The Islamic supremacists next door

A Jihad Watch reader recently contacted me and sent me the letter below, which he has sent to the managers of his apartment complex in a large Western state in the U.S. It is illustrative of the difficulties that Islamic supremacists can cause in otherwise placid communities, including a considerable raising of tensions and hostilities where none were present before. In publishing this letter I have changed all the names in order to protect those who sent it.

May 9, 2012

To Whom It May Concern,

We write this letter on behalf of our family and the Milton Community Apartments community with particular attention to the rights as stated in the lease that all residents "have the right to live in decent, safe housing," and that all residents must conduct themselves "in a manner that will not disturb your neighbors." This is achieved by applying and respecting neighbor’s and each resident's BOUNDARIES. We have the right to have our boundaries respected and address with management those who violate boundaries on a continuous basis.

This letter is a formal complaint regarding the conduct of our neighbors in Unit XXX. Additionally, we are filing a police report with regard to our neighbors' harassment and threats made on April 2, 2012.

From the first week we moved into our apartment, we were faced at our front door by the neighbor Maryam and her children. They introduced themselves as Muslims and make abrasive comments toward the community, declaring that "I can't stand this place. I've lived here for a long time and it's ugly. I can't stand the people around here or walking through this neighborhood. It's so boring, like suburbia. I wish we lived closer to downtown. Good luck with it here." Having just moved from [Redacted], we were certainly not in agreement, commenting on how new the buildings were and how nice it was to be surrounded by bike trails and the fields. Maryam asked us if we were going to have an issue with them being Muslim, to which we replied, "No, we don't have any prejudices with religion. That's not an issue with us and your religion is your own personal business."

Also in the first week, Maryam visited our apartment two nights in a row, concerned as she said, "My husband should not know I am here" stating we "should not be concerned about any of her attempts to convert us to Islam so that our children could play together". She spoke badly about her choice in converting to Islam and that said she disliked the attitude of superiority and "arrogance" the Muslims "impose" on non-Muslims. She complained that Muslims often used "double standards" and [were] "manipulative". She said she wanted to "get out of Islam." At no point did we ask for or encourage any of this information. At this time, she was still wearing the Muslim veil at all times outside of her house. She asked us to seek the approval of her husband so that her daughters could play with our 5 year old daughter, Elaine, and that we should invite him into our home for coffee from time to time. At this point, we had neither sought nor solicited their friendship. However, she imposed upon us that our son Thomas (8 years old at the time) would not be able to play on our own front porch because that's where her daughters were accustomed to playing. She reminded us that in the Muslim world, non-Muslim boys of Thomas's age could not play around Muslim girls. To this outrageous demand, Lisa replied, "Your religion cannot interfere with my lifestyle." We asked her to keep herself and her children in her front yard area, and realize that we had moved in and that we were occupying the apartment next door. We requested that our privacy be respected.

She disregarded any and all boundaries that we had requested to her. She would instruct her children (who were homeschoolers at the time) to sit in front of our door, porch and walkway, blocking the entrance to our apartment's front door with toys and food to the point that our son could not come in through the front door of our apartment. Thomas began complaining about having to use the back door as an entrance to the apartment. The community area and playground is facing our front door just across the parking lot. We asked Maryam to have her daughters play in the community area to which she replied, "My daughters are not allowed to play in the community area." Our children, Thomas and Elaine were encouraged to play and, under our supervision, did always play in the playground and community area with other children.

Every morning for more than two weeks, while our children were in school, Maryam's daughter Soraya would knock on our door demanding for Thomas to play with her. This was extremely confusing. Lisa knocked on Maryam's door to address the constant demand of her daughter toward Thomas and to address her daughter's climbing the tree outside our living room window, staring in at us throughout the day, Maryam accused Lisa of being angry and slammed the front door in her face.

The following day, Maryam invited two other Muslim women to sit and picnic on the grass area outside our window, talking for long periods of time at a distance of no more than 10 feet from our living room windows. Given that Lisa had been shut out at her attempt to communicate acceptable boundaries, I asked Maryam and her children not to climb the tree or to sit in our yard, once again, without success. Finally, we solved the situation by locking our bicycles at the base of the tree in our yard. When the landscapers came that week, the onsite manager came over and asked us to move the bikes so that the landscapers could mow the grass. We took the opportunity to tell the manager about the frustrating living situation we had been experiencing and asked for direct help to maintain boundaries and would she talk to Maryam. The manager spoke with Maryam and told us that Maryam's actions were not only an invasion of our privacy, but that climbing the trees was in violation of the Community rules. After two days of maintaining distance, Maryam reproached Lisa outside our front yard, saying, "This is our tree. You didn't have to go to the manager for that."

At the end of the summer, we began to see that Maryam's daughters were seeking our children's friendship in the community playground area, always when their father was away from the complex. They were ordered to come in immediately upon his return. Maryam established a relationship with our children through her children that was hidden from their father. Soon after, Maryam enrolled her older daughter into our children's public school and stopped wearing the Muslim veil and clothing. By Christmas, she decided to knock on our door and offer Lisa a gift, which Lisa interpreted as an apology for slamming the door. We did not seek nor encourage relations with Maryam despite the fact that our children did play together in the common area. Maryam sought our attention and began again offering information about her intentions and changes toward leaving Islam. She informed us again that she was very unhappy in her marriage and that she had stopped going to the mosque, but that she was forced to keep attending Muslim community meetings and social gatherings. Again, we requested distance and avoided any involvement in her private life. We did continue to hear frequent verbal arguments and fighting from next door. The yelling was very one-sided, as it was Maryam's husband who was shouting. We took the opportunity to communicate the bullying behavior of her oldest daughter Soraya (8 years old) toward our daughter Elaine (5 years old), exposing Elaine to the horrors of Hell as described in the Koran. We witnessed the children talking in the playground and Elaine coming in running and crying, explaining that Soraya (quoting passages from the Koran) had told her that she was "going to burn in boiling oil in Hell, having layers of her skin peeling off while being burnt alive for not being Muslim, and Santa Claus is not real and your parents lie." At this point we confronted Maryam with the bullying situation and she smiled in reply to the story saying, "That's because Soraya has started studying the Koran." No apology, no remorse, no sympathy whatsoever. Elaine was not able to sleep on her own for months and was traumatized by the visuals of such horrors. From this point on we want no contact whatsoever with Soraya. Maryam admits that Soraya is a bully. We demand that Soraya keep her distance from Elaine in the playground and stop calling Elaine's name from outside while Elaine is upstairs in her room. We demand that Maryam enforce this by supervising her child. Maryam says only, "I cannot cope."

April 2, 2012

Our son Thomas's tenth birthday. We have been celebrating with him throughout the day. At around 5:30pm, Elaine, our 6 year old daughter is upstairs playing a game on her computer. From our front walkway, Soraya calls Elaine through the upstairs window. Lisa and I tell Soraya not to talk to Elaine. "Stay away from Elaine. I told your mother (Maryam). We told Elaine not to play with you." Less than five minutes later, Soraya's father, Hassan, comes over knocks on the the door and I open. He asks loudly, "What is going on? Why is Soraya upstairs crying?"

I reply, "Soraya is upstairs crying because she wants you to be over here doing this right now. She's manipulating you."

He begins to shout. "There is a way to talk to the kids."

I reply, "You don't even know what's going on here. We've talked with Maryam. She knows what's going on. You should go home now."

He shouts, "Shut up. You don't interrupt me! You listen to me! You listen to me!" Lisa comes out the door and says "Michael, come inside."

He shouts, "You go inside, woman! You go inside woman!! This is man to man!"

I yell back at him. "You don't talk to her like that! You can take that shit back to Morocco!" He replies, "You have a problem with Islam?"

I reply, "I have a problem with you here right now yelling. You don't even know what's going on!"

Maryam is standing right behind him saying nothing. Lisa asks her, "Is this what you want? Is this what you wanted?" He squares off to me. I stand up to him. We are standing on my doorstep. I yell, "Fuck you. Go back to your house. Don't come to my home with this bullshit!"

I turn and go inside with Lisa. I immediately called the onsite manager, leaving a message on the Community voicemail. I told her if the man came back to my door I would call the police.

Since this event, we've spoken with Management. Our request is for a clear boundary to be set. Management has called in Maryam and Hassan. There has been no apology.

Two days later, Elaine was playing on the monkey bars with another child from the complex. Soraya came outside, again unsupervised, (as usual when she sees Elaine outside) and called her, "Elaine, Elaine!" to play with a ball. I went immediately outside and told Elaine not to engage in any way with Soraya. Walking back in, I told Soraya not to engage with Elaine. Soraya smiled at me and said, "I didn't mean to say "Elaine", I meant to say Manar" (her sister).

May 8, 2012

On Monday afternoon, Lisa was driving our car and I was in the front seat passenger side. We were heading home. As she approached the intersection of Mitchell Blvd. and Smith St., she signaled a left turn. There was oncoming traffic which she had to stop and wait for before proceeding through the intersection and making the turn. While waiting for the traffic to pass, Hassan and Maryam pulled up behind our car. Rather than wait for the traffic to pass and for us to make the turn (Mitchell Blvd. is a one lane road in either direction) Hassan pulled up very close to the rear of our car and then began to surge forward and to the right, as if to pass us. There was not enough room for a car to pass another in this single lane. Lisa pulled forward and over to the left when the traffic had passed. Hassan stopped his car and made eye contact and smirked. At that point, Lisa had crossed into Smith St. and stopped the car. Realizing it was Hassan taunting with his car (in reaction to his road rage and intimidation), she insulted him and gave him the finger. A few minutes after arriving home, the onsite manager came over to talk with us. She said Hassan had accused us of harassment and she wanted to know what happened. We told her exactly what happened. She explained that Hassan had not mentioned the fact of the oncoming traffic which we were waiting for to make our turn (accusing us of stopping in the middle of the road on purpose) and also mentioned that Hassan had asked Maryam "is that their (our) car?" before arriving at the intersection.

We would appreciate a meeting at this time to resolve the issue of our neighbor's unwillingness to respect and maintain personal boundaries. The onsite manager has proposed a meeting with her supervisor present. Our neighbor had previously declined this proposal. We need to resolve this situation with an authority present who can explain to our neighbor the rules of our community. It is entirely inappropriate to say one thing and to do another. We have expressed for months our wish that neighbor's child stay away from ours. Now we request that the entire family stay away from our family.

Sincerely yours,
Michael and Lisa Harrison

| 91 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

91 Comments

| Leave a comment

I want to make a comment on this.

I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company.

I am opposed to further Muslim immigration because the bedrock principles of Islam are counter to the cultural and legal system of the US. Although there are many Muslims who have adapted to the US and accept its atmosphere of tolerance and freedom, the large, politically powerful Muslim organizations exert their pressure as political cover for increasing recognition of Sharia law and against any organized opposition to further Muslim political power.

Also, in Europe, a large proportion of Muslim immigrants in communities is accompanied by increased crime, gang activity, and a general downplaying of the traditional culture.

Nevertheless, it is not exactly valid to cite one case of harassment by a Muslim individual. This immigrant family, as obnoxious as they were, did not bring other Muslims in, nor did they enlist their mosque or other organizations in the dispute. Thus, it could only be viewed as obnoxious individuals. The overbearing husband should never have been allowed into the country, and wouldn't be if there were any individual screening for immigrants left. His passive-aggressive, backstabbing wife would and will be involved in disputes wherever she lives.

In other words, it's important to not make group arguments from the acts of individuals.

I disagree 100% with your following statement: 'Nevertheless, it is not exactly valid to cite one case of harassment by a Muslim individual. .....'

How many cases do you need? The point made so very well by this well documented case is that the Muslim neighbors 'introduced themselves as Muslims', and from then on, many problems connected with Islam and Islam's Sharia rules about how you deal with non-Muslim neighbors began to multiply.

