Salon takes umbrage when atheists criticize Islam

Salon is just fine with Dawkins and Harris when they criticize Christianity, but when it comes to Islam, they are supposed to maintain a respectful silence before the Left’s favorite religion. (Both Leftists and Sharia advocates share a taste for authoritarian control. It’s a perfect marriage.) And so Salon reaches out to the creepy Travis Bickle of jihad enablers, Nathan “Garibaldi” Lean, to put on his cape and rush yet again to the defense of the harmless Religion of Peace that those mean old greasy Islamophobes keep picking on for absolutely no reason at all. Lean, of course, is a stalker who has threatened me repeatedly, repeats what he knows to be falsehoods about my record, and has called on hackers to destroy this site.

“Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia,” by Nathan “Garibaldi” Lean for Salon, March 30:

…For Harris, the ankle-biter version of the Rottweiler Dawkins, suicide bombers and terrorists are not aberrations. They are the norm. They have not distorted their faith by interpreting it wrongly. They have lived out their faith by understanding it rightly. “The idea that Islam is a “˜peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” he writes in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

That may sound like the psychobabble of Pamela Geller. But Harris”s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.”

Yes, well, I am not for flushing books down the toilet — any reasonably-sized book would certainly clog up the pipes, even Nathan Lean’s hate screed — but saying “the idea that Islam is a “˜peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a fantasy” is “psychobabble”? Does Lean, who has never been the sharpest knife in the Islamic supremacist drawer, know what the word “psychobabble” means? Here’s Merriam-Webster: “1. a predominantly metaphorical language for expressing one’s feelings; 2a : psychological jargon; b : trite or simplistic language derived from psychotherapy.” So does this clown think that doubting that Islam is a peaceful religion is psychological jargon? Mumbo-jumbo derived from psychotherapy? Predominantly metaphorical? Is it the word “fantasy” that makes him reach for “psychobabble” here? Maybe Nathan has been spending a bit too long on the couch, but in any case, it is a blot on Salon’s already quite sorry record that they are so compromised and sold out to the Islamic supremacists that they will publish this semi-coherent and essentially meaningless drivel.

Anyway, hitting Dawkins for not having read the Qur’an (I have, Nathan, innumerable times), Lean says:

…That’s topsy-turvy logic for a man who says he’s never read the Quran but seconds later hocks up gems like this from his Twitter account:

“Islam is comforting? Tell that to a woman, dressed in a bin bag [trash bag], her testimony worth half a man’s and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape.”

Is Lean suggesting that the Qur’an doesn’t say that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s (you’ll find that in 2:282) or that it specifies four male witnesses to prove sexual crimes (that’s in 24:4 and 24:13). And so Dawkins said he hadn’t read the Qur’an, but then he indicates that he is familiar with at least some of its teachings. This should give Lean pause, but like any good “war is deceit” acolyte, he charges on, hoping his hapless Salon readers will not know that the things Dawkins attributes to Islam are actually in the Qur’an.

…Where exactly Dawkins gets his information about Islam is unclear (perhaps Fox News?). What is clear, though, is that his unique brand of secular fundamentalism cozies up next to that screeched out by bloggers on the pages of some of the Web’s most vicious anti-Muslim hate sites. In a recent comment he posted on his own Web site, Dawkins references a site called Islam Watch, placing him in eerily close proximity to the likes of one of the page’s founders, Ali Sina, an activist who describes himself as “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive.” Sina is a board member for the hate group, Stop the Islamization of Nations, which was founded by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and which has designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC is a well-heeled propaganda machine that smears conservatives for cash. It labels as “hate groups” many who simply disagree with its political stance, and is an integral part of the ongoing Leftist effort to demonize and destroy legitimate conservative voices like our American Freedom Defense Initiative by lumping them in with the likes of the KKK. While Lean constantly invokes this as if it demonstrates something, neither he nor Salon nor anyone else ever explain why the SPLC actually has any credibility in designating “hate groups” in the first place. For the SPLC turns a blind eye to the real hate that comes from the Left and Islamic supremacists, and offers with its hate group listings not only an incitement to violence, but a handy tool that lazy Leftist mainstream media journalists use to try to intimidate people away from supporting our message of human rights. The SPLC richly deserves its place on AFDI’s Threats to Freedom Index.

