Jihad Watch: American Jewish Committee Executive Director learns Islam from Wikipedia, Dean Esmay

December 9, 2006

American Jewish Committee Executive Director learns Islam from Wikipedia, Dean Esmay

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, and there is little or no quality control, it is essentially worthless as a reference tool. To take just one example, as I have noted here before, my bio there is full of irrelevancy, ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated claims about inaccuracy in my work.

But that is no surprise, since ideologues are attempting to control the flow of information there -- and with good reason, since despite being a messy stew of truth, half-truth, and outright lies, Wikipedia is still widely infuential. This is exemplified by "The Solution Is Education," a letter that Larry Lowenthal, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, has written to the Jewish Advocate.

"The Solution Is Education." That's rich, since in this letter Lowenthal shows that he is learning from Wikipedia -- and specifically, from a piece written by none other than Dean Esmay, the raving blogger who has never hesitated to purvey falsehoods about my work, as well as to call me a liar, a traitor, and worse. Here is the relevant portion of Lowenthal's letter:

“Taqiyya” is another point of contention in the intra-Jewish argument. According to Muslim critics, all Muslims are instructed by God to lie to all non-Muslims if the purpose is to lull non-believers into complacency. Therefore, no Muslim can be trusted.
But respected Muslim leaders have explained that Taqiyya is a highly controversial doctrine among Muslims, held essentially only by Shiites (15 percent of Muslims), and condemned by the vast majority of Muslims as dishonest and un-Islamic. Those Muslims who do embrace Takiyya, however, emphasize that the entire doctrine is simply about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution and torture.

Now compare the bolded sections to a little entry at Wikipedia called "Taqiyya Libel." At least Lowenthal corrected Esmay's spelling:

The Taqiyya Libel is a common political slander against Muslims. According to the Taqiyya Libel, Muslims are instructed by God to lie to all non-Muslims if the purpose is to lull unbelievers into complacency. Then, according to the libel, the Muslims can use violent methods to either kill the infidel unbeliever or forcibly convert the infidel to Islam.
In truth, taqiyya is a highly controversial doctrine among Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims condemn the entire idea of taqiyya as dishonest and un-Islamic.[citation needed] The few Muslims who do embrace taqiyya as a philosophy, however, emphasise that the entire doctrine is simply about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution and execution.

This entry was written by Dean Esmay himself. In fact, Dean Esmay invented the concept of the "taqiyya libel," and is its sole proponent: Google the phrase, and all you get are links to Esmay's site and related sites. This is a concept he has cooked up and is trying to make into something, and is making use of Wikipedia to do so. But in fact, he is wrong about taqiyya in regard to both Muslims and non-Muslims:

Lowenthal/Esmay says: "According to Muslim critics, all Muslims are instructed by God to lie to all non-Muslims if the purpose is to lull non-believers into complacency. Therefore, no Muslim can be trusted."

This is a straw-man argument. I don't know of any serious "Muslim critic" -- and by that I am excluding anonymous commenters on blogsites -- who has stated the doctrine of taqiyya in those terms. I think it is best to stick with what the Islamic sources say. Muhammad taught that when it comes to unbelievers — particularly those who are at war with Muslims — “War is deceit.” Specifically, he taught that lying was permissible in battle.

Also, mainstream Muslim theologians have explained that religious deception is taught by the Qur’an itself: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28). In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.” However, exempted from this rule were “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [or taqiyya, the shielding of what is in one's heart] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"

When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: they could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis. This practice is sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief — except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith — but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty” (Qur’an 16:106). Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead.

Although these doctrines are commonly associated with Shi’ites, throughout Islamic history they have also been practiced by Sunnis, because of their Qur’anic foundation. You can find discussion of Sunni acceptance of taqiyya in Ignaz Goldziher's illuminating Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Ibn Kathir, who was no Shi’ite, explains that “the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse.” Jihadists today have spoken of the usefulness of deceptive practices.

Lowenthal/Esmay continues: "But respected Muslim leaders have explained that Taqiyya is a highly controversial doctrine among Muslims, held essentially only by Shiites (15 percent of Muslims), and condemned by the vast majority of Muslims as dishonest and un-Islamic. Those Muslims who do embrace Takiyya, however, emphasize that the entire doctrine is simply about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution and torture."

It is indeed about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution or torture. But such a provision can have a quite elastic application. In any case, it is interesting that neither Lowenthal or Esmay provide even a single name of a single scholar among this "vast majority" who condemn taqiyya. As Goldziher points out, it is not so easy to go against this idea explicitly, because it has Qur'anic sanction.

Anyway, a few morals of this tale:

1. Wikipedia is a worthless propaganda sheet.

2. Dean Esmay is an authority on nothing and a guide to nowhere.

3. Larry Lowenthal should know better than to take what he thinks he knows about Islam from such a shady source.

4. Nothwithstanding numbers one and two above, if you put a falsehood in the right place, it will be swallowed by the credulous.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Interesting...

...even I don't agree with his/their implied definition.
Taqiyyah is not a practice exercised/commanded by some decree, implying it's mandatory to implement it as some pillar of faith.
It IS, however, a practice widely used and accepted as norm, by islamists at their discretion (which is almost always 24/7/365 as needed against us infidels), at times of their choosing, by their own free will and choice.
It remains a free pass of sorts, to use as a catch-all, to continue self-justification of ones position, no different than the 2-rule system Icomented on elsewhere...

"Rules of Islam:
1) Islam is always right
2) if Islam is wrong, rule 1 takes precedence"

You're right on about the 4 morals...
#4 is one widely used by the LAMEstream media (aka, the alphabet channels, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc) in the US, and sad to say, most people who otherwise would scrutinize first, end up falling for such tripe too.

Nonetheless, I'm glad that this devious practice of taqiyyah is now out in the open where it should be. Anyone who uses such a practice DOES deserve to NOT be trusted..that's why I maintain that,for us to even begin accepting them at their word,they must first disavow and discredit openly this practice of Taqiyyah...otherwise anyand all words ontheir part are meaningless.

;-)

Posted by: jcom972

at December 9, 2006 2:01 PM

Wikipedia is only useful if:

(1) you dealing with a non-political issue like lets say the feeding patterns of spotted tree fogs or perhaps the first look at the life of a semi-famous person then you can dig deeper into that persons life from there.