How many neighbors have you met for the first time introduced themselves as Christians/Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses/7th Day Adventists or whatever, and from there you experienced all kinds of problems connected with their religious world-view?

This case is fascinating because it represents a growing number of cases in many countries where Muslims move in and then start causing all kinds of problems directly related to their religious world-view. There are cities in Britain where the nature of the society in Muslim majority areas is so predominantly Muslim, and therefore totally inimical to any other culture, that the multi-culti myth of integration is palpable nonsense on stilts.

I'll bet there are 1,000s of such cases that have not yet come to light. But they will ........

You should read the poem, "Good fences make good neighbors" by Robert Frost!

Actually, the title of Frost's poem is "Mending a Wall". 'Good fences make good neighbors' is a line from the poem.

"Although there are many Muslims who have adapted to the US and accept its atmosphere of tolerance and freedom, the large, politically powerful Muslim organizations exert their pressure as political cover for increasing recognition of Sharia law and against any organized opposition to further Muslim political power."


These peaceful Muslims must be in constant turmoil with their powerful Muslim organizations...but I suspect their peaceful appearance towards Americas atmosphere of tolerance and freedom is exactly that...just an appearance....an illusion...sleight of hand...smoke and mirrors....their real allegiance is towards Islam...and Islams' goal is to conquer...it is not Islams's goal to peacefully co-exist.

Talking about 'studying the Koran', here's a current court case in England:

"Muslim woman who subjected girl, 10, to 45-minute beating with steel ladle for not reading enough of the Koran is jailed."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159892/Muslim-woman-subjected-girl-10-45-minute-beating-steel-ladle-reading-Koran-jailed.html#ixzz1xxkF5YHi

In the Dār al-ḥarb:

"We took the opportunity to communicate the bullying behavior of her oldest daughter Soraya (8 years old) toward our daughter Elaine (5 years old), exposing Elaine to the horrors of Hell as described in the Koran. We witnessed the children talking in the playground and Elaine coming in running and crying, explaining that Soraya (quoting passages from the Koran) had told her that she was "going to burn in boiling oil in Hell, having layers of her skin peeling off while being burnt alive for not being Muslim, and Santa Claus is not real and your parents lie."

In the Dār al-Islām:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/algeria-christian-gets-five-years-in-prison-for-shaking-the-faith-of-muslims.html

This article perfectly illustrates the Islamic mindset:
Superiority complex followed by claiming the victim status.

@ Ronald B: Is this the first time you've heard about (Moderate, Peaceful, Delightful) Muslims creating problems, harassing non-Mulslims, demanding specials rights in accordance with the Koran? Have you ever heard of Sharia, Dhimmitude, Islamic supremism, Taqiyya? If not..well..this site if for you!

Start with this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/why-jihad-watch.html

:)

Sorry Ronald but I don't know any practicing Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or Fruitarians who enjoy systematically and continuously making their neighbors lives miserable and think that because of their religion they have some inalienable right to do so.

Case in point, I was at the Henrico County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday night and I wrote this in the comments section for a thread Pamela Geller has about it. This is also very instructive of how Muslims treat their non-Muslim neighbors, with no regard for their rights or feelings:

Sylvia Hoenes Wright's property has been in her family since 1838. The original property was a mile square 640 acres. Some of it has been sold off over the years and according to a family member I talked to the Muslim man who bought the property next door misrepresented himself when he bought it for $600,000+ in cash. He then gave it to his community so the mosque could be built. Pretty sneaky. Pretty much what a Muslim would do who has no respect or consideration for his non-Muslim neighbors. This same man has parked his car sideways at the entrance to the private gravel road, clearly marked private, that connects Mrs. Wright's property and nine of her neighbors' properties to Hungary Springs Road. This same man got up in front of the board and whined and cried about how he has asked Mrs. Wright to sit down and talk to him but she refuses. After the meeting was over I talked to her daughter and she told me that her mom has sat down to talk with this guy on several occasions but to no avail. When he was speaking gin front of the board he admitted that the car in the picture that Mrs. Wright provided in her Power Point presentation that night was his, but that he had been "kind of upset" because Mrs. Wright regularly blocked his car. I asked her daughter about this and she said it never happened. So this guy just got up in front of the board and smiled and winked and lied through his teeth and the board members lapped it up like dogs licking a plate.

Mrs. Wright and many other of her neighbors spoke Tuesday night about the nightmares that have been going on regarding traffic, incivility and intimidation. Mrs. Wright's road that runs parallel to the mosque property is continually used by Muslims exciting the mosque property. They have been asked not to repeatedly, Mrs. Wright has been assured by the Imam at the mosque that it won't happen again and within a few days it starts right back up.

The neighbors did not speak of harassment by the Muslims next door but plenty of other Richmond area residents did outside of the meeting. Mrs. Wright's dog was beaten and left for dead on the side of the road, as a warning to her. A friend found the dog and brought it to her and it survived but honestly, what kind of a sick fuck would attempt to beat a dog to death? Those bastards next door crying ans whining about their religious freedom being stepped on?

The property at present is 2500sqft and the traffic is horrendous. What do you think is going to happen when it grows to 30,000 sqft with buildings including the mosque, a school for K thru 12th grades, a child care center and parking to support it all? According to Mrs. Wright, at present, there is not enough parking to service all the activities that go on day and night at the property. One of the developers got up and spoke about parking and said that there would be a total of 125 spaces and that that was more than enough to support the mosques' activities. Oh really? He said that it used to be one parking spot per 50 sqft but now that has been changed to one per 100 sqft. I could be wrong but wouldn't the required parking be more like 300 spots with a 30,000 sqft building. I believe Mrs. Wright said there are presently 50 spots with sometimes as many as 75 cars on the property. What do county officials think will happen at this site when four times that amount shows up for Friday worship, Monday through Friday school and 24/7 round the clock activities? Where are these same officials on county noise ordinances for the services at 2:00, 3:00 and 4:00am that presently take place on a regular basis? What about the lights that will be required to service this complex? Will the Muslims be considerate of their non-Muslim neighbors and turn them off at night when they are sleeping or will they continue as they have, business as usual, disregarding what the Kafir want or need since they have the Henrico County Board of Supervisors in their back pocket?

RonaldB,

"I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company."

Do you discuss religion with them? Have you asked them about various sensitive or controversial aspects of Muhammad and the Quran? Have you criticized Islam and/or Muhammad in front of them? Have you asked them their opinions on various issues that concern us about Islam, like freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the equality of men and women, the right of people to marry freely the spouse of their choice? If you've asked their opinions, have you openly disagreed with them? Have you discussed with them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the ongoing war in Afghanistan?

"I am opposed to further Muslim immigration because the bedrock principles of Islam are counter to the cultural and legal system of the US."

Do they know your views on Muslim immigration?

Ronald,

The Muslim Brotherhood cannot be reasoned with. The are the grand organization that has spawned every evil Muslim terrorist organization in the world. Your comments on Loonwatch about them back in Feb 2011 were just as naive as your comments are today. To consider them an advance for Egyptian civilization is the height of folly. You are living in a dream world of your own making. Your thinking that this article somehow implies that all Muslims are being painted with this brush is ridiculous. You inferred this from the article. You were wrong. Nothing more.

RB- what is your stupid game that you are trying to play here? I have been reading JW over six-seven years, and I know you take a peek here and there. There been over 18, 000 known Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Kuran is full of juicy bits to inflict physical and psychological pain on whoever doesn't align. The complete Islam is rotten to its core. Of course, every person wants to live and let live - which is not the case about Muslims.

In the letter above, Harrison's constantly requested privacy and their demands were constantly ignored. Go and tell me if in the Islamic lands the people respect each others requests to be left alone? They don't! They think they have the God sent right to intrusion on their neighbors lives.

We read day in and day out the Muslims creating havoc in any community they live in. If you don't acknowledge the basic facts about Islam, sorry we can't help, that is your problem to ignore them in the first place. I believe the story about Hussain is no different than another neighbor called Abdul perhaps 100 yds away.

What bothers me, if the Muslims don't want to understand our culture, what right do they have to live in it? That statement applies equally to any other minority group from my view point. Muslims are more vicious and they demand a lot more than they earn which makes them a special case to be always in focus.

A great insight into the atmosphere of Islam and how they react with people whom they consider inferior. Incredible, isn’t it, to be looked down upon by people who truly are inferior in mind and spirit.

This story really rings true with me.

RonaldB says: "I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company"

That may well be the case. However, next time you talk to any of them, ask them what they think of the Israel/palestinian situation, or how they feel about Jews. Brace yourself for the reaction.

I worked in the same office as a muzlum receptionist back in 1999-2001. The boss thought she walked on water. But the truth was, she was a lousy employee. She spent all day talking on the phone in her language (what they speak in Dubai) She gossipped constantly and spent a lot of time on the internet looking for a house to buy.

Whenever any of her peer office staff (female), arrived at the front, she would make unwelcome, inappropriate remarks about your hair, your clothes, or make back-handed compliments., etc. I made the mistake of mentioning to the other secretary I shared an office room with that I was tired of getting her sloppy work to fix. Well of course that woman went straight to the muzlum receptionist and told her what I had said to her in confidence. The muzlum came rushing to my desk, the eyes bulging, and started screaming": "How dare you diss my work followed by repeated "God is good, God is great!" She really frightened me.

After she freaked on me this way twice and I went to the boss and told him my side of the story. He was shocked and needless to say she was not his favourite anymore after that. I tried to smooth things over with her a few months later but she did not respond, only glared at me coldly. Funnily enough, she did not come into work on September 12, 2001. This was my first up close and personal experience dealing with a muzlum.

My daughter worked closely with a muzlum from Pakistan. She said they discussed izlum and religion in general. However, this nice muzlum raved on after September 11 about how the United States got what they deserved. Apparently it was fine with him that people who were only going to work to make a living and support their families deserved a horrific death.

When I first started reading Jihadwatch and Gates of Vienna and Atlas Shrugs back in 2005 I would sometimes discuss what I read with my daughter. All this time she called me a racist and islamophobe. But recently a friend of hers was shot by a somali gangster. She's also recently become friends with a girl (who's is from Windsor Ontario right across the bridge from Detroit), who wants to leave izlum and was surprised how miserable and scared her friend is. My daughter said this girl told her about the bus ads about leaving izlum, and I told her that Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch and Pamela Geller of Atlas were the driving force behind these ads. She seemed impressed and said she is starting to see what I've been telling her about izlum all along. It only took six years! lol of her reading about constant jihad terrorist attacks, her friend getting shot and the friend who wants to leave izlum for her to get to this point and agree with me! Better late....

I have read countless stories about the same reaction from muzlums in the workplace about 9/11 and other terrorist events, also about how they supported nidal hassan.

A little advice from a mature woman to RonaldB: By all means, continue having cordial businesslike relations with muzlums. I am just as polite to any of them I encounter going about my daily business as I am with anyone else.

However, it is probably a good idea to keep your distance personally and socially. For the most part, they have the same feelings about infidels, and jews in particular, as the many more vocal and hostile members of the ummah.

OT, but the same could be said about the Occupiers.

The classic approach. First be the aggressor, then be the victim. Seems to work everywhere else in the world (i.e. Israel), so why not in the U.S.?

Sadly the Harringtons probably have no other recourse than to move away. Score another win for the ROP.

I like where I now live but if ever a mosque is built 6 blocks away or closer, I'm gone.

All the more reason to oppose one being built if you can.

Yes using the tired old moral equivalency tactic based on the big lie that all cultures are equal.

Sorry, I realise now your were referring to the OWS crowd.

Could you imagine any openly Communist fortresses being built in America during the Cold War?

"I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company."

I've heard this kind of statement, in various permutations, many times from Infidels. I simply don't believe it.

