San Francisco officials in a froth over AFDI ads pointing out Muslim oppression of gays

HomosexualityAhmadinejad.jpg

Help us keep these ads going: CONTRIBUTE HERE!

The San Francisco Examiner headline is particularly egregious, as is the video here: both try to give the impression that our first ad “targeted Muslims,” and our new ad “targets gays.” In fact, we are calling attention the the violence that jihadists justify by pointing to the texts and teachings of Islam, and specifically showing how those jihadists target gays. But instead of standing with us and calling upon peaceful Muslims to do so as well, San Francisco authorities are targeting the messenger.

Pamela Geller has more here, here and here.

“San Francisco Muni buses getting more anti-Islamic ads, this time with anti-gay message,” by Will Reisman for the San Francisco Examiner, March 19 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

More controversial anti-Islamic advertisements are scheduled to be coming to Muni buses, with the new messages quoting anti-gay rhetoric from Islamic leaders. The head of the initiative said local gay leaders” criticism of previous ads led to the latest effort.

A number of city officials, religious figures and community activists held a news conference last week to condemn a set of ads paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative that expressed views widely seen as anti-Islamic.

The messages, containing phrases attributed to notorious figures such as Osama bin Laden, were the second set of Muni ads paid for by the organization.

“Attributed to”? Documentation available on request. Apparently it was not requested.

In both instances, Muni dedicated revenue from the campaigns to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. The $3,000 in revenue for the next ads also likely will be donated.

With Muni unable to refuse the ads because of First Amendment conflicts, initiative leader Pamela Geller has created another campaign to run on six Muni buses starting in early April. The new ads quote Islamic leaders making inflammatory comments, this time about homosexuality.

One message quotes Yusuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood saying, “The punishment of homosexuality is the death penalty.” Each ad ends with the same line as the previous campaign: “That’s His Jihad. What’s Yours?”

Geller said she decided to embark on the campaign after hearing gay leaders in San Francisco denounce her previous ads.

“The ads will increase awareness about the subjugation and oppression of gays under Shariah law,” said Geller. “The gay community should be standing with me, not against me.”

Theresa Sparks, head of the Human Rights Commission, said the ad campaigns are another example of Geller categorizing an entire religion as intolerant.

“She is posting these ads to suggest that all Muslims hate gays,” Sparks said. “Some cultures do discriminate, and that’s wrong. It all depends who you”re talking to. But she’s trying to generalize and cast this wide net around a diverse group of people.”

Sparks, who is transgender, said it’s actually easier to get insurance for sexual transition procedures in Iran than in America.

In a post Tuesday on Geller’s blog, Atlas Shrugs, she dedicated the latest campaign to Sparks….

Heh.

Anyway, Sparks is completely wrong: nowhere do the AFDI ads say that all Muslims think one way. And the reason that it is “easier to get insurance for sexual transition procedures in Iran than in America” is because often that is the only way gays are allowed to live at all: if they get gender reassignment surgery, whether they want it or not.

Robert Spencer: The jihad against gays
Sharia in action in Somalia: Gay man stoned to death
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    You know what? If Sparks is so sure that Islam and Muslim’s are going to let her live her life freely and openly as transgender why doesn’t she move to Iran and see what kind of reception she gets huh?

  2. says

    You know what? If Sparks is so sure that Islam and Muslim’s are going to let her live her life freely and openly as transgender why doesn’t she move to Iran and see what kind of reception she gets huh?

  3. says

    San Francisco officials in a froth over AFDI ads pointing out Muslim oppression of gays
    …………………………………

    Insanity. Gays are persecuted all over the Muslim world. Iran hangs gay people. The “Palestinian” gay rights’ groups are all in…Israel, for obvious reasons. Not long ago, a carload of Muslims came to San Francisco looking for gay men to assault.

    But then, we aren’t supposed to notice this”any more than we are supposed to notice Muslim oppression of women and religious minorities.

    More:

    The San Francisco Examiner headline is particularly egregious, as is the video here: both try to give the impression that our first ad “targeted Muslims,” and our new ad “targets gays.” In fact, we are calling attention the the violence that jihadists justify by pointing to the texts and teachings of Islam, and specifically showing how those jihadists target gays. But instead of standing with us and calling upon peaceful Muslims to do so as well, San Francisco authorities are targeting the messenger.
    …………………………………

    More insanity. AFDI is *not* “targeting gays””*pious Muslims are*. AFDI is just pointing this out. But then, “shooting the messenger” and all that…

    This is depressing, too, because generally the San Francisco Examiner has been a bit saner about the Jihad threat than has the utterly hopeless San Francisco Chronicle.