…For his part, Dawkins spins wild conspiracy theories claiming that ordinary terms like “communities” and “multiculturalism” are actually ominous code words for “Muslims” and “Islam,” respectively. The English Defence League, a soccer hooligan street gang that has a history of threatening Muslims with violence and assaulting police officers, has made identical claims, as have leaders of Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE), a ragtag coterie of neo-Nazis whose hate franchise spans two continents: Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), its American counterpart, is led by bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Lean probably got the libel that SIOE is a neo-Nazi group from his boss Reza Aslan, the Islamic Republic of Iran apologist who made it up out of thin air in 2010. I challenged Aslan to substantiate this claim at that time. He never did, because he can’t, because it’s false.

In July of 2011, Dawkins re-published a lengthy diatribe by former SIOE leader Stephen Gash on his website. Gash, too, has an aversion for scholarly decorum. He once unleashed a public temper tantrum during a debate on Islam at the esteemed Cambridge University Union Society, shouting and storming out of the auditorium when the invited speaker, a Muslim, rebutted his ideas before the audience.

This one made me laugh. Lean is criticizing someone for shouting and storming out of an auditorium (not that I believe his characterization of events)? A “public temper tantrum,” eh? That reminded me of this little news item from the Goldsboro News-Argus, February 24, 2005: “Two young men who spoke obscenities after what they thought was an unfavorable decision at a Goldsboro City Council meeting were disciplined Wednesday in Wayne County District Court. Aaron Kornegay, 27, of Beston Road, LaGrange and Nathan Chapman Lean, 20…” Nathan Lean, he knows public temper tantrums!

By publishing this stalker and gutter thug, Salon has heaped new disgrace upon itself. And for Salon, which disgraces itself pretty much every day, that’s really saying something.

New York Times asks: Can reflective and honest intellectuals actually believe in Islam's teachings? No, wait--
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Heather Maher aids Hamas-linked CAIR's deception about jihad
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    It’s now said to be a law but it’s an observation I was convinced is true many years ago (my version):

    Always assume Leftists hold none of the convictions they preach to others, that their outrage is never genuine but always manufactured for some political purpose and – this should go without saying – they would gladly murder anyone who disagarees with their opinions and preferences, if they knew they could get away with it.

  2. says

    Since Leftists always seem to demonstrate such an affection and admiration for Islam, why don’t we just send them all to any country of their choice that enforces sharia? It seems to me this would solve a number of problems all in one shot.

    I’d donate to the cause!

  3. says

    Salon’s comment line has degenerated into the all-too-typical Salon’leftist name-calling and worse. But for what it’s worth, Lean is getting flame galore.

  4. says

    Salon takes umbrage when atheists criticize Islam

    Salon is just fine with Dawkins and Harris when they criticize Christianity, but when it comes to Islam, they are supposed to maintain a respectful silence before the Left’s favorite religion.
    …………………………

    And this is becoming more and more common. Suicidal madness.

  5. says

    Who better qualified to take apart, to criticize, to disassemble islam, who are a recognized lot of dedicated hate criminals, of unthinkable bad deeds, way beyond ordinary hate mongering, who believe in the absence of a god, ol’ al’ hisself, of course, a vacuous fraud. Atheists straight out generally seem to brook no god, no faith, no force of the universe, as is their right of free choice. Of course, in the next breath, who else also is well qualified to criticize, but one who knows well real religions, and is a part of them.

    In this world, what established real religion, ever in history, condones giant banners of vicious hatred and death, inside and a part of their meeting places which they refer to as mosks, perhaps better described as citadels of hatred. Among the real religions places of real worship, honest unquestioned worship, which are commonly called temples, meeting halls, and churches, for these real religions which never are used for storage of arms or explosives nor support of hatred”only one true fraud, allows and encourages such lost behavior”islam.