I have become convinced -- unless I see tangible irrefutable massive evidence indicatint otherwise -- that the Infidel making such a claim is either in strange denial and can't see a thousand details that would contradict his assertion; or he is lying.

correction: "indicating* otherwise"

RonaldB posits that his one anecdote that his non-troublesome Muslim encounters is reflective of all Muslims so as to object that this one troubling story is not reflective of the all Muslims. But, in the end, all practicing Muslims pray (if I understand correctly) five times a day that evil should fall upon non-muslims anywhere and everywhere – even upon their neighbors, or especially upon their neighbors. (Find the context for the passage "That's because Soraya has started studying the Koran." above. Such teaching is bound to cause problems.)

"RonaldB posits that his one anecdote that his non-troublesome Muslim encounters is reflective of all Muslims so as to object that this one troubling story is not reflective of the all Muslims."

Yes; that follows one of the axioms of the PC MC paradigm:

It is not permissible to generalize about Muslims or Islam if your generalization reflects poorly on them -- but if you want to say something good about them, then generalize to your heart's content.

"In other words, it's important to not make group arguments from the acts of individuals."

So, I interpret what RonaldB is saying is that anecdotal, experiential evidence is not a valid premise for judging the larger group. But...how does HIS statement that he works with some "nice" muslims differ? Is that not anecdotal as well? So, I'm saying, if you're going to chide someone for generalizing from anecdotal, individual experience...then you may NOT want to offer...anecdotal, individual experience as your brief to the contrary! Hello!

It seems to me that, if you have enough muslim neighbors--and they often descend in mobs--then you have a muslim neighborhood. And, we know some things about muslim neighborhoods, do we not?

This is a very important article.

It is not important because it is one Muslim family in America - RonaldB is right that generalities cannot be made from one story.

It is not important because there are other Muslim families just like this - RonaldB's critics are right to cite that other such families do exits, and that generalities can be made from multiple stories.

What is important is that the Harrison's sought out an answer to their problem and found JihadWatch, and found it to be so useful that they documented their story and sent it to Robert Spencer. This should be taken as evidence of the growing importance of this site and as evidence that people are waking up.

Isabella you have a clear vision. Would we have let the Nazi's have headquarters with flags flying even prior to WW2? Good visual comment.

Given my economics training I cannot help draw an analogy from the notions of MicroEconomics and MacroEconomics --

Jihad, the study of, can sometimes include a split as below:

  • MicroJihad
  • MacroJihad

The study of MacroJihad would of course include the statistical aggregation of MicroJihad phenomenon.

Very apt analogy.

"Isabella you have a clear vision. Would we have let the Nazi's have headquarters with flags flying even prior to WW2? Good visual comment."

According to Wellington, we would have no choice but to allow our mortal enemy to be free to roam about within our society and continue to plot our mass-murder. Our hands are tied by our Constitution, says Wellington; and there is nothing substantive we can do, other than "watch" them and arrest them after they explode; or when we see them in the act of igniting a stick of dynamite.

Exactly Gail. We would not have. But then our leaders back in the 1940's and before were not infected with Political Correctness that renders a government official neutered and unable to do the right thing. Couple that with physical intimidation and a nice tidy sum from a Muslim bribe and we come to realize that we currently live in hell.

"It is not important because it is one Muslim family in America - RonaldB is right that generalities cannot be made from one story."

Not sure if I can agree with that, Tom. I think what's compelling about this story is that we see--in microcosm--EVERY islamic behavior that we apply to the whole. We have: Lying, bullying, frightening, intruding, demanding threatening, harrassing, mixed messages, yelling, etc, etc.
How does this behavior differ from that which we attribute to muslims as a whole--whether it be as neighbors or nations?

So, I guess I'm asking: At what point are stories like this one compelling representations of the whole, not just invitations to generalize? At what point can the parallels not be denied?

But I agree with your last point--people ARE waking up--and a large share of credit for that is to the indefatigable Robert Spencer & Co!

Yes pdxnag; and each and every Muslim (yes -- all Muslims, Goddamn it!) knows that every little bit in the MicroJihad helps, ant-colony-wise, in the MacroJihad.

Well, RonaldB, you certainly have elicited many comments. I will here add mine.

In the final analysis, the kind of "nice" Muslims (though I agree with Kinana of Khaybar and j_not_a when they aptly put it to you to see how pleasant these people would remain were you to honestly and pointedly discuss with them their religion, your ideas on Muslim immigration and certain regional issues) you mentioned you work with are the real problem. "Nice" Muslims give cover to Islam in a way "non-nice" Muslims don't. It would expedite things wonderfully well if virtually all Muslims were of the "non-nice" variety, that is to say devout Muslims ready to live their religion to the full. I certainly would prefer them this way. Then all but the most thick-headed of non-Muslims would see Islam for what it really is and then dealing with this awful religion would be made so much easier. In short, so-called moderate Muslims ("nice") are the ultimate bane to thwarting Islam's supremacist and heinous designs and not the so-called radicals ("non-nice").

From RonaldB,

Dear fellow Jihad Watchers.

Thank you for your comments. Let me deal with them on the basis of logic, if you will.

Buraq said:
"I disagree 100% with your following statement: 'Nevertheless, it is not exactly valid to cite one case of harassment by a Muslim individual. .....'

How many cases do you need? The point made so very well by this well documented case is that the Muslim neighbors 'introduced themselves as Muslims', and from then on, many problems connected with Islam and Islam's Sharia rules about how you deal with non-Muslim neighbors began to multiply."

******My reply is that you can never make a generalization from just one case. I made a counter-point that I had comfortable relations with Muslim co-workers. One case pro, one case con. How do you draw a conclusion from just that case? My example did not show that Muslims fit neatly into a democracy. It just showed that a Muslim is not necessarily a bad coworker. You just need more information to draw a conclusion.

exsgbrown said:
"These peaceful Muslims must be in constant turmoil with their powerful Muslim organizations...but I suspect their peaceful appearance towards Americas atmosphere of tolerance and freedom is exactly that...just an appearance....an illusion...sleight of hand...smoke and mirrors....their real allegiance is towards Islam."

**** I don't disagree with his statement. All I said was, I have comfortable relations with Muslim coworkers. I never said they didn't have loyalty to Islam.


Alexander W said:
"@ Ronald B: Is this the first time you've heard about (Moderate, Peaceful, Delightful) Muslims creating problems, harassing non-Mulslims, demanding specials rights in accordance with the Koran? Have you ever heard of Sharia, Dhimmitude, Islamic supremism, Taqiyya? If not..well..this site if for you!"


****Alexander obviously didn't read my entire statement, so there is no reason to believe he will read this one.


Isabellathecrusader said:

"Will the Muslims be considerate of their non-Muslim neighbors and turn them off at night when they are sleeping or will they continue as they have, business as usual, disregarding what the Kafir want or need since they have the Henrico County Board of Supervisors in their back pocket?"

****** I have no problem with what Isabella said, and in fact, I'm happy that stories like this are publicized. My point was that the posting here detailed actions by one Muslim family. There was no involvement by the mosque or Muslim community. Isabella's story is much more compelling, from my point of view, to generalizing towards a Muslim organization.


Kinana of Khaybar said:
"Do you discuss religion with them? Have you asked them about various sensitive or controversial aspects of Muhammad and the Quran? Have you criticized Islam and/or Muhammad in front of them? Have you asked them their opinions on various issues that concern us about Islam, like freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the equality of men and women, the right of people to marry freely the spouse of their choice? "

****** My reply is, no I have not asked them these questions. The reason I have not is that I receive a salary, and part of my obligation towards my employer is to not disrupt the workplace or employee relations. Work is not the proper place to discuss political issues. My integrity demands that I avoid pressing certain topics, if possible.

I never said the Muslim co-workers were classical liberals. I just said I got along with them, and they did not act like the individuals described in the article.


Cuda said:
"The Muslim Brotherhood cannot be reasoned with. The are the grand organization that has spawned every evil Muslim terrorist organization in the world. Your comments on Loonwatch about them back in Feb 2011 were just as naive as your comments are today. "


****** My reply is that Cuda may well be right about my previous comments. I read the Muslim Brotherhood's English website, which affirmed its commitment to democracy and tolerance. I never considered them an advance for Egyptian civilization. Cuda is engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Nevertheless, I agree there is no benefit to engaging the Muslim Brotherhood.


BlueRaven said:
"RB- what is your stupid game that you are trying to play here? I have been reading JW over six-seven years, and I know you take a peek here and there. There been over 18, 000 known Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Kuran is full of juicy bits to inflict physical and psychological pain on whoever doesn't align. The complete Islam is rotten to its core. Of course, every person wants to live and let live - which is not the case about Muslims."


***** My reply is that BlueRaven is criticizing me for something I never said, and bringing up facts which have no relevance to what I said.


j_not_a says:

"A little advice from a mature woman to RonaldB: By all means, continue having cordial businesslike relations with muzlums. I am just as polite to any of them I encounter going about my daily business as I am with anyone else.

However, it is probably a good idea to keep your distance personally and socially. For the most part, they have the same feelings about infidels, and jews in particular, as the many more vocal and hostile members of the ummah."

***** My reply: I agree with you almost completely.


LemonLime says:
"I've heard this kind of statement,["I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate] in various permutations, many times from Infidels. I simply don't believe it.

I have become convinced -- unless I see tangible irrefutable massive evidence indicatint otherwise -- that the Infidel making such a claim is either in strange denial and can't see a thousand details that would contradict his assertion; or he is lying."


****** My reply: I didn't say they were Rotarians. I said they were friendly and considerate at work. And I know a lot about Islam. Are you saying I was fooling myself as to their nature, or that I am fooling myself and they are not friendly?

Your statement is like the statement of Groucho Marx when he got caught "in flagrante" by the husband of his amour: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"


pdxnag says:
"RonaldB posits that his one anecdote that his non-troublesome Muslim encounters is reflective of all Muslims so as to object that this one troubling story is not reflective of the all Muslims. "


****** My reply is that this is not what I said at all. So, rather than reply, I simply refer him back to my original statement, with the hope that he will actually read it the second time around.


George says:
"So, I interpret what RonaldB is saying is that anecdotal, experiential evidence is not a valid premise for judging the larger group. But...how does HIS statement that he works with some "nice" muslims differ? Is that not anecdotal as well? So, I'm saying, if you're going to chide someone for generalizing from anecdotal, individual experience...then you may NOT want to offer...anecdotal, individual experience as your brief to the contrary! Hello!"


****** My reply is that my example was exactly to make the point that anecdotal evidence by itself proves nothing, because there is always a counter-anecdote.

If you say "I know a vicious Muslim family, so all Muslims must be vicious", your logic is destroyed by one example of a non-vicious Muslim family.

I did not use my anecdote to make a generalization about Muslims. I used it to show that the implied generalization, as I saw it, was not correct logic.

Of course Robert, whom I admire greatly, said that the anecdote was not a generalization, but simply an illustration of a more widespread phenomenon.

Typical muslim behavior, as narrated in this post. Be nasty, obnoxious, and unpleasant to kaffirs and play the victim card at slightest opposition from the kaffir. Trust me, in our country, we know these slimes like the back of our hands since we had had to deal with them for more than a thousand years. You don't want them as your neighbors; in fact, you don't want them in your country. They have nothing positive to contribute.

pdxnag says:
"RonaldB posits that his one anecdote that his non-troublesome Muslim encounters is reflective of all Muslims so as to object that this one troubling story is not reflective of the all Muslims. "


****** My reply is that this is not what I said at all.

Sure, RonaldB didn't "say" what pdxnag inferred; but pdxnag drew a reasonable inference, for it's reasonable to suppose that RonaldB implied the PC MC axiom I described in my reply above to pdxnag. The reasonableness of this supposition increases as RonaldB's various responses to commenters only seems to underscore his disingenousness -- including the one I quoted above: making the sophistical distinction between, to paraphrase him, "what I literally said" and what we can reasonably infer is implied by his words. He must think we're idiots or something.