    More:

    The messages, containing phrases attributed to notorious figures such as Osama bin Laden, were the second set of Muni ads paid for by the organization.

    “Attributed to”? Documentation available on request. Apparently it was not requested.
    …………………………………

    This is very, very common”implying that the quotes may not be accurate, and that all the awfulness of violent Jihad was somehow cooked up by AFDI itself.

    More:

    “The ads will increase awareness about the subjugation and oppression of gays under Shariah law,” said Geller. “The gay community should be standing with me, not against me.”
    …………………………………

    Hear, hear!

    More:

    Theresa Sparks, head of the Human Rights Commission, said the ad campaigns are another example of Geller categorizing an entire religion as intolerant.

    “She is posting these ads to suggest that all Muslims hate gays,” Sparks said. “Some cultures do discriminate, and that’s wrong. It all depends who you’re talking to. But she’s trying to generalize and cast this wide net around a diverse group of people.”

    Sparks, who is transgender, said it’s actually easier to get insurance for sexual transition procedures in Iran than in America.

    Anyway, Sparks is completely wrong: nowhere do the AFDI ads say that all Muslims think one way. And the reason that it is “easier to get insurance for sexual transition procedures in Iran than in America” is because often that is the only way gays are allowed to live at all: if they get gender reassignment surgery, whether they want it or not.
    …………………………………

    This last is entirely true. If a gay man in Iran wants to love men, he can only do so lawfully if he becomes a woman. Despite what Sparks may believe, this is *not* any sort of step forward for gays or transgendered people.

    Here’s more general stupidity in the Bay Area press about AFDI’s recent ad campaigns. Even the Chronicle’s “token conservative” Debra Saunders said this:

    “I happen to agree with Billoo on the offensiveness of Geller’s campaign. Though Geller has a point in challenging the notion that one can put a happy face on violent jihad, her American Freedom Defense Initiative feeds on hyperbole.”

    “Sanctimony city”

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Sanctimony-city-4353059.php

    But Saunders sounds downright measured in her response compared to another Chronicle pundit, C.W. Nevius. He starts out with this:

    “It seems impossible that San Francisco can’t compel Muni to remove the offensive anti-Muslim ads paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative.”

    But, he bemoans, they “ran smack into the First Amendment””damn those constitutionally protected rights!

    He also”just like above”doubts that violent Muslims actually say anything bad. He refers to “an alleged quote from Hamas MTV” that says “Killing Jews is worship that brings us closer to Allah’.”

    In other words, there is probably no such group”and if there is, they probably didn’t say anything bad about Jews. Did he actually check to see if the AFDI quotes are accurate? Of course not’snarky insinuation is so much better…

    He goes on to compare AFDI’s completely factual ads with falsely libeling someone by spuriously claiming that they are “child abusers”. He then quotes a law professor who opines that anyone who decided to sue AFDI for libel would be a “hero” who was “fighting the good fight”.

    He does not detail how, exactly, you can sue someone for libeling Osama bin Laden by quoting him accurately. But then, no one is actually going to try to do this, This is all about posturing.

    He goes on to bemoan the idea that “Arabs and Muslims” might be exposed to the words of Jihadists, and implying that this would be hurtful.

    Isn’t that something Muslims should bring up with their Jihad-minded coreligionists?

    And this, of course, doesn’t even address how many Muslims feel *inspired* by the words and deeds of Jihadists.

    You can read the whole ugly piece here:

    “Free speech protects offensive ads on Muni”

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Offensive-ads-on-Muni-protected-speech-4352829.php

  4. says

    “She is posting these ads to suggest that all Muslims hate gays,” Sparks said.

    It does not matter what an individual Mahoundian thinks…It’s sharia baby

  5. says

    Robert, Pam,

    The ADFI education campaign is having a positive effect. Read the comments to that Examiner article. Not everyone in SF is blind to the reality of Islam.