    And when there are no banners, count on most mosks, to waste no time condemning verbally, their proclaimed enemies of non-believers, Christians, Jews and all else. Then they send their own pathetic lost souls, their members, out to the streets like vacuous zombies on a mission, to wreak massive harm and death, (their ultimate solution for all ills), and hatred, against whomever poor souls, they’ve whipped up the crowds of zombie-like members, of firmly lost doomed souls, of the moment to be against. The so called clerics, represent nothing more than cheerleaders of hate, who conduct Friday pep-rallies of hatred and death, in the name of vast black void, they refer to as allah.

    And I have studied the trilogy, history, and much more.

    See the Iranian muslim mosk’s banners of the day, written in Persian, here: http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=61440 and weep, for the world. G-d help us!

    What a course lot islam is!

    Speaking of criticizing islam, which all should do, as a cathartic, a purgative, the West as usual quite late, too late, is now coming to their senses, by embargoing arms to the islamics of Syria, which is something of an oxymoron. Hard to believe they care, that most of the arms are going to islamics, the wings of MB. See it here, so the story goes: http://debka.com/article/22865/West-embargoes-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-over-their-resale-to-al-Qaeda.

  6. says

    This Nathan Lean is a deceptive one, isn’t he? Here’s what he claimed about Harris, which implies that Harris recommends flushing Qurans down toilets:

    “But Harris’s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.””

    Now, even with Lean’s attempt to twist that quote in the way he misleadingly added the term “suggesting” before the snippet, it should be obvious even from the snippet that what Harris meant was that if one flushes that book down a toilet, one should not fear being violently attacked for doing so. Anyways, here’s what Harris actually wrote:

    “…Moderate Muslims must accept and practice open criticism of their religion. We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.”

    Lean makes no mention of the problem of the violent reprisals, or indeed that the violent reprisals are a problem. Why he doesn’t do so is interesting in itself. Anyways, he is instead preoccupied with creating the false impression that Harris’ comment advocated flushing of Qurans–a false suggestion which, btw, could very well set off deadly riots half-way across the globe and put Harris’ life in danger in the U.S. Where is Lean’s concern about such sensitivities now?

    Re Dawkins, Lean states:
    “That’s topsy-turvy logic for a man who says he’s never read the Quran…”

    One of the several laughable assumptions Lean is attempting to purvey in this statement, like his boss Aslan, is that if only Dawkins did get around to reading the Quran, he would come to a different conclusion. In fact, as Robert notes, Dawkins is merely citing the teachings of Islam, several of which originate in the Quran. And if Dawkins did read the Quran and post his opinions on it, of course, they would insist that Dawkins himself was at fault for the Quran’s many evil, atrocious, stupid, and absurd elements.

    Of course, reading the Quran is one of the things that leads people to criticize it. I’ve read it more than once, and have studied parts of it several times and in detail, have read multiple tafsirs, have read parts of the Hadith that are relevant for Islam’s treatment of non-Muslims and women, have read the Sira, have read up on Islamic law and history, have studied Muslims’ current practices and beliefs, etc. Dawkins is right, in my informed opinion.

    Dawkins and others who are going to criticize Islam publicly ought to read the Quran, since it is a fairly easily manageable task that is relevant to having a more fully informed opinion about Islam. For the layperson, it can be read cover-to-cover in a day or two, depending on your reading speed and whether you pause to take notes, etc. It is not strictly necessary to do so, but it helps.

    On the off-chance that Aslan or Lean or any other Islam propagandist is reading this, I invite them to debate me right here in this thread.

  7. says

    “In a recent comment he posted on his own Web site, Dawkins references a site called Islam Watch, placing him in eerily close proximity to the likes of one of the page’s founders, Ali Sina, an activist who describes himself as “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive.”” –Lean

    In a recent comment, Lean’s boss Reza Aslan quoted the Quran, placing him in eerily close proximity to the likes of the book’s alleged author (Allah) and dictation-taking/ dictatorial secretary Muhammad, who advocate the following:

    Disbelief in Islam is the worst crime in Islam (6:21, 6:157, 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 18:57, 29:68, 32:22, 39:32, 61:7) and is therefore deserving of the maximum punishment.

    Allah’s annihilation, slaughter, of whole populations or communities of disbelievers (10:13, 19:98, 16:88, 17:14, 21:9, 21:6, 38:3, 32:26, 7:4, 18:59, 28:58, 46:27, 15:4)–men, women, and children.