May I refer you to Mr. Spencer's intro to this piece:

"It is illustrative of the difficulties that Islamic supremacists can cause in otherwise placid communities, including a considerable raising of tensions and hostilities where none were (sic) present before."

I think that that explains itself. Did you not read the intro? Or is it as CUDA says, (and with which I agree):

"Your thinking that this article somehow implies that all Muslims are being painted with this brush is ridiculous. You inferred this from the article. You were wrong. Nothing more."

At least we seem in "violent agreement" on the anecdotal stuff. Inferring from this story that "all muslims are bad" is no more valid than taking from your experience with "nice muslims" at work means that all muslims are nice. We know that the truth, as it often does, lies somwhere between those poles. But...where DOES that truth fall? What do we think the CHANCES are, of living the nightmare of this young couple with muslim neighbors, vs neighbors from ANY other religious group? It's hard to get "actuarial" about this--so, we have to go with what we DO know. Or, we could get hypothetical with it: Given your free choice of neighbors...would your first choice be, say, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, or muslim neighbors? At some point, when you make that choice without supporting numbers (and I'm aware of no numbers for "nice" vs "not-nice")you're GENERALIZING! Does that mean that such generalization is necessarily inaccurate?

Whether the article was intended to promote generalization (as you inferred) or not (as the intro stated), we have to make some generalizations in this life--based on what we consider best information and our ability to process it. And, with respect to muslims--whether as neighbors--or imams in Saudi Arabia--I've already made mine...so looks as if I'm guilty-as-charged...


When it comes to the problem of Islam, generalizing with a broad brush is not only rational and helpful, it's positively life-saving. And since we can't tell which Muslims are harmless and which are deadly, it is rational to extend that generalization to all Muslims. The "all word" is the final frontier of the Learning Curve of the Problem of Islam (LCPOI); and breaking that barrier I notice remains a fierce psychological obstacle for most in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is) and a sign of trace amounts of the PC MC retrovirus lingering in their systems, so to speak.

As much as I consider myself the last person who would ever defend Islam in any way, I've got to agree with Ronald here. I completely agree with everyone else who criticized him that the actions of these Muslims immigrants ARE indicative of the problems of Islamic integration into Western society (or rather the lack thereof), but one case of he-said she-said does not a conclusion make.

We can all theorize with a great deal of confidence that this conflict was the result of Islamic biases and superiority complexes, but it's just a guess. When I read the account I can't help but detect glossed-over bits and possible exaggerations and potential whitewashing of the Harrison couples' own behavior.

I would bet a LOT that the problems with this family stem from Muslim attitudes, but it may not be so. For all I know the real trouble started with Mrs. Harrison or one of her kids, and things just escalated. We all know whenever one side in a feud tells the story they ALWAYS seem the innocent and set-upon party.

All I'm saying is this is an interesting anecdote that IMO does not "prove" much. It's an account by only one side in a conflict and a sample size of one. It's cherry-picking. I'm sure it would be easy to find an Islamic poster-couple being terrorized by their horrible Western neighbors. I'm sure finding such conflicts would be more difficult than the opposite variety, but again: sample-size of one.

Wellington said:

" "Nice" Muslims give cover to Islam in a way "non-nice" Muslims don't. It would expedite things wonderfully well if virtually all Muslims were of the "non-nice" variety, that is to say devout Muslims ready to live their religion to the full. I certainly would prefer them this way. Then all but the most thick-headed of non-Muslims would see Islam for what it really is and then dealing with this awful religion would be made so much easier. In short, so-called moderate Muslims ("nice") are the ultimate bane to thwarting Islam's supremacist and heinous designs and not the so-called radicals ("non-nice")."


Thank you Wellington. I agree with what you said. In fact, Muslim organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America are making a concerted effort to go mainstream. They enlist the help of useful dupes such as the Union for Reform Judaism, which exchanges keynote speakers with them.

The solution is not so drastic: let Muslim citizens have all the rights of citizenship, and cut off further Muslim immigration. If we need a proxy to avoid mentioning Muslims explicitly, forbid entry into the country of anyone who subscribes to a philosophy of government substantially different from the one we have, even if they advocate peaceful means.

Cutting off Muslim immigration is certainly not abridging the rights of US citizens.

There are other things we have to do, but the more Muslim immigrants there are, the more difficult it will be to act politically. If there are more Muslim voters pouring in, the rest is just so much hot air.

Ponder the logical leaps, and generalizations, necessary to reach the pinnacle of the absurd: "Islam is Peace." Crafted with the help of a MB plant to satisfy Grover Norquist. The Saudi oil-money-investors have mastered the game of American politics.

It's reasonable to assume that the West, including the U.S.A., will not wake up to implement a ban on Muslim immigration until it's too late. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't gotten outside much -- out under the dominant and mainstream blue sky and sunshine of PC MC.

So our time would be better spent on shifting our cultural paradigm such that our minds become re-oriented to the other measures we will have to take in the decades ahead, when there are too many Muslims already here as citizens -- so many it would be too dangerous to initiate a stop to immigration; which would be like closing the barn door after the wolves have long since gotten in, making themselves comfortable in the haybeds of our barn's rafters.

This paradigm shift certainly will never happen if even many, if not most, in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is) continue to resist it in various ways themselves.

We hear tales from Europe of one of the ways Muslim neighborhoods spread and consolidate: non-Muslims who live in or at the borders of Muslim neighborhoods are made miserable with constant harassment, vandalism, intimidation, etc. Eventually, the non-Muslims sell at a bargain price because the situation is so bad, and the authorities often will do nothing.

Maybe "Maryam's" Muslim family wants the next door infidels so harassed that they sell at a cheap price, and another Muslim family can move in.

I've had some obnoxious neighbors who were not Muslims, but I find many similarities with this story. Being a Muslim seems to exaggerate the problem for the husband, but he might be just as rude and the wife just as crazy if they weren't Muslims. So I really sympathize with the family who endured this and the waste of time and energy involved. It is exhausting.

First, the similarity between obnoxious narcissists and supremacists is that they have definite personality defects: they don't operate cooperatively and have no interest in doing so ever. Life is always a power struggle for them about who is going to impose their will on the situation.

Second, they will lie and manipulate to get their way. They lie so often that they become extremely good at it, charming the unsuspecting victim.

Third, they will get hysterical and act like they are being victimized if you do anything to confront them and defend yourself. If they do 100 wrong things and you do 1 wrong thing they will scream that you are the bad guy. So you can never lose your temper because the mediator will use that as an excuse to claim you're both to blame. Mediators are always liberal minded and clueless and looking for moral equivalence with the idea that if you are both wrong there's more room for compromise and a peaceful resolution. (This is Obama's foreign policy strategy failure in a nutshell.)

Fourth, they will use retaliation, and intimidate to get their way.

Fifth, and most important, ultimately they will back down when dealt with by strong authority because they are basically bullies and cowards.

It's important to know that it is a mistake to try to deal with them as normal people, so resist the urge to be kind. They only see that as stupidity and weakness. So if you have to be nice, at least let them know that you know that they know it's just an act.

Here's the difficulty, RonaldB... it only takes ONE bad apple to spoil the whole barrel.

As amply demonstrated throughout history, it is always the radical minority that sway the majority.

And, it is abundantly clear that Islam is at the heart of this. Thus, this complaint is highly appropriate for this blog. This is a classic case of freedom being eroded and Islam attempting to gain a foot in another neighborhood.

This is NOT about one family and one man who is a pain in the a$$. This is about a thug who believes and practices the world's most dangerous totalitarian ideology and happens to live next door.

But don't move... get him and his vermin expelled. Never give way to the abomination of sharia.

If freedom is to be secured and maintained we must be ever-vigilant.

"... but again: sample-size of one."

CornHolio, I'm shocked! Really? Do you really think that that's all we have--a sample-size of ONE?

"...but one case of he-said she-said does not a conclusion make."

OK...But...what if, rather than basing a conclusion on this "sample," I simply regard it as further evidence for a conclusion I've already reached? A conclusion based-on what I think are THOUSANDS of well-documented samples, and hence, find it believeable?

Maybe I've been wrong with my anti-jihad thoughts and feelings? Just jumping to conclusions?

Going off to play 18 holes now--but we can continue when I get back, if you want. I know you're a long-time poster here and I always (almost!) enjoy your comments!

G


As for generalizing about Muslims -- I think that all Muslims -- even those who are only nominal or who for whatever reason are against any kind of Sharia or jihad -- are to one degree or another responsible for the totalitarian threat posed by Islam.

Ironically, "moderates" standing as representatives of Islam indirectly lend strength to Islam's basic totalitarian thrust (recall that Bernard Lewis attested to Islam's totalitarianism), even when those moderates are genuinely against that basic thrust or believe through ignorance or self-delusion that Islam is not fundamentally totalitarian.

But if one is convinced that Islam is a global totalitarian threat, how then is one to treat the various kinds of Muslims? The out-and-out supremacists, by comparison with those who utterly reject supremacism?

Both are responsible for Islam's expansionist authoritarianism, insofar as the non-supremacists are so weak, so unsupported by the core texts of Islam, and so non-vocal (or so few in number), that their "moderation" ends up serving as just a camouflage and pretty face for the fundamentally totalitarian thrust of Islam.

What percentage of Muslims is innocent in that they fully support all the modern freedoms and are also under the delusion that Islam is not totalitarian? LemonLime says we cannot afford to worry about them -- for one thing, they could become supremacist at any time, as the core texts for the most part command. For another, LemonLime, as I recall, considers the numbers of truly non-supremacist Muslims too small to matter in any practical calculation of what non-Muslim governments should do in the current dire situation, where threats of WMD terror are growing, and stealth jihad is advancing nicely through hijra in imitation of Muhammad's hijra to Medina, and through demographic expansion.

There are different degrees of innocence among Muslims, as to the totalitarian expansionism of Islam. But if Islam's central thrust is totalitarian, then all adult Muslims are responsible -- even the most innocent and freedom-minded ones, who at a minimum are guilty of negligence in failing to see that Islam is essentially totalitarian, and who therefore fail to withdraw their support from Islam, and give various false justifications for their position, all of which serve only to delude people as to the real nature of Islamic expansion, thereby aiding it.

I see no real basis of disagreement between us, RolandB. If we could cut off further Muslim immigration and punish any Muslim already here when acting upon a Muslim belief or directive that goes against American law, then we would be well on our way to winning. Add to this the kind of shame that I think will be attached to Islam more and more as more and more people find out just how wretched it is and the marginalization of Islam will occur, whereby adherents are looked upon as losers or confused human beings (rather like what has happened with Nazism and Marxism, two belief systems that are still quite legal here in America).

But here's the rub. I don't see how, under present Constitutional interpretation, Muslim immigration can be banned BECAUSE people are Muslims. Supreme Court rulings have essentially said that if there are restrictions on religion based on a "compelling government interest," all religions must be treated equally. Singling out Islam, as of now, would not even begin to stand up to legal scrutiny. LemonLime doesn't quite understand this and, notwithstanding his hypothetical of a religion that had as one of its core beliefs something terrible (e.g., all baby girls under two could be killed by their parents because girls are spawns of Satan), even this hypothetical religion would be legal but any killing of baby girls would be felonious action punishable to the maximum. And we're talking about Islam, not some hypothetical religion, and Islam is 1400 years old, and has a significant artistic tradition, and has this also, and that too, and blah, blah, blah.

So, some other pretext must be found to ban Muslim immigration OR there can be a constitutional amendment that makes Islam the exception to the First Amendment freedom of religion provision OR Congress could pass laws against Islam AND, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, remove them from any federal court review. These last two options are highly unlikely to occur, but who knows if Islam won't make itself so hated and so much of a clear menace that one of these options might not be exercised.