  6. says

    Knee-jerk ignorant defensive-of-Islam propagandists, such as Theresa Sparks, probably know what they are saying is false when they make these absurd and baseless accusations against Pamela or other defenders of freedom. I don’t think anyone could honestly or seriously look at those ads and conclude that Pamela is trying to tar all Muslims–all the Muslims on the planet including gay Muslims!–as anti-gay, anti-transgender, etc. The ads say “That’s his jihad. What’s yours?” This clearly implies that there are others who have a different view.

    This tactic of claiming that Islamic critics are attacking and tarring all Muslims with holding some hard-line or “extremist” beliefs, is one of the most common and dishonest. Those who use this tactic typically show no regard whatsoever as to whether their charge is true. I’ve been around Islam critics on pretty much a daily basis for the past 8 years, and I’ve never encountered one who claims (or believes), for example, that all Muslims believe that homosexuals should be put to death, or that terrorist attacks against civilians are okay, and so on.

    I have however encountered polls that show the vast majority of Muslims hate homosexuality and believe that homosexuals should at minimum be criminally prosecuted and punished. I’ve never encountered a poll that shows the majority of Muslims in a country or region have a positive or neutral attitude toward homosexuality.

    It would be possible for Pamela to post an ad citing a poll result showing that the majority of Muslims–say 61% (which is roughly what a poll of U.K. Muslims showed, for example)–want homosexuality to be criminally prosecuted and punished. If she cited that 61%, of course, the pro-Islam propagandists such as Theresa Sparks would still accuse her of using the 61% to tar “all Muslims,” i.e., 61 = 100.

    That said, on a more general point, I don’t have a problem in principle with saying that “all” members of a category have some trait or set of traits in common. It is simply not meaningful to use the word “Muslim” (or Christian, atheist, or whatever) to refer to a group of people unless that word at least refers to people who have some shared beliefs (or lack thereof). It may be reasonable to argue that being a believing Muslim requires holding a certain set of core beliefs, such as that

    1-Allah is the one God,
    2-Muhammad is his prophet,
    3-the Quran is an authoritative holy book that should be at least consulted for instruction,
    and so on.

    All of that would seem to be a bare minimum of a belief set, the holding of which qualifies one to be a Muslim. In fact, the Quran itself demands quite a lot more than the above-mentioned beliefs, including, by the way, the proposition that homosexuality is wrong and is deserving of severe punishment. Indeed, mainstream Muslims themselves demand quite a lot more than the above. Moreover, believing in the Quran, for example logically entails endorsement of many beliefs advocated therein. But for the sake of making this point, let me limit the required beliefs to those I mentioned explicitly above. We can reasonably say, for example, that anyone in this era, after the message of Muhammad and the Quran has been sent, who does not believe in Muhammad or the Quran or the one Allah is by definition not a Muslim.

    It also seems reasonable to me to add the condition that–regardless of what is actually claimed by Islamic scholars–a Muslim is not an under-aged child, or a mentally disabled person, who doesn’t fully understand the above-mentioned core beliefs. Similarly, for example, it would not be reasonable to classify a young child as a Democrat or a Republican or a Marxist, no matter whether the parents of the child think such classifications are appropriate. It is also reasonable to consider that one does not qualify as a Muslim simply by naming oneself a Muslim, since the person might be mistaken, or may be lying or joking. Thus, a Muslim is only, at minimum, someone who honestly understands and believes the above core beliefs.

    So there it is: We certainly can reasonably say that all Muslims hold to at least some specific beliefs (see 1, 2, and 3 above), and that if they don’t hold these beliefs, they aren’t Muslims.

    But the defenders of Islam, such as Theresa Sparks, imply that you can’t say anything definitive at all about Islam and Muslims–unless of course, you are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are harmless etc. Somehow the ire of these non-Muslim defenders of Islam is not raised by these latter positive universal generalizations.

    Defenders of Islam such as Theresa Sparks seem to be unable or unwilling to consider different degrees of harm. For example, Sparks seems to think the (alleged) ease of obtaining insurance for sex-change operations is more worthy of discussion, and more important, than the fact that several Islamic countries officially and openly murder homosexuals for being homosexuals, whereas the U.S. criminally prosecutes and punishes those who murder homosexuals.

    “Sparks, who is transgender, said it’s actually easier to get insurance for sexual transition procedures in Iran than in America.”