    Muslims should strike terror into the hearts of the non-Muslims (8:60) and force Islamic terms of “peace” and surrender upon them (8:61).

    “Allah” will punish the non-Muslims through the hands of the Muslims who are fighting in his cause (8:12, 8:17, 9:14, 9:52), casting terror into the hearts of the disbelievers because they are disbelievers (3:151).

    In Islamic religious warfare, disbelievers are killed and put into hell-fire because they are disbelievers (8:35).

    Disbelievers who refuse to convert Islam should be fought and killed (9:5) until they submit to Islamic terms of surrender (9:6) and pay the jizya (9:29).

    Muslim men can have female sex slaves (70:29-30, 23:1-6, 4:24).

    A Muslim male can be married to 4 wives at the same time, while also having an unlimited number of slave girls (4:3).

    Muhammad gets extra wives for himself (33:50-52).

    Muslim men should beat their wives from whom they “fear disobedience” (4:34)

    Those who commit zina (in this case, fornication) should be whipped “without mercy” with 100 stripes (24:2).

    Divorce from, and thus marriage to, females who are too young to menstruate is permitted (65:4). The specification of iddah or waiting period implies that the Muslim men are allowed to have sex with prepubescent females (contrast 65:4 with 33:49). This is confirmed in the hadith as a general policy in specific reference to this verse (65:4), and in Islamic law, and is still explicitly legal in some Islamic countries today, e.g., Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. Muhammad. of course, according to the hadith, had sex with a nine-year-old Aisha.

    More…

    5:33 (crucifixion, etc.),
    5:38 (amputations),
    2:221 (forbids intermarriage between Muslims and idolaters),
    2:228 (in divorce, the man’s rights are “a degree above” the woman’s)
    2:230. (divorced woman must marry another man and have sex with him, then divorce him, if she wants to remarry first husband).
    9:28. (polytheists are “unclean”, not permitted to enter Al-Masjid-al-Haram at Mecca).
    4:11, 4:176 (a Muslim male inherits double what a Muslim female inherits)
    33:50-52 (Muhammad can have a large number of wives and slave girls),
    5:44, 5:45, 5:47 (those who don’t judge by that which Allah revealed are disbelievers, wrong-doers, transgressors/evil-livers)

    There is more of course. So let’s see: Reza Aslan and Nathan Lean support a book whose contextually correct interpretation according to Islamic authorities permits what the average non-Muslim westerners regard as murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, terrorism, etc. Doesn’t that make them “eerily close” to those who actually take the book’s contents and instructions seriously?

  8. says

    More verses that Reza Aslan and Nathan Lean don’t think anyone should criticize:

    35:39. “He it is Who made you rulers in the land; therefore whoever disbelieves, his unbelief is against himself; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers with their Lord in anything except hatred; and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers in anything except loss.”

    98:6 “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

    8:55. “Lo! The worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.”

    4:56. “Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.”

    76:3-4: “Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful. Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.”

    40:70-74. “Those who deny the Scripture and that wherewith We send Our messengers. But they will come to know, When carcans are about their necks and chains. They are dragged Through boiling waters; then they are thrust into the Fire. Then it is said unto them: Where are (all) that ye used to make partners (in the Sovereignty) Beside Allah? They say: They have failed us; but we used not to pray to anything before. Thus doth Allah send astray the disbelievers (in His guidance).”

    22:19-22. “These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord. As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut, and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatsoever is in their bellies and their skins shall be melted; for them await hooked iron rods; as often as they desire in their anguish to come forth from it, they shall be restored into it, and: ‘Taste the chastisement of the burning!'”

    48:13. “And so for him who believeth not in Allah and His messenger – Lo! We have prepared a flame for disbelievers.”

    33:57. (Shakir). “Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.”

    13:34. (Pickthall). “For them is torment in the life of the world, and verily the doom of the Hereafter is more painful, and they have no defender from Allah.”

    39:25. (Pickthall). “Those before them denied, and so the doom came on them whence they knew not. 39:26. Thus Allah made them taste humiliation in the life of the world, and verily the doom of the Hereafter will be greater if they did but know.”

    3:56. As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.

    22:9. (Shakir). “Turning away haughtily that he may lead (others) astray from the way of Allah; for him is disgrace in this world, and on the day of resurrection We will make him taste the punishment of burning”

    5:73. (Shakir). “Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.”

  9. says

    More love from Aslan’s and Lean’s favorite book:

    7:50. “And the dwellers of the Fire cry out unto the dwellers of the Garden [Paradise]: Pour on us some water or some wherewith Allah hath provided you. They say: Lo! Allah hath forbidden both to disbelievers…”

  10. says

    Nathan is a pretty good writer of fiction and dark fantasy…But like all super brains, he gets lost in his fantasy world and starts taking it literally…This is exactly what happens in psychosis…the fantasy becomes the reality and the life style…Nathan on the lower end of the dip stick, has incorporated ‘vile’ into his fantasy’s…The paranoid left in general is stooping more and more into the vile pit of disgusting behavior…Let me let you in on the little known…Most psychotics enjoy being psychotic, which is one reason it is hard to get rid of once it sets in…Having the FBI, the CIA and the Mafia, after you is one exciting life…
    Nathans subject matter and long list of enemies is different but the insane vile pit is the same…

  11. says

    If you said that what is in the Koran were in the Old Testament, instead, Salon and similar apparent stooges of totalitarian theocracy would denounce it thoroughly.

    Their critical faculties simply go dead when the poor, downtrodden, colonized people’s book- AKA the Al Qur’an– is examined with the same level of scrutiny as the Bible.

    The Koran is a playbook of patriarchal, eternal Terror.

    And ends with a global gulag run by crank mullahs willing to slaughter anyone who differs with their dogmatic domination.

  12. says

    Gay is the most dangerous thing going as this terror sex cult is front running for Islam as they introduce Polygamy and hate speech resulting in blasphemy laws against Islam. Gay is a threat to our security.

  13. says

    Lean writes: “How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear.”

    By anti-Muslim hate he is of course referring to criticism of Islamic laws and policies, and of some Muslim beliefs about those rules, policies, customs, etc., i.e., criticisms in the moral domain. Lean is either ignorant, or he is knowingly pretending that moral issues have nothing to do with the question of God’s existence. In fact, one of the oldest and most well-known arguments against the existence of God, going back at least to the ancient Greeks, is the argument from evil, but it would appear from his article that Lean has no clue as to what this famous argument is, or even of how prevalent it is in popular form.

    So I guess if Lean comes by to “debate” me, I will first have to teach him a few 101 courses before we can begin to have a discussion.

  14. says

    Kinana of Khaybar wrote:

    Now, even with Lean’s attempt to twist that quote in the way he misleadingly added the term “suggesting” before the snippet, it should be obvious even from the snippet that what Harris meant was that if one flushes that book down a toilet, one should not fear being violently attacked for doing so…

    Lean makes no mention of the problem of the violent reprisals, or indeed that the violent reprisals are a problem.
    ………………………………

    Very, very important point, Kinana. Lean’s shifting the emphasis to imply that Harris’ main point is his “intention” of flushing a Qur’an, when it is absolutely clear that his concern was regarding Muslim violence in response to rumors of same is utterly meretricious.

    More:

    Lean writes: “How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear.”
    ………………………………

    More crap from Lean, as though atheists are not allowed to speak on any matters save those they feel would directly bolster their arguments for atheism.

    But this is completely false”these are free people, in free societies”they can hold forth on whatever subjects they wish.

    Of course, if Lean has his way, this will not be true for long…

  15. says

    And Graven, if we take Lean’s absurdly spun interpretation of Harris’ comment, Lean would have us believe that Harris is recommending that we flush all books down the toilet!

    I think Aslan made a big mistake in hiring this Lean fellow. Lean is making him look even worse, even more shrill, silly, and buffoonish. They are both making a tactical error, essentially by making more enemies than they can handle, and reducing the size of their audience, by razzing atheists in general and Dawkins and Harris in particular.

    From our (pro-human rights, anti-sharia, anti-jihad) perspective then, it is useful and illustrative for our case to have the thuggish, primitive, and bungling Lean doing what he does, i.e., making threats, spinning nasty adjectives, and just generally displaying his ignorance for all the civilized world to see.