More whining and claiming of victim status, and refusal to deal with the question of jihad and Islamic supremacist activity among Muslims in the U.S. So drearily predictable, and yet no one in the mainstream media, government or law enforcement ever calls them on it.
“Muslims equate criticism with hate: Denounce plans to investigate domestic terrorism,” by Michael Carl for WorldNetDaily, March 3:
Muslim groups today cried foul over what they have alleged is a growing “cottage industry of hate” in America.
The Arab American Institute and the Muslim Public Affairs Council held a joint forum in Washington and said the event is their answer to U.S. Rep. Peter King’s domestic terror hearings set to begin next week.
Islamic groups in America have played these hearings masterfully. They”ve opposed them vehemently despite their toothlessness, while most conservatives have supported King. Thus when the King hearings find nothing, as is almost certain, the Islamic groups can say that even hearings they opposed and that conservatives supported found nothing, and that proves that the Islamic community in the U.S. has nothing to do with terrorism.
In a prepared statement for the packed Rayburn House Building hearing room, Arab American Institute Executive Director Maya Berry said that “Islamophobia” is on the increase, lifting quotes from three members of the U. S. House.
“Islam, quote, is very vile, very vicious and we’ve allowed it to come into this country because we ride around with bumper stickers that say, ‘Coexist,’” Berry quoted.
“‘There are too many mosques in America,’ ‘I am running for the people of the 2nd North Carolina District who are good, hard-working Christian people,’” Berry also quoted.
“These were the comments of Congressman Allen West, Chairman Peter King and Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, respectively,” Berry added.
Berry continued by saying that she believes dialogue is important.
“When different people with different views on issues, it’s important that we are able to engage in a discourse and dialogue about them. When it’s elected officials who are talking about the American Muslim community, often about the Arab-American community in a way like this, it’s a slightly different kind of dynamic,” Berry said….
Institute for Global Engagement Senior Fellow Suhail Khan said a “cottage industry of hate” has appeared and called out specific anti-Muslim activists and accused them of a smear campaign.
“These people have grown in their ability to get their hateful message out there, their misinformation and their fear mongering, in intensity, in recent years that we’ve seen now, particularly on the net,” Khan said.
“Who are they? As Matt pointed out, you have folks like Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy. People like David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Andrew McCarthy, Pamela Geller. It’s a real small group, but they’ve formed very cohesive networks that has kind of parceled out different chores when it comes to each facet of this work,” Khan stated.
“You have Frank, who purports to be a national security expert. You have Andrew McCarthy who kind of brings the legal side of this. Robert Spencer, who has no training in Islam or any knowledge, who comes out to try to be the expert on Islam itself, and then throws up a lot of different verses and instances about Islam the faith,” Khan claimed.
Come on with it, Suhail. The problem with this oft-repeated claim is that neither you nor any of your coreligionists are willing or able to back it up. You won’t debate me, although you tried to debate me by proxy by setting me up as a foil when you debated Frank Gaffney. Neither will any of the other Muslim and non-Muslim Islamic apologists who feel free to make broad-based and inaccurate attacks on my scholarship and integrity: when it comes to backing up their claims in debate with me, they suddenly get cold feet. These include Ahmed Afzaal; Akbar Ahmed; Karen Armstrong; Reza Aslan; Jamal Badawi; Robert Crane; Dinesh D’Souza (although I did best him in debate at CPAC in 2007, he refuses a return engagement, perhaps sensing the outcome would be the same); Carl Ernst; John Esposito; Mark LeVine; Khaleel Mohammed; Grover Norquist; Brave Ahmed Rehab; Louay Safi; and the viciously mendacious pseudo-academic Omid Safi, who ought to have been fired from UNC-Chapel Hill long ago for his vile fabrications about me supposedly sending him death threats.
Now, I know the line that you and your colleagues have formulated to explain away this exercise in cowardice: that I am such a detestable character, and that what I say is so self-evidently false, that it isn’t worth the time and trouble to debunk what I say, and it would only dignify me to do so. The problem with this, Suhail, is that people aren’t buying it. I have two bestselling books, I frequently brief law enforcement and the intelligence community, and speak all over to people who are listening.
In view of that, you and your friends would be much better advised to engage me in debate, defeat me soundly (which should be easy, after all, if I really am as ignorant as you claim), and end my baneful influence forever. That would save you a good deal of whining about that influence in articles like this one in World Net Daily. So consider this post my calling you out and challenging you yet again.
But I understand why you don’t want to debate me, Suhail, despite the fact that an increasing number of people see through your implausible excuse: after all, look what happened to poor Moustafa Zayed.
“Pam Geller is kind of the blogger on the ground. Then you have David Horowitz who is the ex-communist and has now seen the light and has come out to sound the alarm bells first about communism and now about the threat of Islam,” Khan added….
Note the completely substance-free ad hominems.
Later in the forum, Deepa Iyer said, “Islamophobia has led to an anti-immigration attitude in the U. S. It hurts minorities and leads to racial profiling. It’s also led to a hateful view of mosque building,” Iyer claimed.
“These groups have said untrue and hurtful things like building mosques is a sign of the Muslims conquering a land,” Iyer said.
Iyer made this claim even though the former Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque project Feisal Abdul Rauf was quoted as saying that the Ground Zero Mosque site had “iconic value.”…
Of course. What difference does the truth make?