of people who commit adultery (77% and 76%, respectively), as does a narrower majority (55%) of Muslims in Indonesia."

*My note. 30% of Indonesians favor the death penalty for apostasy.

The link for the PEW study cited in my previous post is

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The link for the PEW study on American Muslims' views is

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Also, another PEW study which I haven't yet mentioned can be found here:
http://pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx

In the immediately above study, across the African countries sampled, an average of about one third of Muslims wanted stoning to death of adulterers, and also almost a third (median 30%) of Muslims wanted the death penalty for apostasy. The majority (median 63%) wanted sharia to be imposed as the official law of the land.

Thus, significant minorities to substantial majorities of Muslims worldwide favour some of the harshest and most unjust penalties in all of sharia, such as the death penalty for apostasy. For years, I've suspected this to be the case. The data is now available to amply support this. Islamic propagandists such as Reza Aslan need to be questioned about such facts.

Report from Australia re Qatar and WikiLeaks.

Dedicated to Reza Aslan

The Middle East (ME)

But on the ME front, here are a few extracts from today's (4 Dec.) Australian newspaper. None of the articles are any good in their own right, just a few paragraphs taken here and there are OK for illustrative purposes. They don't approach a critical perspective on Islamism. What is beautiful in a sense is the source of these 'revised' perspectives on Old ME politics. The source? None other than Townsville Lad Julian Assange's WikiLeaks.

What is fascinating is some ME countries' support for an armed attack on Iran... "Even if the Israelis do it - but we don't want to know about it" (General vibe in the House of Saud). The Americans don't want to as it might upset the Russians and Chinese. Oh dear, where's Kevin 007?

Take John Lyons (p.20). He rightly points out the Sunni group (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan) and the Shias (lead by Iran, supported by Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hamas in Gaza) are at one other. The Saudis want Iran bombed. Right now. The Americans are rightly saying that they can tolerate the local heat, but it will get too hot (in neighbouring Iraq) if they bomb Iran. Comprehend?

Greg Sheridan (p. 23). When Greg's intellectual analysis fails him he is usually good on empirical evidence. His heading is succinct, probably due to a subeditor's charm: "Wikileaks cables expose Arab states' hypocrisy over Iran". He writes: "[Arab] rulers are begging the Americans to do anything the can, even military action, to stop Tehran acquiring nukes."... The Saudis want Washington to "cut off the head of the snake." (The snake being Iran).

Somewhere else in these foggy articles Iran's leader is referred to as the 'new Hitler' by his Koranic mates, and a 'nut job' by Caroline Overington at page 8. Hardly passes for new analysis. When the Iranian President speaks, the Arabs are probably wondering why he doesn't wear a tie. Why? At least Hitler had the manners to wear a tie.

So there we have an entree for time ahead in the ME. Qatar? Right in the Middle of the ME. Someone said it gets to 50'c in summer. Well, dear friends, it could get a lot hotter close by...

AND to finish, we have the UK Dhimmi/PM David Cameron stating (and thanks to Caroline again) "We let in some crazies" [In London]. Crazies? David, Gordon (Brown) and Tony (Blair), if you allow noxious weeds in your vege patch and they sprout seeds...what happens to your veges? Home grown terrorists? David, you are amongst equals in the House of Commons.

Another thing about the apostasy penalty: There's probably much more support for legally penalizing apostasy + public criticism of Islam than mere public apostasy itself. (The support may also be higher when the apostate advocates that others also leave Islam).

Why does Reza Aslan try to hide the violence of Muhammad's caravan raids?

First, note the violence of a Muslim caravan raid as described on page 287 (425 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him...

Now see how Aslan, on pages 82 and 83 of his book No god but God, makes Muhammad's caravan raids look bloodless:

By declaring Yathrib a sanctuary city, Muhammad was deliberately challenging Mecca's religious and economic hegemony over the Peninsula. And just to make sure the Quraysh got the message, he sent his followers out into the desert to take part in the time-honored Arab tradition of caravan raiding.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing, and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution. The raiding party would quickly descend on a caravan -- usually at its rear -- and carry off whatever they could get their hands on before being discovered. These periodic raids were certainly a nuisance for the caravan leaders, but in general they were considered part of the innate hazards of transporting large amounts of goods through a vast and unprotected desert.

Though small and sporadic at first, Muhammad's raids not only provided the Ummah with desperately needed income, they also effectively disrupted the trade flowing in and out of Mecca...

Reza Aslan is strange to watch in debate. At least in the debate I saw him in. Throughout much of what he said, he struck a snarky, indignant pose, which in turn struck me as just that: a pose, weirdly affected and pretentious.

For Reza's suckers, his snark might be confused with substance, but to me Aslan's indignant snark seemed...like pastiche. Like bits pasted together without any inherent integrity. Instead, an artificial mimicry of sincerity, created by clumsily stitching together remembered fragments of others' indignant attitudes, as if Reza had been a sort of Frankenstein's monster of rhetorical histrionics. To put it simply: he seemed to me insincere and manipulative, and cleverly, methodically so.

But maybe I'm mistaken. Check him out for yourself.

By the way, he was crushed in that debate, at least according to the audience voting at the end. (The debate was hosted by "Intelligence Squared".)

Kinana,

Thanks for those links.

Another boundary: the publicly declared apostate is much more likely to be punished, or course, than the Muslim whose apostasy is merely demonstrated by long-term, obvious non-observance.