In any case, see the problem? Right now, Islam, in full parasitic mode, at which it excels, is prepared to use American freedom to continue to establish itself even though, if it could, it would destroy basic liberties, destroy equality under the law and even destroy the Constitution itself if possible (just as, for example, Neo-Nazis or Maoists would).

Much to do yet. Options out there to be sure. The times are not only fluid but indeed out of joint. Take care.

"As for generalizing about Muslims -- I think that all Muslims -- even those who are only nominal or who for whatever reason are against any kind of Sharia or jihad -- are to one degree or another responsible for the totalitarian threat posed by Islam."

I respectfully submit that your focus is misplaced here. The problem is not the "responsibility" of those Muslims who are putatively harmless; it's their potential danger to us. If there were no danger of physical violence to us, I wouldn't care about how silly, vile or anti-liberal Muslims are.

Lemonlime said: "And since we can't tell which Muslims are harmless and which are deadly, it is rational to extend that generalization to all Muslims"...

Exactly. In fact most here know Mr. Spencer has stated the same here often, when refering to "moderate" muzlums as opposed to "radical" muzlums.

The following however is my own two bits: "A moderate muzlum is one who hasn't blown anyone up - YET"


Ronald B,

#1)" I want to make a comment on this..blah blah blah*..In other words, it's important to not make group arguments from the acts of individuals."
#2) "Alexander obviously didn't read my entire statement, so there is no reason to believe he will read this one"

Ronald I read your *statement(s) and it's not me Alexander but you Ronald who obviously didn't read the article's introduction. And if you read it..well..probably you didn't want to understand what was written.

How can a person with basic comprehension faculties suggest that the point of the whole article it to make a group argument from the acts of individuals?
How is it possible that anyone with a basic of knowledge of Islam suggest that the behavior of Maryam and her whole family isn't in accordance with Islamic teaching? That is to say:Islamic supremism/Superiority complex, harassing non-muslims etc...

The article is..[ illustrative of the difficulties that Islamic supremacists can cause in otherwise placid communities, including a considerable raising of tensions and hostilities where none were present before.]

Ronald is this the first time you've heard about (Moderate, Peaceful, Delightful) Muslims creating problems, harassing non-Mulslims, demanding specials rights in accordance with the Koran? If not, what's your burden? The article is simply confirming an increasingly growing pattern of Muslim behavior throughout the West: [Raising of tensions and hostilities where none were present before]

By the way have you ever heard of Sharia, Dhimmitude, Islamic supremism, Taqiyya?
If not..well.. you've have come to the right place! Start with this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/why-jihad-watch.html

:)

"So, some other pretext must be found to ban Muslim immigration OR there can be a constitutional amendment that makes Islam the exception to the First Amendment freedom of religion provision OR Congress could pass laws against Islam AND, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, remove them from any federal court review. "

Wellington, is it true that the Federal courts have essentially written a loophole to Article III, Section 2 by stating that Congress cannot exercise this function if it infringes on certain court powers that are linked to judicial review?

Personally, one would think that Muslim immigration can be effectively banned on the basis of standing: no one outside of the country has a right to sue to force the U.S. to allow them to immigrate. The government can discriminate and they can't do anything about it under U.S. law. CAIR and other U.S. based enablers should have no standing either for suing on behalf of foreign applicants.

Where I think you are correct is in the area of immigration for "family reunification". If U.S. Muslims wish to sponsor the immigration of family members to the U.S. then yes, any government hindrance of those U.S. Muslims that is not done to non-Muslims would be illegal discrimination.

Other than this situation, no one should be able to sue to change an immigration policy of this type. If that is currently not the case then Article III, Section 2 could be invoked to remove standing for such cases without mentioning Muslims per se. We should hear more about these aspects of the law so we can decide what can and cannot be done.

Very well said, Traeh, one of your best yet. I couldn't have said it better myself.

But I know where LemonLime is coming from; and I can think I can sum it up in much-less eloquent terms:

In light of the events (ie, predominantly muslim terrorist attacks)including and since 9/11, ALL of us here have, in one way or another, strived to understand the motives and mindset or someone or some group who might want to harm us. (Personally, before 9/11, I had had very little contact with muslims.) This leads us to islam, which in turn leads us to jihad, etc., where we learn so much more than what the MSM has decided to reveal to us: that is, among others, FMG, death for apostasy, death for blasphemy, underage wives, polygamy, death for gays, amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, prison for the crime of being raped, wife beating, death to infidels, taqquiya, beheadings, and on and on and on and on............There is NO OTHER GROUP, religious or otherwise, who can claim that any of the aforementioned are part of their core belief system.

The point I'm trying to make is that ALL of us have taken the time to learn and educate ourselves about muslims and islam. So why wouldn't a member of a group/religion/ideology that is responsible for 18,000+ terrorist attacks since 9/11 not want to expose it and leave it as soon as possible. The whole "threat of death" mantra may hold water in muslim majority countries, but there are many heroic ex-muslims here in the west, where we still hold democratic values, however tenuous, who have bravely chosen to expose the true evils of islam, as it is.

I, like LemonLine, prefer to expect the worst and hope for the best when dealing with muslims. But I will remain vigilant, and suggest everyone else do the same.

Ima

You have raised very good issues, TD. Respecting the matter of Congress' power to limit federal court review pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, I know of no definitive Supreme Court cases (perhaps you do) which have limited or nixed this power. As I understand it, to this day there is still much debate among legal scholars whether Congress can exclude from judicial review basic constitutional rights. I would say "yes" because I read the Constitution in plain language terms and not in any "living, breathing" kind of way, but mine is an opinion (hopefully the right one) and not a legal certainty. To the extent that I am correct here in my opinion, I would add that I would expect Congress not to abuse an expansive power under Article III, Section 2, which to date it has not (N.B., passing laws aginst Islam and disallowing federal court review of them would not constitute an abuse of power in my opinion but rather would be a crystal clear example of how the Constitution is not a suicide pact).

Regarding standing, this is indeed a tricky one and you are eminently correct to raise it. Yes, no Muslim foreigner would technically have standing, but if the modern Supreme Court gets a whiff of religious discrimination, then standing could take a back seat to religion. Ironic no, considering the modern Supreme Court's essential hostility to religion in America ever since its 1962 ruling in Engel v. Vitale? But then, and a lot of people miss this, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Regarding what Aneruca cannot and can (and should) do about Muslims with regard to the Constitution, this pithy statement by Frank Gaffney interviewed by Brigitte Gabriel hits the nail on the head:

http://shariafreeusa.com/sharia-is-sedition-and-must-be-prosecuted/

The expansion of this unremarkably elementary point made by Gaffney to Muslims in general in America should not be a difficult logical and factual exercise, once our society clears its head of the PC MC virus; and has nothing to do with the law per se.

* * * * *

Frank Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988.

In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO's senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). In the latter 1970's, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

As someone who has been "bitten" by a "nice" Muslim, and who knows others who have had the same experience, I noted Ed Husein's comment (in "The Islamist") that after he left radical Islam he still felt himself to be "on standby" - ready for action "whenever there was a real need." His book after that point becomes a juicy piece of da'wa: the peace, compassion and serenity of the loving, forgiving, merciful Mohammed, blah blah blah. No wonder the Islamists didn't kill him when he left their embrace; he is still doing their work, but more cleverly.

By the trailing the deed to a Muslim Organization; center, mosque or school, it is now Muslim land. That will be its last stop; as it is now 'haram' to sell or transfer title out of the "umma".
Very tricky, indeed, and part of the 'Pregancy Phase' as its referred to by those who study MB's "Project".
We might project that the passive/aggressive manipulating of neighbors is a tactic.
Are, they as bold as that? You betcha!
Respecting those who have or had - just the greatest of life's experiences working with Muslims; makes sense. Wait til you hear there's some thing about your attire, hair-style, too much ham in your sandwich to accomodate the cubic area, etc.
I'll repeat my paean: "Pay attention to least of municipal ordinance.." and add, for merest intrusion upon your personal franchise.
Don't be startled, or even embarassed, when you're taken by them. Few, very few, are inclined to believe this can happen. Yet, Behold!

Frank Gaffney, whom I admire very much, is quite correct when he asserts that Sharia is inimical to basic Constitutional tenets. But so are Nazism and Marxism. And they're still both legal in the US. So, to the extent that Gaffney thinks that Sharia by name can be banned, he is wrong.

Under present American law, disallowing Sharia in toto will not pass muster. I wish it could but it won't (you just don't get this). That's why Oklahoma's ban on Sharia was overturned and why other legislatures, such as Kansas's, have learned from the experience and have banned certain specific, highly heinous, totally barbaric, liberty-crushing provisions of Sharia without mentioning Sharia.

You know, it's not enough to be right. You have to know how to be right. You still don't.

I am following the track you and Tom are providing here and become increasingly insecure in my faith US Courts won't defer to, as one member of the USSC, uttered consideration of "foreign standards."
I'm a layman, though I served as an ALJ (appeals), and, yet I fear the least encroachment of any element that uses our good faith system as parasites.
You cite: "standing". And, of course, we allow meritable standing to have a voice.
But, following this theme, Muslims could have unbreakable holdings on US soil, just because within, and abiding, their "standing" a court would surrender sovereignty; not just compromise ownership.

It's a tangle, isn't it? I believe the Supreme Court Justice you made reference to who opined that "foreign standards" should be considered is Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on so many decisions, not the least of these being the impending ObamaCare decision.

Yep, "standing" is a very fluid matter and evolving. Frankly, I don't grasp it in its entirety. Any other lawyers out there who might want to contribute here?

Indian Tiger

non-Muslims from western countries that have only had sizeable Mohammedan bases established therein within the past 30 to 50 years would do well to listen to your (Indian) advice and counsel.

Here is a story from jihadwatch, five years ago (June 2007) shared by another Indian poster, about the process of Islamoforming of what was originally a very nice suburban non-Muslim neighbourhood in an Indian city.

In this thread, in the comments

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/majid-khadduri-and-george-w-bush.html

arjun sevak posted as follows:

I grew up in a middle class neighbourhood. It was a beautiful place with 2 parks for the kids and trees lining the roads. The housing society of the area had made around 150 homes there around 50 years back. We bought that house when I was a kid.

Just across the road, the government gave a bit of land for a mosque.

The area surrounding the mosque was open and everything seemed to be all right.

Then the mosque speakers went up. The mullah of the mosque used to give the azan 5 times a day but it was not very loud and did not reach our homes.

Slowly, muslims started encroaching on the empty area around the mosque. They started with small shacks and gradually built up.

About 3 years ago, some saudi sheikh gave some money to this mosque and they put up a minaret over a hundred feet high.

Now the entire area around the mosque is a complex maze of alleys. That area is now a muslim ghetto.

The mosque has high decibel speakers that violate all the noise pollution norms but no infidel dares to complain. {Remember: this happened in overwhelmingly-Hindu-majority India - dda}

The azans are so loud that they reach every home of our society. And time to time, a "scholar from mecca" visits the mosque and gives sermons at the top of his voice. I moved to another location because my mother has a heart condition and the azan and the screaming, hysterical sermons was bad for her blood pressure. It woke everyone up at 5 a.m. everyday and the sermons lasted entire days.

I loved that house and I clung to it for some time, hoping that maybe I could move back again.

Then I realized that that area is turning islamic and I sold my house.

Now people tell me that I was wise to do so, since property prices are coming down in the area. Since we moved a year back, more than 10 families quit the area. {That would be, ten non-Muslim families: Hindu Indian families - driven out by Muslim contempt for local rules and regulations and the principles of good-neighbourliness - dda}

Now we are very far away from that place and I still feel bad about my home, but I know that I did the right thing by moving.

The trees around my housing society are slowly disappearing since the muslims gangs come at night and cut them up for firewood.