(2) For propaganda

I deal with wikipedia with critical analysis and realize that it might be written by someone who has a axe to grind. So people should use with caution. I am a little suprised Mr. Spencer however that you being a well known man of knowledge has not become involved in the Wiki Wars. It is useful after all becuase we are in a war of ideas and wikipedia is a battle ground. In other words you should monitor your write-up and defend it from the CAIR defenders and also go on the offense. You do realize Mr. Hooper has his wikipedia write-up as does CAIR. Perhaps you should do a write-up on Mr. Esmay. Of course you have to be honest and use citations etc but we have to realize that people are getting their information from it. If Jihadist and their supporters use Wikipedia for their propaganda why not you.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at December 9, 2006 2:15 PM

I am glad this american has respect for Islam. May he oneday join the Ummah, Inshalla.

In the USA a woman who is raped is given no respect. Her rapist, who usually goes free for so called lack of evidence because US courts do not trust women, will only face maybe 5 years in prison. In Islam the rapist man is stoned slowly and painfully to death. This punishment takes about an hour to administer and after the man is dead he is tormented in hell untill Allah is satisfied. I wish a worse punishment was given, that of amputation of the weapon that the man used and then of the rest of his limbs joint by joint, then skining, and then burning alive. However, Allah is mercyful in his punishments.

I am glad that there are women here who support me in my belief that men should be very very harshly punished for rape and other crimes against women.

If you want to learn more about Islam and women's high place in our beautiful religon I can explain more at sisterinislam.blogspot.com . You can also send me emails if you wish to speak privately sisterinislam1982@yahoo.com . I wish to dispell the myths about Islam.

We are not a religon of this:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

That is the bible, christianity and judiasm.
Some people confuse all religions as the same.

In Islam there are tortures for such men, death by stoning. I wish there was worse but Allah is great in his mercy. It is sad that men are not harshly and permanatly punished when they harm women.

Posted by: Sister In Islam

at December 9, 2006 2:21 PM

I don't trust Wikipedia for the same reason I don't take medical advice from strangers on disease-related message boards.

As one of my journalism teachers often said, "Who says and who cares?"

It all boils down to this: who or what is the source? What makes him such an expert that I should believe what he is saying?

Posted by: Josephine

at December 9, 2006 2:21 PM

Greatcomet:

I have enough to do as it is without getting involved in Wiki Wars. Jihad Watch news editors Marisol Seibold and Anne Crockett have kept an eye on my bio from time to time, but there is no use really. If I monitored my bio and removed slants and falsehoods, they'd just be put back in the next day. Hooper and Co. have millions out of which they can pay staffers to do such things if they so choose. I don't.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at December 9, 2006 2:22 PM

And this is the problem. How do you have a honest dialogue with a Muslim when you are aware of taqiya and kitman? Can anything they say be trusted? But the mainstream media and politicians such as Baker and Hamilton believe you can use them as news sources and honest negotiators. I truly believe that multiculturalism and political correctness has made a large portion of Americans completely credulous idiots.

Posted by: Theseus

at December 9, 2006 2:27 PM

Outstanding, Mr. Spencer. Dean Esmay seems to be a glutton for punishment, doesn't he? Most excellent job putting him in his place again.

You truly are a hero of our times.
Regards.

Posted by: loler

at December 9, 2006 2:27 PM

1. Wikipedia is a worthless propaganda sheet.

Wiki is very useful but not on Islam and other hot subjects.

Posted by: dennisw

at December 9, 2006 2:29 PM

Something tells me that Mr. Larry Lowenthal,
Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee,
"doth not yet know the worst of his fortune [from Wiki]
and that a more shocking piece of news than any he hath yet heard remains for him in the unopened leaves of fate."

Posted by: Malinois

at December 9, 2006 2:48 PM

Sisterinislam

Are you taking your medicine? Actually if you look at what is going on in Pakistan at the moment, you'd notice that most rapists in muslim countries go free because forensic evidence is not used and there are not normally witnesses.
Catch a clue, please. Some of us can read the news and no what is going on in the world.
Besides, I'm hoping that your lovely co-religionists in Australia find out what really happens to rapists in the west.

God bless.

Posted by: schwaben

at December 9, 2006 2:56 PM

I just e-mailed Mr. Lowenthal a link to this post.

Posted by: TeachESL

at December 9, 2006 2:59 PM

Robert

No worries you don't need millions $$$ when you have followers from this undisclosed university(Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapin) and around the world. You have minions!

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at December 9, 2006 3:00 PM

I do not sympathize with women of islam because they are the ones who raise men to hate and oppress women.
The hand that rocks the cradle and all that.
Sister you must love your prison.
Criminals in the West are punished if the evidence is strong enough. Rape doesn't have to be witnessed by 4 men to be prosecuted. If 4 men witness a rape, they are usually involved, and will not incriminate themselves. Duh.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at December 9, 2006 3:04 PM

I completely disagree with you about Wikipedia. It's mercilessly brutal on the story of Mary the Copt and Aisha, and I've found it useful in my blog. These entries are consulted extensively in Sophia Operates Even Through Muhammad and George Bush , and I also used it for background research in my latest blog Imagine the Pope With Jedi Knights..., where I talk about my Gnostic view of his "night journey." A lot of the stuff you refer to is very political and difficult to manage.

I just got the new DVD for the Encyclopedia Britannica (the 2006 edition wouldn't work on the Intel Macs), so I'll be able to compare it to a more suitable source. But frrom my personal experience Wikipedia has been very useful. Caveat emptor, of course.

Posted by: pneumatikon

at December 9, 2006 3:10 PM

IT bogles my mind to see Jewish people siding with a religion that wants them dead. I guess it's ok to suport them lest the "Religious Right" becomes dominant.

I am amazed how some Jewish people suport Democrats when they have been oppenly against Israel, and the liberal media (Dems' fans) are no friend of Israel either.

Again, I guess this has to do with politics. Since Republicans historucally have been associated with racist groups, some Jewish people assume that a Democratic USA will be a safe heaven for them.

This might have been true in the past, but today, the liberals and their pro-Islam agenda are ready to toss the Jews into the cage in order to feed the Islamic beast. How long until the Jewish people realize that?

God only knows.

Posted by: Crusader

at December 9, 2006 3:20 PM

I disagree with only one comment. Dean Esmay probably has expertise in one subject.

Dean Esmay is a former "Repo Man", and as such, is likely somewhat of an expert on the subject of repossessing vehicles from people who have not made their automobile payments. That is the one subject Dean Esmay is likely to be qualified as an "expert" about.

Anyone who bases their political, ideological, or religious analysis on the comments of an uneducated "Repo Man" has more than simply troubles in their views on the relative issues of violence in Islam.

Even if it is a "Repo Man" with a computer and a web site. For the sake of honesty, lets please start referring to Mr. Esmay as to what he is: a "Repo Man". And when replying to his comments, lets call him "Repo Man" Dean Esmay, so that his comments can be kept in the context of his expertise.

That is not an insult, it is simply a fact.

If we must - then "Repo Man Blogger" Dean Esmay.

OK? Does that provide context for anyone?
I certainly think so.

Posted by: jeffreyimm

at December 9, 2006 3:28 PM

Sister_in_Islam is a textbook case of the psychoanalytic defense mechanism known as "denial". Enough said.

from the original post: "Those Muslims who do embrace Takiyya, however, emphasize that the entire doctrine is simply about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution and torture."

and Spencer's response:"It is indeed about saving yourself or your loved ones from persecution or torture. But such a provision can have a quite elastic application."

But of course, therin lies the rub, namely the "elastic application" of the notion of "persecution" that Spencer refers to. That elastic application also applies to the notion that jihad is merely in "self-defense", in response to "persecution" and "oppression".

Even a brief study of the history of early Islam will demonstrate to any impartial observer that Muslims, beginning with Muhammad himself, have fashioned themselves as "persecuted" and have used that sense of victimhood to justify every kind of brutality against unbelievers as they have marched across the planet for 1400 years, leaving dead bodies in their wake, all in "defensive" response to their supposed "persecution". Since they have justified murdering millions in "self-defense" as they marched across the globe, becoming arguably the most successful aggressive imperialistis in history, it's little wonder that they would think little of lying so profusely to infidels, all the while justifying it quite disingenuously and in the same manner, as a response to "persecution".

The one thing infidels need to remember about Muslims is that if they aren't in control of everyone else, they are being "persecuted". They are being "persecuted" by the very fact of any infidel resistance to their divinely-sanctioned right to reign supreme over the earth.

Therefore, the apologist claim that taqiyyah is only sanctioned in response to "persecution" is utterly meaningless because Muslims, being supremacists who think they have a divine right to rule over the rest of mankind, simply do not mean the same thing by the term "persecution" that naive and well-meaning infidels think they mean by that term.

A serious dictionary of "Muslim-speak" is sorely needed.

Posted by: Caroline

at December 9, 2006 3:34 PM

pneumatikon, you characterize the stories of Aisha and Mary the Copt on Wiki as "mercilessly brutal." Are you sure you read the same articles as I? Hardly brutal...Look for other sources. These are really info-light at best.

Posted by: former liberal WF

at December 9, 2006 3:34 PM

.."Dean Esmay, the raving blogger who has never hesitated to purvey falsehoods about my work, as well as to call me a liar, a traitor, and worse".

Esmay is a John Wilkes Booth type when it comes to character assassination. Like Booth, he seeks to attach himself to the name of his victim(s) by harming him (them) (as Booth did with Lincoln, e.g.) because he cannot achieve the level of truthfulness, creativity or depth of character of his victim. Lincoln was stalked by a number of Esmays in his life, character assassins and worse than that. They are generally obsessed with notoriety and crave fame. They seem to become obsessed with someone really important and successful. Esmay is a very troubled man. I'm sure he's quite arrogant (which is always a cover for insecurity).

Esmay might consider a comment by Lincoln: "God must love ordinary people because he made so many of them". Esmay, you are way over your head, pal.

Posted by: Frank

at December 9, 2006 3:36 PM

The difference between a person such as Hugh Fitrzgerald (e.g.) and Esmay is that Hugh will get po'd because Hugh has the facts to back up what he says and Esmay will get angry at Hugh because Hugh has the facts to back up what he says and Esmay doesn't. The same goes for Robert in the matter of Esmay. It's the two Dragnet Detectives vs. the perp.

Posted by: Frank

at December 9, 2006 3:51 PM

Sister, do you believe that snakes will grow from your head if your hair shows?
http://www.ntpi.org/html/education.html
I was searching for information about sex education in islam. I am very curious when little girls have to learn the facts and give up childhood....at birth? It is so twisted for a 9 year old to be considered a woman.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at December 9, 2006 4:07 PM

Jeffrey - How's this for a new entry to Repo Man at Wiki?

Repo Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the person who repossesses property, see Repossession. For the professional wrestler, see Barry Darsow. For the X-Men episode see Repo Man (X-Men episode). For Dean Esmay, the blogger who impersonates an Islamic scholar, see http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014351.php#comments

Posted by: Malinois

at December 9, 2006 4:09 PM

Wiki entries on Kazakhstan and Robert Spencer: A Comparative Study

Wikipedia recently had to lock its Kazakhstan entry from edits by just anybody following a spate of prank edits related to the movie Borat. One of these simply removed the
entire article and replaced it with these words: "Kazakhstan is Sexytime." More on this
momentarily.

The entry on Robert Spencer has two kinds of vandals: One is the type that inserts something overtly obscene or slanderous (often demonstrating a substandard level of literacy in the process), and does so a few times until he/she is banned.

Then there is the user -- often little more than a more literate version of the simple vandal described above -- who will attempt to trash the article with unfounded claims or load the entry with negative quotations in the name of "balance." Such users will not be satisfied with the state of the article until it states that Robert Spencer hates everybody and scares children.

However, they find that the article has a few defenders, Anne Crockett being the most dedicated and articulate among them -- for which she has my sincere respect and admiration.

In the face of such defenders, certain users will dig in and attempt to wear down those who are committed to the factual accuracy and quality control of the article, splitting hairs on every last word in an attempt to get in any little swipe they can, hoping to get their foot in the door to add some more.

Now, suppose these people were over at the Kazakhstan article. The debate would go like this:

"Kazakhstan is Sexytime" would be removed.

But, someone would ask, "Who are you to say Kazakhstan is not Sexytime? Have you ever
been there?

"Moreover, these anonymous blogs say definitively that Kazakhstan is, indeed Sexytime. In fact, unmoderated comments at the official Kazakh website say Kazakhstan is Sexytime, so the Kazakh government must agree."

"Kazakhstan is Sexytime" is removed again; the article is reverted to a prior revsion. "Suppose," says someone in the discussion area, "we add a section to discuss the 'pro' and 'con' arguments for whether Kazakhstan is Sexytime. And while we're at it, we need to address the question of whether Kazakhstan is Uzbekistanophobic."

Someone else argues that this is a waste of time, since the debate will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction in the space of a Wikipedia entry. Why not just stick to the basic
facts, provide links to primary sources, like websites, and let the reader draw their own conclusions from those primary sources?

This, of course, is totally incompatible with the agenda of the problematic Wiki users, who have to be debated, and their edits edited, until they relent, lose interest, or make enough of a nuisance of themselves to get banned (one can always hope).

The problem is, there are always more, ready and willing to again raise the argument that "Kazakhstan is Sexytime." Or there would be, and the "facts" of the article would continue to shift like the screen on an Etch-a-Sketch in an earthquake-prone area... if the Kazakhstan article had not been locked.

Moral of the story:

It's safe to say Kazakhstan is not Sexytime, but by no means should you rely on Wikipedia to decide for you.

Posted by: MarisolJW

at December 9, 2006 4:19 PM

Mr. Spencer, Jihad Watch is a constant source of good information and education. But, what bothers me about our situation with Islam is that we don't really know what is being said behind the closed doors of a mosque.

My guess is that Imams have great influence over their flock but we, non-Muslims, don't know what they are really saying when they preach.

So, when we deal with "taqiyya" we are left in the dark about Muslims' true intentions. I live near several mosques and a school that is funded by Saudi Arabia. Recently a number of young men in my area were indicted for planning terrorist activities.

If Muslims are going to lie how can we know the truth of what they are saying? I imagine that our government is listening in on the Imam's preaching, but how does an ordinary citizen get that kind of information? I'm assuming that non-Muslims are not allowed into a mosque during their Friday services (although muslims are always welcome to my church).

Posted by: gordo

at December 9, 2006 4:19 PM

Malinois

Now there is the spirit!

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at December 9, 2006 4:20 PM

Esmay,

Lincoln thought a good antidote for anger (and depression) are jokes. It's good advice. I have a joke for you:

Three guys walk into a bar and each is given a shot of whisky with a fly in it. One patron is German, the other is French, and last guy is Irish. The German gets angry and walks out, the French guy turns up his nose in disgust and walks out, but the Irish guy pulls the fly out of the whiskey and says, "Okay, you little bastard, spit it out, give it back.."

Posted by: Frank

at December 9, 2006 4:20 PM

Larry Lowenthal is a particular case. Head of some "Muslim-Jewish Understanding" group, a group which apparently consists almost entirely of Jews, with the local owner of a rug company, and a few other Pakistani Shi'ites, this "group" has been meeting, according to my informants in that area, for a few years. Nothing at all has come of this "understanding" except a series of meetings, including one at a mosque in which the non-Muslims present were treated to an evening of nonsense. The presenter that night is now climbing his way to tenure at Tufts -- if he can lie cleverly low just enough so that no one realizes that he is 1) no expert on Islam and 2) either is ignorant of a great deal that is central to Islam and unaware of much of Islamic history or, alternatively, a practitioner of taqiyya who needs no lessons from anybody.

Lowenthal has been taken apart by quite a few people, mostly of Russian descent, in the Boston area, disgusted as they are with his recent performance.

By the way, that Wayland mosque in which that little "Muslim-Jewish" event was held a year or two ago is the same mosque in which there will be a fund-raiser for one of the local imams just charged with something or other.

Lowenthal, for his unproductive and essentially pointless "Muslim-Jewish" Understanding meetings, received some kind of recognition -- plaque, applause, the photograph of hand-shaking at the podium, the works -- for all his laboring in the vineyards of the Lord. He is not, judging by what I have been sent by those who follow his complacent career, a bit shaken up these last two years, by those who, given what they had to endure in Soviet Russia, were not about to endure more crap here in the United States. The self-satisfaction of this appartatchik is, by and large, of the hopelessly unshakable kind.

Posted by: Hugh

at December 9, 2006 4:21 PM

Islam critics don't need "taqiyya libel" at all. The issue of lying needs to investigated in each case, and that's what responsible critics like Spencer do.

Dean Esmay needs to use his "taqiyya libel" gimmick against critics, perhaps because he's too lazy intellectually to check claims against facts.

Facts compared against public statements, and private statements compared against public statements: Exhibit A:

http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0302/news2.php

A Czech Television (CTV) documentary is threatening to raise tensions within the country's Muslim population.
Ovecka says he stands behind his choice to use the hidden camera footage.

"I wanted to get real opinions of the local Muslim community on the issue - find out what the differences are between Czech and foreign Islam," he says.
One Muslim in the documentary compares Islamic terrorists to Jan Palach, the Czech student who committed suicide by setting himself on fire in protest of the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Another says Islamic law should be implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery, Ovecka says.
"I have to say with 100 percent certainty that by using hidden camera I have learned things that I would never have learned otherwise," he says. "The result was alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage."
...."It's like this: During official shooting they were peaceful, nice," he says. "Hidden camera footage showed something else - aversion, hatred toward Europe, the entire world, and a mild attitude toward terrorism."

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 4:31 PM

MarisolJW

Correct!

But today many a child across this land learned that Kazakhstan is Sexytime!

"Mommy! I learned today in school Kazakhstan has a time called sexy!"

The sad part is many adult scholars and educators also use it as a primary source not just a fact finding starting point.

This is world we live in....

Look at how many times has the NY times, Washington Post, AP, etc etc reported nonsense and pointless arguments and falsehoods about Islam etc.

The point is at least as bad as Wikipedia is people have a chance to hit back.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at December 9, 2006 4:38 PM

Taqiyya Exhibit B:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230761,00.html
But he urged the reporter to be careful with whom he discussed his views for fear of prosecution. Deghayes said: "Don't talk openly, like 'Tony Blair (is) an open target'. Now you can be taken in for glorifying terrorism.
"(Even) among Muslim brothers . . . there are hypocrites, munafiqs (hypocrites). There are spies, all sorts of people. There's no need to talk about it, to say like this."

Taqiyya Exhibit C:

"What is disconcerting is that the Western media is very receptive to the duplicity offered by radical Islamic leaders. The media's lack of attention to this issue transcends mere negligence. In the movie, for example, we see a 2002 interview with British Al-Muhajiroun leader Anjem Choudary, who denounces the 9/11 attacks as acts of terrorism. And yet in September 2003 he is recorded at an Al-Muhajiroun event praising the "Magnificent 19" - that is, the 9/11 hijackers."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23584

Taqiyya Exhibit D:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013038.php
September 8 (Compass Direct News) - A pastor and his wife living in Aceh province, Indonesia, have gone into hiding after a Muslim mob set fire to a church building following a revival service on September 1.
Several weeks ago, Pastor Luther Saragih of a congregation called Siompin, an Indonesia Evangelical Mission Church, distributed letters to several villages in Aceh Singkil inviting Christians to a revival service.
A Muslim resident somehow received a copy of the letter and edited it, making it appear that Muslims were invited to the service. He then distributed his own version of the letter to 3,000 Muslims. According to one local source, the police knew this was happening but made no attempt to restrain this man.

Taqiyya Exhibit E:

Oct 6, 2006 Abbas says he will recognize Israel (in English to Condi Rice) then says he will not recognize Israel (in Arabic on PA TV).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013440.php

Taqiyya Exhibit F:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012866.php#comments
(From Spencer): "Ingraham then asked Dr. Omeish if Sharia indeed mandated death for apostasy. He said flatly that it didn't, whereupon I [Robert Spencer] said, "He's lying!" but I don't know if my mic was on."

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 4:42 PM

Opinion of Muslim reformist (circa 2002):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/19/144341.shtml

Bassam Tibi, Muslim reformist and professor of political science at Goettingen, re "dialogue" between Muslims and the West: "The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other," Bassam Tibi said Tuesday in an interview with United Press International.

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 4:47 PM

In some cases, failing to conceal information about Islam is considered mischief (fasad), according to these Islamic scholars:

"...the hypocrites used to "narrate the objections of the disbelievers (against Islam) in front of the new Muslims, whose conviction was still weak, so to tremble and shudder their faith."" (Mawlana Muhammad Idris Kandhlawi)
http://alashrafia.com/tafsir/sept25.html
Maktaba al-Ashrafia. September 25th lecture on verses 2:11-12: Further Description of the Hypocrites.

P.S. I wonder how those scholars feel about consumer reports?

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 4:50 PM

American Jewish Committee Executive Director learns Islam from Wikipedia, Dean Esmay
Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, and there is little or no quality control, it is essentially worthless as a reference tool. To take just one example, as I have noted here before, my bio there is full of irrelevancy, ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated claims about inaccuracy in my work.

They kept erasing my definition of ihad. I even got nasty email from some kind of a Wiki administrator. So I am not so sure how that works. I think as long as what you write is from a PC/LiEberal/Dhimmi/islamist point of view, they allow an entry to stand.

I don't have the computer - savvy to start an alterna-Wiki.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 4:52 PM

Deception Exhibit G:

The Assassination of Ka'b bin Ashraf, who had made insulting statements about Muhammad and composed amatory verses about the Muslim women:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
“Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." […]”

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 4:57 PM

Archemides,

Taqqiya example D is not taqqiya. That's plain, unadulterated, straightforward encitement to murder. Also, the response to the changed changed letters is a clear illustration of what a fascist ideology Islam promotes.

The chief of Al-Jazeera believes that the reason there is no democracy in the ME and why the live in shit is that their self-esteem has been severely damaged by Palestinians being denied their rights. He's serious, folks. Here's the link. Hope you all howl with laughter as I did.

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/12/09/self-esteem-problems/

Posted by: citycat

at December 9, 2006 5:06 PM

Views on Spencer and his works

Daniel Pipes,[4] Bat Ye'or,[5] and Ibn Warraq[6] are among those who have a positive view of Spencer's works, while Carl Ernst,[7] and Khaleel Mohammed[8] and organizations such as CAIR,[9] ADC,[10] and Al-Qaeda[11] hold negative views.

[gets into character assassination from here on. The Wiki entry after this point gives voice only to the detractors, such as K. Mohammed, Louay M. Safi and Carl Ernst.

I just found this on WIKI. Hey, if both Cair and Al Quaeda hold negative views of robert Spencer then he has got to be a good man! Note also that this shows Al Quaeda and Cair in comfortable company with one another.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:19 PM

Sister In Islam: Thanks for the great example of Taqiyya, it's always nice to have a live example, for discussion purposes, when discussing slippery and elastic terms...or was it Kismet, I'm not sure?

Perhaps you forget, or dissemble, or deliberately neglect to mention about the annoying habit of courts operating under islamic law to punish the victim instead of the rapist, and to demand four eyewitnesses or the girl's case is dismissed and she is publicly humiliated for "bringing false charges" against an upstanding member of the (male) Ummah?

Perhaps you forget about the human rights scandals in Pakistan in which literally hundreds of girls had been sentenced to *gang rape* by the Jirgas, the Islamic village legal courts, for offenses committed by members of their families? Islam has perhaps the *only* legal system in the world whose practitioners sanction severe penalties against innocent women merely for being a relative of someone committing a crime. And it is the only system I have ever heard of in which a "legal court" issues a sentence for a woman to be raped -- even gang raped.

Pehraps you will claim that the Jirgas in Pakistan went a little overboard and maybe stretched Sharia a bit far. Maybe you should go argue that with them -- those who call for Sharia Law in North America often promote a model almost identical to the Jirga system in which Islamic courts operate on the community level within a national secular legal system.

Maybe the moderate muslims in the west have a much better view of the Islamic attitude toward women, like Sheik Sistani, the grand Mufti of Australia (supposedly the main spokesman and spiritual guide for all Sunni muslims in the continent), who recently made a series of public statements effectively blaming women who are raped for being provocative, suggesting they should be the ones who are punished, and comparing them to uncovered meat.

Got any more Taqiyya for us?

....

While I'm on I'll speak in defense of Wikipedia. Nobody harbors any illusions about its reliability, Robert, but it is a useful and effective reference for anyone who remembers its nature and the possibility of manipulation. I have a similar feeling toward "standard" encyclopedias like Brittanica and so on. Who selects the authors who write the various sections? Who holds them responsible for fairness, for objectivity, for accuracy? I can point to many examples of blatant manipulations of facts about Religion, such as the Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, a voluminous work I keep on my shelf, that deconstructs Christianity in a vicious way, casting serious doubt on the historical basis for Christianity, while glossing Islam and the character of Mohammed. The biography of Jesus is 2 pages long, most of it spent on casting doubts on the authenticity of any details, while the biography of Mo is twice as long, full of details apparently there to establish authenticity, and apologetic for his role as the final prophet. I'll take Wikipedia, thank you.

Wikipedia is full of errors, like many other sources, but it has several advantages. Because it is well-known to be built out of user input, and comes with warnings to this effect, of the nature of the "facts" it contains is understood by any reasonably intelligent user. This is in contrast to "authoritative" texts that come with no such warnings and yet may have inaccuracies just as severe, and even more carefully, and deliberately, woven into the text.

Further, Wikipedia is subject to a large collective of wisdom. Nobody can simply run away with a Wikipedia entry: there are dozens, or hundreds, of administrators and fellow users who continually patrol entries looking for biases and inaccuracies, or deleting entries that are just too trivial to be included.

Further, entries on controversial topics may be maliciously manipulated in real time by users, but they are also corrected in real time by others. When this goes back and forth too much the content of an entry is frozen and the "correct" version debated by interested persons and referred to known experts until some consensus is reached. It is, therefore, a good place for people who care that truth is told accurately, to get involved.

Further, Wikipedia operates under editorial rules that are well understood and set a standard higher for accountability than many reference works that are generally treated as authoritative. No article may simply reflect the opinion of an author. Well, it may, but it won't last long before being labelled POV (Point Of View) and deleted unless a proper reference to an independent source is given. Note: this function is dependent on alert users who are prepared to get involved. If nobody is ready to make these changes they will not happen.

For those who wish to dig into the various perspectives on a contested article, the discussion pages are often very revealing: here you see the various contributors and editors arguing and debating over the propriety of entries, words, phrases, and whether this or that is properly documented or point of view.

I could go on. Wikipedia is a fallible reference, but used alongside other tools that compensate for its flaws it is very helpful and handy. Although personal views are not permitted (that is, they should be killed by alert users), it is in a certain sense a bastion of free speech or democracy, in that all users are held to be equal; everyone can contribute, and nobody's voice is silenced as long as they adhere to the rules of the game. So I'm a bit bemused that Robert, an outspoken advocate of free speech, who often has to explain to people to beware the unadjudicated comments that appear on his sites, would disparage another site that is fallible in a similar way, like this.

Posted by: Archimedes2

at December 9, 2006 5:29 PM

germaninamerica-

A+ for effort. Even if it didn't stick, the thought sticks. There is a movie (I forget which one) with a famous line where (I think it was a prosecutor) tells the jury, "try not to think of a pink elephant". Even if the judge tells the jury and everyone else to forget something very relevant to the case, the judge and jury and everyone else will remember everything they were told not to remember. That's true with the PC judge and jury. They, and everyone else, will remember the truth, thoughts they were told to forget. "Try not to think of a pink elephant".

Posted by: Frank

at December 9, 2006 5:30 PM

In Islam there are tortures for such men, death by stoning. I wish there was worse but Allah is great in his mercy. It is sad that men are not harshly and permanatly punished when they harm women.

Posted by: Sister In Islam

Seriously, Sister.. have yu been raped and you were dnied justice.. or you simply haven't been able to deal with it fully?

It is all you ever talk about so my Freudian self has to assume where there's smoke there's fire.

Just like islam, by the way..

When people say they want to kill you.. BELIEVE THEM!!

We are not here to debate who rapes more women than the other but if you must then by all means, let's start collecting the data.

In fact, allow me to direct you to a man wwo is somewhat of an expert in the area of colecting and interpreting crime data.

http://gandalf-reconquista.blogspot.com/2006/11/have-you-daughter.html

With my kindest regards..

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:34 PM

5. Larry Lowenthal's writings border on plagerism. Although Wiki text is not copyright-protected, so technically it's not illegal, it still shows a lack of originality.

I agree with Larry Lowenthal that the "Solution is Education", even though I think that education about what the true beliefs of Islam really are will take us 180 degrees from where Lowenthal thinks it will take us. Educate away, and may the true information reach the public.

Speaking of which, thank you Archimedes for exhibits A through G.

Posted by: special_guest

at December 9, 2006 5:41 PM

CityCat,

True. I should have just labelled that Exhibit D: Use of deception in incitement to violence and/or murder.

Posted by: Archimedes

at December 9, 2006 5:42 PM

I just realized that our dearly beloves MSM have been islamized long before jihad was a well-known word in the West. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, and of course their European counterparts such as BBC and so on have been engaging in Tacquiya ever since I can remember. Hey, in Germany the tacquiyist self-loathing reached such absurdist heights like the German commentator rooting on the other side during an internationl match. They always praise whatever team or player is the most "Third World".

Say if turkey plays Belgium the GErman People will of course root for Belgium. The German media will root for the turks.

They do this in every aspect of what they cover. Their opinions just keep getting the better of them! Dan Rather was a worthy representative of the "Taqquiya Media".

Please use the term liberally and freely. So people will better understand the concept of Taqqiya :-)

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:43 PM

But the mainstream media and politicians such as Baker and Hamilton believe you can use them as news sources and honest negotiators. I truly believe that multiculturalism and political correctness has made a large portion of Americans completely credulous idiots.

Posted by: Theseus

Baker KNOWS.. he just takes the money.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapin) and around the world. You have minions!

Posted by: greatcometof1577

So does whoever removed the terrapin from Wiki.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:46 PM

Aisha accused of adultery
Aisha was traveling with her husband Muhammad and some of his followers. She left camp in the morning to search for her lost necklace; when she returned, she found that the company had broken camp and left without her. She waited patiently for half a day, until she was rescued by a man named Safwan and taken to rejoin the caravan.
Some observers said that she must have been having an affair with Safwan, and urged Muhammad to divorce his wife. Muhammad then received a revelation from God directing that adultery be proven by four eyewitnesses, rather than simply inferred from opportunity. One passage of the Qur'an, "Verily! They who spread the slander are a gang among you..." (24:11), is usually taken as a rebuke to those who slandered Aisha.

Hey, this IS pretty FUNNY.. Aisha went off with another dude and since the Über Mo-Foe didn't want to see his beloved Aisha stoned to death he quickly came up with the "four witnesses defense." This guy would have been great at the OJ Simpson Trial! Maybe Johhny Cochran should try his hand at Religion :-) Can't be worse than islam.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 5:54 PM

Actually the Wiki bio is not really so bad...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:txPh2nxoQ68J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer+robert+spencer,+bio&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

However, harsh criticism of Robert seems to come Karl Ernst, who I believe is a Zachary Smith professor of Islam at UNC, as well as CAIR and Al-Quada (as per Wiki).

Posted by: Frank

at December 9, 2006 5:58 PM

It is truly amazing how a "tiny minority" has managed to control Islam for its entire history. Everytime someone calls Islam to account about something, whether it's jihad or lying or rape the answer is almost always the same: "only a minority...". It is really tiresome to hear how this "minority" is smearing Islam's good name. Is the majority that chicken or that stupid that it cannot impose its will on this unruly clique? No wonder people have to treat anything said by Islamaniacs with disbelief-just about anything they say is quite unbelievable.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

at December 9, 2006 5:58 PM

God only knows.

Posted by: Crusader

I used to much more liberal than now. Their anti-semitism is something that made me question other liberal premises such as tax-the-"rich" and anyone who isn't a fan of immiration = racist. There are many more liberal fallacies of course. The problem FOR LiEberalism is that it's a House of Cards.

Question just one of its false premises and the whole thing simply unravels and falls apart.

The problem WITH LiEberalism is that - just like islam - this causes its adherents to be so militant and disingenuous when defending their belief system.

That is why I think it's so hard not only for Jewish people to let go of it. They [in this case Jews] simply lie to themselves when it comes to Israel getting thrown under the bus by LiEberals. And now we have someone on the "Right" - Baker - acting even more anti-semitic than the Left.

Well, he's doing it for money and he's a C.I.N.O. anyway.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 6:05 PM

So does whoever removed the terrapin from Wiki.

Posted by: germaninamerica

Sorry my mistake...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamondback_terrapin

That is what I get for not paying attention...

Posted by: greatcometof1577

at December 9, 2006 6:05 PM

From the article

ideologues are attempting to control the flow of information

That is a good description. The jihadists and their apologists do not attempt to refute what Robert (and other anti-jihadist writers) say, they merely try to control the information so it does not get out to the public. Whether that is through pressuring the MSM to not include anti-jihadists in their reporting, or slandering anti-jihadists behind their back, they never seem to even attempt to make a coherent argument.

I agree with Archimedes2 that Wikipedia is in general as reliable as other media (of course we can find books and articles that are every bit as biased as any Wiki article).

I don't trust non-primary sources, period. I don't simply believe what Robert (or anybody else) says, I look it up myself. I have never found a case where Robert's books were inaccurate on any important point, or that they mislead, or took information out of context. Robert's fully annotized writings accurately describe the teachings of the Qur'an, according to the mainstream Islamic scholars. On the other hand, Esmay, Armstrong, and the jihadist-apologists (or jihadist-minimizers) do not even offer a coherent argument that can be examined more closely. They can only make ad hominem attacks and spout bland generic personal opinions ("Islam is peace").

Posted by: special_guest

at December 9, 2006 6:09 PM

Kasakhstan is sexytime!!

Check out this moslem Fiddler on the Roof!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKN3KfSNrUo

I hope you find it as funny as I do. Sorry for the many posts, Zero G.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 6:19 PM

The Jewish American Comittee. Why, pray tell, would a Jewish organization go to bat for islam? Indeed, as I have observed before, we do not see any of the myriad, perhaps hundreds, of Jewish organizations ever doing the opposite. Either they keep silent on the issue of the islamization of the west, or, if they do speak out, they speak out to defend islam. Irony of irony. The very same irony that plagues feminist groups, civil rights groups, and those that denounce racism and racist doctrine.

What do all these groups, that should all be opposed to islamic doctrine by virtue of their social agenda, have in common with each other, that might cause them to, in fact, go to bat for islam and engage in such irony?

They are all from the left. The loyalty to the leftist agenda to make alliances with forces contrary to the established order of society, is so powerful, that even a Jewish group, of all groups, will speak out to defend the image of islam - lest the Right and conservatives use the fear of islam to make political gains.

This is why the the enemy of our cause is not just islam itself. We must first deal with those fifth columnists that deny the threat of islam, protect the interests of islam, polish the image of islam, and advocate for islam, especially if those fifth columnists are not islamic themselves. For that is where the battle lays. They are islam's soldiers. They once used communism in the same ploy during the cold war. Now that communism is dead as a threat, and islam resurgent, it is islam that the left now sees as a counterweight to Christianity, western hegemony, democracy, and the capitalist system, all things they view, in some convoluted way or another, as their natural enemy, their social-political nemesis.

Look at all the groups, big and small, that speak on behalf of islam. Look at all the media pundits and commentators that do the same. Look at the universities and school boards that teach it or attempt to enter it into the classroom. Look at the politicians that are either islamic themselves, or advocate on behalf of islam. And finally, look at the celebrities that may have 2 cents to say on the matter, like Rosie, Sean Penn, Madonna, etc..

They all lean to the left. That is the common denominator.

We can not deal effectively with islam, until we deal with the leftist mentality, and the leftists, who have positions of influential power themselves, who advocate on behalf of islam in one of a million small arenas, such as this arena considering the meaning of the word taqiyya.

As far as wikipedia is concerned, it is a great tool if the topic is one of facts. If it is a political issue, then of course, it will be edited by those with their own political bent. But because Robert's profile continually reverts to a negative slant on wikipedia, there is the evidence that the Left does most of the editing.

The left understands that this war we are trying to fight, is a war of propaganda. The aforementioned groups are examples of that. This is where the battle for "hearts and minds" really is taking place, not in Iraq, but in the west. The left is deligent in their propaganda war, even going so far as to edit wikipedia or defend as innocuous the meaning of the words jihad or taqiyya.

The problem is that those on the right are not so savvy, or in many cases, not as formally educated, or as silvery-tongued, or indeed, even as enthusiastic. The Left always seem to be much more inclined to violence, vandalism, and other aggressive activities like wikipedia editing. But quite simply, the right is not as influential as the left, nor are their machinations as focused on this issue. Much of the right simply focuses on the interests of big business or issues like abortion and supreme court nominees. What a waste of political capital when the biggest threat to the west is islam.

But the right, for the most part, needs to be very small. This need not be a battle between left and right. Why? Because this does not need to be a situation where the left defends islam, and the right attacks it. On the issue of islam, just as on the issue of illegal immigration, the ACLU, etc., any rational human being with any sense of right and wrong, would be mortified by the very idea of what islam is and what islam represents.

So Right vs. Left should be a red herring. It is really the Left vs. Everybody Else. Everybody that is good and decent and wishes to maintain a prosperous society predicated upon law and order, free enterprise, democracy, equality, freedom and Judeo-Christian princples and the Protestant work ethic, everything that islam has stated is their intent to overturn or destroy or will destroy by their very nature. And for some in the west, who are not muslims, those concepts are also dirty words. So they find common cause with islam. There's the battle we face, not with the muslims, but with the fifth columnists. With the left.

Every person who is politically neutral would condemn islam, along with the right, if they only knew about it. It is only the left that advocates for islam, but their numbers are infinitesimally small compared with the bulk of the masses.

The problem is, that infinitesimally small percentage of the population that is Left, controls the media and the educational institutions and have formulated most of the special interest groups in the west and thus have the most political and social influence.

Most people who are ignorant on the issue are neither left or right. Most people are in the center, as is Robert. But in order to educate those people, as Robert became educated, is to tell them about islam. But the very people who have the power to educate, the media and the educational institutions, are all left leaning, some very left leaning. Some would welcome Marx or bin Laden as guest speakers on campus or guest hosts on their shows. And that is no exaggeration. That being the case, how then is such education to take place?

The only portal to the masses is the internet. The problem with this portal is that it is passive. One must enter it. It will not enter you. One must seek out answers. One must google "Islam" and "threat" to find this website, or others like it. That there already implies that the seeker has some knowledge already.

Unlike your TV, that barrages you with PC nonsense the moment you turn it on, the internet only displays your homepage until you direct it to do otherwise. So the internet can never be a counterweight to the traditional media, the news outlets with their slanted reporting, the talk shows like Opray and their PC guests, or the newspapers that you go to for the sports reports, and by chance, also carry a story about some nasty Christians that vandalized a mosque somewhere. That is aggressive media. The internet is passive media. And in any war of propaganda, it is the aggressive media that wins, the media that is intrinsically embedded in our daily lives, the media we turn to, not to learn about how islam is a religion of peace, but about the weather, and in the process, find out about how islam is a religion of peace. The schools, especially the public schools, where we send our children to learn the basics, and the universities where we send them to learn the finer points, they are aggressive media. The kids go to learn about the arts, about politics, about history, about the sciences, but also learn about the benevolence of islam just by showing up for class. Unless they tune out, they have no choice but to learn about the religion of peace. Somehow it gets into the curriculum, officially or unofficially, directly or indirectly.

These are the realms, the domains, of the Left, where the propaganda war for the hearts of minds of our society is being waged, and lost.

Insidious. Clever. Pervasive. Relentless.

Posted by: August22

at December 9, 2006 6:26 PM

"taqiyya libel," sounds like Esmay is trying that silly "Muslims are the new Jews" line by calling to mind that horrible blood libel. The only difference is that Jews were punished because of something their ancestors supossedly did while Muslims are (not) punished for their deliberate lies.

Posted by: JadeDragoness

at December 9, 2006 6:38 PM

I am watcking the CTV movie that Archimedes mentioned above. It's on the 'tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig91au5ccjw

PArts 2 and 3 are right under this one so you can watch all three.
I wonder do any of our politicians watch TV even? Maybe they need to watch some Czech TV. I like the part where the German politician tells the reporter that as long as not many moslems come in the the Czech Republic the place will stay a nice place but that as soon as there are too many moslems they start demanding more and more from the State.

Too bad this guy isn't higher up in the German Political scene. Somehow I don't think he'll have much of a future - unless something cataclysmic happens. in which case all bets are off.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 6:45 PM

Posted by: JadeDragoness

You hit the nail on the head, Jade. They're engaging in taqiyya regarding taqiyya. LOL

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 6:47 PM

That's true with the PC judge and jury. They, and everyone else, will remember the truth, thoughts they were told to forget. "Try not to think of a pink elephant".

Posted by: Frank

I had to read this several times over. Shows how stupid i am. :-) But then I got it. Really got it.

Unfortunately this mechanism works both ways. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.

Thank God for the internet or we'd all be done for.

I'd still be arguing with my head-in-the-sand or even truly liberal friends about islam till I was blue in the face. I have met a few people though whom I have gotten through to. And others were there already but held their thoughts closely guarded.

The net shows there are many of us who speak their minds. We mustn't hide what we think in our day-to-day life if we are to increase our numbers and warn our compatriots of this threat called islam.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 7:11 PM

Insidious. Clever. Pervasive. Relentless.

Posted by: August22

Excellent, excellent post, August. But what do we do and how? The fact is the Left does own all the media and they control education as well.

The way they vilify the doltish Bush.. imagine we ever elected a REAL conservative like Tancredo or Romney!

And Bush now basically does whatever they want. He's going to sign an amnesty bill. The border fence won't be funded. They just played at passing that in Congress so they could get the "Conservative vote". Knowing that the Dhims were more than likely to take both Houses they knew the border bill would be a meaningless one.

So yes yes and yes.. you are batting 1.000 on all points.

So are the people who advocate Separationsism from the islamic world. They also make a whole lot of sense.

The question still remains: How do we get it done?

Are there any young telegenic music types whom we might be able to aid in developing original material? I have some studio equipment I'd volunteer for recording use if there's a pro-Western slanted act i can aid in that way.

Why is the only "cool" music stuff like "F da police" and Vampirefreak stuff. I am NOT thinbking of "christian rock" seeing how lame those acts are.

We need truly charismatic people who aren't afraid to call the media on their game. But then they wouldn't get anywhere..
Maybe they'd get on Glenn Beck if they're lucky.

But basically they control who gets exposure and who doesn't. Who do you think gave us Madonna [who rips off black artists and NEVER gets called on it] and U2 and all this other meaningless shyte??!

So there's the problem. The only "aggressive" media we have is talk radio. And even on radio we taxpayers pay to fund NPR and "Pacifica" who are firmly controlled by the enemy.

And the radio is in Nancy Pelosi's gun sights. "Fairness doctrine". We need to have a fairness doctrine for TV and NPR then too!!! Although I have my doubts that such a doctrine would survive scrutiny of any but the most activist courts.

Even the Liberal Sandra Day O'Connor whom I heard on NPR the other day was sharp enough to snap back at the insidious Brian Lehrer who keot trying to put words in her mouth. She fought him off better than even the few Conservatives he's had on. And it's not like she has opinions so far removed from that ilk either. She simply wanted to make her points her way. So I am hoping at least they are smart enough and independent enough if they ever get such a case coming their way.

The one point I am slightly more optimisitc on is your point on the internet. This is where I found this site. And Robert is slowly getting out there now. I heard him or radio more times than I can even remember now :-) Maybe about five times in the last couple of weeks and that's not too bad.

Michael Savage and Marc Levin know the jihad menace and they call it by name.

The reason the Left uses Daniel Pipes as if he were "our" spokesman is that he doesn;t always make the best points and he seems to hold out hope for those elusive "moderate moslems".

The Left has 95% of the tools of propaganda at their disposal and STILL their foundations are shaking. We must keep pushing and pushing and pushing.

Blog our collective butts off. Create more blogs. Publish cartoons and photo evidence of their atrocities.

The net will also change and morph.. It will keep getting more important and nothing the media can do to make me watch TV much anymore.

Posted by: germaninamerica

at December 9, 2006 7:52 PM