    Isn’t it interesting that Sparks knows next-to-nothing about the Islamic world, but she has this one little tidbit of “information” about one particular country and uses it to try to defend Islam, and attack the U.S.? Her financial concerns about her ease of getting insurance are apparently more important to her than the lives of homosexuals. Again, the Islam apologists such as Sparks seem to have no grasp of proportion. This may be due in part to their value system, in which merely criticizing the bad behaviour of certain groups is automatically considered worse than the bad behaviour criticized, no matter what the bad behaviour, which in this case is murder. That is, what appears initially to be a lack of a sense of proportion is probably, upon closer inspection, a different value system, whereby some kinds of offensiveness are worse than killing. This radical “PC” view is in accordance with Islam, where in the Quran, disbelief and expression of disbelief is the worst crime, worse than killing.

  7. says

    “Theresa Sparks, head of the Human Rights Commission, said the ad campaigns are another example of Geller categorizing an entire religion as intolerant”

    Pamela is not doing it here. But I am from Turkey and I am saying that: ISLAM is INTOLERANT of everything. Even itself as muslims themselves have no clue what it is all about.

  8. says

    I don’t think there’s any way that someone as lost in PC fog as “Theresa” Sparks will ever accept the truth about islam. And I’m more convinced every day that they don’t deserve to be defended from the consequences…

  9. says

    I’ve got a gay friend. When I meet him in the pub I usually go to the next shop and buy a pair of tights for him, as he doesn’t like to do this for himself.

    When we meet we’ve got a sort of ritual conversation. I say “you’ll be the first victims” and he retorts “no you (the Jews) will be the first ones they kill”.

    Anyway my friend is aware of the Mahoundian danger, but lots of gays aren’t. I tried to invite the head of Munich’s gay party (Pink List) to our information sessions but he never deigned to answer. Islamophobia is racism, we’re a discredited minority, Muslims are a discredited minority, discredited minorities have to stick together. That’s their short-sighted reasoning. They’ve got to learn the lesson the hard way. But I hope it won’t be the hardest. Nobody should pay the ultimate price. I never fail to wonder how Islam can fool people, even those they intend to kill, they drag them on their side. Amazing

  10. says

    A white hetero male walked into a human rights commission office.

    If you are waiting for the punch line, that WAS the punch line.

    In Canada the so-called human rights commissions are nothing more or less than left wing bigots, using public money to shove their ignorant and intolerant drivel down the throats of any and everybody. They should produce a list of who is in possession of HRC rights, and who is not, as should the Canadian mockery of a supreme court. Self-righteous, as are all common bigots, the deciding factor in their deciding who’s “rights’ they will defend, is their liking for the “victim’, and contempt for the plaintiff.

    They are utter frauds, and they should be shut down, and the criminals running them, charged in a court of legitimate law (if one can be found).

  11. says

    Modern liberalism’s faux and highly ill-considered sympathy with the third world doesn’t just border on the suicidal—it is suicidal.

    Such rot, such nonsense, such maudlin crap passing as wisdom, is never bettered than that exhibited by so many in San Francisco. After all, there are modern liberals, there are deeply dedicated modern liberals, and then there are San Francisco liberals. This last group would gladly and insouciantly sell themselves down the river all in the name of tolerance. Count on it. Yeah, they’re that dumb all the while they think themselves so wise.

    Again can be seen that Islam is not the chief problem for the West. No, not at all. It’s the secondary big problem. The chief problem are those in the West, not Muslim, who continue to run interference for Islam. At the top of this list, quite arguably, one could put San Francisco liberals.

  12. says

    I really think that in many cases the relationship between certain left-wing groups and Islam is very similar to battered wife syndrome. The battered wife knows her husband is abusive, but she loves him and she’s terrified of him, so she will come to his defense when others point out his awful behavior. She does this because her whole worldview revolves around the idea that he is a wonderful husband. Multiculturalism requires leftists to love and celebrate Islam as a wonderful thing, so even though they’re kind of terrified of Islam, they’ll still rush to its defense.

  13. says

    @ Graven: The Somalia story was all over the gay web before it appeared on JW. (A first!)

    Comments are running about 50% “All religions are evil”, 50% “Islam is awful”, and 0% “Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam”.

  14. says

    So in other words, the Islamo-Lefty PC vortex is so powerful that even gays and lesbians, who should logically be opposed to religious fanaticism that prescribes medieval punishments for them such as beheading or having a wall dropped on you, are instead screaming in defense of their potential persecutors.

    Stockholm Syndrome?

  15. says

    Just got back from the panel in Massachusetts, where Robert spoke about this insanity in San Fran, to the amazement of the audience. (Remco Kimber is right about the comments to the Examiner article — except for the “Spi” idiot — showing that there are at least a few sane people left in that city.)

    More on this outstanding event tomorrow, it’s very late here. Suffice it to say that in terms of sharia-based censorship, it’s very late everywhere.

  16. says

    Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

    Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one’s wife).

    Bukhari (72:774) – “The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.”

    al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”

    Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 – “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” This is also repeated in three other places.

    Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn “Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.”

    Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012, that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals (presumably) do not engage in such acts.

  17. says

    For the benefit of anyone from the San Francisco gay scene, who may lob in here out of curiosity: welcome!

    First, I would like to introduce you to Dominic, brilliant, archeologist, gay, English, and High Anglican (what someone in a D L Sayers book once called ‘Roaming Catholic’),who -if he had lived rather than tragically dying in a car accident – would undoubtedly have been heavily involved in the UK resistance to Islamisation. He was a figure stepped straight out of Brideshead Revisited.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/dominic-rip.html

    Second: dar al Islam is a really dangerous place for gay people, although there is an underground ‘gay’ scene.

    Unequal and exploitative use of younger (often underage) guys (whether ‘naturally’ straight or gay is irrelevant) by older guys (again, not necessarily ‘naturally’ gay), and other forms of what might be called ‘prison sex’ are far more common than genuinely consensual relationships between equals.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=d51b2383-01a0-4896-b174-19f115ec0942

    Boys of the Taliban

    Islam is about raw, amoral Power, and therefore sex/ eros – whether straight or gay – tends to be devoured by Thanatos.

    Bruce Dunne, “Power and Sexuality in the Middle East,” Middle East Report, Spring 1998.

    http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm

    Excerpt, and probably the key insight: “Sex, that is, penetration, took place between dominant, free adult men and subordinate social inferiors: wives, concubines, boys, prostitutes (male and female) and slaves (male and female).

    “**What was at stake was not mutuality between partners but the adult male’s achievement of pleasure through domination.** {my emphasis – dda}.”

    In other words: raping a boy or a subordinate male is fine; but consensual relations between adult males, on the basis of affection or shared pleasure, is not.

    More:

    ‘The anthropologist Malek Chebel, describing the Maghrib as marked by an “exaggerated machismo,” claims that most men who engage in homosexual acts are functional bisexuals; they use other men as substitutes for women-and have great contempt for them.

    “He adds that most Maghribis would consider far worse than participation in homosexual acts the presence of love, affection or equality among participants.

    “Equality in sexual relations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, threatens the “hyper-masculine” order…”.

    Here’s a hard-hitting analysis (with several psychologists and a feminist) discussing sexuality in general as affected by Islam, in an article called ‘To Rape an Unveiled Woman':

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5347

    It references a book by one Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, “Sexuality in Islam”, Saqi Books, 1998 which sounds like it might be an interesting read.

    If you go to this jihadwatch thread,

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/sharia-cab-in-new-york-city-muslim-cabbie-kicks-out-gay-couple.html

    Sharia cab in New York City: Muslim cabbie kicks out gay couple

    in which we discussed something that happened in New York City – a Muslim cabbie refused service to a gay couple – you will find, in the Comments, some very interesting postings by an American non-Muslim gay guy who has travelled the world, and has some observations to share, about the West, the non-Muslim East (including Japan) and the dar al Islam, in terms of the very different ways that they handle sexuality, both gay and straight.

    Click on the link and read the Comments: pay particular attention to all the postings by Al Kaafir Al Amrikii.

  18. says

    Pursuant to my posting above.

    In sum (combining the material in my posting with the canonical Islamic material adduced by the poster ‘mortimer’) the picture is this: male-on-male, most commonly male-on-inferior.male sex, and less visibly, female on female sex, are rife throughout the dar al Islam, but officially condemned in the strongest possible terms, and there is always the possibility that someone will be accused, attacked and killed (homosexual guys have been hunted down and murdered, after being horribly tortured, by sharia assassins, in Iraq; there are news reports about that, in the archives here; Iran has publicly hanged gay guys). This is more likely to happen to a couple of gay people involved in an adult, affectionate, consensual and equal relationship, than to an Afghan Muslim warlord who has a stable of pretty- boy bacha bazi dressed up as girls.

    In her book The Rage and the Pride, Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci describes something she saw when she was in Bangladesh reporting on the Pakistan-Bangladesh war.

    Twelve gay guys (I think, given the context, that that’s what she means in her odd English phrase ‘twelve young impure men’ – were executed -as per the sharia instructions – in a stadium in Dacca.

    The English and Italian of the entire book are here:

    http://italian.about.com/library/fallaci/blfallaci01i.htm

    and here is the relevant passage:

    “I’ll tell you about the twelve young impure men I saw executed at Dacca at the end of the Bangladesh war.

    “They executed them on the field of Dacca stadium, with bayonet blows to the torso or abdomen, in the presence of twenty thousand faithful who applauded in the name of God from the bleachers.

    “They thundered “Allah akbar, Allah akbar.”

    “Yes, I know: the ancient Romans, those ancient Romans of whom my culture is so proud, entertained themselves in the Coliseum by watching the deaths of Christians fed to the lions. I know, I know: in every country of Europe the Christians, those Christians whose contribution to the History of Thought I recognize despite my atheism, entertained themselves by watching the burning of heretics.

    “But a lot of time has passed since then, we have become a little more civilized, and even the sons of Allah ought to have figured out by now that certain things are just not done.

    “After the twelve impure young men they killed a little boy who had thrown himself at the executioners to save his brother who had been condemned to death.

    “They smashed his head with their combat boots.

    “And if you don’t believe it, well, reread my report or the reports of the French and German journalists who, horrified as I was, were there with me. Or better: look at the photographs that one of them took.

    “Anyway this isn’t even what I want to underline.

    ” It’s that, at the conclusion of the slaughter, the twenty thousand faithful (many of whom were women) left the bleachers and went down on the field.

    ” Not as a disorganized mob, no.

    “In an orderly manner, with solemnity. They slowly formed a line and, again in the name of God, walked over the cadavers.

    “All the while thundering Allah–akbar, Allah–akbar.

    “They destroyed them like the Twin Towers of New York. They reduced them to a bleeding carpet of smashed bones…”.

    That, my dear gentleman or lady from San Francisco gay ‘scene’, is what Muslims in Bangladesh did to twelve gay guys, in Bangladesh. They killed them and then thousands of Muslims stomped on their bodies until there was nothing left.

    You don’t think any of the nice Muslims you may have seen here in America would do anything like that? Don’t be so sure. *You just. don’t. know.*

  19. says

    People like Theresa Sparks will always take from such bus ads what they want; despite what they actually say or the intent behind them.

    But Pamela could control a lot of that idiocy with ad text which makes it more difficult to mischaracterize them; for example, an ad that reads:

    LEADING MUSLIM SCHOLARS AGREE: THE ISLAMIC PUNISHMENT FOR HOMOSEXUALITY IS DEATH.

    Include pictures of those “scholars” and the texts they personally cite to make it clear who’s making the statements and what the source for them is.

  20. says

    “a Muslim is not an under-aged child, or a mentally disabled person”

    …actually, most mentally disabled people could probably understand and accept the above-mentioned minimum 3 beliefs and thus could qualify as Muslims…
    …in the above reference I’m referring only to those who, due to severe mental incapacity would not be able to comprehend, and therefore not be able to hold, the minimum 3 beliefs.

  21. says

    As Kinana says, “This tactic of claiming that Islamic critics are attacking and tarring all Muslims with holding some hard-line or “extremist” beliefs, is one of the most common and dishonest.”

    I agree it’s common, but I’m not sure it’s dishonest in the sense that the person employing that tactic knows the untruth he is peddling (and by definition, also the truth he is avoiding).

    I.e., I think often these PC MC people sincerely worry about the “broad brush” implications and effects of any public effort to call attention to various features of the problem of Islam.

    Another important facet of this phenomenon often obscured by both sides of the dispute is that we are not simply forced into adopting (or rejecting) one of two, and only two, positions:

    1) All Muslims are bad.

    2) No Muslims (or an eensy-weensy minority so small it may as well be zero) are bad.

    There are possible positions between these two extremes. While we may not be able to pinpoint an exact number of the actual truth of the matter on any given bad thing we are imputing to Muslims (let’s say, to pluck from a keffiyeh just one of the many bad things we could adduce, their belief that gays should be punished with death), we can avail ourselves of imprecise and somewhat colloquial locutions — such as:

    Many Muslims believe that gays should be punished with death

    (which could be amplified by inserting “Many Muslims around the world…”)

    I rather like a variation on this:

    Too many Muslims believe that gays should be punished with death

    — because the locution “too many” need not be assumed to be denoting even a majority; it could be a reasonable position based on a reasonably argued thought that something like even a seemingly low figure of 10% or 20% in fact constitutes an unacceptably high number. The locution thus rhetorically alerts the reader to the concept of a proportion that may be relatively small, yet still has the effect of being unacceptably large, given other concerns.

    Then of course we have the somewhat more scientific-sounding words “minority”, “majority”, “plurality” etc.

    For those whose hearts and minds are affected/infected by the PC MC virus (which would include the asymptotics who otherwise seem sociopolitically conservative and may themselves feel a support for the Counter-Jihad), the question then becomes not whether “all Muslims” are under discussion, but whether the proportion proposed is implying a number that begins to broach upon “painting with a broad brush”. Thus, the reflexive spasm of thought and feeling would run something like “What you are implying about Muslims sounds way too high; there can’t be that many who believe such a thing. Where’s your proof? Have you ever lived in a Muslim country? How many Muslims do you know? Do you speak Arabic? What about all the homophobia in Christian culture? [etc.]”.

    When such a person is then asked what number of bad Muslims they would be comfortable with, the number would turn out to be sufficiently small to warrant playing the Ego Quoque game whereby the impact of the number no longer has the effect it’s supposed to have (i.e., of calling attention to a serious problem in Islamic culture and psychology that has deleterious effects on non-Muslim societies), and the problem dissolves into a comparatively minor non-problem which they feel is being unjustly magnified in order to malign Muslims, probably motivated by paranoia and bigotry.

    However, from our perspective, based on our growing knowledge of Islam and of Muslims, we have come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to make the inference that a certain list of bad things (including the fanatically Draconian punishments in their Sharia law, as well as the ultra-violent component of their culture based on their holy texts) reflects a demographic of support sufficiently large to warrant our claim that the problem is not merely due to normal statistical accident which all groups share more or less equally, but is symptomatic of a systemic problem uniquely pertaining to Islam.

    This systemic problem is not merely disturbing for its size and for its varied content of badness, but also points to problems they are causing and inflicting on their internal populations of non-Muslims; on their geopolitical neighbors (Huntington’s “bloody borders”); and on the far-flung world (including all parts of the West) into which they are literally pouring through massive, increasing and unprecedented immigration.

    This latter dimension of the problem -– the impact of Muslims on the world at large (including the West) -– has increasingly involved various types of violence, most notably terror attacks of various styles, as well as “sudden jihad syndrome” whereby violent criminality seems to merge with their Islamic imperative to be hostile to the kafir and their generally psychocultural xenophobia and misoxeny explicitly codified in their holy texts. An important ingredient in this dimension of the problem is the unusually intense fanaticism inculcated by their religious culture, where a kind of mass Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder becomes a sociological norm -– conducive not only to the martially organized aspect of the “doubly totalitarian” framework of the meaning of life for Muslims, but also profoundly indicative of their propensity to support, if not actively participate in, ultra-violence as a sacred duty expressing their highest spiritual goal (cf. Koran 9:111).

    All these problematic features about Muslims are, obviously, of such a quality that our assessment of their quantity becomes an important, if not urgent, determination. And there is good reason (indeed amounting to a mountain of data and an ocean of dots demanding connection) to conclude that this quantity is too high, and reflects a host of grimly serious problems for the world to cooperate in trying to manage.

    The thing is, even PC MCs, let alone their somewhat less irrational cousins the Asymptotics, on some semi-conscious level intuit this mountain of data and this ocean of dots demanding connection. Deep down, they realize that there is a growing, systemic, metastasizing problem of Muslims with their propensity for violence and with their various rather screamingly anti-liberal beliefs -– about gays, about women, about ethnic minorities, about corporal punishment for children, about animal abuse, and about many more pathologies where those came from. PC MCs and Asymptotics realize this semi-consciously, and it scares them. It scares them in two ways:

    1) in the normal way of eliciting a rational fear of Muslim violence

    2) in the curiously elliptical way of arousing a fear of what we will likely do once we fully wake up to the horror of Muslim behavior: What we will likely do is first think the Thought Crime of bigotry against Muslims, and soon after that, we will start acting on this Thought Crime by rounding up Muslims, putting them in camps, and genociding them.

    The PC MCs and Asymptotics have no proof that our societies would do this inexorably if we assimilated the full impact of all the data and dots about Muslims. It’s an irrational fear — call it Egophobia, a fear of our own selves and what we would do — and it is a powerful incentive to bury our head in the sand and not look at the disturbing data. And to demonize those few of us who dare to point out that data.

    Robert Spencer and Pam Geller (among others), just by calling attention to the facts of Islam, are disturbing reminders of what the PC MCs and Asymptotics think is that Thought Crime they are trying to keep suppressed, bottled up inside. If only they could be persuaded that it’s not a Thought Crime at all, and that it doesn’t inexorably have to lead to “another Holocaust”, they might then be more amenable to relax their Inner Censor enough to lift the lid on their Closed Mind, extend a cautious toe, hand and nose a bit outside their Box, and begin to examine some of that data.

    Then, who knows, they might experience that odd sensation called Changing Your Mind.

  22. says

    Agreed. However, these enablers will drag us along to our own destruction if we do not defend them also.

    I still can not believe the wishful ignorance we Americans have about ISLAM.

  23. says

    “Comments are running about 50% “All religions are evil”, 50% “Islam is awful”, and 0% “Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam”.”

    This is good news.
    Thanks for the info, skevin.

  24. says

    skevin wrote:

    @ Graven: The Somalia story was all over the gay web before it appeared on JW. (A first!)

    Comments are running about 50% “All religions are evil”, 50% “Islam is awful”, and 0% “Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam”.
    …………………………………

    I have to admit, this doesn’t surprise me in the least, skevin.

    Very often, as soon as some example of Islamic savagery against gays or women crops up, the apologists are out in full force, claiming that Christians would do just the same “if they could”.

    This is makes no objective sense, since this is *only* happening with Muslims.

    Here’s a more detailed version of the story, with graphic pictures from The Daily Mail:

    “Pictured: Islamic militants stone man to death for adultery in Somalia as villagers are forced to watch”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235763/Pictured-Islamic-militants-stone-man-death-adultery-Somalia-villagers-forced-watch.html

    Here’s what one such idiot, a Trasie from Mitcham, has to say:

    “This is why I believe religion should be banned this is just legalized murder.”

    Right”as though gays were being stoned to death by the Church of England, or Methodists, or Unitarians.

    And here’s another poster, deep in denial:

    “Just unbelievable this turned my stomach Surely the Koran doesn’t teach this kind of thing? This kind of image can only hurt the Islamic faith”

    This isn’t in the Qur’an, but it is in any number of Sahih Hadiths, as well as the Sira of Muhammed.

  25. says

    Although I moved from Hayward to Lake Tahoe many years ago, I remember a Nevius column from way back then about reporting illegal aliens.

    The thrust of the article was the childish notion that no one likes a “snitch”.

    Sure.

    What a moron he is.

  26. says

    Dumbledore’s Army wrote:

    In other words: raping a boy or a subordinate male is fine; but consensual relations between adult males, on the basis of affection or shared pleasure, is not.
    ……………………………

    Very, very true, DDA. Coerced male-on-male sex, and even homosexual rape, is generally considered Halal”but consensual gay relations, anything from an affable one-night-stand to a life-long love, is considered ‘an abomination’. *Ugh*.

    And the recent slaughter of “Emo” high school boys by state forces in Iraq were largely anti-gay attacks”although no doubt some of the victims were sensitive straight boys as well as gay kids.

    God, I hate Islam.

  27. says

    My apologies”that horrific Daily Mail story I cited, above, was a different stoning from the recent one with the gay victim. Hard to keep these atrocities straight…

  28. says

    PRCS wrote:

    Although I moved from Hayward to Lake Tahoe many years ago, I remember a Nevius column from way back then about reporting illegal aliens.

    The thrust of the article was the childish notion that no one likes a “snitch”.

    Sure.

    What a moron he is.
    …………………………………..

    Yes”and sadly, he’s hardly the only one.

    By the way, the “snitch” thing is worse than childish”there’s a “thug” ethos where “snitches” are *beaten or killed*. This is actually very ugly stuff. He’s not the only one to idealize thuggish behavior”which might explain a lot of his attraction to Islam…