**The dogs of that area are dying because the muslims run their cabs over them.** {my emphasis - dda}

One cannot leave anything in the garden since things just disappear at night. They even steal light bulbs from the porches.

Point of this long post is, we don't force them to live in ghettos, they themselves create their own slums.

They don't like living in housing societies and the mosque is the centre of their existence. They create their ghettos around mosques so that they can answer the azan 5 times a day.

And this is how they take over us, bit by bit, house by house, area by area."

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM

The exchange with other posters that followed, is interesting and relevant.

arjun.sevak,

Horrific.

(I think I'm seeing the early signs of a similar phenomenon here in Canada -- these are the "occupied areas," majority Muslims...natives chased out.)

At least if they had something to offer -- other than their hatreds/violence (against women, indigenous non-Muslims, women, dogs, etc.) -- but, no. So many seem intent on bringing violence, hatreds, Koranic caterwauling, ignorance and backwardness into formerly civilized areas.

I really don't want to have to look back and fondly reminisce about a "golden era" prior to the coming of Islam...yet, if Canada continues down its current path, that may well be our future.
(I am glad to hear your mother is better.)

Posted by: J.S. at June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

Arjun,
What about your local leaders? Did your town have no zoning laws or building codes? Or were they applied only to you and your neighbors and not to the newcomers?
 What is the likelihood that you'll face the same situation further down the road?

Posted by: PMK at June 29, 2007 12:59 PM

{Now THAT is the million-dollar question, for all of us, all over the lands of the non-Muslim s- dda}.

Sevak replied:

Thank you J.S. I don't want to wish what happened to the people of my neighbourhood upon any infidel, but this is what is going to happen to us anywhere there is a muslim population.

And this is the beginning.

PMK they built their shacks over a period of 15 years. At first these were temporary structures and the authorities did not bother much with them. Slowly they spread over an area of several acres and now it is a full-blown ghetto with 7 mosques.

But it all began with a single mosque, the mosque that got the minaret.

They never sought permission for any building, and some years back when an enthusiastic official tried to demolish their illegal structures they carried out a protest march. {Observe: typical mohammedan fake pantomime of victimhood: hurt others, provoke others, then when there is a response, spin round and scream 'poor little persecuted me!' at the top of their lungs - dda}

Then the politicians intervened and let them be.

This ghetto is a "state within a state", i.e., the law of the land ends where the ghetto begins.

Building inspectors don't go in, cleaners don't go in, meter readers don't go in.

{This is in India; it is *exactly* like the situation in the Muslim-dominated areas of some European countries now; and there are suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne that are starting to go the same way - dda}.

Some politician gave the order that since these people are "poverty struck" they must get free electricity and so they get free electricity.

Their major occupations are - driving cabs, basic iron fabrication, carpentry, auto-mechanical works and butchery.

There are 3 such ghettos in my city that are built entirely on encroached government land.

Regarding your question that it won't happen to me again, I am not optimistic about that.

interestinconundrum, yes you are right, the quality of life has gone up now that we are far away from muslim population. I miss my home, but that place is not just what it used to be any more."

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 30, 2007 1:23 AM


RonaldB,

Thanks for doing all those replies. Your reply to me indicates what I would expect, i.e., they haven't been put to the test, so to speak, whether through exploratory discussion or circumstances. Indeed, as you describe it in your reply, the Muslims in your case appear to be protected by workplace decorum etc. from being exposed to situations and conversations where problems could manifest.

The situation described in this case that Robert presents is different. Whereas in your workplace scenario the Muslims and non-Muslims have not been put to the test, the case presented here is one where such tests have occurred and we see at least some of the results thus far.

Of course, all the caveats one can list about anecdotal reports, especially those involving conflicts and where the reporter is involved in the conflict, apply.

This account of the "Harrisons" is valuable for many of the same reasons that more formal case studies are valuable in the sciences. It is necessary, in our examination and presentation of the Islam problem, to present instances of actual individual experiences in detail, unfolding over time in context. These individual detailed experiential accounts complement the reports of larger studies and surveys etc. on Muslims' beliefs and attitudes.

The resistance to Islamization is partly about ensuring that our day-to-day lives, now and in the years and decades to come, for ourselves and for generations to come, are not adversely affected by Islam. We're still at the stage where we have to work on continuing to further educate people about the problems with Islam. This story illustrates how Islam, especially in the context of the Islamic revival sweeping the world and the accompanying attitudes among Muslims, can cause problems for the average non-Muslim living in a non-Muslim country at the level of ordinary day-to-day personal experience.

LemonLime,

And respect to you.

I said,

I think that all Muslims -- even those who are only nominal or who for whatever reason are against any kind of Sharia or jihad -- are to one degree or another responsible for the totalitarian threat posed by Islam.

You answered, in part,

...The problem is not the "responsibility" of those Muslims who are putatively harmless; it's their potential danger to us.

Of course, in referring to their "totalitarian threat," I was referring to a danger (threat ≈ danger). Totalitarian threat has little power if it's not backed in some way by violence. But I think you mean the focus should rather be on the immediate possibility of violent jihad even from putatively harmless Muslim individuals, who could, in accord with sudden jihad syndrome and Islam, turn devoutly violent at any time and kill one of my friends, my family, me.

A couple of points. I find small scale violent terrorism less worrisome than demographic jihad and the rise of an accompanying climate of intimidation and Islamic death threats against public institutions, public figures, and anyone who dares to criticize Islam, threats backed by occasional murders and violence carried out in an effort to impose the oppressive Islamic ethos wherever Muslims reach some minimal critical mass in an area. I'm worried about how all that leads to subjugation of and discrimination against non-Muslims, and over the long run toward the crystallization of the Islamic ethos and culture into actual impositions of Sharia law. I am much less worried about me or my family and friends actually being injured or murdered by a Muslim, than I am about Western culture being murdered (may be happening in Europe already) by the sporadic terror through which the Muslim vanguard, as it were, establishes intimidation and invisible self-censorship among fearful non-Muslims, often silencing and thus blinding non-Muslim culture on the question of Islam, so that Islam can worm its way into institutions.

I am also somewhat less worried about Islamic WMD attacks than I am about demographic and militant jihad moving toward Sharia rule through violent intimidation. The presence of Muslims does not guarantee a WMD attack. But their presence in sufficient numbers does guarantee one or another intolerable degree of Islamization with its accompanying pervasive climate of intimidation against the most basic human rights.

Thank you, Ima Freeman.

And now for three accounts - one classic magazine article by a retired Sydney cop who saw the first large-scale influx of Mohammedan 'refugees' from Lebanon into Australia in the late 1970s early 1980s and what **immediately** followed from it, which was without precedent in his experiences with a variety of ethno-cultural groups; one newspaper article; and one comment to a counter-jihad blog, describing how Mohammedans behave at the beach toward non-Muslims in the same area - of Mohammedan 'street jihad' or 'neighbourhood jihad' - what I call 'Islamoforming' - from **Australia**.

First, the former cop, Tim Priest: "The Rise of Middle Eastern Crime in Australia". Originally published in 'Quadrant ' Volume XLVIII Number 1 - January-February 2004. He doesn't fully grasp what he's describing - he talks about 'Lebanese' and 'Middle Eastern' for the most part, rather than 'Muslims' - but nevertheless, it's not 'middle eastern' organised crime, and general antisocial low-level (escalating to high-level) criminal conduct he's describing, it's MUSLIMS. Nobody else, really. Not in the same way. And the description of the process is scary, because it matches the sort of thing Arjun described in the posting I reproduced above. The moment Muslims feel strong enough anywhere, they begin attacking and preying upon and bullying the non-Muslims around them.

http://www.australian-news.com.au/Tim_Priest.htm

Item number two: Paul Sheehan, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, two years later.

Note that he still subscribed to the 'tiny minority of extremists' canard. Nevertheless, the *events* that he describes, and the *pattern* of Mohammedan behaviour that he records, are completely consistent with all other accounts I have seen here and elsewhere, not just anecdotally but in newspaper articles, etc.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/ideals-become-casualties-of-war/2006/08/13/1155407666922.html

Excerpt (apologies for the length of these postings, but this is for the benefit of readers who may google in here later on, just in case the link - which I think still works for now - should break in future,

'A minority causes collateral damage to the way we live, writes Paul Sheehan.

"One of the edges of the global clash between Muslims and the rest is a bottle shop in a small and ratty shopping mall in western Sydney. {Western Sydney, especially the suburbs of Lakemba and Auburn both of which have very large mosques, is perhaps the most heavily Islamified and Islamoformed part of Australia right now - dda}

"The owner of the bottle shop is suffering low-level but steady harassment from his neighbours, who want him gone. He's a Christian {Sheehan notes, later in the article, that this man is himself a middle-eastern 'Arab' Christian - i.e. from a former dhimmi community - dda} who has been told repeatedly: "This is a Muslim area," and he is selling alcohol, which is proscribed by Islam.

"The one-hour parking zone outside the bottle shop is always occupied because local Muslims leave their cars there all day.

"The owner has written to the local council to complain, and nothing has been done. He does not want to be identified because he fears retribution.

"His reaction is sensible.

"A friend of mine, Jenny D, used to live in Lakemba.

"She began receiving insults from people in the street, usually Muslim women wearing headscarves, and sometimes Muslim men. If she wore a short skirt, she could expect abuse or comment. She left Lakemba.

"Soon after, I moved to America, stayed away for 10 years, and thought nothing more of her story.

"But after I came back to Sydney I found Jenny's experience had been part of a larger pattern.

"One particularly strong witness to this pattern was Judith, who managed an agency helping war widows, because she encountered **"dozens" of cases where people were harassed by Muslim neighbours who wanted them gone.** {my emphasis - dda}

"It was common," she told me. "A lot of these ladies couldn't take it and moved out. It happened in Campsie, Belmore, Lakemba, Bankstown, Punchbowl ...

"It was everything ... throwing rubbish over the fence, screaming abuse, blocking the driveway, knocking fences down. One guy would throw coffee grains on the windows and bottles on the roof late at night ... I confronted some of them, and the men would call me a lot of names, mostly in Arabic."

and item number three, a cri de coeur from an ordinary Aussie dad who had experienced Muslim passive-aggression (spiked with active aggression) on the beach at Cronulla. The same beach where Mohammedans, rebuked for ogling and harassing Aussie kuffar beach beauties, beat up the surf lifesaver who had rebuked them; and then, when a large crowd of angry Aussie kuffars held a rally to, so to speak, 'Reclaim the Beach', spun round, screamed 'victim' and launched in 'self-defence' something like three nights of violent rioting through several suburbs in the course of which non-Muslims were bashed, and churches and businesses attacked. Swarms of rioters gathered at and issued from, among other places, the Lakemba mosque. And those riots were then blamed on Australian non-Muslim 'racists'...go figure.

From comments to thread in 'Australian Islamist Monitor' (site now archived).
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4025:aim-collection-of-signatures-in-support-of-sergio-redegalli&catid=302:in-support#comments

'AIM Collection of Signatures in Support of Sergio Redegalli'

Henry: Enough Is Enough

"Muslims will rue the day they messed with my family at Cronulla.

"Muslims behaviour can only be described as confrontational and filthy.

"Every time i have taken my family to Cronulla for a day at the beach Muslims have interfered with our enjoyment.

"Their burqa clad women in large groups prevent Aussie girls from using the public toilets by blocking the doorway, and they hog any taps in large groups.

"Muslim children have run up to our picnic spread, dropped their duds and sh#t right in front of us.

"Muslim males playing soccer kick their ball at our picnic spread.

"Burqa clad Muslim women stand in front of us deliberately blocking our view.

"Muslim males have thrown down prayer mats in front of our picnic spread and started praying.

"**All of these Muslim acts of confrontation were deliberate because they went out of there way to do these things.** {my emphasis - dda}

Enough is enough.