//Actually, I never said 85%. It's 75 to 80%. Where did I get my information? I will be happy to supply it to the DHS. It comes from three separate studies...//

One "study" is the "Mapping Sharia in America Project" which was started by the "Society of Americans for National Existence" (SANE) in June of 2007:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/06/mapping_sharia.html

SANE is a "members only" organization which has proposed that US law should contain provisions such as the following:

"It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam."
"The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma."
Michigan Messenger, "Hoekstra endorses report written by extremists," 22 Sept 2010

Mr. Spencer links to a February, 2008 WND article that talks about this nonsense "study" run by SANE. The article says that "the results of the survey have not yet been published."

It has been 3 1/2 years since this "study" was started. Where have the results been published? I search the archives of the magazine "Science" and have not found any report on the findings of this "study." This is not a “study”. The WND article contains baseless accusations from an extremist group who wants to outlaw Islam in the US and declare war on all Muslims.

In the second “study”, Mr. Spencer quotes Muhammad Hisham Kabbani saying that 80% of mosques teach “extremist ideologies.” This is not a “study,” it is a baseless accusation made by an individual. Exactly what does Mr. Spencer consider a “study”? If I say that 80% of Americans are imbeciles, is that a “study”?

The third “study” is a publication released by Freedom House. Freedom House collected some reading material from the libraries of 15 of the 1,500 mosques in the US. Actually, it turns out that only 8 of these 15 mosques have libraries:

See footnote 28 here: http://www.cair.com/PDF/mosque_response.pdf

Freedom House, then, collected some books from 8 out of 1,500 mosques in the US, or 0.53% of all mosques. The Freedom House paper quotes from 41 books. The total number of books contained in the libraries of the 15 mosques is 29,500 (see same footnote above), so the percentage of books quoted from is 0.14%. This “study” quotes some reading material from 0.14% of books found in 0.53% of mosques in the nation. I wonder if the other 99.86% of the books in those libraries are not “preaching violence and extremism”? I go to the Boston Public library. This library contains books by David Duke, Adolf Hitler, Norman Finkelstein, David Ray Griffin, Israel Shahak, the book “Voice of Hezbollah : the statements of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah”, the book “Messages to the world : the statements of Osama Bin Laden”, etc. I can find plenty of quotes from books such as these that many people here might not like. Does that mean the Boston library is “preaching violence and extremism”?

The ADL says that the books “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews”, “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, “By Way of Deception”, and “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” are anti-Semitic books:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NatIsl_81/4986_81.htm

All these books are available at the Boston library. Actually, all of these books are available at the library of Brandeis University. Why does a Jewish University carry all these anti-Semitic books? Is Brandeis University preaching anti-semitism?

Freedom House found a few questionable books out of tens of thousands. Libraries carry all types of books. The 99.8% of books not quoted by Freedom House are likely NOT “preaching violence and extremism”. Also, many of these libraries are open, meaning that anyone (including the people from Freedom Hose who ran the “study”) can simply put these books on the shelves themselves, and they are not necessarily put there by the mosque leaders. This “study” is meaningless.

I am not impressed by Mr. Spencer’s 3 “studies”.


Traeh,

Check out the recent PEW results which I cited. You will note that the data on Muslims' views on the death penalty for apostasy are now available for several countries.

Good article. I hope more and more Americans are waking up to the Islamic terrorist threat because of your efforts.

It seems to me that Aslan, like many other Muslims suffers from Spencer-Geller-phobia.
He is on the defensive constantly.
Never mind the New York Times putting him onthe best seller list. I am certain he is not a best seller. I cetainly wouln't buy one of his books. Only Muslims and "younger wannabe-jihadists" would buy it.

His statement that "Hizbollah is the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon" just exhibits where his little mind rests.
He is probably pleased as punch over the fires raging through Israel just as Hizbollah is. I believe that it was Hizbollah activists that set the fires in three different locations knowing the wind direction at the time and that it would cause massive destruction, deaths and panic to Israelis.

I read this article by Arnie Cooper last night and felt heartened, not by this article but by the readers comments: LL of them including mine were to totally discredit Aslan and the majority of them backed up their opinion with facts. This, in my opinion is in no small measure to the tireless warriors like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

Again all muslims are by their religion terrorists if they deviate from it they may no longer be terrorists but they are no longer muslims either simple logic. The little episode in Iran says to me that very soon the Israelis will be paying a visit to their nuclear facilities (it was classic Mossad/Shin bet. And as for Obama it is my firm belief that he is a muslim all any one has to do is read and have a clear mind. And for making the muslims feel better why dont we extend that to the peoples and their technologies that they exterminated and then stole??? For just recent genocides by muslims look at Turkey and the first world war (just for historic accuracy Hitler was not a christian best that could be said was that he was a throw back pagan). In the long run we will have to fight muslims just as any other civilization has had to when they get to a certain percentage they try to first over run the native populations from within and failing that they start the terrorist activity to actually trying to overthrow by force the people they find in other countries this has been through out history. We will have to fight literally sooner or later not that we want to but simply out of self-defense.

I agree completely with the points you make. They provide a broad view from which we can realistically see our options and thereby do our best to minimize the forthcoming conflicts resulting from the quickly evolving islamic menace, domestically and in the broader global sphere: nuclear proliferation and demographic civic sabotage.

Studies show that YOU are an imbecile ...

You are also a traitor to what is good and right, and even to some good ole basic common sense. You are sold out to what's evil - that much is clear. Yes, I have discovered all of this about you by simply reading and studying your inane comments over the years. So, you want to harp on "studies", pal? Well, study your own JW contributions, and if you're even slightly honest with yourself, then you might ALSO discover your own blindness and idiocy to these things as well - although I highly doubt it. You both follow evil and spread it like the plague. Of course I am referring to your spreading filthy islam. Shame on you, dirtbag. Go live in an islamic country so you can wallow in the joys and wonders of islam THERE (sarc!). But something tells me that you're scared to death to actually make that move. Hypocrite!

It's hilarious that you're harping on whether these studies are valid, or not, yet you miss the most obvious and valid point of all! ...that islam is evil. Pure and simple. My oh my, you are soooo blind and stupid not to at least see that basic and very obvious truth.

Asslan is quite right. There is definitely an increase in anti-islamic sentiment...just as there was once an increase in anti-Nazi sentiment.
I can recall there being a rise in anti-KKK sentiment as their aims and values came to light.
There is also a definite anti-Cancer sentiment that has risen over the years...and just as that sentiment is justified so is the anti-islam sentiment.
Dave is a crack up. His attempts to defend the indefensible are almost as entertaining as the childlike attempts on the part of defenderofislam to do the same.
I definitely get more laughs from DOI though. Dave actually seems to have a couple of brain cells to keep each other warm. That's about it.
Sorry Dave, no other religion has a book that outlines the proper way to have sex with children, "as young as an infant"..that means sex with babies Dave.
No other religion condones sex with animals and describes how to go about it.
No other religion makes any mention of how far a man may insert his penis in to another mans anus before it becomes a homosexual act.
No other religions prophet had sex with a corpse or enjoyed sucking on the tongues of young boys and girls. No other religious figure from any religion enjoyed having men lick his chest or engaged in sex with a 9 year old girl.
These are all facts. Call me out on any one of them and I'll be glad to stick the ugly sources right in your ignorant face for you. If you know islam as well as you pretend to, you should already know these things.
Defend them if you can. Go ahead. Tell me how it's OK to have sex with babies and animals...

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

dave742,

You've criticized the three "studies" Robert cited in support of the claim that about 80% of mosques in the U.S. were allegedly teaching "extremist ideology" and "preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule." I do agree with the general conclusion that those studies* do not constitute adequate evidence to support the claim that about 80% of mosques were preaching extremism etc.

*As for the studies, one of them is indeed not a study but rather one Muslim giving his anecdotal opinion, based on his experience, on the percentage of U.S. mosques that are radicalized etc. The Freedom House study was not intended to address questions about what U.S. mosques in general were carrying or promoting in terms of Islamic literature, but rather was specifically focused on examining literature originating from the Saudis. I don't know much about SANE, but it's obviously a partisan source. I did briefly google that SANE statement you quoted that appears to be threatening punishment for anyone who merely adheres to Islam, and I found that the author is clear in the same document that he is defining adherence to Islam as adherence to sharia including the total political system, and elsewhere he has explicitly stated that he was not referring to punishing people for mere adherence to the Islamic faith. Whatever criticisms one may raise about SANE, with respect to the issue at hand I don't think too many people are going to be mistaking it for an objective public opinion research organization.

That said, let's look at your assertion about what you think the mosque literature contains. You first asked "I wonder if the other 99.86% of the books in those libraries are not “preaching violence and extremism”?, but then you moved from that query to the assertion that "The 99.8% of books not quoted by Freedom House are likely NOT “preaching violence and extremism”." If you haven't taken and assessed a reasonably large random sample of the mosque literature not included in the Freedom House study, or haven't reviewed a credible study that has done that or something of that sort, what makes you think that it is "likely" that the over 99% of the literature does not preach violence and extremism?

Also, let's get some perspective: If these mosques are genuine Islamic mosques (not Nation of Islam etc), then they are preaching from the Quran, and in many cases citing from the Hadith and Sira. We don't need studies to establish that particular claim. I know what the Quran contains, so there is little question in my mind as to what is being presented in U.S. mosques. The significant question then is what selections and interpretations are being preached. In terms of solid empirical data, there's not much on American Muslims, but a PEW study gives us some indication of how they view the Quran (M = Muslim, GP = general population, numbers indicate percentages):

Q.E4 Which comes closest to your view?
Q.E5 And would you say that--?

M 86 GP* 69 The Koran is the word of God

M 50 GP 35 The Koran is to be taken literally, word for word.

M 25 GP 28 That not everything in the Koran should be taken literally, word for word.

M 11 GP 6 Other/Don’t Know/ Refused

M 8 GP 22 The Koran is a book written by men and is not the word of God.

M 1 GP 2 Other
M 5 GP 7 Don’t Know/refused

Source:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

*my note. GP This is comparative data obtained from the American general public, same/similar option re the Bible
[my note, about literal word-for-word: The Koran itself indicates that it contains some allegorical verses (3:7) and parables; this is yet another problem with this option re "taken literally". Also, non-literal interpretations are not necessarily better]

The selections and interpretations will, inescapably, be influenced heavily by the contents of the Quran itself, which by percentage of contents is significantly preoccupied with hatred and punishment of non-Muslims**, and (according to my own assessment of another random sample of Quran verses) has zero percentage of verses that express clearly positive views of/policy toward those who publicly express their criticisms of Islam and Muhammad. Thus whatever interpretations of the Quran one may find, they are all going to be centered to some significant extent on opposing disbelief and disbelievers, as defined Islamically.

**See Pawlik's assessment of samples of the Quran's verses
http://www.islam-watch.org/Amber/Islam-Trial-Prosecution-Case.htm
or see this
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
...or if you aren't satisfied with that, take your own random samples of the Quran's verses and make an assessment of what you find. I think any reasonable unbiased individual will see that these verses, read in context, warrant cause for non-Muslims to be concerned about Islam.

Some more perspective: Even if more than 99.9% of the Quran's verses were positive about the non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam, the existence of one significantly bad verse in Muslims' holy book of instructions, such as 9:29--which undeniably lays down a policy of jihad fighting and/or subjugation of non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam in total--would trivialize all the positive verses as mere pleasantries and thus leave reasonable non-Muslims with significant cause for concern. There is, of course, more than one such bad verse.

Truth is a beautiful thing...
well done.

Robert,

Thanks for correcting me on that. I shall go back and read the Kabbani article more closely.

I still think we need a study examining a random sample of American mosques to make the case, to those who need convincing, that a specific percentage of them are promoting "extremist" interpretation and funded by the Saudis and so forth. Those academics and research organizations best situated to conduct such studies don't seem to be in any hurry to address this. Nine years after 9/11, we still don't have direct studies on American Muslims' opinions on support for sharia and key elements of it such as the apostasy and blasphemy penalties.

// …he is defining adherence to Islam as adherence to sharia including the total political system….//

From the proposed law:

“’Adherence to Islam’ shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a…Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence…are prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.”

If a Muslim supports “any rule”, including orally, he is guilty. It does not have to be the imposition of Sharia in totality. If a Muslim states verbally that liquor should be banned because the Quran forbids it, then he is guilty of the proposed law and would be in jail 20 years. There is no interpretation mistakes with the following, which you did not address:

“The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.”

SANE is insane.

// what makes you think that it is "likely" that the over 99% of the literature does not preach violence and extremism?//

Because the object of the Freedom House study is to demonize Islam. Their objective is to find the worst possible literature present in the mosque libraries and to quote from them. They quoted from 41 out of 29,500 books. If this type of material was in a greater portion of the 29,500 books, then they would have quoted from more of them, and they would have made it clear that a large percentage of the books taught similar things. There is a reason that Freedom House did not detail how many books they were quoting from compared to the total number of books in the library. They want to quote from the worst books and to give the impression that it is a representative sample. I could pick out 41 books from the Boston public library or from the Brandeis University library and quote hundreds of outrageous passages that preach violence and extremism. I could then present these quotes to the citizens of a Muslim nation and say it is a “study” that shows what the US is teaching their citizens. Of course, I don’t think the citizens of other nations would be ignorant enough to believe what my “study” says.

//The selections and interpretations will, inescapably, be influenced heavily by the contents of the Quran itself, which by percentage of contents is significantly preoccupied with hatred and punishment of non-Muslims//

The Quran is not preoccupied with the hatred and punishment of non-Muslims. I am non-religious (although I tend to find the teachings of Zen Buddhism closest to what my feelings are about the “unknown”), but have read the Old and New Testament, the Quran, and books about the associated teachings of the three religions. In general, there are mainly similarities between the three religions, and the focus on negative aspects vs. positive tend to diminish with the time that the books were written. The Old Testament is nonstop violence and hatred – the God in that book is completely psychotic and insanely violent. The New Testament is not as bad, and the Quran is better still. It is impossible to detail this without writing a book, but it is clear from anyone who reads all three with an open mind. The simple proof of this can be seen from history. Muslims societies have been by far the most open to other religions- which is something nearly all scholars agree on. Those who don’t agree with this are not presenting the truth. I am currently writing a paper on an article written by Bostom, which is referred to by JW frequently. When you look up the material that Bostom uses to defend his statements, you find out it is all lies. I will show you the paper when I am done. The people who try to present Islam in a different light from the bulk of scholarship are simply presenting a skewed view. As an example, we can talk about interpretations of the Quran. These, of course, change through time. You may respond with “No they don’t – the gates of Ijtihad were closed long ago.” This also is a wrong view of Islam that goes against the vast majority of modern scholarship. I have addressed this here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

I have started to focus on writing papers like the above, since the issues you bring up can only be addressed by looking at them in-depth. There will be many more papers to come – although I don’t expect them to be read by JW readers.

//I know what the Quran contains, so there is little question in my mind as to what is being presented in U.S. mosques.//

At least there is a “little question” still left. Why don’t you answer it in the simplest way possible. There are 1,500 mosques in the country. Go to one. Pretend you are interested in the religion and ask to visit. They won’t kill you. Why not just find out?

p.s. I've checked the article at the link provided above for Kabbani, and have checked some other sources, and the most I can find in terms of detail consists only of his brief descriptions of his study, as presented for example at discoverthenetworks:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6178

"According to Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani’s testimony before a State Department Open Forum on January 7, 1999, extremists have taken over “more than 80 percent of the mosques in the United States ... This means that the ideology of extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the Muslim population, mostly the youth and the new generation.” Kabbani based his statement on his personal investigation of 114 American mosques. “Ninety of them,” he said, “were mostly exposed, and I say exposed, to extreme or radical ideology, based on their speeches, books and board members.” This is largely due to the efforts of ISNA."

That's about all. What we'd need to see from Kabbani is a more detailed description of the methods used, the mosques sampled, that someone else can vouch for the basic claim that 114 mosques were actually studied (Did he not have help in assessing all of these mosques?), detailed results (e.g., presented in tables and figures, etc.), and so on, but the above quote appears to be about all that is available online based on my brief search. So we don't have the report of the study, we just have a brief verbal description of it--not even an abstract. (If there is no written report--and there doesn't seem to be one--that alone would lead me to suspect that there was in fact no study and that Kabbani was speaking from casual experience).

Here are the relevant paragraphs gleaned from the report linked to by Robert in the rebuttal to Aslan (my emphasis and {brackets} added, parentheses in the original):
--Start of Excerpts--
"[...]The second issue that United States has to look on within, for security, is the fact that there are many Muslim organizations that claim to speak on behalf of the Muslim community but that in reality are not moderate, but extremist. They hijacked the mike, or they were elected because they are good speakers, but they give a wrong idea about Islam. Always we see them in the media criticizing and complaining and sending action alerts and media alerts and showing people that we do not accept this or we reject that.

[...]The third major problem that is now going on is that you have many mosques around the United States and there is not an organized government or policy to look over the mosques like in Muslim countries where you cannot open a mosque by yourself, and you cannot open a charity by yourself. It has to be done according to the structure of the Islamic religion. That's why in the Muslim countries, you cannot find extremist ideology. As soon as you find the extremist ideology they kick them out and bring in traditional Islamic scholars. The extremist ideology comes from the street so the extremists don't know what they are talking about. So they form small circles in different homes or different basements or in different areas and they begin to brainwash the people. That's why we find this kind of movement is becoming big now, especially when the idea is that we have a struggle between us and the United States. "United States is not supporting us," "United States is supporting someone else," they find that United States is not supporting Afghanistan, as Congressman Rohrabacher said. The United States supported Pakistan, the United States supported Egypt, the United States supported PLO and the peace treaty, the United States supported Saudi Arabia, the United States supported Kuwait. The United States is supporting whomever they can, but sometimes it is out of reach that they can support everyone. So they cannot be blamed. The United States cannot be blamed for something that they cannot control.

[...]The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques, that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States – like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok – but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. --{Kinana note: For starters, one can't say that unless the 114 mosques were selected randomly from the total population of U.S. mosques. If not, we'd need some sort of other assurance that the sample was representative of the population}-- And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US.

[...]So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremist has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it. But mostly the youth and the new generation do because they are students and they don't think except with their emotions and they are rebellious against their own leaders and government. This is the nature and psychology of human beings. When we are students in university or college we always fight the government, whether they are right or wrong, we have to attack the government. This is how they have been raised.

[...]In this way we see that the extremist ideology, and this is the fourth danger, is beginning to spread very quickly into the universities through the national organizations, associations and clubs that they are establishing around the universities. Most of these clubs – they are Muslim clubs and the biggest is the national one – are being run mostly by the extremist ideology that they do not understand other than to say that America is wrong and they are right. You can find this on the Internet; you can find it everywhere on homepages and websites that they are against the United States. This is where we don't know how far it goes, and how far it is out of hand. This might affect the whole university system in the United States. Through the universities there will be the most danger. If the nuclear atomic warheads reach these universities, you don’t know what these students are going to do, because their way of thinking is brainwashed, limited and narrow-minded.

[...] The problem of extremism is a big danger, and it can be solved if the West better understands Islam and builds bridges with the moderate Muslims, the traditional Muslims. This way, the Muslim community will eliminate the extremist threat from within. Otherwise, media, television, newspapers, and the leadership will not understand that there is a difference between extremists and Muslims. They have to begin a dialogue with Muslims from around the United States, and they have to have good advisors. What I am seeing, unfortunately, are those that are advising the media, or advising the government are not the moderate Muslims. Those whose opinion the government asks are the extremists themselves. Those that have been quoted in the newspapers, in the magazines, in the television, in the media are the extremists themselves. You are not hearing the authentic voice of Muslims, of moderate Muslims, but you are hearing the extremist voice of Muslims. That's why they are getting a wrong idea, because the extremists are very well supported, are very well affiliated with outside regimes that have sponsored them with billions of dollars to be active in the United States. They have been successful in doing that so the media does not listen except to them. I am even hearing that there are advisors to many congressmen, to many senators, to many organizations that are supporters of extremism and not moderate Muslims.

[...] Question. (continued) One other question that is about the mosques in this country. You say that 80% of them are run by the extremists, I wonder what you mean by that.
Shaykh Kabbani. 80% of them have been being run by the extremist ideology, but not acting as a militant movement. We don't know if this will lead in the future to be more in the hands of militant extremism or not. There are two kinds of extremism: there is the extremism ideology and there is the extremist militant movement. In the future some of them might be working or affiliating themselves with such kinds of militant extremism.
Question (continued) You said, on the other hand, that most American Muslims are peace loving, yet their mosques are being run by these extremists?
Shaykh Kabbani. Muslims, in general, are peace loving and tolerant. And a Muslim likes to go and find a place to go and make his service, make his worship and go and doesn't interfere. So the board of trustees of these mosques is being run by these extremists.[...]"
--End of Excerpts--

There was also this, from MEQ:

http://www.meforum.org/61/muhammad-hisham-kabbani-the-muslim-experience-in
"MEQ: On what basis did you say in the State Department speech that "Extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the Muslim population" in the United States?
Kabbani: On the basis that a large percentage of the population has been exposed to extreme ideas, due to the leadership. This does not imply that the majority of the Muslim population accepts these ideas they have been exposed to – in fact, most of them reject it, as it is so contrary to the faith. I find that many Muslim leaders have this kind of uncompromising, hard-line mentality —"follow us or you are not with us. If you don't follow us, you will be rejected from the community." This is completely contrary to the spirit and practice of mainstream Islam, which is one reason they are hostile to the traditional teachings which I am attempting to make known. On the other hand, the majority of the Muslim community itself is peaceful, loving, and wants to live a normal life without conflicts.
Unfortunately, it is often young adults who are inclined toward radical ideas, and are attracted to extremism. Some hard-line extremist groups, on the pretext of "looking after the affairs of Muslims," search out such people among worshippers and invite them to private, secret meetings to brainwash them in extremist ideas. They organize small cells of four or five. The people who are recruited into these cells don't know each other but the leaders do know each other. These cells are becoming networks of extremist thinking, and they can become a big problem in America. What I see, travelling around this country, is that places of prayer – mosques – are increasingly turned into places of politics, and extremist politics at that."

This all seems pretty hazy in terms of description, and does not seem like the kind of answer one would give if one had actually carried out a study. It sounds to me like he's speaking from casual experience.

dave,

"SANE is insane."

Perhaps, I couldn't tell you, though as I said the author himself in addressing some of the objections said he was not talking about penalizing people for merely practicing Islam as a personal faith.

Anyways, enough about SANE because among other things I think we agree that they are not a non-partisan source.

"Because the object of the Freedom House study is to demonize Islam."

I disagree. Their focus on human rights brings them into conflict with some Islamic but also non-religious practices and ideologies.

"The Quran is not preoccupied with the hatred and punishment of non-Muslims."

You can't be serious. It definitely is. Take a random sample of 100 or more verses, read them in context, classify them, and you'll see that anywhere from about a third (according to my sample) to about half (according to Pawlik's sample) of all the verses are about insults, opposition, hatred, punishment of the non-Muslims who won't accept Islam.

"...we can talk about interpretations of the Quran. These, of course, change through time."

Of course there is some variation, but it is not totally malleable according to one's subjectivity.

"You may respond with “No they don’t – the gates of Ijtihad were closed long ago.”"

Some Muslims agree and others disagree. I wouldn't use that argument, because there is always individual variability in terms of how people interpret the scripture, and yet there are always some common themes that persist over time. To address the question of interpretations, one has to look at polls, what the popular leaders are saying, what laws are in place, what political platforms Muslims will vote for, etc.

"The Old Testament is nonstop violence and hatred – the God in that book is completely psychotic and insanely violent. The New Testament is not as bad, and the Quran is better still."

I would agree that the OT is descriptively more violent than the Quran, but that's partly because the Quran is a vague book and the details are in the Hadith and Sira. Also, the Quran has a higher percentage of prescriptive violence (this claim is supported by Tina Magaard's study), which is stated in open and general terms against disbelievers and polytheists. I wouldn't agree that the OT is non-stop violence, but I would note the most salient thing to me about it is that no significant populations of Jews or Christians today actually follow and implement the death penalties for such sin-crimes as apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, and adultery. Only Islam, which draws on the previous scriptures including the Torah, today has significant populations that threaten and/or implement such penalties or who otherwise wish that such penalties were implemented. (see the PEW and WorldPublicOpinion data on this)

I don't agree that the Quran is better than the New Testament. The Quran is mostly repetitive warnings about hell-fire, the Day of Judgement, that disbelief and disbelievers are bad (indeed, that disbelief is the worst crime), that believers will be rewarded with paradise, how great Allah is (complimenting himself) etc. Not a pleasant read.

"At least there is a “little question” still left. Why don’t you answer it in the simplest way possible. There are 1,500 mosques in the country. Go to one. Pretend you are interested in the religion and ask to visit. They won’t kill you. Why not just find out?"

Well, my point there was that, even with variation in interpretation, the contents of the Quran do put some constraints on interpretation, such that knowing what the Quran says can give you some idea as to what Muslims believe and what is being preached in the mosques. One does not need to go looking for Saudi literature to get the general picture.

As for going to a mosque, I may well do so when the opportunity arises. Nevertheless, I've had discussions/arguments with dozens of Muslims over the years so I have a fair amount of experience in that sense. That's anecdotal and probably a biased sample though; I'm more interested in the poll and survey results at this point, getting a solid view of the larger trends.

After Kabbani made his comments to the State Department, he was asked the following question in an interview:

“You seem to equate ‘extremism’ with ‘radicalism’ -- but not with terrorism? Is that right?”

Here is his answer:

“Most extremists are not violent. . . . Extremism in the Arabic language is a linguistic term that means deviating from the moderate line. You are driving on a road, a very narrow road: You have on the one side the valley, on the other side, the mountain. If you go on either side, you are in danger. You will either fall in the valley or hit the mountain.”
San Jose Mercury News (California)
May 1, 1999 Saturday MORNING FINAL EDITION
PROVOCATIVE MODERATE: A CONVERSATION WITH SHAYKH HISHAM KABBANI ISLAMIC LEADER DISCUSSES HOW HE BECAME EMBROILED IN CONTROVERSY WHILE SEEKING TO WARN MUSLIMS AGAINST 'HIDDEN AGENDAS'
BYLINE: RICHARD SCHEININ, MERCURY NEWS RELIGION AND ETHICS WRITER
SECTION: RELIGION & ETHICS; Pg. 1E

So when Kabbani talks about "extremists", he is not talking about violent people. Don't worry.

Just a few weeks after Kabbani's statements at the State Department, Kabbani made this stunning revelation about Bin Laden (over 2 years before the 9/11 attacks):

"Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, said that bin Laden 'has used two tons of opium and $ 30 million to purchase over 20 nuclear warheads.' Kabbani said bin Laden also 'had hired an international team of rogue nuclear scientists working in a secret underground base to convert warheads stolen from former Soviet republics into miniature portable nuclear devices capable of striking targets around the globe.'"
Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL)
January 24, 1999 Sunday, City Edition
More counter-terrorism funds urged Clinton fears bin Laden, others growing bolder
BYLINE: Knight-Tribune News Service

Wow! Why didn't bin Laden use his 20 muclear weapons on 9/11? Is he saving them? Should I be worried?

Kabbani is an imbecile.

Regarding your latest post, all I can say is to read the paper I referenced above. As I say in the paper, Islamic law ceased to exist at the start of the colonial period. At that time, Islamic law was far more advanced and "civilized" than that in the West. I agree that Islamic law has probably regressed since then. This is, of course, a result of the subjugation and occupation of Muslim countries by the West ever since. Being occupied by a foreign culture has a negative effect on the evolution of that culture. If China successfully occupied the US tomorrow and sugjugated, humiliated and bombed our nation for the next 100 years, our culture would be far different at the end of that period. Religious fundamentalism would experience a huge revival, "terrorism" against the Chinese would be widespread, etc. If the US withdrew its military from the 800 plus military bases around the world and stopped bombing Muslim countries, everything would be just fine.

Hey there Punk!
You seem to have missed the part of my post that was aimed at you and your POS false prophet.
Here it is again for ya...or you can ignore it as most of your kind do.

Sorry Dave, no other religion has a book that outlines the proper way to have sex with children, "as young as an infant"..that means sex with babies Dave. (The Ayatollah Khomeini's "Little Green Book of islamic Jurisprudence". Great book. It really lets you know what islam is all about.
No other religion has a manual that condones sex with animals and describes how to go about it.
No other religion makes any mention of how far a man may insert his penis in to another mans anus before it becomes a homosexual act.
No other religions prophet had sex with a corpse or enjoyed sucking on the tongues of young boys and girls. No other religious figure from any religion enjoyed having men lick his chest or engaged in sex with a 9 year old girl.
These are all facts. Call me out on any one of them and I'll be glad to stick the ugly sources right in your ignorant face for you. If you know islam as well as you pretend to, you should already know these things.
Defend them if you can. Go ahead. Tell me how it's OK to have sex with babies and animals...

No islam...Know Peace.
Know islam...Throw Up!

dave,

If you are not religious, then why is it that you seem to invest so much time in defending Islam?

This whole business about the "gates" of ijtihad seems to be much ado about a vague figure of speech. The important question I think in regards to freedom of interpretation, and the nature of the interpretations of Islam and Islamic law today, is an empirical one: What is the state of current practice?

For non-Muslims who are concerned about the enforcement and spread of Islamic law today, there should be questions like What is being done to stop, or at least render harmless, the harsh elements of sharia today?, and Why do some Muslims wish to maintain those harsh elements and impose them on others?

//If you are not religious, then why is it that you seem to invest so much time in defending Islam?//

I am a citizen of the US, and I am responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims that are being killed by Usrael. This is being done so that Israel may enlarge their territory. I do not agree with this, so I resist it, and I support those who also resist it in whatever way they see fit. Of course, JW readers do not see it this way. They believe that there is a conflict in the ME because Muslims are “terrorists” and because they follow an evil religion. They believe this because Americans are imbeciles, and respond to whatever crude propaganda is thrown at them. I have said before that if I was in control of the media, in six months I could have Americans believing that Swedes are evil terrorists and that we should bomb them. If the West had given Israel their little state in Argentina 60 years ago, then Argentinians would have resisted, they would be “terrorists”, and I would be defending Argentinians. Do you think that if the West had given Israel their country in Argentina, that the evil Palestinians would be crossing the ocean in little boats so that they could blow themselves up in Argentina? I doubt it. It is because I don’t have strong in-group biases like most Americans that I am able to see through crude propaganda very easily.

//This whole business about the "gates" of ijtihad seems to be much ado about a vague figure of speech.//

If you do a search of “gates of ijtihad” on the JW website, you get over 4,000 hits. This “vague figure of speech” is used quite often to demonize Islam, isn’t it? The idea of the closed “gates of ijtihad” is very important to Mr. Spencer’s goal of demonizing Islam. This “vague figure of speech” is why Mr. Spencer claims that he can constantly quote thousand year old books and pretend that this is how Muslims feel today. Of course, when I show clearly to all but the most brain-dead that the closed “gates of ijtihad” is a fabrication, then it suddenly becomes an unimportant “vague figure of speech.” Eventually, I will write a paper on the meaning of the term “jihad”. Will that word then also become a “vague figure of speech”?

//The important question I think in regards to freedom of interpretation, and the nature of the interpretations of Islam and Islamic law today, is an empirical one: What is the state of current practice?//

As I said, the state of current practice is probably not what it would be if Muslim countries were not occupied and constantly being bombed by the West. If we had occupied and bombed Argentina for the past hundred years, the Argentinean culture would also be very different than what it is today. Leave Muslims alone, and they will be just fine.

When Kabbani made some baseless remark about "extremist" teachings in mosques, Mr. Spencer decided to refer to the baseless remark as a "study", and it was accepted as such by JW readers. What about Kabbani's "study" about bin Laden's miniaturized nuclear weapons? Should I be worried about this "study" that shows that bin Laden has had nukes for 11 years? It might sound weird to you to call Kabbani's stupid remarks about bin Laden's 20 nukes a "study", but then people can accept an equally baseless remark about extremism in US mosque's as being a "study." Isn't propaganda fun?

dave,

//If you are not religious, then why is it that you seem to invest so much time in defending Islam?//

You didn't answer the question (you instead veered off, making allegations against the U.S. and talking about the Palestinians etc.), but hey, I'm not going to badger you.

"Eventually, I will write a paper on the meaning of the term “jihad”. Will that word then also become a “vague figure of speech”?"

I've thought this way (much ado about a vague figure of speech) about the whole "gates" business, as I recall, pretty much ever since I first read about the claim several years ago; there's nothing sudden or inconsistent about my view of this.

As I suggested, focus on the reality of what the interpretation is today, and address that larger issue, not some minor technical issue over who said what about some vague phrase.

"Mr. Spencer decided to refer to the baseless remark as a "study", and it was accepted as such by JW readers."

You would have to conduct a study on JW readers and the data would have to support your conclusions, for you to be able to conclude that.

//You didn't answer the question//

Yes I did. I am a citizen of the US. Because I am a citizen of the US, I am responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims so that Israel can enlarge their terrirtory. The American people allow this to happen because they are imbeciles and believe the propaganda that is shoved down their throats. Because I disagree with bombing other countries, I try to counteract the propaganda by telling the truth. You perceive telling the truth as defending Islam. I cannot be any more clear.

//You would have to conduct a study on JW readers//

Here are the results of my "study": 80% of JW readers believe that quoting a statement that some imbecile says off the top of his head constitutes a "study."

Robert,

On further reflection, I'd say Kabbani's presentation is anecdotal. Even if we accept as fact the claim that he assessed 114 mosques, and accept his opinion that about 80% were preaching extremism, his presentation is still anecdotal.

Consider, for example, someone tells you he visited a particular country, and tells you that in about 80% of the places he visited--numerous tourist spots, restaurants, etc.--the people he met were friendly. That's anecdotal, no matter how many places he says he visited, and no matter how many people he says he met.

That's basically what Kabbani's presentation amounts to, a reference to his own casual experience and observations. It's easy to get fooled into thinking this is not anecdotal by his claim that he visited 114 mosques, because one of the common meanings of the word anecdote refers to a single case or incident. However, even if we assume Kabbani's "investigation" had 114 cases, this still appears to be just a collection of anecdotes. Hence, it is anecdotal.

There are at least three aspects to the common notion of anecdotal that are applicable here:

1. A person is telling or making reference to a story or giving a description from his personal experience.

2. It is not a scientific study.

3. The relevant information needed to evaluate the person's claims is unpublished.

Now consider some common definitions of anecdote and anecdotal. (And note that a collection of anecdotes is still anecdotal).

Beginning with the etymology:

"anecdote
1670s, "secret or private stories," from Fr., from Gk. anekdota "things unpublished," neut. pl. of anekdotos, from an- "not" + ekdotos "published," from ek- "out" + didonai "to give" (see date (1)). Procopius' 6c. Anecdota, unpublished memoirs of Emperor Justinian full of court gossip, gave the word a sense of "revelation of secrets," which decayed in Eng. to "brief, amusing stories" (1761). Related: Anecdotal (1836). Anecdotage "garrulous old age" is a jocular formation of De Quincey's from 1823."
Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anecdote

Definitions

American Heritage

an•ec•dote

NOUN:
1. A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
2. pl. an•ec•dotes or an•ec•do•ta (-d t ) KEY Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
French, from Greek anekdota, unpublished items : an-, not ; see a-1 + ekdota, neuter pl. of ekdotos, published (from ekdidonai, ekdo-, to publish : ek-, out; see ecto- + didonai, to give; see d - in Indo-European roots)


an•ec•dot•al ( n k-d t l) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
1. also an•ec•dot•ic (-d t k) KEY or an•ec•dot•i•cal (- -k l) KEY Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" (C. Claiborne Ray).

Macmillan

OTHER FORMS:
an ec•dot al•ist(Noun), an ec•dot al•ly(Adverb)

based on someone’s personal experience or information rather than on facts that can be checked
There is now anecdotal evidence that these chemicals are harmful.

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of anecdotal


Merriam-Webster

Definition of ANECDOTAL
1
a : of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes b : anecdotic 2
2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
3
: of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story


Dictionary.com

Main Entry: anecdotal evidence
Part of Speech: n
Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts
Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys.
Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon
Copyright © 2003-2010 Dictionary.com, LLC

Hence, Kabbani's brief description of his own opinion based on his own unverified casual experience which is not a scientific study and is not even published in any significant detail, is anecdotal, no matter how many mosques he says he assessed.

p.s. correction to this: "It's easy to get fooled into thinking this is not anecdotal by his claim that he visited 114 mosque"

For "visited" I should have wrote "assessed." (I don't know whether he actually visited all those 114 mosques).


Dave,

No, you didn't answer my question about why you were defending Islam. You can criticize the U.S. all you want and take partisan side with the Palestinians, but I'm not asking why you are doing that. I'm asking why you are defending Islam.

//I'm asking why you are defending Islam.//

IMO, people demonize Islam in order to demonize Muslims. IMO, the reason these people want to demonize Muslims is so that the American public will accept the continual bombing of Muslim countries. I don't think the US should continually bomb Muslim countries. I don't think that the particulars that are used to demonize Islam are true. I think they are distortions and fabrications. I atttempt to tell the truth to counter the distortions and fabrications. If the American public were ever to understand the truth, they would not accept the continual bombing of Muslim countries. I would be happy if the American public decided not to allow this to happen any more.

You still haven't answered my question.

"...so that the American public will accept the continual bombing of Muslim countries..." and so on.

By that logic, you are "demonizing" Americans so that Muslim militant groups and their supporters and sympathizers worldwide will feel that it's okay to bomb Americans. This is no less nonsensical than what you are arguing.

//You still haven't answered my question.//

No. You have not understood my answer. I cannot help you with that.

Kinana

I think that could be said of any survey that wasn't entirely comprehensive. That is, if a poll surveys 1,000 Americans and then extrapolates from there to assess American attitudes, it would be anecdotal, no matter how carefully selected to be representative of various groups those 1,000 people were.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

I won't belabor the issue of what fits the definition of anecdotal, as I think my previous post on this supports my claim that Kabbani's brief description fits the criteria.

I think the main problems with Kabbani's account are that (1) we have no published and verified methodological details on what he actually did in his assessment (at least, not to my knowledge, and I have looked for some kind of report); and (2) to extrapolate about a population using a sample from it, a random sample must be used or we must have some other assurance of it being representative. Random sampling ensures that each thing/entity has an equal chance of being included in the sample. I see no indication that Kabbani achieved this or is aware of the implications.

A study that used a random sample of 100 U.S. mosques, and which examined support for sharia and jihad, has now been published:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/mordechai-kedar-and-david-yerushalmi-new-study-shows-that-only-19-of-mosques-in-us-dont-teach-jihad.html

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter