Muslims pulled off flight on their way to “Islamophobia” conference suing for discrimination

What a coincidence: they were on their way to a conference on “Islamophobia” and they got pulled off a flight just for being Muslim! Imagine! And this is such palpable hooey: I fly several times a month, sometimes several times a week, and innumerable times have flown on planes with Muslims in traditional dress. No one gets pulled off a flight solely for being dressed as a Muslim, whatever may be the hysterical charges of the Muslim victimhood industry. “Muslim Men to Sue Airlines After Allegedly Being Kicked Off Flight,” from the Associated Press, December 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Two Muslim men who say they were kicked off an airplane in May after the pilot objected to their presence are suing Delta Air Lines Inc. and a regional carrier that operated the Delta Connection flight from Memphis to Charlotte, North Carolina.

According to a suit filed Monday in federal court in Memphis, Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul were traveling to Charlotte to attend a conference on anti-Muslim discrimination at the time.

Rahman, who is an adjunct instructor of Arabic at the University of Memphis, has said he was dressed in traditional Indian clothing. Zaghloul, who is a religious leader with the Islamic Association of Greater Memphis, was dressed in Arab garb that included traditional headgear.

The two passed through regular security screening and were waiting at the gate to board when they were pulled out of line and subjected to a second security check, according to the suit. They were questioned about their trip and their luggage and belongings were searched before the men were cleared and allowed to board.

Shortly after the plane pulled away from the gate, the pilot announced the aircraft was returning to the terminal. Once there, according to the suit, the men were pulled off the plane, asked more questions and searched again, this time with a “comprehensive body pat down.”

Although they were again cleared to board, the pilot refused to allow them back on the plane, the suit claimed. The plane began to depart without the men when an unnamed airline official called it back and it returned to the gate for a second time.

The suit claims the official then boarded the plane and spoke with the pilot, who said he would not allow Rahman and Zaghloul on the plane because their presence could make other passengers uncomfortable.

According to the suit, the official told passengers that anyone who was apprehensive about the presence of the two men could take a different plane and would be given a generous voucher. There were no takers. The pilot still refused to allow the men to board and they were booked on a later flight, the suit said.

Delta and Atlantic Southeast Airlines Inc., which is owned by SkyWest Inc., issued a statement Monday that read: “Atlantic Southeast and Delta oppose discrimination in any form from any source, and our employees act at all times in the best interest of passenger safety and security. We cannot comment further on pending litigation.”…

“Defendants excluded Mr. Rahman and Mr. Zaghloul because of the way they looked,” the suit claims. “They had beards, wore traditional Arabic clothing, and were visibly foreign. Defendants unlawfully relied upon these characteristics to conclude that Mr. Rahman and Mr. Zaghloul were security threats, disallowing them from utilizing their purchased tickets.”

The suit said the two were traveling to a conference on “`Islamophobia,’ and how Muslims religious leaders could help address this issue.”

The suit seeks unspecified compensation for the men’s losses and injuries as well as punitive damages.

34 Congress members jump to do bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR, demand investigation of NYPD counter-terror measures
Ahmed Rehab of Hamas-linked CAIR: "Radical Right, not Islam" is "greatest threat to the American way"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Every time I hear offended Muslims are suing someone I tell myself:¨Where do they get the money to sue because legal fees are not cheap and many many of them are starting a new life in America, really there is an organization behind all of this.¨

  2. says

    They were on their way to an ISLAMOPHOBIA conference? Oh, that’s rich–I love the irony. Muslims are awfully smug about their “right” to fly in this country after 9/11. I’m for letting them walk…

  3. says

    So not only does Islam impose huge cost burdens on our society in terms of intensive layers of security, but the airlines also have to deal with lawsuits from Islamic shakedown artists and supremacists, and the costs of those lawsuits become part of the airline’s costs and inevitably add to the price of everyone’s ticket.

    Islam closes minds

    From p.82 of the United Nations Arab Human Development Report, 2003:

    [In the Arab world] The aggregate total of translated books from the Al-Ma’moon era [over 1000 years ago] to the present day amounts to 10,000 books – equivalent to what Spain translates in a single year.

  4. says

    Note that, aside from one sentence quoting the airline’s position, nearly the entire article consists of the Associated Press presenting the point of view of “the suit” launched by these two Muslim plaintiffs.

  5. says

    I think the pilot can throw off anyone for any reason.

    There’s some convenience store camera footage of the Ft Hood shooter wearing this stuff sometime prior to his rampage. Maybe the pilot remembered it and it caused him sufficient distraction.

  6. says

    Something’s missing here. As the story reads it would appear the two men were unjustly treated. I’d rather believe this is not the case, that there was some other suspicious element involved that warrented the pilot’s action. But right now, it seems there is none. I’m as mistrusting of the muslim vitimization blame games as the next un-believer, but incidents such as this one, if proven a wrong was done to the men, is not acceptable.

  7. says

    Sue the unbelievers wherever you find them
    Although Muslims claim that Shariah law is Allah’s law, and all infidel systems are ‘man-made’ and inferior, they are keen enough to use our laws against us.

    Litigation Jihad or ‘Lawfare’ is used for three main purposes:

    (1) Extortion of damages payments for bogus claims of discrimination or ‘Islamophobia’.

    (2) Use of both genuine legal systems and ‘quangoroo courts’ to silence any criticism of Islam.

    (3) General harassment of kuffars and sabotage of kuffar society… http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-litigation-jihad-and-lawfare.html

  8. says

    So called Islamophobia, or the attempt to deny anyone their right to speak the truth about Islam or Muslims, has been threatened in the UK by the government establishing a group within the House of Lords to denounce anything that would hurt Muslim feelings and to recommend further legislation that promotes Islam over Christianity. This is the continuation of Tony Blair’s dhimini law making process which allows minorities to take precedence over Britons which is grossly offensive to the majority.

  9. says

    I no longer fly, and absolutely refuse to even enter airports anymore, lest I encounter some TSA goon of either gender and clean his clock. If I object to flying with Muslims, then I also object to being subjected to police state screening by the TSA. If we’d eliminated states that sponsor terrorism over a decade ago, flying wouldn’t be such a degrading experience today. I refuse to “get used to it.” And “getting used” to being treated like a ward of the state, like a piece of meat, is a sure way to conquer Americans. No, thank you.

  10. says

    Isn’t Delta the airline exposed in Jihad Watch a while back for complicity with Saudi Arabia in anti Semitic business practice?
    I think so.
    If so, then LMAO
    Does anyone recall the story I mean? Delta would fly to S A and would refuse to board Israelis?

  11. says

    True to the media’s politically-motivated and biased internal policies (impartial press . . . baloney) this article only prints statements from the Muslims in the story and does not even investigate the actual behavior of the Muslim men. Did passengers overhear them plotting to detonate a bomb? It does not say. Were the Muslim men shouting Mohammad’s violent jihad cry (allahu ahkbar)? It does not say. Did the Captain hear a report that the men were combative with flight attendants or other passengers? The story does not say. It is just assumed by the media that the Muslim men were unjustly treated. What is the basis for that theory? The allegation. The media is therefore enforcing Sharia law, which condemns on allegation alone.

  12. says

    …here’s a summary personal opinion of this Kaybar-Kinana….this poster is practicing taqiyya. Smooth, hypocrisy….well practiced hypocrisy…..verbose taqiyya.

    …caveat emptor, dear readers.

  13. says

    “support anti-sharia Muslims”?

    If that would be OK then so would supporting counter-jihad. Which is more efficacious?

    moving on . . .
    ===
    A boycott of a business that serves Muslims is an inducement to them to not serve Muslims. If they comply then that exposes them to debilitating legal action and penalties. In our modern legal system — lawfare system — one would have to patronize a Muslim owned business that caters to Muslims and make a point of not being a Muslim, get discriminated against, and then sue.

    It is our legal system that has divided the population between protected and unprotected classes. Affirmative action was once upon a time a description of a judicially crafted remedy in a given case where the facts proved that someone had affirmatively discriminated against another. It has morphed, through legislation, into affirmative discrimination against unprotected classes, without any proof being required that the unprotected class discriminated against anyone. Being declared an unprotected class in America is like being declared a Jew in a Sharia state, regardless of whether the unprotected class represents a minority and regardless of whether any individual member engages in discriminatory behavior against a protected class member.

    It is the government itself that has created invidious discrimination, in the law itself. It is the government promotion of an asymmetrical lawfare system that needs to be addressed head on. If wearing a head bag or bed sheet signifies Muslims/Arabs are special — a walking law suit — then someone should be able to rebut this with equally visible and prominent attire to announce (as a public protest all day every day) that there shall be no unprotected classes.

    You might have to wear a shirt or hat with nitro-headed-Mo emblazoned on it (using perhaps a people-of-color colored hat), as public protest against government sponsored bigotry. It is no more bigoted than someone wearing Muslim/Arab specific garb to announce to the world their overt bigotry. Wearing a nitro-headed-Mo lapel pin with a circle and slash could be sufficient to make the point, discretely — the point being, “end government discrimination, here and in Sharia states.” Become a walking law suit, demand that there be no unprotected classes.

    Perhaps what we need is a Yellow Ribbon Campaign (with nitro-headed-Mo on it) and a whole new TV show like ABC’s Nightline to call for an end to the Islamic assault on individual freedom everywhere. Robert Spencer can be the host. There appears to be enough material to fill a half-hour show every single night, for the next twenty years. Would there be enough advertisers willing to brave the grievance lobby?

    (Kinana of Khaybar can wear a special lapel pin reading: Help me, I’m an Apostate from Islam but too whimpy to invite the label of Infidel. What are you afraid of? Lack of a sufficiently protective Infidel army? Purgatory/indecision can be likened to sitting on the fence, with your finger in the air to test who will be the eventual winner. It is not a sin to admit to being risk averse, but such a position is like being inert. You are a spectator. A lawyer, for example, who acted as a spectator would have no clients. If you have graduated from lurker to poster then there might be hope for you yet. PC-extreme is a religion, which an observant atheist would recognize.)

  14. says

    Thanks for your response, pdxnag, to my entry. I haven’t concluded, absolutely, that the muslims were wronged, and I believe there’s enough in what I wrote to indicate I have come to no “conclusions” I wrote: “I’d rather believe this is not the case, that there was some other suspicious element involved that warrented the pilot’s action”. I could possibly have added that, as you pointed out, that it’s now just the “victims” side of the story. I have read the May Christian Science Monitor post and see no persuasive difference between it and the JW story. Where is/are the other side/s of the story?

  15. says

    Thanks for your response, pdxnag, to my entry. I haven’t concluded, absolutely, that the muslims were wronged, and I believe there’s enough in what I wrote to indicate I have come to no “conclusions” I wrote: “I’d rather believe this is not the case, that there was some other suspicious element involved that warrented the pilot’s action”. I could possibly have added that, as you pointed out, it’s now just the “victims” side of the story. I have read the May Christian Science Monitor post and see no persuasive difference between it and the JW story. Where is/are the other side/s of the story?

    Added: I really do want to believe that there was no ugly mistake made on the part of the pilot/airline. I’m guessing that some other behavior by the two men in question will be revealed as positive evidence in support of the pilot/airline decision.

  16. says

    …..apologies for those repeated posts…I was trying to make edits via the “Preview” function and hit the wrong “Publish” key instead…..but the point remains…typos and all…..

  17. says

    Re the subject of boycotting – or, more correctly, individually avoiding – businesses run by visibly recognizable Mohammedans (burqa’d or be-hijabbed female in evidence on premises, man in Islamic dress and/ or beard, etc).

    Google Charlene Downs and what is believed to have happened to her. It sounds like urban myth but it appears, alas, not to be myth, but horrid fact.

    Then have a look around for all the cases where Mohammedans have been caught deliberately contaminating food that was to be sold or served to non-Muslims. There was a Somali Muslim female in Canada who deliberately inserted slim needles into ready-to-eat pork products that were to be sold to schoolchildren for lunch packs. There was a Mohammedan in the UK who was caught sprinkling onto cakes his own dried-and-powdered feces. Wafa Sultan in ‘A God Who Hates’ describes how she saw a Mohammedan female deliberately poking holes into packets of drygoods in a shop, in the USA; doing so out of pure hate, as a small act of Jihad. Then there were a couple of Arab Muslims in Israel who got a job in a kosher restaurant; their intention was to poison the food.

    Then ask yourself whether you want to take the perhaps small but quite real risk of patronizing a Mohammedan-owned food shop or restaurant, or buying food products from Mohammedan lands, that Mohammedans knew were to be sold to Infidels. And whether, if you are a restauranteur or food processing factory-owner, you wish to risk your Infidel customers’ wellbeing by hiring Mohammedan workers – who may, just possibly, maliciously sabotage the food – rather than non-Mohammedans.

    Similarly, as regards taxicabs: if one has a choice between a taxi driven by a visibly Mohammedan male, and a taxi driven by a visibly NON-Mohammedan (male or female) which wlll one choose? Speaking as a female, I can tell you right now I’ll choose the non-Mohammedan. Why should I place myself at risk? Here in Australia there have been a significant number of rapes of lone female passengers, carried out by Mohammedan taxi-drivers.

    Back to restaurants: I would prefer NOT to patronise Muslim restaurants selling halal food, or Muslim butcheries selling halal; why should I not prefer a NON-HALAL restaurant and a non-Muslim Aussie butcher whose meat is not halal? Especially when Muslims are pushing hard to make halal the unlabelled norm across the board, pushing *non-Muslim* workers and suppliers out of the meat industry?

    And as regards doctors, dentists, etc: again, given that a Mohammedan subscribes to a hostile ideology, and there is seriously NO WAY, in a professional context, of determining what that person thinks behind their facade, isn’t it just better to play safe, and – if one has the choice – to choose a non-Muslim professional?

    I don’t feel like playing Muslim Roulette.

    I have NO WAY of quickly knowing or finding out whether the chef in the Muslim-run curry joint or kebab shop is harbouring hatred for me behind his professional smile; so I’ll play safe and buy from the nice Armenian or Lebanese Maronite Christian, next door, instead.

    **Shoutout to Aussie Indians of the non-Muslim persuasion, be you Christian, Hindu or Sikh – set up a NON-HALAL restaurant, make it abundantly plain from the decor and the dress of yourself and staff that you are NOT MUSLIM, and I think you’ll find discerning customers, the kind who love Indian food but don’t like the idea of playing Muslim Roulette, beating a path to your door**.

  18. says

    ….Whew!…Wow!…
    ….I must’ve REALLY hit…Bingo!… a validly vulnerable sore spot in a very sensitive, defensive, part of your……how shall I say it?….”make-up”.

  19. says

    “Where do they get the money to sue…?”

    There are plenty of shysters willing to take a case like this on a contingency basis. If they lose, the lawyers get nothing, but if they win, the lawyers get about 1/3. Typically, the suit asks for huge damages — say, $100 million — then settle for maybe $5 million, so the lawyers get about $1.67 million.
    Or maybe some Moslem organization with backing from the Saudis pays for the lawyers. The Saudis can afford any amount of litigation.

  20. says

    How can anyone alive in the USA, most especial someone working for the airline industry which has been impacted so severely by the need to protect itself form muslim terrorisim, not be especially cautious when dealing with a person wearing the universally recognized uniform of those who have been so hell bent on blowing them up.
    As someone who lucidly recognizes what islam has done through history and not just 911, I can say that it is no less repugnant for me to see someone wearing the Nazi uniform as it is seeing a walking zombie wearing the uniform of islam.

  21. says

    May I suggest to you and other fellow infidels the following: wear the biggest star of David or cross on your necks. Flaunt it prominently and even if not catholic, cross yourselves with the sign of the cross anytime you come in sight of a muslim. Some of my acquaintances and I do it routinely and believe me, their air of piousness disintegrates instantly into a nervous realization seemingly psycho jamming them.
    Only attempt this domestically.

  22. says

    “[as] an American and a Jew, encourage my fellow American infidels to join me in boycotting any business which employs a Muslim or is owned by a Muslim.”

    I have to disagree with that position. Unless a Muslim supports sharia law or jihad (i.e., struggle to practice and impose sharia), or other Islamic practices that are illegal or unethical, I can’t justify a boycott. The mere fact that somebody is nominally a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, etc., does not seem to me to be enough to justify a boycott. Moreover, some Muslims actually oppose sharia and jihad. Religious differences can be argued out in the public sphere. Boycotts are serious economic punishments that I think are disproportionate if we are talking about response to mere expression of religious belief that does not extend into advocacy of sharia and jihad.

    In the case of those who support sharia and jihad, though, I think we need stronger measures than boycotts, though boycotts may be useful among other measures, especially internationally. Within our western countries we need to outlaw advocacy/support of sharia and jihad and start invoking treason and sedition laws.

  23. says

    Kok and everyone commenting on this:

    I call complete bovine fecal matter on this topic:

    To wit:

    The two passed through regular security screening and were waiting at the gate to board when they were pulled out of line and subjected to a second security check, according to the suit. They were questioned about their trip and their luggage and belongings were searched before the men were cleared and allowed to board.

    Nonsense! This does NOT happen in anywhere in the USA.

    Shortly after the plane pulled away from the gate, the pilot announced the aircraft was returning to the terminal. Once there, according to the suit, the men were pulled off the plane, asked more questions and searched again, this time with a “comprehensive body pat down.”

    Again, complete, utter bullshit!! When the airplane is loaded, seated and ready to push, guess what? The airplane moves. No further questions asked.

    Although they were again cleared to board, the pilot refused to allow them back on the plane, the suit claimed. The plane began to depart without the men when an unnamed airline official called it back and it returned to the gate for a second time.

    No. No. No! This would never happen in a real wold scenario. One “recall” to the gate would cancel the flight, period.

    The suit claims the official then boarded the plane and spoke with the pilot, who said he would not allow Rahman and Zaghloul on the plane because their presence could make other passengers uncomfortable.

    No f*cking way this conversation would have ever occurred.

    According to the suit, the official told passengers that anyone who was apprehensive about the presence of the two men could take a different plane and would be given a generous voucher. There were no takers. The pilot still refused to allow the men to board and they were booked on a later flight, the suit said.

    This is a setup. Read this paragraph carefully. Pilots have no authority to refuse travel to any paying passenger.

    Delta and Atlantic Southeast Airlines Inc., which is owned by SkyWest Inc., issued a statement Monday that read: “Atlantic Southeast and Delta oppose discrimination in any form from any source, and our employees act at all times in the best interest of passenger safety and security. We cannot comment further on pending litigation.”…

    That’s because American operated airlines do NOT know how to handle these cases of “Legal Jihad”.

    The suit said the two were traveling to a conference on “`Islamophobia,’ and how Muslims religious leaders could help address this issue.”

    Yeah? So what AP. Can you connect the dots?

    The suit seeks unspecified compensation for the men’s losses and injuries as well as punitive damages.

    Good, luck, mudslimes/CAIR. I will laugh my ass off when you lose this case!

    Footnote: I am an airline pilot (for all those who did not know this); I see (and read) all through the BS this article presents to the “sheeple”.

    Robert – if/when you need a “real” aviation perspective, give me a jingle.

    I am your “Apt Pupil”.

  24. says

    Kinana, unless a Muslim publicly denounces sharia, not just once, but in a plaque on the wall of his business, or in some other prominently and continuously visible way, I do believe in boycotting his business. Given what the Islamic texts say, and the history of Islam, isn’t the burden on Muslims to declare themselves unequivocally anti-sharia, and to do so in a way that does not deny sharia is a central part of the core texts of Islam?

  25. says

    Kiana of Khaybar, I disagree with two assumptions I beleive you are making, islam is a religion like the others you mention, the danger from islam is only it’s sharia and jihad is not practiced by “nominal” muslims.

    islam is not just a religion but a theo-politicl enterprise which tends to inflict everything form persecutions to death on the non-muslims. Even a nominal muslim minimally manifests some allegiance to mohammad who by edict and personal example demonstrated actions such as the killing and execution of his enemies, plundering and the taking of war booty, the propagation of his doctrine by the sword etc. All said actions which based on my Judeo-Christian set of beliefs and principles are evidently amoral and reprehensible thereby justifing for me by force of conscience to do everything I can to avoid conducting business with even the nominal muslims. Supporting Hitler just a little is still supporting evil

  26. says

    The nuance you suggest is a waste of good intentions, good intentions actually belonging to our pre-Islamic-terrorism-warfare-mode…..and would result only in smirks of disdain from organized “muslimhood”. And, well organized it is and must be so recognized.

    These suits muslims bring forth are rank, blatant “lawfare” on the part of muslims just itching to proffer another such righteous indignation suit in attempt to set another “precedent” and legal “issue”…….simply yet another opening for opportunistic “lawfare”.

    There’s literally no end to these efforts on these muslims’ part until we Americans (other countries will have to deal with this problem on their own) stand up and get wise in our own counter-lawfare. Nasty business, yes….but we simply must stand up and fight this muslim-Islamist strategy….and “strategy” is exactly what is in use right this hour.

    We must cease being defensive.

  27. says

    I’ll second your opinion on boycott. There are people here in the USA who came specifically to get away from what they saw as the destruction of their homelands, and who are walking around with a mass of religious doubts. Give them a little time, and they’ll assimilate.

  28. says

    NY Conservative,

    “It is my perogative, as it is every Americans, to spend my money when and where I want”

    True enough, but the issue is whether such a decision to boycott is justified in regards to every Muslim or Muslim group. There are Muslim groups which are actively opposing sharia and speaking out against it. Muslims who oppose sharia are those I think we should support or at least not hinder in this regard.

    “And aside from the fact that I have no way of knowing whether or not the “support Sharia and Jihad” or not, someone in their family sure as hell supports this evil religion.”

    1. You seem to be proposing an extreme form of skepticism whereby no amount of empirical evidence would ever suffice to establish that a particular Muslim or group of Muslims opposes (or at least does not support) sharia. We must base our decisions on what is likely true based on the evidence. If a particular Muslim or group of Muslims have an established record of opposing sharia, that in itself is evidence that points to the likelihood that they do not pose a danger to us, and may even be a help to us.

    2. Support for the religion means different things to different Muslims. Those who oppose sharia but who still believe in a selective modern interpreted version are supporting something other than what the more traditional or orthodox Muslims are supporting. They are for all practical purposes no more dangerous than Jews and Christians who also reject Islamic law but who also indirectly enable Islam through support for religious belief, or non-religious multi-culturalists who think Islam is part of the wondrous diversity of our modern societies. Indeed, those Muslims who oppose sharia are at odds with the orthodox Muslims. While belief in Islam is still folly and erroneous, and they are still tied to all the problems in the texts (unless they perform radical surgery to excise major portions of the text, which doesn’t seem likely), I suggest that this aspect of the Islam problem be best dealt with in the realm of debate and discussion, and social approval/disapproval, rather than in the realm of legal actions, economic boycotts, etc.

    At the least, I would argue that Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad, and who show evidence of this, should not be boycotted.

  29. says

    boneshack,

    Thanks for your input on this. I’m not in the airline industry, but I used to fly a fair bit as a passenger before and after 9/11, and the situation described in this article seems bizarre, to say the least.

  30. says

    Boneshack, you wrote:

    “The two passed through regular security screening and were waiting at the gate to board when they were pulled out of line and subjected to a second security check, according to the suit. They were questioned about their trip and their luggage and belongings were searched before the men were cleared and allowed to board.”
    “Nonsense! This does NOT happen in anywhere in the USA.”

    Actually, this is exactly what happpened to me and my family in MN, (home of the largest US Somali population), all of us – including children – obviously Norwegian-American, blond, blue-eyed, etc. A mahoundian male with a middle-eastern passport on the same flight was ignored. I objected strongly and vocally to this fact at the time. Of course, officials were unconcerned.

  31. says

    Boneshack wrote:

    Footnote: I am an airline pilot (for all those who did not know this); I see (and read) all through the BS this article presents to the “sheeple”.
    ………………………

    I did not know you were an airline pilot, Boneshack.

    Thank you for your professional opinion here”very enlightening.

  32. says

    treah,

    I agree. Muslims should have to establish that they oppose sharia, as part of citizenship, and other matters. In my response, though, I was thinking of groups like Tarek Fatah’s group in Canada.
    http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/mission.html

    These Muslims have put themselves at risk in order to oppose sharia and have established some credibility. It is in part due to their help and the help of other secular Muslims who sounded the alarm in Ontario Canada that the attempt to establish sharia was successfully opposed. While I don’t accept Islam apologetics, and believe there is a danger associated with the propagandistic effect of such apologetics, I believe those can be handled through discussion and debate.

  33. says

    wakingwest,

    I agree that Islam in its current form, and its historical form, differs from other religions in that it is primarily about law and warfare to impose its rules, whereas no other religions, historically or otherwise, are so focused on these aspects. No doubt about it, Islam is more dangerous than any other religious or non-religious ideology that I’m aware of. More people have probably been killed in the cause of Islam than due to any other ideology.

    Yet some Muslims clearly oppose the legal and martial and other objectionable aspects, and are in line with modern western attitudes toward religion. They, of course, are only a very small percentage, but they do exist.

    “islam is not just a religion but a theo-politicl enterprise which tends to inflict everything form persecutions to death on the non-muslims.”

    Agreed.

    “Even a nominal muslim minimally manifests some allegiance to mohammad”

    Agreed (with a very few rare exceptions).

    “…who by edict and personal example demonstrated actions such as the killing and execution of his enemies, plundering and the taking of war booty, the propagation of his doctrine by the sword etc.”

    Agreed that the Islamic texts say those things and that they are accepted by the majority of Muslims. There are however a small minority of Muslims who, for whatever reasons, reject these elements, do not consider Muhammad a perfect example in those respects, etc.

    “All said actions which based on my Judeo-Christian set of beliefs and principles are evidently amoral and reprehensible thereby justifing for me by force of conscience to do everything I can to avoid conducting business with even the nominal muslims. Supporting Hitler just a little is still supporting evil”

    Agreed on the latter point, though the analogy doesn’t quite fit: In the case of Islam, we are talking about a system out of which multiple interpretations can arise, to the point where some Muslims are strongly opposed to sharia and jihad to establish sharia. This of course doesn’t mean their interpretation is legitimate or representative of the texts overall; I’m simply pointing to the empirical fact that, somehow, perhaps due to western influences and some independent thought, some Muslims oppose the bad stuff that we see in Islam. By contrast, I’m not aware of any version of Hitler’s ideology, or any version of Nazism, that was not evil and hell-bent on the destruction of Jews and anyone else who dared try to oppose them.

    I also oppose even Islam that is at the weak level and interpreted in a cherry-picked way to suit modern western sensibilities, and even if the Muslim in question opposes sharia, because I consider this intellectually dishonest. They ought best to leave Islam. But at that level, my type of opposition is discussion and debate, not boycott. Boycotts and legal actions etc. should be for the more serious offenders.

  34. says

    ….again…your rather verbose “agreements” are actually red herrings avoiding the harsh reality of Islamic terrorism and “lawfare” as it is wont to be practiced here in our America.

    Boycotts?…..look at the present Islamic attempts at a boycott against Lowes (the home repair mega-chain). Notice the attempts at economic arm-bending (if you will) against hotel chains which are intimidated into refusing conferences such as our host here, Robert Spencer has written about.

    We Americans must fight this Islamist law-“fire” with astute law-“fire”.

  35. says

    It is difficult to debate with people whose religion tells them to lie to unbelievers (Mohammad’s doctrine of tagiyya). All you can do is make your point and plant the seed. Someone else might have to water it.

  36. says

    NY Conservative,

    I can’t speak for them. All the evidence I’ve seen from the Canadian example that I mentioned indicated that they wouldn’t support any of the nasty stuff you mentioned. Again, this group including Tarek Fatah and other secular Muslims were actually instrumental in opposing sharia, meanwhile some of the Christian and Jewish leadership were in favour of it. Here’s more info on the Canadian case:
    http://www.nosharia.com/

    You might see something like this in the U.S. within the next five years or so.

    I do respect your opinion, though, even though I disagree with you on the particular small minority of Muslims who oppose sharia. You draw the line at Muslim versus non-Muslim. I draw the line at people who support sharia and jihad versus those who oppose sharia and jihad.

  37. says

    Charles Griffith,

    You write: “The nuance you suggest is a waste of good intentions, good intentions actually belonging to our pre-Islamic-terrorism-warfare-mode”

    You provide no evidence for your claim. I cite the Candian case to support my point. If you can’t find comparable examples in the U.S. or U.K or wherever you live, then ignore it. I’m only referring to supporting the small percentage of Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad.

    “…..and would result only in smirks of disdain from organized “muslimhood”.”

    You are simply assuming what I recommend would result in the MB being happy, i.e., that sharia and jihad continue apace. Yet you have provided no evidence that this would be the case.

    “And, well organized it is and must be so recognized.”

    If you are claiming that the MB is well organized, I agree. However, that has nothing to do with your claim that we should not support anti-sharia Muslims such as those I suggested, Muslims who oppose the MB.

    “These suits muslims bring forth are rank, blatant “lawfare” on the part of muslims just itching to proffer another such righteous indignation suit in attempt to set another “precedent” and legal “issue”…….simply yet another opening for opportunistic “lawfare”.”

    This statement about lawfare does not refute, or even address, my claim that we should support, or at least not hinder, those Muslims who are opposing sharia and opposing jihad to install sharia.

    “There’s literally no end to these efforts on these muslims’ part until we Americans (other countries will have to deal with this problem on their own) stand up and get wise in our own counter-lawfare. Nasty business, yes….but we simply must stand up and fight this muslim-Islamist strategy….and “strategy” is exactly what is in use right this hour.”

    Again, see above. This doesn’t address my claim which you purport to refute.

    “We must cease being defensive.”

    I agree, but see above–this doesn’t address my claim, much less refute it.

    “….again…your rather verbose “agreements” are actually red herrings avoiding the harsh reality of Islamic terrorism and “lawfare” as it is wont to be practiced here in our America.”

    I think you’re ignoring what I said. Islamic terrorism and illicit lawfare of this sort are aspects of jihad. I’m only talking about Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad. Get it yet?

    “Boycotts?…..look at the present Islamic attempts at a boycott against Lowes (the home repair mega-chain). Notice the attempts at economic arm-bending (if you will) against hotel chains which are intimidated into refusing conferences such as our host here, Robert Spencer has written about.
    We Americans must fight this Islamist law-“fire” with astute law-“fire”.”

    Again, how does any of this address, much less refute, my suggestion that we support Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad?

    “…here’s a summary personal opinion of this Kaybar-Kinana….this poster is practicing taqiyya. Smooth, hypocrisy….well practiced hypocrisy…..verbose taqiyya.
    …caveat emptor, dear readers.”

    That’s quite funny. You make a good caricature of the type of commenter who can’t argue his way out a wet paper bag and so has to accuse his opponent of practicing taqiyya. In any case, you claim I’m lying. That’s an empirical claim. Prove it. (Note: Calling “taqiyya” is the claim; it is not the evidence for the claim). Tell me all about these secretly held beliefs that I hold.

  38. says

    NY Conservative,

    This would only get repetitive. As I said, from what I’ve seen of what these anti-sharia Muslims have actually done in Canada–not just what they say but what they’ve actually done–I think they can be effective allies in opposing sharia. We were successful in blocking it in 2005. On the specific questions, as I said, the group in question doesn’t support sharia and jihad. Read the information at the links I provided above and judge for yourself. I’ve given my opinion based on what I know, but I would not expect you to take my word for it.

    “What is left of the religion if you remove these elements, which are fundamental elements of the religion? And if you remove these elements, then they might as well be Christians, Jews or Buddhists, none of which religions support forcible conversion under penalty of death!”

    I don’t care how much of the religion is left, if sharia and jihad are removed.

    “How many years / acts of murder, terror, slaughter, rape, destruction of churches, temples, monasteries does it take before one conludes that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western and Judeo-Christian principles?”

    Of course an Islam which includes sharia and jihad is incompatible with western civilization. But Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad aren’t doing those things.

    I don’t care if they are opposed to “Judeo-Christian principles”. I’m an atheist. What I care about is whether they are in conformity with modern western laws and values, and whether they pose a security risk and long-term demographic threat. Mainstream Islam does pose such threats, and therefore must be dealt with through large-scale measures. The small percentage of Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad do not pose such a threat, and should either be left unhindered or else be supported.

  39. says

    “Kinana Of Khaybar”….
    [stage-note on the side: Methinks here a Walter Mitty-esque “Lawrence of Arabia” in verbose anti-disguise? Methinks so.]

    Reading your various defensive replies which are indeed very well worded….but still in all they remain aggressively circular; and seemed “programmed” for a site such as this one….that’s why I think that you should be an imam teaching methods of taqiyya. Maybe you are?

    …you’re very talented, very “good at what you do” in our vernacular, but something alien about your style cautions me that you’re a phoney, or a “troll” trying to provoke our responses.

    I’ll leave you with this “unanswerable question”….Isn’t this an oxymoron?…..pasting here your, “I’m only talking about Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad. Get it yet?”

    No, I most definitely don’t “get it”. Cannot possibly “get that” one. It’s rank nonsense.

    Got That One?

  40. says

    Let’s accept this as self evident:

    …”Added: I really do want to believe that there was no ugly mistake made on the part of the pilot/airline. I’m guessing that some other behavior by the two men in question will be revealed as positive evidence in support of the pilot/airline decision.”

    Come on people….think!….after what was done to us on that 11 September using commercial aircraft fully loaded with fuel immediately after take-off……

    We simply must get used to these Islamists/Muslims playing the victimized-race-bearded-dark-skinned-profiled-innocents-abroad in the wild American contemporary scene….a scene, it must be remembered, brought upon us by these very Islamist/Muslim terrorists.

    We’re at war against Islam…let’s face it…say that out loud…”We’re at war against Islam”…..and in wartime certain accustomed liberties heretofore taken for granted have to be temporarily suspended.

    Isn’t there anyone out there who remembers the Second World War and how it started….undeclared by a sneak attack?

    And yet, some unthinking folks have the chutzpah to question the authority of an aircraft Captain who is held ultimately responsible for everything to do with that aircraft while under his/her command……

    Come ON!

  41. says

    Let’s accept this as self evident:

    …”Added: I really do want to believe that there was no ugly mistake made on the part of the pilot/airline. I’m guessing that some other behavior by the two men in question will be revealed as positive evidence in support of the pilot/airline decision.”

    Come on people….think!….after what was done to us on that 11 September using commercial aircraft fully loaded with fuel immediately after take-off……

    We simply must get used to these Islamists/Muslims playing the victimized-race-bearded-dark-skinned-profiled-innocents-abroad in the wild American contemporary scene….a scene, it must be remembered, brought upon us by these very Islamist/Muslim terrorists.

    We’re at war against Islam…let’s face it…say that out loud…”We’re at war against Islam”…..and in wartime certain accustomed liberties heretofore taken for granted have to be temporarily suspended.

    Isn’t there anyone out there who remembers the Second World War and how it started….undeclared….and…. by a sneak attack?

    And yet, some unthinking folks have the chutzpah to question the authority of an aircraft Captain who is held ultimately responsible for everything to do with that aircraft while under his/her command……

    Come ON!

  42. says

    Let’s accept this as self evident:

    …”Added: I really do want to believe that there was no ugly mistake made on the part of the pilot/airline. I’m guessing that some other behavior by the two men in question will be revealed as positive evidence in support of the pilot/airline decision.”

    Come on people….think!….after what was done to us on that 11 September using commercial aircraft fully loaded with fuel immediately after take-off……

    We simply must get used to these Islamists/Muslims playing the victimized-race-bearded-dark-skinned-profiled-innocents-abroad in the wild American contemporary scene….a scene, it must be remembered, brought upon us by these very Islamist/Muslim terrorists.

    We’re at war against Islam…let’s face it…say that out loud…”We’re at war against Islam”…..and in wartime certain accustomed liberties heretofore taken for granted have to be temporarily suspended.

    Isn’t there anyone out there who remembers the Second World War and how it started….undeclared….and…. by a sneak attack?

    And yet, some unthinking folks have the chutzpah to question the authority of an aircraft Captain who is held ultimately responsible for everything to do with that aircraft while under his/her command……

    Come ON!

  43. says

    Let’s accept this as self evident:

    …”Added: I really do want to believe that there was no ugly mistake made on the part of the pilot/airline. I’m guessing that some other behavior by the two men in question will be revealed as positive evidence in support of the pilot/airline decision.”

    Come on people….think!….after what was done to us on that 11 September using commercial aircraft fully loaded with fuel immediately after take-off……

    We simply must get used to these Islamists/Muslims playing the victimized-race-bearded-dark-skinned-profiled-innocents-abroad in the wild American contemporary scene….a scene, it must be remembered, brought upon us by these very Islamist/Muslim terrorists.

    We’re at war against Islam…let’s face it…say that out loud…”We’re at war against Islam”…..and in wartime certain accustomed liberties heretofore taken for granted have to be temporarily suspended.

    Isn’t there anyone out there who remembers the Second World War and how it started….undeclared …..and by a sneak attack?

    And yet, some unthinking folks have the chutzpah to question the authority of an aircraft Captain who is held ultimately responsible for everything to do with that aircraft while under his/her command……

    Come ON!

  44. says

    NY Conservative,

    “As neither you, nor, as far as I know, anyone else, can answer the question ‘WHAT IS LEFT OF ISLAM IF YOU REMOVE JIHAD, WIFE-BEATING, POLYGAMY, HONOR-KILLING, etc.’

    I would suggest something quite similar to modern moderate lax versions of Christianity and Judaism, which are also monotheistic religions in the same general tradition.

    Not that I’m advocating it. What I’m saying is that it would be reduced in potential level of harm to no more than that of Judaism and Christianity, if jihad and sharia are removed.

    “you will never convince me that so-called ‘Moderate Islam’ is not a danger to Western civilization.”

    I didn’t say “moderate Islam”; that’s your phrase. As I said, even the propagandistic apologetics are a problem, but they can be handled through debate and discussion. I’m referring to secular Muslims who have rejected sharia and jihad, and thus are no more a danger to our modern secular societies than most Christians and Jews.

    Anyways, yes, I have gathered that “I’m never going to convince” you, but that doesn’t really worry me. What we need to be worried about is convincing the general public to agree to some very serious large-scale measures to counter the Islam problem. If your dividing line is Muslims versus non-Muslims, I think you are going to have a tougher job selling that position than I will have in selling mine.

  45. says

    You wrote:

    “support anti-sharia Muslims”?

    “If that would be OK then so would supporting counter-jihad. Which is more efficacious?”

    I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to here, but I’m not aware of anyone who opposes sharia who does not also oppose jihad to impose sharia.

    “(Kinana of Khaybar can wear a special lapel pin reading: Help me, I’m an Apostate from Islam but too whimpy to invite the label of Infidel.”

    Pin a label as in name-calling ad hominem, etc.? I’m not an apostate of Islam. And I’m not sure why you have a problem with apostates, in this vaguely and bizarrely hostile comment.

    I don’t post my real name or address. Neither do you. Even Spencer doesn’t post his address. And until you attach your name to your public statements about Islam, your criticizing me on these grounds–if that is in fact what you are doing–is simply a case of glaring hypocrisy.

    “What are you afraid of? Lack of a sufficiently protective Infidel army? Purgatory/indecision can be likened to sitting on the fence, with your finger in the air to test who will be the eventual winner.”

    I’m not sure what you are imagining here. Again, vague hostility and grasping-in-the-dark speculative accusations…what’s your point?

    “It is not a sin to admit to being risk averse, but such a position is like being inert. You are a spectator. A lawyer, for example, who acted as a spectator would have no clients. If you have graduated from lurker to poster then there might be hope for you yet. PC-extreme is a religion, which an observant atheist would recognize.)”

    Again, I’m not sure what you are talking about, other than you seem to be emitting some vaguely accusatory and hostile noises, with no real basis or point. I’ve been following the site since 2005 and have been commenting since then. (I was previously under different monikers, but I’ve had this one since 2008). I’ve studied Islam from a critical perspective for several years. I think we need to take large-scale measures to stop the Islamization problem in the West, and I’m not sure what’s “PC” about recommending that, or criticizing Islam and Muhammad, refuting apologetics, etc.

    I find nothing of interest or of substance in your comments directed to me, nor does this appear profitable to me. I would therefore ask as a courtesy that you not bother me further. Capiche?

  46. says

    Charles Griffith,

    You continue to make a fool of yourself by presuming so much. Sherlock Holmes on the trail of a tricky taqiyya apologist Muslim named Kinana of Khaybar. This is so entertaining I’m not even offended.

    “Kinana Of Khaybar”….
    [stage-note on the side: Methinks here a Walter Mitty-esque “Lawrence of Arabia” in verbose anti-disguise? Methinks so.]”
    Reading your various defensive replies which are indeed very well worded….but still in all they remain aggressively circular; and seemed “programmed” for a site such as this one….that’s why I think that you should be an imam teaching methods of taqiyya. Maybe you are?”

    Surely you are joking Mr. Griffith!

    “…you’re very talented, very “good at what you do” in our vernacular, but something alien about your style cautions me that you’re a phoney, or a “troll” trying to provoke our responses.”

    This is quite possibly the most unintentionally funny thing anyone’s ever said to me on this site.

    “I’ll leave you with this “unanswerable question”….Isn’t this an oxymoron?…..pasting here your, “I’m only talking about Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad. Get it yet?”
    No, I most definitely don’t “get it”. Cannot possibly “get that” one. It’s rank nonsense.”

    Check out the links I provided above. There are some Muslims who oppose sharia and jihad to impose sharia. They put their lives on the line to do this. Religious belief as you may be aware does not need to be terribly rational or consistent or supported by evidence, yet you seem to act as though it must be. Peoples’ religious beliefs are a selective interpretation of the material. Muslims are similar to other religious people in this respect.

    “Got That One?”

    If you hadn’t ignored the links cited in my post, you wouldn’t have had to ask. If you don’t like what they are doing, or don’t trust them, I suspect you will have at least some chance of having an influence on them by complaining to them. But you will not influence them at all by complaining to me about them. And you will not influence me, except in making me chuckle, by accusing me of taqiyya, plotting, and so forth.

  47. says

    CGW,

    I am truly sorry that happened to you. I made my assertion based on the prevailing attitudes (PC/MC nonsense) of “today.”

    Air travel shortly after 9/11 was a complete b*tch, even for credentialed, uniformed air crew.

    Still, the claim these two muslims were pulled aside and searched again beggars credulity. I don’t buy it.

    Have a great Christmas!

  48. says

    PCPCP wrote:

    Isn’t Delta the airline exposed in Jihad Watch a while back for complicity with Saudi Arabia in anti Semitic business practice?
    I think so.
    If so, then LMAO
    Does anyone recall the story I mean? Delta would fly to S A and would refuse to board Israelis?
    …………………………..

    Here are the stories you refer to, PCPCP:

    “Delta Airlines adds Saudi airline to partner companies, will uphold ‘No Jew’ policy on flights to kingdom”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/delta-airlines-adds-saudi-airline-to-partner-companies-will-uphold-no-jew-policy-on-flights-to-kingd.html

    “Delta Airlines says it will not ask passengers their religion despite alliance with Saudi airline”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/delta-airlines-says-it-will-not-ask-passengers-their-religion-despite-alliance-with-saudi-airline.html
    …………………………..

    Seems even this degree of dhimmitude has not helped them. What a surprise! sarc/off

  49. says

    Charles Griffith wrote:

    …this “Kinana of Khabar” is a practicting troll. We should leave her/him alone, not feeding any more.
    …………………………..

    Charles, Kinana of Khaybar is *no troll*. He is an absolutely staunch anti-Jihadist who has a long and very fine posting history here. Google his username and you will see the tragic anti-Jihad hero he has named himself for.

    For myself, I am rather leery of patronizing Muslim businesses, for all the obvious reasons. Sometimes it is simply unavoidable, however.

    I don’t entirely disagree with Kinana, either”certainly, not all Muslims are actively waging or funding Jihad, nor do all support Shari’ah. The trouble, as always, is distinguishing”especially when dealing with a creed that allows its followers to smile at Infidels while plotting their destruction.

    The disagreement here between NY_Conservative and Kinana of Khaybar is a civil and an understandable one. Labeling Kinana a “practicing troll” is neither accurate nor helpful.

  50. says

    “User names” are a bagatelle…and/or a facade…more generally the latter here in “comments” areas. I could call myself “Vocalise Rachmaninoff”, or “Sun Tzu”, but I don’t, I use my genuine name….straight up.

    I stand by the “troll” designation because of the tone of her/his responses; she/he “reads”….that’s the key word… “reads” just like a troll, and in “comment” space it’s “tone” that stands out and gives a roundness to otherwise flat words in a font-string.

  51. says

    My dear sir – you who have just, having as far as I can tell very recently come on board here, presumably, implied that all of us here who use nom de plumes are cowards and/ or deceitful for so doing – has it perhaps occurred to you that commenters such as myself and Gravenimage -who are women, and private citizens of modest means – might just be being prudent when we choose NOT to use our real names in a public and, indeed, international forum such as this, where the walls have ears, and where we know that malevolent Mohammedans from all over the world regularly lurk?

    Mr Spencer is a public figure, a published author, but he lives in ‘secure undisclosed locationsville’ and doubtless takes various security precautions with his family, etc.

    I am a much less prominent figure, a sedate middle-aged suburban housewife with four children and a husband and our family would not be able to afford heavy-duty security measures. Why should I take entirely unnecessary risks?

    A nom de plume is a sensible precaution, in this kind of environment. And not only to ward off Mohammedan assassins; there are plenty of other unpleasant creatures out there in cyberspace.

  52. says

    ….RE..”My dear sir – you who have just, having as far as I can tell very recently come on board here, presumably, implied that all of us here who use nom de plumes are cowards and/ or deceitful for so doing…” [end paste.]

    No madam, that lept at conclusion is yours. Read more carefully the comment that I was replying to. The nom de plume used by that poster was cited by another poster as being indicative of the original poster’s bona fides of her/his opinions of Islam.

    It was that alone which I chose as an example of the fatuity of choosing similar-implying noms de plume to disguise true feelings. That, of course, could be called “deceitful”…..but, I’d rather call it fatuous. I’ll conceed that deceit and fatuity could go hand in hand.

    However, I said that I used my genuine name instead of “Rachmaninoff” or “Sun Tzu” as I can not imply any talent or opinions similar to those two guys.

    Sadly, if you as a woman feel that your livelihood or privacy is too vulnerable to be able to use your genuine name above or below your opinions….. then that, madam, is quite another sad problem, and not a part of this discussion.

  53. says

    …..moreover, as a matter of direct concern here and also to Jihad Watch, any posters here who fear the publication of their real names will lead directly to their physical harm by muslim/Islamist terrorists is a serious problem for local law enforcement and Federal authorities and should be directed to such authorities.

    Personally, that personal fear, individually or generally, justified or not, is something that we as Americans simply must not permit to exist. Your expressing that anxiety is of itself why we Americans must not permit Islam to seep into our daily lives.

    That, madam, is part of what has drawn me here to Jihad Watch, because I see Jihad Watch as the most effective website I’ve yet come across that will not mince words in exposing the existential threat that radical Muslim/Islamist infiltration and subversion pose to us Americans in this period of wartime conditions.

    We Americans must admit amongst ourselves that we are indeed at war with militant, trans-national, expansive, aggressive Islam.

  54. says

    Charles Griffith,

    Your behaviour in this thread (and others) indicates that you may be more of a nuisance here than anything else. If you are more of a nuisance to us than you are to the jihadists, sharia supremacists, and Islam propagandists, then you might want to rethink your behaviour here.

    You imply that you are brave and effective (and others are not), for using your real name. There are some points that I’d like to make in response:

    We readers of this site have no feasible way of knowing your real name, based on what you’ve told us thus far. Any commenter on the internet can choose practically any name they want. Your choosing to post the name Charles Griffith is no more meaningful than if you had posted the name Joe Green. So what?

    There are probably hundreds of people in the U.S. with the name “Charles Griffith”. The name you provide does not specifically identify you in such a way that a jihadist could hunt you down, or a zealous politically correct pro-Islam employer or institution could fire you, or leftists and Muslim activists harass and threaten you and make trouble for you.

    Since you aren’t incurring a significant risk by posting that name, much of your argument falters on these grounds.

    It is also not clear if what you are using is a first+last name combo, or a first+middle name combo, or a middle name+last name combo.

    Not all of us have the kind of name that is shared by numerous others. When I enter my full (real) name into google, no one else, other than instances identifying me, show up. Even with the first+last name combo only, there are only a few others who have my name, and I’m the only one in my country with this name. That’s because I have a unique name. If you knew it, you’d be able to locate me and put together lots of information pretty quickly with just a few clicks of a mouse. That’s because my name, address and previous addresses, and photos, are on the internet in relation to my work (work which has nothing to do with Islam)among other things.

    Anyways, even if we were to accept your argument that internet commenters should use their real names, the point is that your underlying claim–that we commenters should identify ourselves to all the world’s lunatics–is not established simply by providing a name. You’d have to provide specific information that would identify you, distinguishing you from all the other Charles Griffiths out there, and we’d have to be able to verify it.

    I have opposed Islam, using my real name and identity, in real life, in situations where that would not be publicized to all the world’s lunatics. (Of course, you don’t have to take my word for that, anymore than I have to accept that your name is really Charles Griffith). One can use one’s real name in a context where it truly matters, but I don’t see posting comments in a blog comments section (on any topic outside my profession) to be such a context. In these contexts, for general commenters, it is the content of the comment that matters, not the “name” attached to it.

    I do appreciate it when well-known writers and Islam critics, and even Islam apologists, drop in to the comment section and post a comment in their real name. In those cases, use of the name is meaningful. But I don’t think it is significantly meaningful or effective for every John and Jane Doe to post their real name.

    It’s important to understand exactly why people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Geert Wilders, and others, are, rightly, considered by us to be so courageous. They are defending our freedoms and for this they are threatened and are in danger of being killed by jihadists. They are threatened because the jihadists know they are highly effective at what they do: They are famous and have alerted and educated large numbers of people, persuading these people to oppose Islamization. They specialize in opposing Islam; they do it full time; they are known for this. To the jihadists, then, they are prize targets, the “leaders of disbelief.” The jihadists would love to kill them to make an example of them in order to intimidate all of us.

    But the leaders of the resistance to sharia and jihad are not kamikazes. They do take precautions. They would be foolish otherwise. They are more effective alive than dead.

    If I ever decided to tackle Islam as a full-time profession, and am able to do so (financially, security-wise, etc.), I would definitely use my real name publicly (e.g., on books, websites, media, etc.). I’m not in that situation, though. I’m not in any situation where using my real name as a commenter on this website or any other would be, on the balance, advantageous, at this time. There would be a huge cost, huge risk, associated with posting my name, and no significant benefit. On the other hand, by posting comments without my real name, I can participate here and exchange information and insights from my fellow commenters, with practically no risk.

    There are people who are highly influential and effective Islam critics who haven’t used their real name, e.g., Ibn Warraq (which is a pseudonym). For years, Ibn Warraq’s identity was not public, and it is only in the past few years that he has publicly though not prominently put his face to pen name, thus giving some partially identifying information.

    All of this is besides the general benefits that can be argued for anonymous commenting, which I need not get into here. In a general sense, I would see no benefit to posting my real name publicly in regards to any topic, except those in relation to my business or work or area of expertise, none of which have anything to do with Islam.