January 21, 2011

Oh yes, and one more item from my collection: witness is a formerly regular poster at this blog, an Aussie of non-Muslim extraction whose family [formerly dhimmis] fled from a Muslim country. She was attending university in Australia at the time.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/australia-islamic-preacher-says-prime-minister-should-step-down-and-let-the-muslims-take-over.html

HourglassF | January 21, 2011 6:19 AM | Reply

The muslims are already taking over my university here in Australia.

Its filled with Saudi Arabian male students who smoke in front of door ways of buildings (against laws and regulations)and leer at female students.

A few of them have already been kicked out by the university for sexual harrassment.

Every single food outlet is now halal, where as only 2 years ago, only one of the 7 food outlets was halal.

They frighten me, I hate the way they look at me.

They're everywhere, everywhere I turn I see them.

The university cares more about money and lets these disgusting creatures in despite the many various problems they have already caused."


Wellington, If Sharia were not directly and completely equivalent to deadly sedition not just in theory but in actuality already resulting in acts (and attempted acts) of mass-murderous war against us on American soil -- and will continue to result in acts (and attempted acts) of war against us on American soil, worse than 911 -- you'd be correct. Why you persist in ignoring this, I've given up trying to divine.

Depressing... Totally depressing... and here in America we are just allowing it to happen. A mega-mosque here, another one over there; and when you go to the store the hijib's dot the landscape. The destruction of this country brecks the heart. But in a way we've done it to ourselves ... we hated Bush so we elected a Muslim, Obama.

Like RonaldB, I've worked with Muslims too ... yes, they can be nice, but unlike RonaldB, I know there are limits ... boundaries... there can't be any voicing of truth or my opinion... the conversation is generic, in a sence all sunshine and lolly pops; I don't trust them and more to the point, I know I can't.

I have given examples from India and from Australia.

Now for some testimony from downtown Oklahoma, USA.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/court-rules-sharia-ban-unconstitutional.html

Edward Brandon | January 11, 2012 1:52 AM | Reply

As I live in Oklahoma, this really makes me angry. I have two mosques within four blocks of my house.

The looks of hatred are, unreal.

I've never done anything to them, yet, they have spat at me, tried to hit me with cars (walking and while I drive), and one tried to assault me in the parking lot of the 7-11 (while I was trying to get ready to back out, he whipped in almost hitting my car then decided to start screaming and yelling while making threatening gestures at me).

I know that if I do anything to defend myself, it will be considered a "hate" crime. This "ruling" will only serve to embolden them.'

And from England, where the process is well advanced and Muslims are on a roll and growing more and more aggressive and nasty day by day.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/you-are-in-any-way-the-most-ugliest-hateful-creaturemost-cases-your-father-is-a-ugly-pig.html#comment-623345


Hard Rain | December 9, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply

"Muslim intimidation comes in many forms.

"Here are the facts of day-to day life in Brown's Britain.

"Despite our politicians weasly statements to the contrary, the fact remains that Britain is loaded with no-go areas, where any infidels enter at their own risk.

"The danger is very real and growing all the time..

"There are several well known no-go areas around here, and every so often, another street is absorbed into them.

"I personally have experienced hostility from these young Muslims, the glaring, the muttered curses, the spitting on the street in front of you where you are about to step, squaring up as they walk towards you then suddenly veering away at the last moment, often with an upraised arm as if they were about to strike a blow, smirking to the rest of their gang loitering nearby.

"They walk s-l-o-w-l-y across the street in front of cars driven by infidels, forcing them to brake or risk injuring them.

"I once lived in an area that was gradually subsumed into an expanding Muslim ghetto. I moved out when their children started defecating in the street outside my window.

"Both of my teenage daughters have been accosted by Muslim men with sexual advances so crude I can't repeat them, been abused, insulted, called 'whores' and 'white bitches' and worse. In one case the little swine exposed himself to them in the street.

" On another occasion my youngest, visiting a local park with her friends, encountered a group of Muslims. The young men immediately approached them, intimidatingly close, making sexual invitations. The girls tried to move away.

" One of the young men snatched her sun hat and disappeared into the bushes. A minute later he emerged and returned the hat. It was soaking wet, he'd urinated on it.

"Panicked, the girls broke and ran, pursued by the boys** who struck out at them, shouting racist insults and that this park was for Muslims.** {my emphasis - dda}

"We informed the police, a statement was taken, nothing happened.

"This is my direct experience.

"This is what happens because Muslim boys are taught that women are worthless and that white infidel women are worth even less.

"I've comforted my girls when they've come home sobbing and I've paced around at night, when my family are sleeping upstairs, with my teeth gritted and fists clenching and unclenching.

"All the drug dealers in this area are exclusively young Muslim men. {Note: the illegal drug manufacture and distribution process in Australia is being more and more taken over by Muslims, too - dda}.

" One of them was hacked to death on the street with an axe in a local drug war. They use fireworks to announce their arrival, sending up a lone rocket to let the kids know the drugs are ready for them to collect. They used these drugs to groom at least fifty young white girls to use for their pleasure. This isn't hearsay, I can show you the press clippings.

:And this isn't South Central, this is the leafy suburbs of rural England.

" It's common knowledge around here that Muslim parents make a deal with their sons, that if he accepts their choice of girl in an arranged marriage, then they will turn a blind eye to anything he does in the meantime.

"I could take you, right now this instant, to the run-down streets in the Muslim enclaves, with the yards full of garbage and old furniture, to the houses with battered doors and rotted windows and show you the Bentleys and shiny new Mercedes parked outside.

"The police are powerless, they are most often used against us to enforce pc policies as our lives are sacrificed for the sake of 'social cohesion.' In terms of our protection the police are little more than a row of empty uniforms...".

And just for good measure, a very disturbing account of what the Arab Muslim Fifth Column has been able to get away with, **within Israel**.

It is entirely of a piece with the accounts I have already posted of Muslim behaviour in the UK, America, Australia and India.

The article, however, also describes an attempt by some feisty Israelis to push back. It ought to offer some inspiration and encouragement to people whose turf is being encroached on by Mohammedans. Note: it is not about forming vigilante squads. It is about creating what one might call a numerous and motivated Neighbourhood Watch with teeth; and steadfastly and ceaselessly *demanding* that the law be strictly enforced by those whose job it is to enforce it.

But: everyone here who hasn't already seen this piece by Carolien Glick, do click and read, and pay particular attention to the paragraphs in which she describes the Mohammedan behaviour pattern, the passive-aggression, the deceit, the pose of victimhood, the bullshitting, and persistent attempts to harm and to intimidate.


http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/03/the-new-guardians-of-israel.php

The New Guardians of Israel
March 25, 2008, 12:07 AM

Another story from Israel: the way in which the azan is used to make life miserable for neighbouring non-Muslims (exactly as we saw in the first item I reproduced, the testimony of an Indian poster).

http://www.jpost.com/LocalIsrael/Article.aspx?id=159007

Oct 30, 2009 0:15 | Updated Oct 30, 2009 8:10
Early morning Muslim prayer call is a rude awakening for many
By ABE SELIG


And there is more information on the nonstop 'war of attrition', the ceaseless
small' acts of aggression by Muslims toward non-Muslims within Israel, within this article [though the author himself does not seem to see that this is not about 'Arabs', it's about MUSLIMS).:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=263863

Fundamentally Freund: Time to crack down on Arab [sic: MUSLIM - DDA] violence'

(If the link has broken, google 'Jerusalem Post' and the author and title of the article; this should bring it up from the JPost archives).

Well, I've seen nothing here to alter that "generalization" that I've already reached about islam in general and muslims in particular. Where you have islam, you have muslims. And where you have muslims...you have trouble--big trouble--multiplying at the speed of immigration and procreation. Are there any exceptions to this? Anywhere on earth where this isn't the case? I can't think of any off-hand...

If Ronald B wants to see whether the smiles of the Muslims he works with are merely masks, or not, he could always a/ acquire, and wear to work, unobtrusively but visibly, a small 'Star of David' pendant (this would depend on what workplace policy was regarding jewellery, etc.) and/ or b/ put an Israeli flag sticker on his car, next to the American flag. Or just buy a copy of 'Jerusalem Post' or some other identifiably Jewish publication every now and again and leave it folded up on the desk where the Muslims will see it if they look.

Say nothing. Just let them see those little signals that say 'I am with Israel', 'I am for the Jews'. And then, as time passes, see what may happen.

A small account to add to those of dumbledoresarmy -- while traveling in Uruguay, I was introduced to someone from Northern Europe -- I can't remember, but I think perhaps Norwegian. We got to talking about Islam in Europe, and he told me how once he was walking with his sister down a street. His sister was wearing a miniskirt. A Muslim man started following and said something lewd, referred to her as a whore, and actually touched her behind. Her brother became so furious that he started to beat the living daylights out of the Muslim, to the point where the sister had to pull him off and beg him to stop.

Unfortunately, much of Europe is too PC to do anything but submit when Muslims treat non-Muslims like lesser beings worthy only of subjugation.

I'm not ignoring what Sharia has already done to America. I loathe Sharia as I do all of Islam (and remember, compounding things, there are many provisions of Sharia that are no threat at all to liberty, for instance having to wash before any head banging begins). But I'm only the messenger respecting what is possible now under American law. The fact that the Kansas legislature made inapplicable and null and void certain provisions of Sharia without mentioning Sharia (thus learning from the Oklahoma experience) is key to grasping what I've been trying to convey to you all along, to wit, at this point in time, under present American constitutional interpretation, outlawing Sharia in toto just ain't gonna' happen.

Maybe someday it will happen when Islam is finally seen as so inimical to the Constitution that new legal ground will be successfully explored which will restrict much or all of it. I hope so. Till then wishin' ain't gettin' and oblique approaches (e.g., what Kansas did) to solving the great burden which Islam places on us will have to be the route taken.

Please let me explaine where I was trying to go with Wellington.

At issue is Wellington's assertation that U.S. immigration law cannot at present discriminate against Islam. I accept this assertation to be a fact. My question is, is there a way policy can get around the law?

I think it can. The issue is, can Islamists use U.S. courts to force a future U.S. administration into admitting them as immigrants when the administration refuses? I would argue that the only Muslims in a position to do so are those who are U.S. citizens and who are personally injured by such a policy (e.g., they are trying to sponsor the immigration of Uncle Hassan as part of a family reunion); these citizens would then possess 'standing' with the courts for their particular case only. No one else should have standing with a Federal court to challenge immigration policy, and the law could be changed if necessary to be more clear on this point without textually discriminating against Muslims. If you lack standing the court cannot hear your case, and the policy need not change. Simple.

Wow.. amazing amount of education for me and that is thanks to RB's first posting.

Back to RB - my remarks were about - I consider Muslims can be generalized because if they can follow Mo to be a model, then your Muslims are no different. It is at the end Kuran that dictates their lives inside their homes and at work places. I don't believe they are "nice" as you appear to think they are - after all either they are Muslims - that means they follow Kuran and they hold Mo to be their model which makes them dangerous but not nice.

Perhaps you and I have a different form to describe "nice"- I consider someone is nice when that person has no hidden agenda - a natural humanly nice person. The Muslims, at least the ones go to Mosques, all have hidden agenda - Sharia instead of the Constitution, because those are the basic rules that Govern Mosques.

Interesting to read stuff from Wellington and TD - please enlighten me on this one - inside every Muslim home and every Mosque in the States, they comply only with Sharia - which stipulates inequalities of all sorts. The US constitution, e.g. equal rights for all religions, cannot exist. Knowing that is going on, we turn blind eye and do nothing - do we know the tipping point for the number of Mosques required before we wake up to the reality that Sharia may be impossible to stop?

Good stuff all around.

Roland,

Please explain yourself:

You replied:

****** My reply is that Cuda may well be right about my previous comments. I read the Muslim Brotherhood's English website, which affirmed its commitment to democracy and tolerance. I never considered them an advance for Egyptian civilization. Cuda is engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Nevertheless, I agree there is no benefit to engaging the Muslim Brotherhood.

Back in Feb 2011 you said:

Quoted from Loonwatch:

"I’ve spent several hours today going over the Muslim Brotherhood English language site:
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

They may indeed represent a political advance for Egypt. For the US, it’s like putting lipstick on a pig (excuse the expression). They pay a great deal of lip service to democracy, freedom of religion, and equal rights regardless of religion. And, I believe them when they say they would have no religious test for participation in government and civil affairs (although they emphasize that the purpose of the government is to support Islamic law)."

I'm not sure how "They may indeed represent a political advance for Egypt." is not considering the Muslim Brotherhood and advance for Egyptian Civilization. Egyptian politics are a part (a very significant part) of its civilization.

Wellington,

"I'm not ignoring what Sharia has already done to America. I loathe Sharia as I do all of Islam"

An exceedingly odd way to put the ongoing threat of mass-murder using weapons of mass destruction; with the oddity only underscored by the fact that you have repeated this locution in different ways every time I address this issue.

"(and remember, compounding things, there are many provisions of Sharia that are no threat at all to liberty, for instance having to wash before any head banging begins)."

Not only a useless parenthetical statement, but mystifyingly misplaced. If a group is killing your family while beforehand their members wash their hands ritualistically, the latter detail is utterly irrelevant to the task of defending your family from being killed.

"But I'm only the messenger respecting what is possible now under American law."

No, you are botching the message, misconstruing what is possible by ignoring the fact that Muslims are waging war against us on our soil and killing us in the process and plotting as we speak to kill us more horrifically. You are behaving like a person who, when told his house is on fire, continues to calmly sip his tea and say that there is nothing that can be done other than what the Homeowner's Association by-laws stipulate concerning some problems other than the house is on fire.

"The fact that the Kansas legislature made inapplicable and null and void certain provisions of Sharia without mentioning Sharia (thus learning from the Oklahoma experience) is key to grasping what I've been trying to convey to you all along"

No, it shows that members of the Kansas legislature haven't woken up to the fact that Muslims are waging war on us on our soil and killing us and plotting to kill us more horrifically as we speak -- members of the Kansas legislature just vaguely "don't like radical Islamism" and "loathe Sharia" for strangely vague reasons unrelated to the fact that Muslims are waging war on us on our soil and killing us and plotting to kill us more horrifically as we speak. Just because they are strangely myopic to this fact doesn't mean we have to be. This isn't a matter of law: it's a matter of waking up to what Muslims are doing. Any group that is waging war and killing us would be stopped. So this isn't about the Constitution; it's about our continuing misperception of what is actually happening. That you in the anti-Islam movement perpetuate this misperception is aggrievingly maddening.

You wrote, "This isn't a matter of law..." Oh yes it is and I am getting exceedingly tired of pointing this out to you. Tell ya' what. Why don't you argue your position to other lawyers or judges and see where you get. I'd be bettin' nowhere is where you'd get.

I agree with your analysis, TD. But my concern is that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Uncle Hassans abroad will be located by Muslim families here in America. Also, there is the matter of actually changing immigration policy in such a way that it wouldn't discriminate against Islam while, in effect, actually doing so, and this presupposes that the will to do so has at last occurred.

Ronald B Said "I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company."

Working with and being coworkers with several Muslims does not give you a proper perspective on Islamic doctrine which is more of an issue with the story.

I know several Muslims also. However it still doesn't change the fact that Islam is a very intolerant religious-political doctrine that calls for it's followers to subjugate unbelievers. The daughter's actions after starting to study the Koran is indicative of the kinds of behavior one would expect from Muslims with little self control. They are simply doing as they are commanded.

You said "I am opposed to further Muslim immigration because the bedrock principles of Islam are counter to the cultural and legal system of the US. Although there are many Muslims who have adapted to the US and accept its atmosphere of tolerance and freedom, the large, politically powerful Muslim organizations exert their pressure as political cover for increasing recognition of Sharia law and against any organized opposition to further Muslim political power."

You acknowledge the dangers of major Muslim Organizations and you acknowledge the dangers of Muslim Immigration in to the US. You seem in denial about the individual repercussions of both the organizations (CAIR and the individuals Mosque) and important roles in a Muslim's life. As long as a Muslim considers themselves a Muslim, they follow the Quran, the Mosque and CAIR even if they don't talk about it. I should also note that as long as they DO attend a Mosque, they are paying a ZAKAT which is a contribution towards the global Jihad. Whatever denial they have about participating or agreeing to organizations like Al Queda becomes null and void once they pay the weekly ZAKAT. They ARE involved.

Ronald, like you, I have a job that requires discretion in the areas of Religion and Politics. However I am not blind or stupid to the fact that Muslims will behave this way. If given the opportunity, the Muslims you work with will behave in the same exact manner.

Being born and raised in a muslim counrty, Turkey, I attest that Islamic culture allows and encourages this type of behaviour as reported here. My family and friends are muslims (although they dont know anything about it, but they say they are muslims)and they are really good people. The point is that the religion of Islam is EVIL and it it is conducive to a perverted social behaviour and accordingly to a culture, looking for words, disgusting.

Is there any chance that good people like your relatives, Sam Arisan, will finally see the light about Islam, that it is a deeply warped religious ideology that must be eventually assigned to the trash heap of history?

Ronald B wrote:

I want to make a comment on this.

I work with several Muslims. They are friendly and considerate, and carry their share of the work. I have no issues whatsoever working with them and enjoy their company...

In other words, it's important to not make group arguments from the acts of individuals.
................................

This is true. But Robert Spencer did not call this story "The Muslims next door", but "The Islamic supremacists next door".

Moreover, a lot of the details of this story are not just "obnoxious"—they are specifically Islamic.

The overbearing, misogynistic, supremacist husband; the passive-aggressive wife who is both scared of her husband *and* willing to sic him on her Kaffir neighbors; the assertion that their children cannot play with 'filthy Infidels'; the daughter's increased aggression because she has begun to study the Qur'an, their encroaching on Infidel property because they do not recognize non-Muslims' rights—it is all of a piece.

And I agree with Kinana of Khaybar and J not A—I'm not so sure all of those "friendly and considerate" Muslims would really be so friendly and considerate if asked their opinions about Jews, or the freedom to criticize Islam and the "Prophet", or about apostasy.

I realize you may not be in a position to directly ask then about any of these things—still, those in similar positions have, and have often been shocked at the answers.

And please note, I *am not* trying to give you a hard time here. You are a solid Anti-Jihadist, and I always appreciate your comments.

One guess - that's why the last family moved out!!

Weird situation - everyone is on this strange bend about respecting Islam - and then people get pushed aside!!

They should move out!!

Islam teaches supremacy - but here the law doesn't allow for that - supremacy is about encroachment - so they try to assert dominance by other means.

And it is done by being contrary.

Like a woman - walking down a western street in a burqa - who you could feel wants you to acknowledge - that they don't want to be seen.

They want you to notice - that they don't want to be noticed!

It's conflicted, confused, aggressive, intrusive!


Make plans to move!!

[This family should be saying - Leave me out of it!!]


I would like to know how many other families live in this particular set-up, and whether all or most of those other families are non-Muslim.

If most or all of the others are non-Muslim, then surely it should be possible for all the non-Muslims to connect with each other, start looking out for each other (especially, looking out for their kids), and hopefully get the Mohammedans booted out.

I would encourage the gentleman who shared with Mr Spencer this copy of the letter that, in desperation, he had written to the managers of the apartment complex, to join ACT for America. There may be an ACT for America chapter already in his area; if not, he could consider setting one up, and inviting his non-Muslim neighbours to join as well.

I think non-Muslims need to *refuse* to be driven out of any more of their areas, and instead, start figuring out how to push back.

Let's see the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, start *losing* turf for a change.

Well, I spent some time in the archives looking at the comments of "RonaldB". Interesting stuff.

For now, I'd just like to ask him about an exchanged he had about the Serbs some 5 months ago back in January of this year with a formerly frequent JW poster I've not seen anymore -- "Enragedsince1999" -- who referred RonaldB to a site of information that should disabuse him of his anti-Serbian bias. At that time, the last word in that thread was from RonaldB responding to Enragedsince1999:

I have found the site you mentioned. It is extensive, so it will be awhile before I am able to discuss it.

I wonder if RonaldB has found the time in the past 5 months to discuss it now? Or does he hope to continue, now and then when the opportunity arises, to vilify the Serbs without backing it up with evidence?

"But my concern is that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Uncle Hassans abroad will be located by Muslim families here in America."

It would be impossible to turn off the spigot entirely, but if we require DNA testing for all family reunification immigrations (without discrimination) it would really eliminate this risk. Remember, adoption is haram (unless you do some suckling,,,)

"Also, there is the matter of actually changing immigration policy in such a way that it wouldn't discriminate against Islam while, in effect, actually doing so, and this presupposes that the will to do so has at last occurred."

Yes, that presupposition is needed.

Only blood relationships would count? What of relationships by marriage, where DNA evidence would not apply?

Hello and thank you to all who commented.

My name is Matt Hamilton and I am the author of the letter above (Michael Harrison). My family has been through hell trying to defend ourselves against the harassment, insult, threats and lies of our Islamist neighbors next door. I am legally blind and have great difficulty writing and moving about. My wife is my best friend and is my "eyes". God bless her for all she has gone through. She had a major surgery in June, 2012 and the day she got out of the hospital to recover, we had that morning received at our door a letter threatening eviction from the apartment manager. The letter accused us of being "racist" and "targeting the Muslim family next door" due to their religion. DUE TO THE STRESS OF THIS LETTER MY WIFE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE HOSPITAL FOR URGENT CARE AND RESTITCHING OF HER SURGICAL INCISIONS BECAUSE HER INSIDES WERE COMING OUT. I requested a letter to "cease and desist harassment" from my wife's surgeon.

I contacted the Director of Property Management (DPM) to contest this letter and he said he would have it removed from our file as well as additional accusations made against our family. I began dealing directly with the DPM from this moment, as the onsite apartment manager was herself manipulating the situation and through her actions was also harassing my family. The DPM agreed and said that in fact the onsite manager herself was under investigation for coercion and harassment of previous and current tenants. The DPM advised me to file a Temporary Restraining Order against the neighbor (Hassan).

Since that conversation in Junee have gone through a court hearing process requesting a Temporary Restraining Order against the man next door (Hassan). The defendant lied outright throughout the trial, under oath, and at the end told the judge that his family had signed another lease and were moving out by the end of September, 2012. For this reason, the judge, while finding the Islamist family next door's behavior "extremely concerning" denied the request for restraining order. The judge did advise us to contact the court and/or police department if there were any further incidents.

I called the DPM for confirmation of this fact and he told me he did NOT have any information regarding the family's moving. The DPM was the man who told me to file the TRO request in the first place. He explained that it would give his company sufficient leverage to mandate that the family next door accept a non-punitive relocation to another unit. The family next door had declined the offer as it had been previously made. We have filed a motion to reconsider, given the fact that our neighbor (Hassan) has lied under oath and influenced the judge's decision with the specific last false statement. Our court hearing date is set for October 29, 2012.

Today, October 2, 2012 we have received a letter from the attorney of the DPM. It accuses us of "Hate Crimes" for insulting via giving the finger to the Muslim neighbors. We have been ordered to VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER" the apartment by November 4, 2012.

I am writing today to solicit requests for an attorney in the Northern California area of Sacramento AND pleading for donations to our Legal Defense Fund. I have set up a Pay Pal button for donations at the following web address:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=A2WNTY9XXQTJ6

Again, thank you for all of your support and comments.

Sincerly yours,

Matt Hamilton
mhamiltonphoto@yahoo.com


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
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
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
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter